High Fidelity: Decades Of Decline

The general idea of the article is bunk, in my opinion.

At the low end - SQ has never been better for inexpensive and moderately priced audio. Decent equipment costs a fraction - in real terms - of what it cost years ago.

If we talk about better equipment and real high end (not including mp3 files): yes, the high end decades ago was very good. So was the equipment. The best recordings today and the best equipment is simply better. Period. This is especially apparent with classical, where there are still labels that record with care and get great sound.
Those great old time recordings, as good as they were, don’t have the frequency extension and clarity of good new recordings - nor do they have the dynamic range and punch. The older equipment generally also couldn’t produce the dynamics and true full range that equipment today does.
This is without mentioning that the really good stuff years ago was often the size of a car and couldn’t even fit into most living spaces.

1 Like

Typical one-sided story from a non-expert who is overly influenced by a singular point-of-view.

Yes, completely out of touch with reality. I also enjoy recordings from the 50ies and 60ies, but there would be little choice if I had to exclude everything newer!

Quite true! Not a balanced view at all. I wonder how many actually shares his views?