new york times article about hi-fi

Interesting. Although most of the arguments against the poor quality of portable music has been addressed since 2003, which the article seems to be stuck in. Apple lossless and FLAC means you can have uncompressed music, and if you want that $10,000 speaker sound it is available (UE10 for example).

EVERY person I have talked to about headphones says "I can't hear the difference". I think it is a reaction to the classic audiophile snobbery ("I can't even begin to understand what audiophiles are talking about so I throw up my hands and give up") and I for one am glad to hear that high-end component sales have dropped so much lately.

yes, I also think that this article is mostly a rehash. sorry state of print journalism when the NYTimes just reprints what we've been reading elsewhere... I recall a thread here with the same quote this story ends with. really, the least they could have done is make some calls for fresh quotes... ah well...

I agree regarding journalism. I read a letter from the CEO of Amazon where he writes about reading the New York Times for free on the internet; the attitude of people like him and other leaders in the tech business seem to think a reporter does not deserve to be paid for their work, and any pay the DO get is a gift not a salary, which is patently illogical.

I'm glad these stories are getting picked up but am pessimistic as to the music industry actually doing anything about it. Think about all of the rattling car trunks, ibuds, and other mediocre equipment people love...yes, it's all about the listener but many of those folks have never heard something head-fiers consider "decent"...a lot of folks are interested in music (specifically digital) as more of a type of fashion so it's about having the ibuds or hottest song while it's new, rather than quality equipment that lasts and songs on a cd or decent format. I'd like to see a happy medium...wouldn't us all.

Interesting read. Thanks.

And yeah, x2 on Racer24. It's a shame.