Why Don't More People Love Audio?

I think all the responses are good but here is my take on this. "Exposure, exposure ". There was a time when I thought the little paper woofers in Bose speakers sounded pretty decent and I really wanted a Bose "system". Then I listened to Sony receivers, and thought these were the very best. Well, you guessed, pretty soon I explored this whole sound affair and now I am a hard core tube diehard. Yes I want tubes in my tuner ( M.D. if you please ). The problem is, my tastes now are way above my means - - easily $100,000. wish list. What's a poor guy to do with a simple $40,000 system ?? Music stirs the soul, it has passion. Rolexes do not, Ferrari's ... maybe, if there is a pretty blond in the passenger seat, then maybe, just maybe. I have friends with almost $1M homes and they listen to Pioneer receivers with cheap JBL speakers. Who buys Mark Levinson Transports and DACs to go with their Lamm SET's ? Not me.

Et's opinion has lot more truth in it. People (haves or have nots) have not listened to what could be possible with great system. If they listened to a very well set-up system,at least half of non-audiophiles will convert. Take me as another example: Just 11 years ago, I thought YAMAHA components and Cerwin-Vega was above the masses! And even then I paid somewhere around 7K for everything. If I knew then I would have put together pretty good system at that price!

I agree that exposure would have a positive effect on participation in enjoying high-end audio, but I think the estimate that at least 1/2 would convert upon hearing a very well set-up system is much too high, especially if your definition of "audiophile" is at all demanding. Certainly far fewer than 1/2 of the people that audition my system convert (or even sit through very many songs) - in fact the only person I've ever had get real interested was somebody who's already on the path. Maybe my system doesn't meet the criteria of exposure being discussed here, but I'd bet that it does, but in any case it's a pretty common theme that non-audiophiles who hear a nice system, even when they acknowledge awesome sound, don't show much interest in actually owning one.

That said, I've always agreed that exposure would do a lot to promote the higher-end industry. Put decent systems into CD stores with a sign saying "Displayed by .....". Repetitive exposure would quite possibly work a lot better than an individual session.

Kthomas, I agree. Pecentage I quoted is far too much.

The reasons are, of course, manyfold with most of them outlined above. I remember in the 1970s I could go to high end audio stores and find all sorts of people, male and female, being turned on to the current good stuff. Not any longer. High end stores service the same customers over and over. However, we all have to face the fact that Americans are, in general, no longer interested in music. Just check out the FM airwaves in just about any major city, almost pure, "wear-dated" crap. What people want is noise with a cool looking boy or girl jumping around in the video. Does everyone realize all pop, rock, etc artists now have to be actors first and foremost? Do you think Britney Spears, N'Sync et al are on your TV constantly because they make good music? Lets all face it, there are no "new" Beatles, Hendrix, Miles, Coltrane, Joni Mitchell; not even a new Shawn Phillips, Tom Rush, or Fairport Convention, for Jeebies sake!! And please don't start telling us about all those "great new bands and singers". 90% of these new recordings are so over processed in the studio and mastering facilities that any sign of life is gone. Anyway, just an aside: One of my wife's students remodeled his house at a cost of $950,000.00. He had, as he puts it, "a state of the art sound sytem" installed in ceilings throughout. The "heart" of the awsome system is a Marantz receiver (retail, as he told me, $795.00) and a comparable CD player. The man doesn't know the brand of bad sounding wall and ceilings speakers installed, his interior designer did everything for him.