Audiophile Household Income

[wgscott]

I guess this hobby requires a significant disposable income, but I get the feeling there is a fairly wide spread of wealth statistics. I thought it might be interesting to see what the stats look like. Please keep this anonymous…

[The Computer Audiophile]

Reminder, this poll is anonymous.

[orgel]

It'd be interesting to be able to correlate system cost with annual household income. Just sayin'.

 

--David

[wgscott]

Yeah, that would be more relevant, or maybe as a fraction of taxable income (although really rich people probably know how to make that number appear smaller)?

 

Maybe some arbitrary amount like estimated (gross income - non-optional living expenses) would be ideal. I have no doubt that I would be a rich man in Keokuk, Iowa.

 

The results, so far, are interesting (and a little bit encouraging to thousandaires like me).

[sandyk]

wgscott

I can understand why Chris may be interested in the results, but many people would feel that questionaires like this one are bordering on plain nosey ? Personally, I feel the recent spate of questionaires in C.A. has got to the ridiculous stage.

Perhaps another option in the list could be "None of your effing business ?" (grin)

Besides which, the abysmally low number of replies to such questionaires in a forum with around 130,000 members would be statistically useless , as well as open to BS answers.Many people would also feel that the present level of data retained about people in databases worldwide, is already far too intrusive, and in many cases used for unwanted targetting type advertising.

Alex

[Jud]

wgscott

I can understand why Chris may be interested in the results, but many people would feel that questionaires like this one are bordering on plain nosey ? Personally, I feel the recent spate of questionaires in C.A. has got to the ridiculous stage.

Perhaps another option in the list could be "None of your effing business ?" (grin)

Besides which, the abysmally low number of replies to such questionaires in a forum with around 130,000 members would be statistically useless , as well as open to BS answers.Many people would also feel that the present level of data retained about people in databases worldwide, is already far too intrusive, and in many cases used for unwanted targetting type advertising.

Alex

 

The level of information already known about you by Google and its advertisers alone, to say nothing of "databases worldwide," is probably more than your wife/partner knows about you. There is absolutely not one additional iota of information known about you by CA users, Bill, or anyone else if you participate in this anonymous poll.

 

It is also difficult for me to understand how anyone could find these polls more intrusive than any other forum topic one finds uninteresting and therefore ignores.

 

As for the notion that Bill started this poll out of a desire to obtain statistically valid results - that's giving him far too little credit, don't you think?

[wgscott]

See what I miss by having him on my "ignore" list?

 

I only get to see this kind of senile ranting if I fail to log in before reading the threads, or if someone quotes him before the post falls apart from cosmic ray attack-induced bit-rot.

 

For the record, the Trilateral Commission is monitoring this quite closely.

 

I am actually interested whether this is a hobby only for extremely wealthy people, or whether there is a more significant spread. So far, I am pleasantly surprised to see a broader representation than what I would have guessed at.

[sandyk]

See what I miss by having him on my "ignore" list?

Likewise.

Your contributions used to be interesting, but lately you are living up to your "Ill-tempered Audiophool " monniker.

[Jud]

Likewise.

Your contributions used to be interesting, but lately you are living up to your "Ill-tempered Audiophool " monniker.

 

OK, sorry I helped to start this. So getting back to cheery bonhomie, just how much *do* you make, Alex? :-p

[sandyk]

Jud

I voted anonymously, but I could have given an incorrect answer as some others may choose to do so.

As I previously stated , I believe that the present reply participation rate from a forum with around 130,000 members is so low as to make these kinds of questionnaires irrelevant. I believe that C.A. needs far more participation from the many talented members who no longer regularly post, if it is to continue as a source of worthwhile information for those who are interested in obtaining Audiophile Computer Audio. Perhaps Chris could ask people like Gordon Rankin, Steve Nugent and other highly respected members such as the Chesky Brothers,if they were willing to post at least one indepth post to stimulate interest. That's assuming they can find the time to contribute ?

Alex

[esimms86]

I would guess that there are multiple reasons why there are so relatively few replies to the poll, such as selection bias, forum members being busy/on vacation during the summer, as just 2 examples. I would also throw in the fact that, although your household income may be X, expendable income(can you say "mortgage" or "kids in college"?) and spouse-approved purchasing may be further limting factors. It would be simple enough to say that people who make sizeable amounts of coin, have very limited costs of living relative to their income and are, most importantly, single are likely to be the big audio spenders in the group. And then there's one's willingness to spend or style of purchasing. Imagine, a person who chooses to drive the same car for a decade or 200,000 miles and spend their extra coin on audio hardware, CD's and downloads.

 

Esau

[kumakuma]

a forum with around 130,000 members

 

Is this true? 130,000 unique members?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Is this true? 130,000 unique members?

 

The site has 240,000 unique readers per month but less than 10% are members who have signed up with the site. Most people just stop by to read.

[wgscott]

By miraculous coincidence, I had 216,000 unique failed login attempts last month. I reset my dynamically-allocated IP address after each failure for good measure.

[firedog]

If you don't like the polls, I suggest you don't even click on the link that opens the page. Then you cannot possibly be offended or subjected to "ridiculous" polls.

 

Some of us happily participate.

 

I trust Chris' judgement, and am sure he would remove any poll that is truly offensive.

[sandyk]

If you don't like the polls, I suggest you don't even click on the link that opens the page. Then you cannot possibly be offended or subjected to "ridiculous" polls.

Then at least find a way for the rest of the 240,000 regular monthly visitors who are unable even to see how the results are progressing, to see how they are progressing.

[Audio_ELF]

Then at least find a way for the rest of the 240,000 regular monthly visitors who are unable even to see how the results are progressing, to see how they are progressing.

So then you do like polls...?

[sandyk]

So then you do like polls...?

Eloise

Not when they replace much of the content that most of C.A.s monthly readers come in search of.

They visit here to find out the kind of information that will assist them in improving their own systems, and the kind of advice that knowledgeable industry people like yourself used to give so freely. I may not have always agreed with you, but I did read most of the stuff you posted on various subjects.

Alex

[ssgp2]

It's clear to me now, that Mr. Scott is looking for a job in the government.

First it was DEA and now the IRS...

[Julf]

Not when they replace much of the content that most of C.A.s monthly readers come in search of.

 

I think Eloise's point was about the apparent inconsistency in your statements. On one hand, you don't want to see polls. but on the other hand you were asking for "a way for the rest of the 240,000 regular monthly visitors who are unable even to see how the results are progressing, to see how they are progressing".

 

 

[sandyk]

Julf

I feel sure that you know exactly what I was driving at, as did Eloise. If we must have these polls , then at least don't stop the 240,000 regular visitors a month from seeing the progress results and the final results if they wish to.

Alex

[Julf]

Thank you for the clarification, Alex.

[Daudio]

Not when they replace much of the content that most of C.A.s monthly readers come in search of. They visit here to find out the kind of information that will assist them in improving their own systems, and the kind of advice that knowledgeable industry people like yourself used to give so freely.

Alex

 

People read CA for many reasons. I'm more interested in a general topic like this, rather then innumerable threads on equipment I don't care about, or thousands of posts on a particular DAC I don't have or want, or an odd problem I don't have.

There's no good reason for me to complain about threads I'm not interested in, just move on to those that do.

 

So, it's different strokes for different folks, and live and let live !

[beetlemania]

I am actually interested whether this is a hobby only for extremely wealthy people . . .

 

Not at all! It's a matter of priorities. My system is far and away better (and more expensive) than that of any of my middle class friends. I just make it a priority to spend my extra money (ie, after food, housing, clothes) on audio rather than a new car (my rig is 15 y old), cruise, boat, snowmobile, whatever. My TV is an old vacuum tube (really awkward to watch in this day of widescreen everything). Hell, I don't even pay for cable or satellite.

 

Sure it helps to be wealthy in this hobby (mandatory, of course, for the top shelf gear). But middle class losers (like me) can put together a decent system, all the more so if you "sacrifice" in areas where most middle-classers spend their extra money.

[Jud]

Not at all! It's a matter of priorities. My system is far and away better (and more expensive) than that of any of my middle class friends. I just make it a priority to spend my extra money (ie, after food, housing, clothes) on audio rather than a new car (my rig is 15 y old), cruise, boat, snowmobile, whatever. My TV is an old vacuum tube (really awkward to watch in this day of widescreen everything). Hell, I don't even pay for cable or satellite.

 

Sure it helps to be wealthy in this hobby (mandatory, of course, for the top shelf gear). But middle class losers (like me) can put together a decent system, all the more so if you "sacrifice" in areas where most middle-classers spend their extra money.

 

Another piece of this is that all you really have to have to participate in a forum like this is an interest. No reason you actually have to own particular pieces or price levels of equipment to consider yourself interested in good sound. In my checkered past ;-) I had years where I made less than I paid in taxes other years, but nevertheless if asked whether I considered myself an audiophile or interested in audio, I would have said yes.

 

I would guess very nearly all of us have looked at magazine articles, been in dealers' showrooms, or attended hi-fi shows where we read about, saw or heard equipment we considered to be beyond our budgets. The budgets and the equipment may vary, but interest in music and good sound are common factors.