Why Don't More People Love Audio?

Isn't the basic question how the Hi-end defines itself, at least with respect to how wide a band of interest they can shoot for? There seems to be a pretty constant pressure from "the high-end" to define big chunks of stuff out of the picture - popular music, CDs, digital in general, interest in HT - all these things are kept at a distance, at least from high-end and/or audiophiles in the strictest sense which, by definition then, precludes the possibility that there will be a wide band interest.

The supply and demand question regarding A/V gear innovation is probably answered by "both" - people want it because it was created and marketed very effectively. But even here, the audio high-end goes to great lengths to distance themselves from this development. Why is the pursuit of movie replay at a high level of excellence any less worthwhile than the same pursuit of music replay? Sure, there's lots of garbage movies made every year, just like there's lots of garbage music made every year. But good and great movies (of which there are many) are greatly enhanced by playback on a good system, and the better the system, the better the experience, to the point that you can definitely create a better experience at home than you can get at all but the most modern cinemas. Certainly, what you can get for HT has advanced several magnitudes more in the past 15 years than home audio in the same time frame.

If what we mean when we wonder why more people don't love audio is why aren't more people spending money on dedicated equipment for audio reproduction and dedicated listening, I think we're limiting the question the same way the high-end limits how wide its own reach is.

There's no question the electronics industry is always looking for the next big thing. And when they find it, all the manufacturers seem to move in lock-step to saturate the segment with product as they push their mature product lines to the back burner. And we all know that high end audio equipment has reached the flat part of the curve where the law of diminishing returns starts to limit the size of the next incremental improvement. Still, having said that, the fact remains that audio today delivers a level of performance we only dreamed about 20 years ago. So if all else were equal, it should be enjoying an upsurge of interest due to the high level of performance and value that it now offers. Afterall, greater numbers of us listened to inferior equipment 20 years ago; yet interest in high end declines when in fact, the opposite should be true.

So getting back to the spirit of the original question, what has changed? Well the short answer is "we have." Getting back to my previous post, new products only take-off when there is a convergence of new technology with a receptive public. That receptivity is most dramatic when a product taps into the prevailing mindset of consumers. We all know of the stories of good technologies that failed to find a market because they were out of synch with the mood of market in one way or another. So while the manufacturers can offer a supply side push with an array of new products, they end up pushing on a rope if it isn't striking a resonating chord with the customer.

In the 60's, Marshall McCluhan wrote "The medium is the message." I would update that in 2001 by saying "the technology is the message." Getting back to my post of yesterday, the receptive chord that has been struck with today's consumer is the technology of home theatre delivering the desired heightened experience. The experience becomes more important than the programing, and as a result, the technology (or equipment) becomes the "message."

A previous poster raised the valid point that pop culture has always been banal, and the mass market will always be bigger, which is true. I was reminded of this watching Ken Burn's Jazz that Ella Fitzgerald's first big hit was "A Tisket A Tasket"- not much better than the Spice Girls when you get right down to it. But I think one thing that is different now in various aspects of society is the switch in influence from a "top down" to "bottom up" paradigm.

This really started in the 60's. Prior to that trends in fashion or most anything else filtered down from the top- rich people, jet setters etc. But since the 60's the dominante influences in society have been "bottom up." Now you could say, "Well wasn't jazz the classic bottom up influence?" And I would say absolutely it was, but they were all wearing suits and ties while they were playing it- just like the upperclass people they were playing for. When the Beatles quit wearing their short jacketed suits in 1964 that was about the last vestige of any pop culture personalities still influenced by the top down paradigm. And not insignificantly, they then proceeded to blow it into oblivion.

So what's the point of all this? In the bottom-up paradigm we now live in, the influence of the banal pop culture is greater than ever before. When combined with greater disposable income than every before it is little wonder that the taste of the common man now dominates the Board Room when product decisions are being made. So it's not our imagination that there has been a lowering of the bar in a lot of areas, music and audio being on top of the list of casualties. The "mass market" no longer aspires to the same things as the high end market in many areas, and audio is the classic example.

Uh-oh, I see a chicken versus the egg argument starting. Nonetheless, I don't think that demand for HT caused the innovation in that segment of the market, but the other way around. People saw and heard the new boom and sizzle setups and said "eh-eh, eh-eh, eh-eh, that rocks!" (Sorry for the gratuitous Beavis and Butthead reference).

I remember reading an interview with Bob Stemple, then CEO of General Motors, in the late 1980's. He said problem was stupid Japanese consumers wouldn't buy GM vehicles because the steering wheel was on the wrong side, and poor GM couldn't put them in the right place because of the low volume. Apparently the braintrust at GM didn't/still doesn't understand the difference between cause and effect. The problem is that GM made cars that didn't meet Japanese consumers' needs (steering wheel in correct place), thus they would never/never will achieve any volume in Japan. What a vicious cycle.

But isn't this what we face in the high-end? Can't innovate because there isn't enough demand/market is too narrow. Or is demand low (and falling) precisely because the manufacturers don't innovate? And if they did, wouldn't people say "eh-eh, eh-eh, eh-eh, that sounds cool ... gotta have one"?

There's no question the electronics industry is always looking for the next big thing. And when they find it, all the manufacturers seem to move in lock-step to saturate the segment with product as they push their mature product lines to the back burner. And we all know that high end audio equipment has reached the flat part of the curve where the law of diminishing returns starts to limit the size of the next incremental improvement. Still, having said that, the fact remains that audio today delivers a level of performance we only dreamed about 20 years ago. So if all else were equal, it should be enjoying an upsurge of interest due to the high level of performance and value that it now offers. Afterall, greater numbers of us listened to inferior equipment 20 years ago; yet interest in high end declines when in fact, the opposite should be true.

So getting back to the spirit of the original question, what has changed? Well the short answer is "we have." Getting back to my previous post, new products only take-off when there is a convergence of new technology with a receptive public. That receptivity is most dramatic when a product taps into the prevailing mindset of consumers. We all know of the stories of good technologies that failed to find a market because they were out of synch with the mood of market in one way or another. So while the manufacturers can offer a supply side push with an array of new products, they end up pushing on a rope if it isn't striking a resonating chord with the customer.

In the 60's, Marshall McCluhan wrote "The medium is the message." I would update that in 2001 by saying "the technology is the message." Getting back to my post of yesterday, the receptive chord that has been struck with today's consumer is the technology of home theatre delivering the desired heightened experience. The experience becomes more important than the programing, and as a result, the technology (or equipment) becomes the "message."

A previous poster raised the valid point that pop culture has always been banal, and the mass market will always be bigger, which is true. I was reminded of this watching Ken Burn's Jazz that Ella Fitzgerald's first big hit was "A Tisket A Tasket"- not much better than the Spice Girls when you get right down to it. But I think one thing that is different now in various aspects of society is the switch in influence from a "top down" to "bottom up" paradigm.

This really started in the 60's. Prior to that trends in fashion or most anything else filtered down from the top- rich people, jet setters etc. But since the 60's the dominante influences in society have been "bottom up." Now you could say, "Well wasn't jazz the classic bottom up influence?" And I would say absolutely it was, but they were all wearing suits and ties while they were playing it- just like the upperclass people they were playing for. When the Beatles quit wearing their short jacketed suits in 1964 that was about the last vestige of any pop culture personalities still influenced by the top down paradigm. And not insignificantly, they then proceeded to blow it into oblivion.

So what's the point of all this? In the bottom-up paradigm we now live in, the influence of the banal pop culture is greater than ever before. When combined with greater disposable income than every before it is little wonder that the taste of the common man now dominates the Board Room when product decisions are being made. So it's not our imagination that there has been a lowering of the bar in a lot of areas, music and audio being on top of the list of casualties. The "mass market" no longer aspires to the same things as the high end market in many areas, and audio is the classic example.

Docwarnock, I agree - HT as a phenomena exists because of the classic marketing of creating a solution to a problem that didn't necessarily exist. Show people something cool, and sell them on how there life would be better if they owned one, and they'll want one / buy one. It's all been done very successfully.

To give you my answer to your question in your final paragraph, I think the lack of innovation in the high-end is based on a failure by the high-end in general to recreate (redefine) itself. Read any book on successful companies in today's economy, and they'll stress the need to be constantly recreating yourself, constantly making obsolete old concepts / products and creating the new. Recognize the next "wave", that time when things have undoubtedly and irrevocably changed and that you need to change or die (or, in this case, become extremely niche). The changes are there, and have been occurring for at least a decade, in how home electronics are used for entertainment, how music and movies are "consumed", but the high-end still has many of the same mantras and, in general, rejects most of the new.

Mind you, I have no problem with the high-end staying true to the course - I just am not surprised that fewer people are signing on, and that high-end manufacturers are experiencing lack of growth or worse. I think you're exactly right - innovate in a way that gets people to say "Whoa!!!! Cool!" and they'd decide they had to have one. Better yet, put it on display where a large number of people might actually see it / hear it, and you might really attract people (Out of every 100 people I know, I'd venture that fewer than five have even been in a high-end audio store). In other words, put quality audio sound in products that more people might experience and desire, and there's a great likelihood that people would come to appreciate it more.