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


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

Wrong! Those aren't "quality items" they are snob-appeal items.


All of them? You know this or are we just looking at another OSAF
here..??

Try learning what the word "quality" means. It does not mean
"hand-crafted",
"low production runs" or "one-off".


Okay, okay! What say we qualify the word 'quality' and make it 'high
quality' items tend to be the 'hand crafted' low production run or even
one-off stuff. Is that better?

One of your problems is you see one thing and think the reverse is being
implied. For instance, you see the phrase 'high quality items tend be
expensive' and, it seems to me, translate that as 'inexpensive items tend to
be poor quality' or somesuch. Until you curb that propensity there is always
going to be too much jumping to the wrong conclusions and misunderstandings
to make further debate worthwhile.




More guesswork. You are applying your own criteria to the music-buying
masses. One of the things that crops up frequently with vinyl noobies
coming away from MP3s is that they are tickled by being able to
physically
hold the *music* while in the same breath CDs are described as
'throwaways' - like being only a 'carrier' to get the music onto their
iPods or whatever.

Why not offer them shellac to hold rather than vinyl? More to hold, more
to store, even more outdated. Should make one of your "noobies"


*My* noobies?


even more
tickled. (better still a cylinder, now there's a *real* object!)


Or worry beads?



Hang on, above you said that even those who are "tickled" by being able to
hold an LP regard a CD as "throwaway", now you are saying that the idea
that people don't care about the CD as a physical object is just my
criteria.


OK, so you have something in common with serious vinyl enthusiasts! :-)

But you don't speak for ordinary CD buyers and those that like the CDs in
fancy fold-out boxes, with printed graphics, booklets &c.



And since we know that music buyers are deserting physical media for
downloads we can safely conclude that the majority of music buyers
actually want to buy music, not physical objects.


Yes, even the 'extras' mentioned above aren't enough to tempt them.

Worth remembering that not everyone wants to collect music per se - more
play it to death until the next new thing comes out. Much like it was with
45rpm pop singles 'back in the day'.

Which is just as well as all those gadgets with thousands of tracks stored
on them are going to go tits-up sooner or later (or get lost or stolen). Woe
betide he/she who has not backed up all their music!




An LPCM 44.1/16bit download *is* a CD as far as audio
quality and content are concerned.


In *your* opinion - probably nobody else's!

That's not my opinion, it's a fact. Did you not notice the phase "as far
as
audio quality and content are concerned"?


'Is equal to' (or similar) would have been a better phrase.



What's changed? The music that is available depends on what music gets
bought. In the past most record sales were to kids with Dansettes,
nowadays the kids have iPods (which, incidentally, deliver far better
audio quality than the Dansettes ever did).


I doubt that.

Which bit do you doubt? That most record sales are to young people with
low-quality players, or that the iPod delivers a far better audio quality
than a Dansette? Because again both are simply verifiable facts.


I doubt the iPod sounds better than the Dansette.

It certainly wouldn't be much good for playing my records, would it?

:-)