Reviewing the Reviewers - and the decline of HiFi

if hifi is in decline, it means that a quality audio system assembled today is inferior to some other quality audio system from years past. is there any evidence of this.

although i prefer my stacked esl-based syste from the 60's over any of today's systems (no digital then), i wouldn't assert that hifi is in decline, as there would be some system preferred by some audiophiles in comparison to the quad-based system.

so, i see no evidence in the decline of hifi.

i think the introduction of digital in the 80's, created problems, but , if your system is analog based, there should be no problem.

one could make the case that an audio system consisting of high quality analog tapes creates the highest quality of sound, in which case ,if you subscribe to such a hypothesis, one would need to acquire tapes and a tape deck to attain the best sound.

the point is speakers, amps, preamps, and cables are as good as those from the past, which isconsistent with my listening experiences. although i prefer stacked quad esls, it is a preference, and would not say definitively that the original quad is the best speaker ever made.

"(Again, please feel free to correct me)."

Who would be tempted to try! I enjoyed your most comprehensive input. It is refreshing to hear from someone with a broader knowledge and view of the subject as a whole to put things into a more balanced perspective.

"(Again, please feel free to correct me)."

Who would be tempted to try! I enjoyed and learned a thing or two from your most comprehensive input, a good thing. It is refreshing to hear from someone with a broader knowledge and insider view of the subject as a whole to put things into a more balanced perspective. So much for those VSPs, eh Nonoise?

First of all I am glad this thread has provoked a response. I very much agree with Robskers ideal.

I used Breitling as an example of luxury product, that to all intents and purposes is completely and utterly irrelevant to the end user, yet attracts a lot of money. Hifi, let alone the high end, is very much perceived, outside HiFi circles as utterly pointless. Yet we have a watch company that thrives and takes money from the type of people that can afford to buy, and ought to be attracted to hi-fi. I used the Breitling example having read an article at the back of HiFi News.

As to the demise of HiFi - let's face it - 'it's hifi but not as we know it'. You don't have the hifi stores packed to the rafters on Tottenham Court Road anymore. It does not attract the mainstream expenditure as a proportion of our income as it once did. In the past most people did not have a Sony Walkmen, and listened to music on a hifi at home. Now the truth is that the majority of people regrettably never listen to music other than through white ear buds, and the closest thing to bass is from their car boot.
HiFi has, by the year, and I've seen it in the last 10 years become more and more of a specialist and marginalised hobby made of small boutique brands. As this continues the products become more and more expensive. Take for example the Vendetta Research phono stage - it was a high end product, and can probably beat the vasst majority of todays phono stages. Index linked, whilst it will not be cheap, it certainly will not cost you the ridiculous sums that some top end phono stages do currently.
If you do pick up an older copy of HiFi News and read a review by MArtin Colloms for instance, he was not scared to be genuinely critical of a product, and likewise clearly explain his position. His magazine called HiFi Critic is much the same in that regard.
Manufacturers, understandably love what they make, but you can't send a product to a magazine, pay the magazine to review a product, and then also expect an uncritical review. It's a ludicrous set up. There is one on-line magazine that won't say boo to a goose, and says everything is the best thing the reviewer has ever heard.
A reviewers job is to provide a critique, a comparison, and relate it to the reader.
Some reviewers start of very well like Roy Gregory did in the early years of HiFi plus, but as time went on, he had to ward off and respond to several letters about his bias in favour of Audiofreaks imported items. Worse still in the reviewers system edition, I have a funny feeling that he had quite a few items from Audiofreaks in it. The list just keeps going on. Alvin Gold in the late 80's and early 90's was never scared of criticizing Linn products for instance - in particular the halo wearing LP12.
Compare this to Jeremy Clarkson and the Top Gear crew. They may well be 3 middle aged twits, but they can relate products/cars to the buying market. Likewise they have absolutely no fear in actually being openly critical of a product.
Hi-fi is slowly turning into a cottage industry, and this is due to the fact it is simply not attracting customers. Another thing - the 1970's was the 'Golden Age' of hifi - paradoxically it was the time when luxury watches were doing their worst ever as the cheap Timex LCD watches were the thing to buy. Fast forward to now...

Whilst your experience is doubtless courant, it is, nevertheless, descriptive of magazine and journalistic practices to run as a viable business. It explains to some degree why magazines publish what they do, and why - (I say to some degree, because I am sure that there are several other factors that would perhaps take too long to describe).
However, magazines have also been influential over time - such as the storage of vehicles post manufacture that Top Gear highlighted, or fashion magazines such as Vogue that have criticized working practices in clothes manufacture in the developing world.