Arny Krueger wrote:
"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...

Arny Krueger wrote:

The hypothesis is

[actually it wasn't - you originally said something somewhat different,
but never mind, we'll go with this, vague and woolly ("tend to") as it
is]

that consumers tend to make purchase decisions based on
reproduction quality.

... and then you provide some corroborating examples. That's great. But
you can't prove a hypothesis with corroborating examples, no matter how
many you have.

Since you do exactly the same thing below, your discussion of proof is just
so much wind.

However, you can falsify a hypothesis with just one counter-example.

Depends on the relevance and quality of the counter example.

Here's a counter-example: the CD is losing out to poorer-quality
compressed digital audio formats.

I think that:

IOW, no supporting evience - just another hypothesis.

(1) consumers value convenience above sound quality, to the extent
that only if a new format offers significantly greater
convenience can it succeed an older one

Already proven false by a well-known example:

The Stereo LP offered less convenience than the Mono LP, yet it displaced
it.

Stereo LPs were less convenient than mono LPs because they required
significant equipment upgrades to play without being damaged, required far
more expensive equipment to play (2 amps and 2 speakers), were initially in
short supply, and were always far more susceptible to noise because they
used vertical recording. They were generally more costly.

The only advantage of the Stereo LP over the Mono LP was that it offered
improved sound quality,

Yet, the stereo LP essentually completely displaced the mono LP, even when
retailers stocked both or had larger stocks of mono LPs.


That's quite interesting; hadn't thought of it. However(!) wasn't it the
case that music, and new music in particular, was *only* released in
stereo after a while. Therefore, if you wanted to listen to it in
stereo, you simply had to invest in new machinery.

Incidentally, a 'proper' jazz musician friend of mine simply won't
listen to music in stereo. He was most put out that he couldn't buy a
single speaker when his old one broke. So, I suppose, stereo wasn't
necessarily a step up in sound quality

I'm afraid I'm not old enough to remember in detail - ISTR that we
played our xmas stereo records on a mono 50s Decca with a ceramic
cartridge (I don't know if was stereo or mono). We certainly didn't
'upgrade' until about 1975. And that had nothing to do with sound
quality. The Decca broke.

Rob