"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote

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 :-(


I really don't see why - my views don't change...??




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?


Sure, these days 'quality' items tend to be the 'hand crafted' low
production run or even one-off stuff.

And before you pull your usual trick and translate/twist that into me
claiming *all* hand-made stuff is high quality or all mass-produced stuff is
not high quality let me say that I am well aware this is not the case.



(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.


I'm afraid you are the only one up a gum-tree he I never mentioned
'better fidelity' - you did, read it again!




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"


Streuth, work it out for yourself! The fact that so many people download
music (at CD prices?) demonstrates clearly that those people don't consider
it worth waiting for the physical CD. If the physical CD was worth it and
they *cared* they would buy the frigging CDs, wouldn't they?

Savvy? :-)



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.


Yep. I'll go along with that - thus what music is available nowadays is
(apparently) largely dictated by kids or kidults with iPods!

(Thank Gawd I've got me vinyl! :-)