Why Don't More People Love Audio?

I was going to say 1 in a 1000 but thought it might sound overly emphatic, despite the fact that it seems about right. It's probably slightly higher than that if you include the people I've drug in to one.

I'm not suggesting a need to pander, and certainly not suggesting a desire to court the LCD. What I'm suggesting is that to get more people to love quality audio reproduction is going to take a different approach than that which is currently offered by those who love it the most. I think a vast number of people, plopped down in front of an excellent system, can hear and, at least intellectually, appreciate the quality of the sound reproduction. But the time and $$ required to acquire it for themselves, and the education that leads to a set of reasoning that would justify such a purchase in their mind are all obstacles. Just take time for instance - very few people have the patience to sit and listen to even a couple of songs if that's all they're doing. I'm speaking from the experience of showing off my system to friends - no later than 1/2 way through the second song, they're talking, standing up, moving around.

So, if the question of "Why don't more people love audio" is meant to mean, "Why don't more people want good-quality, audio reproduction to pursue as a goal in and of itself, along with listening as a pursuit of it's own", then I think the answers about short attention span, changing culture, etc. work pretty well. But if the question is actually intended to say, "Why are people satisfied with Bose when they could have so much better for the same price or just a reasonable amount more," then I think it's because the obstacles of places to experience it and educate oneself, the lack of high-end innovation to accomodate this market segments "needs" (ie, not having the right products), and the distance the current high-end holds itself from this potential market are the reasons.

I have to disagree on your last statement. Almost nobody that listens to my system has ANY clue as to how much time and money it took to get it to sound as good as it does (IMHO). Although they almost all ask how much it costs, very few ask me where they could buy a similar system even if I don't tell them how much it costs. Mark Levinson's new gig (Red Rose) offers all in one packaged solutions. I doubt he will sell significantly more than other HE dealers selling the stuff under his name.

I do agree however with your and others assertions that the current cultural bias against listening as an end is what holds HE back.

kthomas sez:

"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.">>>
+++++++++++++
i must humbly beg to disagree. 12 years ago, when i lived yust south of hartford, ct, i couldn't figure out why, w/the exception of new haven, ct was such a dead place socially - especially hartford. then, one friday evening, around dinner-time, a neighbor asked me to drop off a video at a store near where i was going grocery shopping. well, i'm not into video now, certainly wasn't then. this was my 1st time in a place like this. ya couldn't get *near* the place - it was *packed*! in a nutshell, i figured it out. america loves movies, america loves to watch 'em at home even more than at the theatre. the marketing here is a no-brainer - get the sound in the home as good - or better - than that at the movies. most folks *will* go over to someone else's house to sit in front of a h-t set-up & watch a movie. not so w/audio. most folks couldn't give a rat's ass about listening to music, unless it's background, or they're alreddy occupied in some other manner - which is why car-stereo is so popular - yure stuck in the car, may as well pass the time listening to toons (instead of paying attention to driving?). i *rarely* listen to anything when driving, other than the engine. my daily-driver (90 mile commute) doesn't even have a radio in it. but, i'm in the minority - i like to sit in front of the stereo & listen to toons, i like to drive when i'm in the car, & i don't like to watch movies, at home or in the theatre.

as far as the hi-end goes, i don't really believe there were more folks interested in it 30 years ago as there are today - it's a lunatic-fringe kinda ting, always has been, always will be.

yust my opinion, of course! ;~) doug s.

Meta, the reason that people don't ask where they can get one is because they are being polite. After you tell them how much you paid, most of them are thinking that you are absolutely bonkers.

Also, Levinson is one of the few who is at least taking a stab at "thinking outside the box." In addition to Red Rose, Lexus now has Levinson audio systems in them. I haven't heard one, but maybe he'll be able to cross-sell home gear to Lexus owners; it will at least elevate awareness of the brand name. Like you, I'm not certain which way it will go, but at least they are trying something different.

As has been noted by many before, this is in marked contrast to the high-end establishment that superstitiously demonizes and avoids anything new or different (digital, HT, etc.).

People used to being hyper-stimulated don't like to sit in front of a stereo and just listen to music. I've had the same experience others have described- friends come over and listen to two songs on my system and say "Wow, I've never heard music like that" as they get up and walk away! I've never had anybody pulled into the experience and want to play more music.

Sedond is right, people "want to watch" because it (HT) adds another sense (to be stimulated) to the mix. This is what I meant further up the board when I said in today's social environment, listening to music (and nothing else) seems almost quaint. We've seen it even in pro sports. The drama of the competition alone isn't enough anymore, look at the Olympic coverage. Baseball and even football has to be boosted with all sorts of other bells and whistles- fireworks, Diamond Vision, cheerleaders/dancers, prizes/contests. And while the XFL may not make it, I can assure you the "model" will be copied and perfected. The execution was the problem, not the premise.

Frankly, in this environment, I'm surprised high end has as many product choices available as it does. But the original question was why is HE relegated to cottage industry status? My answer would be that it is dominated by individuals that are passionate about their business. This small group of talented people are the antithesis of the large corporation. They are making decisions because it's the right thing to do, or to pursue a personal objective etc., cost be damned.

These companies go out of business frequently as a result too. But if they are successful, inevitably the passion of the founder can never be matched or shared as a company grows. So if it prospers, it will eventually get to the size where the inevitable buisness trade-offs start shaping the decions ("Wouldn't we make more profit if we came out with a mid-fi line and doubled our sales potential?" or "Shoudln't we aim closer to the middle of the segment?". I've personally sat in hundreds of these meetings. The bigger the company, the more generic the products become because you can't be a big niche company. The product development costs are prohibitive. So big companies must always aim for a broad market segment. Smart ones still find a way to differentiate their products, but they will never be thrive living off just HE profits.

So high end will always remain a cottage industry and banruptcy and mergers will be common; not only because of the small market, but because of the nature of the people and the type of company required to create it.