wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...html?ref=busin
"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological. For
decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like a
new flat-screen TV today.
I sense a ton of confusion and maybe just as much if not more
sentimentality. Most ca. 1950 audio systems were pretty bad sounding by
modern standards. It took a ton of relatively large, intrusive, and
expensive hardware to deliver sound quality that could really be compared to
a good portable digital player and a nice pair of IEMs., or a quality but
still relatively small sub/sat speaker system.
Of course, hypercriticality of modern technology is very stylish in certain
circles.
During most of the 1950s just about everybody was limited to listening to
mono vinyl. While there are great-sounding recordings from that era, most
weren't (and still aren't) all that great. The good news is that many of
their problems can be circumvented with skilled remastering. But, even so...
But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com,
which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an object
of scorn.""
Stereos were an object of scorn most of my life! Stereos did become
mainstream from the Vietnam era until home theater succeeded it as the
mainstream. Maybe 25 years. Home audio without video is no longer SOTA.
In Fremer's case, I wonder if he is generalizing from his own experiences,
which must be unusual given his commitment (some might say obsession) with
audio.