Have Audiophiles and the Audiophile Press Become Irrelevant?

[nicoff]

ChatGPT Response:
To a large extent, yes — at least in the sense that they no longer occupy the cultural or technical authority they once had.

But “irrelevant” may be too absolute. What has really happened is fragmentation and loss of monopoly.

A few major shifts changed everything:

1. Electronics became increasingly transparent
   Once competent DACs, amps, and streamers reached audibly transparent performance, the old review model became harder to sustain. In the 1980s or 1990s, electronics often did sound measurably and audibly different. Today, many differences are tiny, nonexistent under blind testing, or dominated by room/speaker interactions.

That weakens the traditional “golden ear reviewer discovers magical component” narrative.

1. The internet democratized information
   Audiophile magazines once controlled access:

• reviews
• measurements
• industry gossip
• system advice

Now anyone can:

• watch YouTube measurements
• read forums like Audio Science Review
• compare specs instantly
• buy direct from companies like Topping or SMSL
• use REW, DSP, and room correction themselves

The “priesthood” lost control.

1. The press became economically trapped
   Many legacy publications depend heavily on advertiser relationships with ultra-high-end brands. That creates incentives toward:

• luxury positioning
• aspirational storytelling
• endless praise
• avoidance of harsh criticism

As a result, many enthusiasts increasingly see portions of the audiophile press less as journalism and more as lifestyle marketing.

1. The center of gravity shifted from electronics to speakers, DSP, and rooms
   Today the largest audible differences usually come from:

• speakers
• subwoofer integration
• room acoustics
• DSP/room correction

Ironically, those are areas where traditional audiophile reviewing was often weakest because controlled comparisons are difficult and room interactions dominate.

1. Aging demographics
   A large portion of traditional audiophilia is aging. Younger listeners often prioritize:

• convenience
• headphones
• streaming
• active speakers
• multiroom systems
• value

Many have little interest in ritualistic two-channel systems or six-figure cable discussions.

That said, audiophiles are not disappearing entirely. They’re evolving into different tribes:

• measurement/objectivist communities
• vinyl/lifestyle enthusiasts
• headphone hobbyists
• DSP/home theater tinkerers
• luxury collectors
• music-first minimalists

And the press still matters somewhat for:

• discovery
• industry relationships
• photography/design storytelling
• subjective impressions of speakers and rooms
• luxury branding

But culturally? The days when a small circle of magazine reviewers could strongly shape consensus across the hobby are mostly gone.

A concise way to frame it:

Audiophiles are not irrelevant. But the old gatekeepers of audiophilia increasingly are.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

Although Chat GPT gets most things wrong in real life (we have seen this extensively in business asking it questions like this are useless at best), I would suggest it especially got wrong the last part about what the press is supposedly relevant for:

- The press is not relevant for discovery (Facebook groups and instagram now are);
- relationships (no one needs to be friends with irrelevant people who still think they are Gods);
- photography - theirs is mediocre at best and boring and they usually only use mfg provided photos;
- Luxury branding - no one reads the mags so it does nothing for branding. Just ask some of the distributors and company owners who have been very public about ZERO leads from 5 years of magazine ads.

People have smartened up to how they act. Even with what's best forum deleting posts to defend their money stream with brands such as Soulution recently and other example after example and banning people such as Jay who has a platform, Mike B. who owns this forum, and others.

The older press offers no service or value any longer that isn't done for less money, faster, easier, and better presented in a multitude of ways by other options.

If TAS, Stereophile and the other old has-beens folded up tomorrow the industry wouldn't care, business would be fine, nothing would change and the only impact on the industry would be companies would no longer be wasting money on useless ads with them.

 

[Kramer64]

Well trod ground, but some interesting points. Father Time is daily thinning the herd of classic boomer audiophiles who love many expensive boxes and yards of cables ( lifted 3 inches off the floor at considerable cost). The next generation down was raised valuing convenience and portability over complexity. The industry can attract a larger segment of this group by delivering quality and simplicity in fewer boxes, at earthbound prices. Will it do so? We'll see.

As to the press, the big mags certainly don't have the influence they once did. Too many alternate sources of information, sometimes misinformation. Plus, the big mags ceded authority by morphing into the PR arm of manufacturers instead of watchdogs for paid subscribers. Their response to the recent discussions of conflicts of interest was disappointing, some might say arrogant.

With that said, I still subscribe and enjoy the read, while understanding they could be so much better. The mags deliver good factual information-price, specs, photos, etc., and help us keep up with news. The factual part of the reviews have value to me, particularly since I live in an audio wasteland when it comes to dealers.The part where they go through four or five tunes, usually tunes far beyond my cultural level, and inevitably declare that these songs create a profound, life changing emotional response when heard through the latest, greatest amp-no, no help there.

There are exceptions. Just one example-I've found Tom Martin's series of DAC/streamer reviews to be both interesting and useful. It would be better if he said here's how the dacs I've reviewed are the same and here's how they are different, but that's not going to happen. Nevertheless, I find his work to be pretty good in that I learn something from his analysis- he doesn't just say that his legs trembled when listening to Tchaikovsky through the latest $50k dac.

So, I think the big mags have greatly diminished influence-largely by their own choices-but I don't find them useless. As a man firmly rooted in the 20th century, I like something I can hold in my hand and read.

Finally, I've noticed an anomalous circumstance with headphone reviewers. Many of them do straightforward comparisons and dispassionately cite shortcomings in what they review. I'm not sure, but I think its because they are reviewing, not selling.

 

[Mike]

There are exceptions. Just one example-I've found Tom Martin's series of DAC/streamer reviews to be both interesting and useful. It would be better if he said here's how the dacs I've reviewed are the same and here's how they are different, but that's not going to happen. Nevertheless, I find his work to be pretty good in that I learn something from his analysis- he doesn't just say that his legs trembled when listening to Tchaikovsky through the latest $50k dac.

Tom is one of my favorite folks in the industry. He’s super genuine and nice.

 

[W9TR]

I think very little has changed, except one thing. The sheer number of reviewers has increased. This has vexed some manufacturers and caused a few to make some terrible PR mistakes that have caused reputational damage.

In the 70’s we had Hirsch-Houck Labs: ‘I’ve never heard a receiver I didn’t like’. Now we’ve got ASR and the cult of SINAD. TAS and Stereophile grew as an alternative, with their observational reviews. Today most reviewers are observational, mostly because of the cost and knowledge required to make accurate and comprehensive measurements.

Then and now, some people like the surety of reviews with numbers. When I’m buying an expensive piece of gear, I want some assurance it’s the best. Problem is, understanding the sheer amount of data needed to fully characterize a component is beyond the reach of most consumers. So we get SINAD, which is useless, or some truncated set of measurements that don’t tell the whole story.

Observational reviewing is popular because it provides a window, however small and foggy, into the real world performance of a component. If we know the reviewer and have experienced some of the products they have reviewed, it provides a level of understanding about how a component may sound that’s just not possible with a truncated measurements-based review. The window gets bigger and clearer.

My view is that I want both. As an audio engineer I have enough measurements background to understand how a component will sound based on a full complement of measurements. This is especially true of speakers, less so with other components. Corroborated with a reviewer’s observations, I have enough info to go personally audition the piece at a B&M store without wasting anyone’s time. This to me is the gold standard of reviewing. JA did a great job, there are a few non-trad reviewers that also do excellent work. I can count them on the fingers of one hand.

 

[mep]

Tom is one of my favorite folks in the industry. He’s super genuine and nice.

Anybody that wants to salute ASR and Topping DACs and say their measurements are so good you couldn't tell it apart from the top DACs Mike sells, please raise your hands.

Every time I think threads like this one have run their course, somebody ressurects the dead horse so it can be beaten to death again.

Amir could have started this thread because it sounds just like the nonsense that comes from Amir and ASR.

 

[GSOphile]

There are exceptions. Just one example-I've found Tom Martin's series of DAC/streamer reviews to be both interesting and useful. It would be better if he said here's how the dacs I've reviewed are the same and here's how they are different, but that's not going to happen. Nevertheless, I find his work to be pretty good in that I learn something from his analysis- he doesn't just say that his legs trembled when listening to Tchaikovsky through the latest $50k dac.

Two big thumbs up on Tom Martin. Good at describing what I've been hearing (and not hearing) in a very unpretentious way. His sound model makes sense and avoids most of the hackneyed audiophile descriptors.

 

[Mike]

Agreed. He’s really genuine and a good person.