An interesting shift of perspective

As a devout member of a Rush forum, I sometimes refer to my system apropos of a conversation thread or whatnot. However, most members have no clue about any of the components I mention. I chanced upon this thread the other day which should be a clear reminder of how the vast majority of the tech competent world sees audiophilia:
Pre-amps from $15 to $350? $350 for the audiophile stuff. Am I going about this the wrong way?
No, you're not. "Audiophile" is a relative term, I guess. Much like "good music".
Is that a tube "rush" forum?
Could it be possible that very few of an intellectual bent hang out on Rush Forums?
Simao might be the only one.
Actually, no. Most Rush fans who are on forums tend to be highly educated, mostly in tech and science and teaching fields. They tend to be 35-50 with outliers on either side of the range.

However, I think that forum thread goes to show that even serious music fans aren't part of audiophilia as much as we are. Just like the vast majority of the rest of the listening population who are comfortable and impressed with Bose and Beats by Dre.
The reason why they don't know anything about high end audio is simple. They were never exposed to it. Very few people know high end audio even exists. And to be honest, its mostly the industries own fault that few people know quality audio. Unlike other segments of the digital entertainment industry (video, computers, game systems, cameras),digital audio is marketed on features, not quality. For example, people went from VHS to DVD for better picture quality. DVD to BR, better picture quality. Not so with audio. People went from CD's to iPods. Why? Because you can put thousands of mp3's on it. You can also put lossless music files on it, but that was never mentioned in any of the marketing. Its no wonder why most people have no clue. The music and consumer electronics industries failed to market they're products properly.

For an even better example, look at what Sony did with SACD. They could make them 2 ways. Just a SACD layer or 2 layers, SACD and CD. Why on earth would the format have a single layer option? If all the SACD's were dual layer, the music industry would have consumers building they're DSD collections, whether they knew it, or not. At some point, the average person may somehow learn what SACD is, check their collection, and figure out that they already have a whole bunch of these things. Given that, it may be motivation needed to buy an SACD player, since they already have the disks.

So, back to the OP's observations on the Rush forum. I'm a Rush fan and listen to them on occasion. Some of their recordings sound pretty good, and some sound like crap. I tried to lend some non audiophile friends of mine a few Rush albums, but couldn't make it happen because my Rush disks are all single layer SACD's. They had no way to play them.
Simao, science and tech is training , not education.
"Simao, science and tech ARE training, not education."

There; corrected.

Respectfully and vehemently disagree.