[71 dB]

@71 dB
Wealth is distributed by the pareto principle, so you get 80% of the wealth concentrated in 20% of the population. This can be applied repeatedly to that shrinking sample set, turning 80/20 into 64/4 and 51.2/0.8. This phenomenon is not just limited to wealth, it actually happens in many other socioeconomic metrics too where competence hierarchies are concerned.

Now let's put audiophilia into context. There are 520,609 members of Head-Fi as of this post. Maybe some are duplicate accounts or dummy accounts, so let's give that a hypothetical reduction of 10%, so 468,548 for the sake of the argument. Now I figure that having enough disposable income to consider 1k-5k a reasonable expenditure on a completely unnecessary hobby puts you in the 62.5th to 78.8th percentile of income in the US at minimum. So, applying the pareto principle to the population of head-fi and assuming the population of head-fi roughly represents the 23.3rd percentile and above of the general population (that's a minimum of 25k~35k per year, at which the lowest tier of non-ubiquitous audio gear is easily feasible to acquire IMO using something like the 7Hz Zero 2 at $25 as a representative of the lowest price bracket), you get roughly 3750 people who command 51.2% of the purchasing power of the consumer base in head-fi, and subsequently 750 people command 40.96% of the purchasing power.

Of course the pareto principle is not an exact principle, but it's very close, and audiophilia is strictly a luxury hobby, so it's possible that the income distribution is skewed slightly upward, which would shift the numbers a bit higher comparatively.

Where the hell did you get all these numbers?

Wealth distribution varies from country to country, even inside countries (e.g. London is much richer than areas outside London in the UK). In some countries wealth distribution may indeed follow the pareto principle.

 

[71 dB]

That said, the people who say the DAC in my phone or laptop sounds as good as the ones I use in my recording studios or my main home listening space are nuts.

The DACs probably are just as good audibly, but the output buffer amps are certainly not as good in a phone or laptop compared to studio gear.

 

[bigshot]

People can be rich or poor, I really don’t care. It’s possible to have great sounding music in the home for cheap, and people can spend way too much. Again I don’t care. I just object when people say that lots of money buys better sound, because that just isn’t so.

 

[bigshot]

The DACs probably are just as good audibly, but the output buffer amps are certainly not as good in a phone or laptop compared to studio gear.

Who’s talking about studio gear? We’re talking about consumer audio for playback, not ADCs for recording.

 

[71 dB]

The sad part about all the overspending on audio equipment is that it isn't necessary. Price is a very poor indicator of sound quality. The $8 Apple dongle has terrific specs, and one of the worst measuring components ever was made by McIntosh. Go figure.

I guess judging by price is a shortcut that people who are too lazy to take the time to figure out the basics of home audio take.

I can't believe how Apple asks only $8 for that "terrific" dongle. Shouldn't the price be $79.90 or something? $129.90 if you want 3 year warranty.

 

[71 dB]

Who’s talking about studio gear?

FunkyBassMan assuming I interpreted his post correctly.

 

[bigshot]

I have no interest in studio gear myself. I don’t have a studio, so I don’t need it.

 

[KinGensai]

Where the hell did you get all these numbers?

Wealth distribution varies from country to country, even inside countries (e.g. London is much richer than areas outside London in the UK). In some countries wealth distribution may indeed follow the pareto principle.

The pareto principle is derived from the work of Vilfredo Pareto, the number is based on an observation of the land distribution of Italian land to the population. This principle has since been observed to be roughly accurate in socioeconomic statistics barring severe intervention.

The numbers are a rough estimate, the point I'm trying to make is that we aren't talking about the general population at large when we are talking about audiophilia, we are talking about a very niche part of a population interested in a luxury hobby, meaning the sample set in question is filtered out of the population significantly. You are essentially talking about a tiny subset of people with specific characteristics, so general statistics like that 78.8% paycheck to paycheck figure is misleading.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

The DACs probably are just as good audibly, but the output buffer amps are certainly not as good in a phone or laptop compared to studio gear.

Understood. But bigshot and gregorio say all amps sound the same.

 

[gregorio]

I grew up poor but cursed by extremely good ears, …
Fortunately, my good ears also led to a career in music …

Two fallacies demonstrated there:

Firstly, the old audiophile fallacy about how good their ears are. They seem to believe that just because they think of themselves as an “audiophile”, their ears must be better than other people’s, even “golden” in some cases. That is simply not the case, numerous audiophiles have been tested and been part of controlled DBTs over the decades and if anything, their ears/hearing is worse than average (because they tend to be older male adults).

Secondly, good ears (hearing) is obviously not a prerequisite for a career in music. The assertion is falsified most famously by Beethoven but there are others today who have become successful or even reached the very top of their musical field who have such severe hearing impairment they are medically classed as profoundly deaf, Evelyn Glennie being an obvious example, although in fact a high proportion of successful musicians have relatively serious hearing impairments, from orchestral musicians to rock stars, due to years of exposure to damagingly high sound pressure levels.

What is certainly necessary is good listening skills but that is not correlated to good ear/hearing. Those with good/great listening skills do NOT have hearing thresholds that are better than other people, typically they have poorer/lower thresholds than average.

That said, the people who say the DAC in my phone or laptop sounds as good as the ones I use in my recording studios or my main home listening space are nuts.

And yet within the bounds of audibility it’s been proven and is relatively easy to demonstrate. We could make audibly transparent DAC chips 35 years or more ago, do you seriously believe that current smartphone and laptop DAC technology is less capable than the CD player DAC technology in the 1980’s? What evidence do you have to counter all the demonstrable proof of audibility, objective measurements and the obvious fact of more capable computing technology today than 35 years ago? The only evidence you’ve presented is your assertion that you have better ears than any other human, which you’ve substantiated with nothing except a fallacy (you’re a musician so must have better ears). What truly would be “nuts” would be to dismiss/ignore all the reliable and objective evidence in favour of nothing but an unsubstantiated claim!

But bigshot and gregorio say all amps sound the same.

Which gregorio, I don’t recall seeing another gregorio on this site who says that? Please show us this other gregorio. You’re obviously not referring to me, because I don’t say all amps sound the same and to avoid any chance of misinterpreting what I’ve actually stated, I’ve clearly explained what I do say, to you directly on several occasions. So either there must be some other gregorio or you’re deliberately lying about what I say. Therefore, show us this other gregorio or there’s only one obvious conclusion!

G

 

[71 dB]

The pareto principle is derived from the work of Vilfredo Pareto, the number is based on an observation of the land distribution of Italian land to the population. This principle has since been observed to be roughly accurate in socioeconomic statistics barring severe intervention.

I know Pareto principle.

The numbers are a rough estimate, the point I'm trying to make is that we aren't talking about the general population at large when we are talking about audiophilia, we are talking about a very niche part of a population interested in a luxury hobby, meaning the sample set in question is filtered out of the population significantly. You are essentially talking about a tiny subset of people with specific characteristics, so general statistics like that 78.8% paycheck to paycheck figure is misleading.

Who says we are talking about audiophilia? I approach audio from an angle that it should be available for as many people as possible, be as non-niche as possible. Technology should make good quality audio available for normal people and even poor people. Thankfully that has happened for the most part. Only people with too much money in their hands think affordable audio products aren't good enough. I'm not interested of luxury hobbies. It's not even a money thing. I have money, but I know wasting it on expensive audio gear won't make me happy/content. People who need luxury products to be happy are mentally poor, even childish.

 

[71 dB]

Secondly, good ears (hearing) is obviously not a prerequisite for a career in music. The assertion is falsified most famously by Beethoven

Not that it changes anything, but having a career in music in the days of Beethoven was quite different from what it is today. It was often based on aristocratic connections and rich financial supporters rather than promoting yourself in the social media. Beethoven had already established himself as a composer by the time his hearing started to deteriorate.

 

[KinGensai]

I know Pareto principle.

I apologize, I wasn't sure if we were talking about the same principle given your response, so I wanted to make sure we both meant the same thing.

Who says we are talking about audiophilia? I approach audio from an angle that it should be available for as many people as possible, be as non-niche as possible. Technology should make good quality audio available for normal people and even poor people. Thankfully that has happened for the most part.

I agree, totally with you on this part.

Only people with too much money in their hands think affordable audio products aren't good enough. I'm not interested of luxury hobbies. It's not even a money thing. I have money, but I know wasting it on expensive audio gear won't make me happy/content. People who need luxury products to be happy are mentally poor, even childish.

There are a lot of things going on there. Price to quality bias plays a part, unwillingness to investigate even the basic principles of audio is another of course, but there's also prestige bias and exclusivity bias at play here that any marketer worth their salt will tailor their literature toward exploiting.

I don't think this sort of behavior is based solely on arrested psychological development, although there is literature that supports that notion. Personality archetypes also play a big part due to the social dynamics at play here.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

The usual response. Irrelevancies and responding to things the other person never said.

But, in the interest of saving time, since anyone who says "science doesn't know everything" is fallacious isn't worth taking seriously, I'll let all the nonsense ride.

I am glad you admitted aamps don't sound the same, though.

Two fallacies demonstrated there:

Firstly, the old audiophile fallacy about how good their ears are. They seem to believe that just because they think of themselves as an “audiophile”, their ears must be better than other people’s, even “golden” in some cases. That is simply not the case, numerous audiophiles have been tested and been part of controlled DBTs over the decades and if anything, their ears/hearing is worse than average (because they tend to be older male adults).

Secondly, good ears (hearing) is obviously not a prerequisite for a career in music. The assertion is falsified most famously by Beethoven but there are others today who have become successful or even reached the very top of their musical field who have such severe hearing impairment they are medically classed as profoundly deaf, Evelyn Glennie being an obvious example, although in fact a high proportion of successful musicians have relatively serious hearing impairments, from orchestral musicians to rock stars, due to years of exposure to damagingly high sound pressure levels.

What is certainly necessary is good listening skills but that is not correlated to good ear/hearing. Those with good/great listening skills do NOT have hearing thresholds that are better than other people, typically they have poorer/lower thresholds than average.

And yet within the bounds of audibility it’s been proven and is relatively easy to demonstrate. We could make audibly transparent DAC chips 35 years or more ago, do you seriously believe that current smartphone and laptop DAC technology is less capable than the CD player DAC technology in the 1980’s? What evidence do you have to counter all the demonstrable proof of audibility, objective measurements and the obvious fact of more capable computing technology today than 35 years ago? The only evidence you’ve presented is your assertion that you have better ears than any other human, which you’ve substantiated with nothing except a fallacy (you’re a musician so must have better ears). What truly would be “nuts” would be to dismiss/ignore all the reliable and objective evidence in favour of nothing but an unsubstantiated claim!

Which gregorio, I don’t recall seeing another gregorio on this site who says that? Please show us this other gregorio. You’re obviously not referring to me, because I don’t say all amps sound the same and to avoid any chance of misinterpreting what I’ve actually stated, I’ve clearly explained what I do say, to you directly on several occasions. So either there must be some other gregorio or you’re deliberately lying about what I say. Therefore, show us this other gregorio or there’s only one obvious conclusion!

G

 

[bigshot]

I approach audio from an angle that it should be available for as many people as possible, be as non-niche as possible. Technology should make good quality audio available for normal people and even poor people. Thankfully that has happened for the most part. Only people with too much money in their hands think affordable audio products aren't good enough. I'm not interested of luxury hobbies. It's not even a money thing. I have money, but I know wasting it on expensive audio gear won't make me happy/content. People who need luxury products to be happy are mentally poor, even childish.

I totally agree that we’re living through a golden age of media availability. I remember when I started out in the 1970s. I could only dream of things we take for granted now.

I also agree that turning electronics into a luxury product is silly. Electronics today are cheap and powerful. Why would you not want to take advantage of that?

But I’m not totally against expensive things that make us happy. It’s just if you are going to spend a lot of money, you should get something you can’t get any other way- something that enriches your life… travel, art, education, a library, a nice home to live in… These things are worth spending money on, because they enrich your life. Gucci handbags, super high end stereos and designer clothes seem to be conspicuous consumption without any real life enhancement.