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.

 

[Feanor]

As for ChatGPT, IMHO, it gets most things right -- though I think we've all caught it in an occasional error. It helps to frame the Question well and I think it was on the mark in this case. ("Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer".)

The "press", that is, all sources of audiophile info has shifted to mainly to online sources, that's indisputable IMO.

Equipment measurement is nothing new but it has improved in being more comprehensive. Sites like ASR deserve a lot of credit. Amplifiers DON'T all sound the same but my POV is that equipment that measures extremely well is going to sound good (according to my personal taste), and generally, that equipment that measures the same is going to sound the same. There may be the occasional, difficult to explain exception ... OK.

I haven't bought an LP since the late '90s and that was because the music wasn't available on CD, (of course, not to mention a streaming service). I haven't played an LP in 15-18 years. I still buy CDs, perhaps because I'm mainly a Classical genre guy.

But, come to that, I haven't played a CD in years either because when the CD arrives I immediately rip it to a FLAC file which is what I play.

My disbelief in the efficacy of high-price cables goes back a long way. It began with AC cables and progress to most other types. Sorry audiophile culture devotees, just too many "differences" are your imagination. Kudos to Peter Aczel.

Speaking of DSP speaker & room correction, the biggest improvement I've heard in my systems in a VERY long time has been to incorporated a properly constructed FIR convolution file in my reproduction stream.


'

 

[JCS123]

+1 on Tom Martin's work!

 

[Mr Peabody]

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.

*>> This is absolute BS. Receivers if not distorted in the 80's/90's wasn't transparent? Really, they sounded different, moreso than today? I would suggest that there's no major difference like being talked about from 80's/90's to today. In fact, I see manufacturers trying to distinguish themselves apart. Were DAC's ever NOT transparent? How did CD ever take off with the player not being transperent? Wasn't that the actual big selling point?

I'd love to see the original question because this is biased as hell.

Rooms were different in the 90's/80's than now?

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

*> In other words there's a lot of misinformation out there so listen and trust yourself.

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.

*> Really, who is buying the LP's and turntables? Not just old farts.

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

In other words the tribes are those of us who know what they are doing and those who are willing to listen and try, then, you have those who have been brain washed by ASR who are taking interested parties backward! I had an online conversation yesterday that blew my mind I was even having. A guy has a Bryston BP-25 he is running a Wiim Plus into that. He wanted to know if the BP-25 was doing anything? First of all he was using volume control from the Wiim, those that don't know big handicap as digital volume is not good, it degrades as it goes down. Secondly, why not just try it to see what happens. Thirdly, and logically, you think a plastic box that plugs into a USB will even remotely do the job of a preamplifier with an outboard toroidal transformer?! People are doubting basic audio principles, technology. It's the opposite placebo effect, you can't hear a difference look at this trumped up test. It's those who believe their God given ears or those who believe the ASR propaganda.

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.

No audiophiles are not irrelevant, Axpona gets larger every year. Not sure how other shows are doing. I think Mike said his show has grown. Besides what's an audiophile? Even if deceived those who run Wiim and Fozi did we take their card away?

I told myself yesterday I wasn't going to take the bait, it lasted a day but that discussion I talked about above pushed me over the edge.

I think we can all agree someone can put together a decent system on the cheap and have it sound pretty good. I think we all agree there are diminishing returns. Each person has to draw their own line. Where we can't seem to agree for some reason does that latter cheap system sound as good as mine, or yours, I used mine for the purpose? I say hell no and if any listener was honest they'd give the same answer. Although they might say, "but it's 20 times as much money". So? As I mentioned each person has to draw their own line, how much passion do you have? Are you willing to put your money into that passion.

But, crap like this and people's foolish or laziness to try and think for themselves is robbing them of the chance.

Wiim is a madness. It's a chip programmed with a host of bells and whistles. People are buying them blindly based on the hype and never comparing to anything else, never heard anything else.

Why do you think reviewers compare Class D to Class A? Oh, Class D is Class A for cheap and no heat. People will buy the Class D based on that not even hearing Class A. If you hear Class A you will no, no it doesn't sound the same I've been lied to. Have you ever asked yourself why isn't Class D being sold on it's own sound quality opposed to being compared to other amps which has a track record of sounding good and already sought after? It's merits are Class D runs cool and it's very small and light. Well are those the attributes one should use for buying an amplifier where you care about the sound quality? One other thing that is important, before running out and buying Class D based on the latest review just take a look to see if that reviewer is running Class D. I don't get what the reviewers are getting out of it, they don't use Class D themselves. One reviewer who pushes Class D harder than anyone I know claimed it was as good as his Pass XA25 yet does he buy Class D of any brand? No! he now has Pass 160.8 monoblocks. Are people really that blind to the hypocrisy??? Why not say, this Class D monblock sounds damn good, give it a try? But no, we get this Class D brand X sounds as good as Pass, or insert brand, for a fraction. What the hell is going on? If it's good why the hyperbole??

People listen and think for yourselves, that's my advice FWIW

 

[RonR]

- 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.

You criticize the "older press" because you try to position yourself in some way to compete with them. Pretending that they offer no service or value is simply puerile and baldly false.

You disparage platforms and media with which you are trying to compete. Nothing more to it than that basic intellectual dishonesty.

Please provide actual evidence that the magazines provide no service or value to their advertisers. The fact that many manufacturers, distributors and dealers advertise in the magazines at significant expense proves your allegations to be incorrect.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

You criticize the "older press" because you try to position yourself in some way to compete with them. Pretending that they offer no service or value is simply puerile and baldly false.

You disparage platforms and media with which you are trying to compete. Nothing more to it than that basic intellectual dishonesty.

Please provide actual evidence that the magazines provide no service or value to their advertisers. The fact that many manufacturers, distributors and dealers advertise in the magazines at significant expense proves your allegations to be incorrect.

Ron - you are too stupid and have yet to come clean with how much Axiss is paying WBF for anything you say to be worthy of a response.

Your desperation to try and have a voice when your own platform won't let you talk about the HIFI Five you stole from Elliot when your two cohosts left you due to you stabbing them in the back. They didn't want to be associated with you.

You get smacked down as an owner repeatedly by one of your underling admins showing you are an owner in name only and no one takes you seriously. Neither Steve nor Tom want anything to do with you (as they so often admit).

And I hear you kept introducing yourself at AXPONA like people should know you and many did not. They were laughing about it afterwards.

And you weren't able to sell a single speaker in Beverly Hills - which is loaded with rich people - leading you to getting fired. for being so incompetent.

You got bigger things to worry about than what I say. BTW - from what I hear no one took you up on your plea for them to pay you at AXPONA.

The fact you are defending the mags - shows just how out of touch you are as the "public figure" you have yourself listed as on Facebook. All ego (and dyed hair) and no substance.

Oh and let's not forget your reputation - you ultimately either intentionally or just through incompetence end up stabbing in the back everyone you ever work with. No one left wants to risk being associated with you or WBF with the way they edit or delete threads depending on how much certain people pay you. You always seem to be shilling for the wrong side of the consumer.

When we were uncovering the true ways of WBF I went out of my way to defend you. It appears that belief in you was misguided and you are more ingrained with how WBF really operates than any of us imagined.

Thanks Ron and have a blessed day.

 

[Kramer64]

This went downhill faster than a Secretariat furlong. Just a humble observation from an ignorant consumer- we do ourselves no credit by getting nasty over listening to music, and all of us can be guilty of that from time to time.

FWIW, it seems obvious to me that the big publications are nowhere near as relevant or powerful as they once were. Just as network news lost some of its mojo to cable outlets and now cable news influence is being diluted by tic toc, X, Facebook and all the other God foresaken social media, audio media is increasingly decentralized. I think at some point the mags decided their economic well being foreclosed truly independent journalism and now mostly cheerlead (with some notable exceptions).

For the reasons I mentioned earlier, I think its a bit of an overstatement to suggest the big two are completely irrelevant or of no value. There are still ordinary consumers, like me, who subscribe and enjoy the publications, while lamenting that they do not serve their readers as fully as they could. I also cannot assume that every advertiser deploys their PR budget irrationally-they are in the best position to know what's good for their business. I regret that the publications are so timid when it comes to true reviews and refuse to meaningfully address corrosive conflicts of interest. Even so, I still look forward to every new issue. By the way, I also enjoy Micheal's tube centric videos and I've seen all of Ron's Master interviews which I thought were well done and educational.

Maybe worthwhile to realize we are part of a tiny, eccentric hobby and most people, if they are aware of it at all, think we are nuts. If my kids knew what I spent on a 3 foot long piece of wire, they'd file papers on me immediately. So, we might as well be civil to each other-everyone else thinks we are insane. And they are not without supporting evidence.

Cheers.

 

[crwilli]

This went downhill faster than a Secretariat furlong. Just a humble observation from an ignorant consumer- we do ourselves no credit by getting nasty over listening to music, and all of us can be guilty of that from time to time.

FWIW, it seems obvious to me that the big publications are nowhere near as relevant or powerful as they once were. Just as network news lost some of its mojo to cable outlets and now cable news influence is being diluted by tic toc, X, Facebook and all the other God foresaken social media, audio media is increasingly decentralized. I think at some point the mags decided their economic well being foreclosed truly independent journalism and now mostly cheerlead (with some notable exceptions).

For the reasons I mentioned earlier, I think its a bit of an overstatement to suggest the big two are completely irrelevant or of no value. There are still ordinary consumers, like me, who subscribe and enjoy the publications, while lamenting that they do not serve their readers as fully as they could. I also cannot assume that every advertiser deploys their PR budget irrationally-they are in the best position to know what's good for their business. I regret that the publications are so timid when it comes to true reviews and refuse to meaningfully address corrosive conflicts of interest. Even so, I still look forward to every new issue. By the way, I also enjoy Micheal's tube centric videos and I've seen all of Ron's Master interviews which I thought were well done and educational.

Maybe worthwhile to realize we are part of a tiny, eccentric hobby and most people, if they are aware of it at all, think we are nuts. If my kids knew what I spent on a 3 foot long piece of wire, they'd file papers on me immediately. So, we might as well be civil to each other-everyone else thinks we are insane. And they are not without supporting evidence.

Cheers.

Well said. But this is also a ‘community’ of individuals with biases, monetary motives and hidden agendas. It’s not a community of only purchasers.

So keep your eyes and ears open.

 

[Feanor]

Reading some responses, (and some in detail), I sense more that little resentment and angst caused by the ChatGPT answer.

My Golden Ear pretensions ended at least a decade ago. Simply put, I don't trust my own ears, certainly not when potential differences are very subtle. That hubris is long gone. For one thing at 81 y/o I don't pretend to hear a damned thing much above 8 kHz, but more importantly I know I always and am biased by one factor or another.

Current components, especially the lower cost variety, have indeed improved since the '80s in terms of transparency and capability in general. The technology improvements achieving this happy result include but aren't limited to class D designs.

Sorry but what the Golden Ear dinosaurs don't want to hear is that measurements and blind testing have revealed is that a $2000 amplifier can perform as well or better than a $100,000 amp, or that a $200 DAC can perform on the level of a $20,000 DAC.

I understand it's threatening to grapple with the fact that once $50,000 worth of electronics once labelled one a person of discernment but now it might label one an ostentatious consumer ... or self-deluded.

 

[nicoff]

....

I'd love to see the original question because this is biased as hell.

...

The initial prompt was the exact title of this thread:

"Have Audiophiles and the Audiophile Press Become Irrelevant?"​

 

[nicoff]

Here is Claude's response to the same prompt:

Have Audiophiles and the Audiophile Press Become Irrelevant?​

This is a genuinely interesting and layered question — and the answer is: not quite, but the nature of their relevance has shifted dramatically. Here's a clear-eyed look at both sides.

---

The case that they've become irrelevant

The audiophile press's core function was always to serve as a trusted intermediary between manufacturers and buyers — helping consumers navigate an opaque, expensive market. That gatekeeping role has been severely eroded. Community forums, Facebook groups, and Instagram have largely replaced the press as the discovery layer, while YouTube reviewers with massive subscriber counts, measurement-focused bloggers, and communities like Reddit's r/audiophile generate far more daily traffic than legacy publications. The peer-to-peer review ecosystem is simply faster and more democratic.

The credibility problem has compounded the reach problem. Critics of outlets like Stereophile have long argued that the magazine functions primarily as a commercial marketing engine for established brands, with reviews that are rarely direct or unambiguous, and sonic downsides that are rarely stated in frank terms. When distributors and manufacturers publicly report zero leads from years of magazine advertising, that's a damning indictment of the press's practical influence — even on purchasing decisions in its own niche. A 204-page issue of Stereophile, 116 pages of which are advertisements, raises obvious questions about editorial independence.

There's also a demographic problem. Legacy audiophiles are aging, and younger entrants to hi-fi are eschewing the larger-scale hardware and dedicated listening spaces that traditional audiophile culture is built around. The ritual of sitting in a "sweet spot" between a pair of floor-standing speakers was already a niche behavior; it's now aging out.

---

The case that they remain relevant — and that the hobby itself is thriving

Here's where the narrative gets complicated, because the market data tells a very different story from the cultural obituaries. The global vinyl record market reached $1.9 billion in 2024, with projections to reach $3.5 billion by 2033 at a CAGR of 6.8%. U.S. vinyl album sales have grown for 17 consecutive years through 2023. And the hi-fi turntable market, valued at $1.3 billion in 2024, is projected to nearly double to $2.65 billion by 2032 at a 10.8% annual growth rate. This is not the profile of a dying hobby.

The world of hi-fi audio is actually described as "booming" in 2025, with high-resolution music streaming services like Qobuz and TIDAL gaining significant ground. Interestingly, Spotify's lossless launch ended up boosting Qobuz by 500%, suggesting audiophile-grade streaming is entering the mainstream consciousness. The hobby is expanding, even if its center of gravity has shifted.

The audiophile press itself, meanwhile, has adapted. Stereophile continues to publish monthly, with active reader letters, industry news, and long-form equipment reviews that YouTube channels rarely replicate in depth. Readers still write about specific reviews "literally changing their life" — perhaps hyperbolic, but hardly the response of an irrelevant publication.

Over 70% of consumers in the 18–35 age group are now driving the vinyl resurgence, motivated by nostalgia and audio quality — but these younger enthusiasts are discovering the hobby through social media and streaming, not Stereophile. When they graduate to more serious equipment, where do they turn? Increasingly, to YouTube, Reddit, and measurement databases like ASR (Audio Science Review) — which may be the true heir to what the audiophile press was supposed to be: objective, comparative, and trustworthy.

---

The honest verdict

The audiophile press — as a print-centric, advertising-dependent institution built on subjective listening impressions — has genuinely lost its relevance as a primary authority. It survives as a luxury artifact and a brand marketing channel, not as a consumer guide.

But audiophiles themselves? They're far from irrelevant. The culture has simply fractured and migrated. While legacy audiophilia is still alive and well, many music listeners have found that characteristics of traditional audiophile culture — the pursuit of fidelity, the rituals of careful listening, the community — persist in more modern forms like headphone culture, portable hi-res audio, and high-resolution streaming. The values traveled; the gatekeepers didn't.

 

[Mr Peabody]

Reading some responses, (and some in detail), I sense more that little resentment and angst caused by the ChatGPT answer.

My Golden Ear pretensions ended at least a decade ago. Simply put, I don't trust my own ears, certainly not when potential differences are very subtle. That hubris is long gone. For one thing at 81 y/o I don't pretend to hear a damned thing much above 8 kHz, but more importantly I know I always and am biased by one factor or another.

Current components, especially the lower cost variety, have indeed improved since the '80s in terms of transparency and capability in general. The technology improvements achieving this happy result include but aren't limited to class D designs.

Sorry but what the Golden Ear dinosaurs don't want to hear is that measurements and blind testing have revealed is that a $2000 amplifier can perform as well or better than a $100,000 amp, or that a $200 DAC can perform on the level of a $20,000 DAC.

I understand it's threatening to grapple with the fact that once $50,000 worth of electronics once labelled one a person of discernment but now it might label one an ostentatious consumer ... or self-deluded.

Your statement, "
Sorry but what the Golden Ear dinosaurs don't want to hear is that measurements and blind testing have revealed is that a $2000 amplifier can perform as well or better than a $100,000 amp, or that a $200 DAC can perform on the level of a $20,000 DAC.", is just false in the inth degree, uber hyperbole

You owned a Pass amp if you say you couldn't hear any difference between that and your Hypex then you really have no business in this discussion at all. I don't care about your preference, that's your own bad taste but you certainly had to hear a difference.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

Your statement, "
Sorry but what the Golden Ear dinosaurs don't want to hear is that measurements and blind testing have revealed is that a $2000 amplifier can perform as well or better than a $100,000 amp, or that a $200 DAC can perform on the level of a $20,000 DAC.", is just false in the inth degree, uber hyperbole

You owned a Pass amp if you say you couldn't hear any difference between that and your Hypex then you really have no business in this discussion at all. I don't care about your preference, that's your own bad taste but you certainly had to hear a difference.

Agreed. It wasn't measurements and blind testing that revealed a $2000 amplifier can perform as well or better than a $100,000 amp. That's only news for people who care about reading measurements and not actually listening to music.

Any subjective and honest listening confirms price has no bearing on which someone may prefer.