One of the most enduring advertisments for an audio product is Maxell's image of the seated listener with his hair blowing back in the wind created by the tape's alleged sound quality. Have any other marketing campaigns stuck with you?
Reader "Bob" says that he'd be very happy to pay for access to a complete Web-based version of <I>Stereophile</I>, and suspects other readers would too. Do you agree that this is a good idea?
You've decided to add a new piece of equipment to your system. Now begins the process of figuring out which make and model you want. How do you test products to make sure you get the right stuff?
So far, the audio quality of downloadable music has been almost as good as AM radio. How far does it have to go before you'll want to pay for a download?
Assume that digital audio streaming will reach or exceed CD quality, and that you'll be able to hear anything you want to hear, any time of day or night. What would such a service be worth to you?
In general, it's still true that you get what you pay for. But sometimes you don't . . . you get more. What audio product has surprised you with its return on investment?
The urge to upgrade audio components seems endemic to the condition of being an audiophile. Which of the following is usually your main reason for upgrading?
Using a digital code, or "watermark," has been proposed for SACD and DVD-Audio recordings to help control what consumers can and cannot do with the new discs. The downside is that some engineers feel that the watermark, though subtle, might be audible at times. Does this bother you?
The results from last week's Vote! indicate a clear distaste for watermarking as a means of preventing the pirating of recordings. But what do you suggest be done in its place?
With multichannel DVD-Audio and SACD discs close to reality, record companies can encode their discs in a variety of multichannel formats (see recent <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?849">Chesky interview</A>). Any preferences?