Stereophile Article - Holt telling it like it is.

I just love it when a magazine editor bitches about what's going on in the marketplace. Magazines that write articles about audio gear, cars, wines, whatever, have a huge amount of power within their industry. People read them and buy accordingly. So to bitch about the market conditions is certainly complaining about themselves. Look at the value of using, "rated Class A by Stereophile", this still has huge marketing value today. If their readership is falling, I would say it is due to them not taking a stance on much of anything any more. People read these articles looking for guidance.
I agree with others that feel this a good time to be into audio. I love my Ipod when traveling and do not listen to it and think about how lame it is. Its certainly better than the portable music of yesterday. For stereo equipment, you can get incredible gear here on the 'Gon for a fraction of its original cost. Just last weekend, I listened to a friends system all bought used - B&W 801, Threshold, Oppo CD, total investment under $2K. It sounds terrific. Not as good as mine at $15K but really close.
Its true that the industry in the US has shrunk. Just like most US manufacturing has done. A great deal of this has to do with the expense of manufacturing in the US and the globilization of markets. This issue is much larger than audio.
As far as new generations being ambivalent to our hobby, what's new? People step into my wine cellar and say, "what are you doing to do with all this wine"? They shake their heads at my mono block amps and large speakers. High end audio has never been cool. But nobody complains when the corks pops of the music starts. Cheers all, Merry Christmas!

hi shadorne:

back in 1967 my stereo system consisted of 2 pair of stacked quads, 4 mono quad tube amps, a mac c22 a thorens turn table and ortofon cartridge. the total cost of the stereo system was less than $3000.

i dare say i have not heard a stereo system i have heard in the last 5 years that i prefer to what i owned in 1967.

at todays dollars, i suppose this stereo system might cost $30,000 plus today. it is to my ears a reference system which is unsurpassed. i suspect there are many other stereo systems that were configured during the 60's and 70's that are far superior to many of todays so-called high quality components.

I had a choke fit reading this quote from Mrtennis

"in my opinion the sound of the early 70's is superior to what is available today. back then, there were great electrostatic speakers, tube amps and preamps and no digital."

I really don't know what to say...... maybe just that no arguing will do any good.

$3000 in 1967 dollars is about $18,000 today. I don't have that much invested today.

Dave

hi muralman1:

i infer from your post that you disagree strongly with my opinion. it is my contention that most current production components are not very good.

if two stereo systems are assembled in the same room, namely the one i previously mentioned and any one of your choice. there is no doubt that i would prefer the vintage system, in a blindfold test. this does not mean either stereo is superior or inferior in an absolute sense, but, rather i prefer a more classic tube sound and quad 57 speakers, to anything currently available today.

one man's treasure may be another man's trash.

i respect modern designs. i just don't like them.

as you said, there is no arguing. there is listening and taste.