First of all, although I part ways with the author numerous times, there is real content here. Those who responded specifically on issues of audio quality either didn’t read carefully enough, didn’t understand it or chose to respond with issues of your own agenda. That is fine. This is a social site and we all want to have our voices and concerns heard.
This misunderstanding also is true for those digital defenders who jumped into a discussion of quality digital reproduction. If you did that, you were not paying sufficient attention. The author states he is speaking of the paradigmatic content in which each format is played. We audiophiles are a strange minority and little about our musical reproduction proclivities is paradigmatic of anything. It is 100% unarguable that most listeners of digital music use compressed media and often as background. That may well change but for now it remains true.
The paradigm of each reproduction format shapes the aesthetic experience of the music for most who participate in that format. Does anyone here doibt that? Why?
This misunderstanding also is true for those digital defenders who jumped into a discussion of quality digital reproduction. If you did that, you were not paying sufficient attention. The author states he is speaking of the paradigmatic content in which each format is played. We audiophiles are a strange minority and little about our musical reproduction proclivities is paradigmatic of anything. It is 100% unarguable that most listeners of digital music use compressed media and often as background. That may well change but for now it remains true.
The paradigm of each reproduction format shapes the aesthetic experience of the music for most who participate in that format. Does anyone here doibt that? Why?