interesting...depending on how one measures, which is a BIG, multifaceted issue, many technologically-based commodities, cars, athletes, etc., are "better," at least with most more-or-less objective measurements (a term itself at issue), so it would seem odd that stereo equipment would not follow that same trajectory.
the only problem here is that there is poor correlation between available objective measurements and anything like consensus on performance because the experience of music is far more subjective than, say, whether a car at a given price point (accounting for inflation of course) has higher mpg, speed, longevity etc.
But what I think is even more interesting, though perhaps less relevant to stereo equipment, is that even when so called objective measures point to the future as always superior, this does not at all speak to what is the greater "achievement" (much less what one "should" expect of given time period), because then a whole new question of metrics and subjectivity arises, namely the one raised by having to compare the different contexts in which past versus present achievements were accomplished.
This is why it is not technically possible to objectively measure whether, say, Jim Brown was a greater running back than say Barry Sanders (or whoever surpassed Brown's yards total, sorry not a NFL guy anymore). It's not because we lack objective factors but because objectivity simply is not the issue. Not only must the contexts be compared in some way (which is very tricky since the scientific, economic, social, and other barriers are very different), but we also have to realize that the contexts really can't be compared abstractly and analytically, as two unrelated scientific items or objects, because the two are intimately connected through time and space, i.e., related in yet other larger contexts, e.g., the former in some sense paved the way for the latter, which makes the two achievements like comparing apples and organges because the latter achievement did not include whatever effort the former required to be a "way paver."
Curiously though, this lack of objective basis in no way obviates the importance of talking and arguing about it, since this uncovers more factors whose significance needs to be mutually determined. This process invariably involves values, which are culturally and historically determined.
So the question to me is even all the more intriguing than if it could be determined "objectively," however difficult that might be. I LIKE the subjectivity, I think it's not a limitation to be tolerated but far more useful and enriching than objective comparisons could ever be (even considering how important these are). The best speaker I ever owned was the Apogee Mini-Grand in the late 90s, but for me the greatest speaker achievement I personally judged through my own experience were the Fried Qs I bought for $50 each being driven by Mac MC-30s I bought for $75 each in the mid-seventies. My friends and I will never forget that sound, it is tattooed on the eardrums of our musical souls.
Sincerely sorry for waxing philosophical, simply could not resist...very good question indeed.
