> [People today] CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AUDIO AND BAD AUDIO . . . THEY CARE ABOUT THAT DIFFERENCE, AND THEY ARE WILLING TO GO TO SOME TROUBLE AND EXPENSE TO HAVE HIGH QUALITY 'PORTABLE AUDIO' TO USE AS 'WALLPAPER FOR THEIR LIFESTYLE'.
Given the way modern audiophiles have bitched and moaned about the sound quality of CD vs LP, the "loudness wars" in the mixing of pop music, the number of people who will happily listen to all their music on shitty laptop speakers, and the dominance of lossy compression… this part makes me want to reach back into 1983 and give Frank the patronizing pat on the head that you give to a small child who has said something wildly optimistic and out of touch with the real world.
(Also see "hardcore dubstep connoisseurs bagging on Skrillex for making a version that can be heard on crappy gear".)
Things have changed since 1983. Back then people did know the difference. It was stilll an analog world and only the very beginning of digital recording.
People today _don't_ know the difference because the first thing they hear is lossy, loud digital, not acetate, vinyl or cassette. But if they were raised on analog, you can bet they would hear the difference.
Yes, this is partially my point. IF ONLY YOU KNEW, FRANK. Isn't he so cute thinking that high-quality reproduction will be a thing the average consumer will be clamoring for in the future?
Given the way modern audiophiles have bitched and moaned about the sound quality of CD vs LP, the "loudness wars" in the mixing of pop music, the number of people who will happily listen to all their music on shitty laptop speakers, and the dominance of lossy compression… this part makes me want to reach back into 1983 and give Frank the patronizing pat on the head that you give to a small child who has said something wildly optimistic and out of touch with the real world.
(Also see "hardcore dubstep connoisseurs bagging on Skrillex for making a version that can be heard on crappy gear".)