How rare of a breed are we (audiophiles)?

[JayGilb]

More so than using cryo treated carbon fiber cables? I doubt it.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”
Arthur C. Clarke.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Correct. But experience and Harman testing both show that people do enjoy better sound, all else held equal.

Al else is never equal though. Those tests would be interesting ( but probably impossible to run) if costs were added in. And I don’t just mean the cost of the equipment, but cost in time to make an informed decision to buying that equipment And all other opportunity costs. I think that would bring the “good enough” down to what we actually see in the market.

 

[kemmler3D]

Those tests would be interesting ( but probably impossible to run) if costs were added in.

It would be straightforward, if not easy, to do a test where "increase in willingness to pay, in dollars, per point of preference score" could be derived, but there wouldn't be much point to it. Some people are willing to pay $10K+ for imaginary sound quality benefits, others are not willing to pay $100 for extremely obvious, massive improvements in sound quality.

I guess there are really two big questions around this: How to lead horses to water in the first place, and once there, how to make them drink? As a marketer who loves abusing analogies, I wonder if there's a certain type of sales pitch that can make otherwise non-drinking horses thirsty?

 

[Prana Ferox]

I don't really agree with this. "Music appreciation" in a narrow sense is a niche hobby. But almost everyone listens to music for enjoyment to some extent. Do they pay enough attention to the music to qualify as "music appreciators" in your eyes? I would argue that's irrelevant.

And, in surveys I've conducted, almost everyone identifies "sound quality" as their most important criterion for speakers or headphones. Nominally, everyone cares about sound quality - almost everyone is "an audiophile" in a certain sense.

The real question is why people stop seeking out better sound quality at a relatively poor level.

I disagree. An awful lot of people don't listen to music at all, or they like it essentially as background noise, or they listen to entirely interchangeable dreck for the beat. People talk about sound quality but then their bass and treble knobs are maxxed, while they listen with crappy fashion headphones or some bluetooth boom box. Even the AV receiver market has largely been nuked by sound bars, or if someone's especially spendy, some Sonos thing. We have made massive strides in technological capability since the days where consumption was mostly over FM radio, and most people don't care.

And therein lies the problem. The HiFi stores have disappeared due to lack of custom and the entire pursuit of high fidelity music reproduction has become marginalized. People can read all the reviews they like, study as much as they want, but at the end of the day, they need to hear the differences demonstated to them.

Classical music is what drove high fidelity in the first place and it is less popular than it ever was.

I don't think you have to take the argument this far, and I'd argue prog rock has sold more high-end hifi in the last few decades than classical. But many parts of the art world are seeing appreciation of the artists' craft at a historic low, and I don't feel music is different.

 

[rogu3]

And if they're anything like mine were.... those grills need to be made of solid iron.

Oh man, so true. My 2-year old is especially a menace. Besides damaging the drivers, I'm a little concerned that he might try to stick stuff into the ports of my KEF R3's

 

[rogu3]

Correct. But experience and Harman testing both show that people do enjoy better sound, all else held equal. The reason they stop seeking it out is not ONLY because it's good enough at a relatively low level. That much is true, but people also buy nice TVs even though they can enjoy movies perfectly well on an iPad. Buying a nice TV is more common than buying nice speakers, but it's not obvious that it should be so.

This is a good point about TV's and audio. As a species, we're very much visually attuned, so I'd wager that it's much easier for the average person to discern and understand the difference between TVs and media formats (e.g., 480p DVD vs. 4k) than "normal" audio vs. higher-end audio. In that vein, many of my friends own OLED displays but very few have significant investments in audio.

 

[kemmler3D]

This is a good point about TV's and audio. As a species, we're very much visually attuned, so I'd wager that it's much easier for the average person to discern and understand the difference between TVs and media formats (e.g., 480p DVD vs. 4k) than "normal" audio vs. higher-end audio. In that vein, many of my friends own OLED displays but very few have significant investments in audio.

When I was a kid, I had "speakers" that were powered by a headphone output, I really enjoyed listening to them and seriously didn't understand why my dad made a face at them. They were horribly distorted with FR that would make us weep, I am sure.

Some years later, after doing a lot of critical listening, my appreciation for sound quality improved to the point that I was able to voice headphones as part of my job. It took a lot of time and listening to get to that point, I didn't just wake up one day with sharper hearing or something.


It's definitely true that people often need sound quality differences pointed out to them. I would argue that there is not currently a good mechanism to do that in the mass market.

 

[MattHooper]

Correct. But experience and Harman testing both show that people do enjoy better sound, all else held equal.

That actually has some interesting implications to contemplate.

There is often talk (and has been even on this forum) and disparagement of what some call "Show Room Sound." That is the idea that people tend to be more impressed by a presentation with boosted highs and lows, the "smile" EQ. And so the accusation goes, even some speaker manufacturers design the frequency response for this "show room sound/smile EQ" so the speaker will stand out and be preferred next to perhaps more neutral and sedate sounding speakers.

If in fact people prefer a neutral frequency response, what does that mean for the purported "show room sound?"

Does it mean that such a frequency curve never did influence anyone to choose such a speaker over a neutral speaker? So the...somehow very successful brands that have such a curve have been wrong all along in thinking their "sound" helped sound more speakers?

Or is there perhaps a "pepsi challenge" effect, where on first blush and in quick direct comparisons the more hyped response IS preferred...enough to perhaps get many speakers out of the store in people's car...but over time the neutral response would be preferred?

 

[rogu3]

Or is there perhaps a "pepsi challenge" effect, where on first blush and in quick direct comparisons the more hyped response IS preferred...enough to perhaps get many speakers out of the store in people's car...but over time the neutral response would be preferred?

That's kind of my assumption, at least for most cases. Similar to "torch mode" for TVs, where the default brightness/contrast/saturation values are all boosted to make things "pop" upon first viewing, but look extremely artificial when viewed for any decent length of time.

But I would also say that with audio, people are easily influenced by marketing because most don't know any better -- they don't have any good reference points. Which is the only thing that can explain the popularity of things like Bose and their Wave radios and little cube 5.1 systems . "No highs, no lows, it must be Bose"

 

[Penelinfi]

Most of my "audiophile" friends are all a generation or two older. Seems like most young people just aren't into that kind of thing.
I guess most people are into the regular social stuff as it is generally what humans get stimulation from.
Plus comparing differences in sound would seem like work, especially given that many people can't reliably discern much more outside of more bass , loudness, or clarity.

 

[MattHooper]

That's kind of my assumption, at least for most cases. Similar to "torch mode" for TVs, where the default brightness/contrast/saturation values are all boosted to make things "pop" upon first viewing, but look extremely artificial when viewed for any decent length of time.

But I would also say that with audio, people are easily influenced by marketing because most don't know any better -- they don't have any good reference points. Which is the only thing that can explain the popularity of things like Bose and their Wave radios and little cube 5.1 systems . "No highs, no lows, it must be Bose"

Could be.

Though I'm sure I'm not the only one with a son who sometimes drives the family car. He loves RAP and I always have to move the tone/EQ controls out of his preferred "smile" EQ.

And all I've done for this kid, introducing him to good sound!....

 

[BillG]

I'm an audiophile only when I'm about to buy some new equipment, then I go on a research bender. For a personal audio system, that might happen once every five years or so. For home audio, that might happen once a decade.

Once the new equipment is set up properly, I stop being an audiophile, as I've no reason to continue think about it then, and switch back to being a melophile.

I'm not an audiophile currently. So, good bye.

 

[kemmler3D]

Or is there perhaps a "pepsi challenge" effect, where on first blush and in quick direct comparisons the more hyped response IS preferred...enough to perhaps get many speakers out of the store in people's car...but over time the neutral response would be preferred?

I think you've hit the nail on the head, but maybe sideways. In-store, are there really usually fast-switching "pepsi challenge" type listening comparisons? I would argue that true level-matched fast-switching side-by-side listening tests of loudspeakers in stores are super rare. Hell, often you'll get demos of speakers that don't even involve the same song.

The Harman work is more rigorous and does the level matching in a more neutral environment, and without pressuring the person to make a consequential choice. In THAT situation, without money, sales pressure, and other confounding factors, they were able to demonstrate that neutral sound can win.

If you're just walking down a store aisle and notice "hey, this one has more bass", well, maybe so, but can you really judge anything else properly?

 

[fpitas]

If you're just walking down a store aisle and notice "hey, this one has more bass", well, maybe so, but can you really judge anything else properly?

And how will that wear in time, with extended listening? That's the accusation I've read about the "store sound': that it's sonic candy that gets old fast.

 

[Leporello]

More stapler-fi, this Rapid 10 from the early 80s, private collection. Note the superb execution of black and chrome (it seems to be running out of staples, though).

 

[Sal1950]

I've always wondered -- how rare are genuine audiophiles? Out of all of my close friends and acquaintances, I know of only 2 besides myself, one of which is my dad who got me started on the hobby.

I'm a little late to your thread but I can only say your lucky having 2.
Outside of internet acquaintances I only know 1 person with any serious interest in audio.
He has a few good audio systems, a stereo rig in the family room and another in the living room,
then he has a 5.1 HT in the basement, all comprised of relatively expensive gear.
But he doesn't hang on audio forums or take any real interest in learning the technology.
He's had me come by to help and hired outside guys to come in to calibrate things since I moved 2 thousand mile away.
But I don't really find this very unusual, how many guys build and service their own hotrods or daily drivers even?

Being on the outside looking in, I do find it sad that the days of nearly everyone having a decent receiver and set of
speakers has passed. It actually surprises me quite a bit that instead of following the path many of us did, that of loving those systems and always looking to upgrade, to one of losing all interest.
I'm guessing it was caused by the loss of interest in the music itself. Those folks seem stuck listening to the same music they did in their youth. I can fully grasp the idea of lossing interest when little new music comes in to fan the flames?
Just rambling. LOL

 

[dweeeeb2]

Given the impact a room has on sound, the crap sales advice found on the internet, Im not surprised interest in audio has declined. My first system was a marantz / klipsch setup. Retailer told me it was great, really respected products etc. Forked out all this money and was really not that impressed when I got it home. I persisted with it but it definitely did not foster a love for sound. Ultimately I was left with a big question about was it my system or was this just as good as I can expect. An expensive disappointment.

I haven’t come across any other entertainment industries where the facts are soo hard to come by: TV easy, streamers easy, consoles easy etc

 

[kemmler3D]

And how will that wear in time, with extended listening? That's the accusation I've read about the "store sound': that it's sonic candy that gets old fast.

It's pretty similar to the "showroom color setting" with TVs. Jacked up saturation and contrast looks great in the store, later you start to realize everything you're watching looks like it has an Instagram filter on it.

 

[LugsyTL47]

You might be surprised how little the average person knows. Just consider how many noobs arrive here and have to be introduced to measurement.

This reminds me of one of my first employers years ago was an Audio shop in a town with two universities. The owner knew many of the faculty members and he would frequently tell us how amazed he was that such highly educated people could know so little about so many things.

 

[fpitas]

such highly educated people could know so little about so many things

Speaker measurement is its own little corner.