Most experienced audiophiles wouldn't be so presumtious as to state, as has been in this thread, that several highly regarded products sound "horrible" without providing more detailed information before making such bold statements. Overpriced, poor value, overated IMO is a better choice of wording when making general comments, IMHO. Poor system matching, taste, musical preference, personal bias and other issues are usually at play when folks make such comments especially when I personally know some of the said products are considerably better than "horrible". What a useless adjective in this discussion.
Having said that I agree with the camp that there are numerous poor value to performance products. Also "bad sounding" is relative. I firmly believe this hobby is as much about sound as reproducing music accurately and how one likes their music reproduced is just a matter of personal preference which is precisely why there are so many different flavors and directions to follow.
IMHO the "golden age" for high end audio is today, not 20 or 30 years ago as suggested. There are many more options for folks today than ever. The "good ole days" always seem better in retrospect than they were in reality, more nostalgia for a period closer to our youth. However there are a few "classics" that will always be highly regarded. Today component parts are better, new composite materials for speaker cabinets are more numerous as are overall choices. The only area that probably isn't as good is the quality of vacuum tubes today compared to the "golden age" of RCA, Tung Sol, Mullard, Telefunken and the like. They surely were manufactured to a higher quality standard than today where their manufacture is limited and there is greater variance in electrical characteristics. At least that I can say with some certainty based on my experience.
