Imported beer tastes better. Microbrews, as a rule, taste better. Yet Budweiser and Miller sell billions of bottles a year and it's not because they brainwash us by carpet-bombing advertising all over the place, but because millions and millions of people (yeah, I know!) like them.
The argument of hi-fi vs. lo-fi has been around for at least 25 years - really since CDs began replacing vinyl as the packaging of choice among consumers. And actually, there isn't an argument at all: hi-fi is better. Many DJs I've spoken to feel almost as if they've been railroaded into a vinyl-less world, and it's true - if you want to stay up on music these days, you're going to have to deal with MP3s even if you think they are (and they are!) clearly inferior.
Now we're starting to see a new phenomenon. People brought up listening to MP3s, whose primary stereo is an iPod and computer, actually prefer the sound of lo-fi over hi-fi... when they can even tell the difference. From PC World:
"I found not only that MP3s were not thought of as low quality, but over time there was a rise in preference for MP3s," said the Professor who suggests the digitising process leaves music with a 'sizzle' or a metallic sound.
As with a previous generation's debate over the pros and cons of vinyl and CD, the study suggests young ears at least prefer the tinnier and flatter sound of some digital music over CDs and vinyl.
Two years ago, Rolling Stone proclaimed the death of high fidelity, and it's pretty much true. Budweiser, pisswater that it is, is good enough for most, like it or not.
