"Keith G" wrote in message
...



'Commonplace' doesn't equate with *quality* - usually quite the reverse!

That comment shows that you are missing the point by miles! You were
talking about the *popularity* of vinyl and now, when I state that vinyl
is far less popular than CD or mp3 you start wittering on about quality.
Just try conceding a point when you lose, rather than try and pretend
that we were talking about something different. :-(


I think it's all in your head - when did I ever give you the impression
that I thought vinyl was currently popular with any more than a tiny
majority?

(I don't think you need anyone else present to have an argument, you seem
to be able to handle 'both sides' on your own! :-)

The problem with arguing anything with you Keith, is that you keep changing
your tack, it's like trying to hit a moving target :-(



BTW your statement "Commonplace' doesn't equate with *quality* - usually
quite the reverse" doesn't hold true these days. Automated mass
production not only produces items at low cost (thus allowing them to be
"commonplace") but also produces them at a consistent high quality.

Now you're the one *missing the point*....

Am I? can you explain what you think the point is?






(They are obviously not good enough to prevent people ditching them in
favour of downloads for the same sort of money! :-)

Nobody is ditching CDs in favour of downloads because they think
downloads have better fidelity,


Who TF said they were? There you go again with the 'makey up'....

Is that not what you said above? "(They are obviously not good enough to
prevent people ditching them in favour of downloads for the same sort of
money! :-)" Can you explain what you *did* mean if not what you appeared to
mean.


You know all this for certain? My original point remains: CDs are
obviously not good enough to prevent people jacking them in in favour of
downloads even when the downloads work out more expensive - apparently,
according to an ad I referenced recently!

Ah, maybe were are getting to the thinking behind your ramblings here. What,
*exactly* do you mean by "not good enough"? Since you said above that I was
making things up, when I assumed you meant their audio performance wasn't
good enough, it can't be that. So in what way *exactly* are you saying that
people don't think that CDs are "good enough"

You also seem to have missed the obvious with downloads: people download
because it is quick and convenient and they either don't perceive a drop
in 'digital sound quality' or don't care about it.

I didn't miss that point at all. CDs are actually unneccesarily good, in
terms of audio quality, for the mainstream domestic market. That market is
quite happy with mp3s.

David.