"CD-quality and better downloads." Hmmm...
Does the irony in this observation escape us?
CD was touted (granted, originally by its promoters, but then by every
lapdog newsstand paper and magazine, which is to say, all of them) as
"perfect". Now, we have "better"?
Shouldn't this revoltin' development give one pause?
Question: Who serves as arbiter of sound?
Who here, or anywhere, may say with assurance, "this", not "that"?
It's a problem that's been lingering for as long as there's been "fidelity"
(1925), or "high fidelity" (1933), or... or...
Ladies and Gentlemen --
Where are the Sound Standards located, by which one may evaluate new
contenders?
Where may one go to hear? To listen? To the best of the past and the best of
the present, reproduced at the pinnacle of current state of the art?
Nowhere!
That situation has bothered me for over twenty-five years, and from time to
time I shall sound forth on this topic on this list. But let it be noted,
that back in 1986 at the ARSC convention in San Francisco I did address the
topic, along with a panel of experts from my side of the river, albeit to
little lasting effect.
Still the judgement calls are made -- but who's on the bench? Or in the box?
clark