opaqueice;177639 Wrote: > Well, one can only take that attitude so far and still be considered an > audiophile! After all, in the 1920's people danced > to music played over victrolas and primitive (by our standards) radios, > but very few are satisfied with that sound quality now. So let's ask > this - in 100 years, will our current sound reproduction technology > sound as tinny and thin as a victrola does to us now? > > I doubt it - I think we are much closer to the goal, whatever it is, > and further progress will be less dramatic. But I could be wrong...
Erm... I take your point...I guess I'm less of an "audiophile" than a "music lover" - that's OK with me! I also agree with your "diminishing returns" conclusion. However, it's worth remembering that the Victorians had possibly the highest fidelity domestic music generating device ever - the player-piano! You can't argue with the "fidelity" of that...although I bet modern ones (like that Yamaha that costs £150,000) can be upgraded with room correction ;0) -- Phil Leigh ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32374
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
