#### 71 dB

##### Headphoneus Supremus

Where the hell did you get all these numbers?@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.

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.