"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"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?

No it isn't. When talking about a "quality item" the word "high" is implied.
And I still entirely disagree with your premise that "high quality" items
"tend to be the 'hand crafted' low production run or even one-off stuff". In
the days before mass-production it might have been, it isn't now. One of the
effects of automated production lines is that mass-produced items can be
both cheap and high-quality at the same time. With technology products it's
hard, sometimes impossible, to achieve similar quality from a (far more
expensive) hand crafted item.

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.

The second statement follows from the first. Sorry you can't see that.


I doubt the iPod sounds better than the Dansette.

Have you ever heard an iPod played through a good audio system? I guess not
otherwise you'd never say a silly thing like that. The iPod is capable of
really excellent sound quality, depending, of course, on the bit rate of the
mp3s. But even with a low bit-rate mp3 it still sounds far better than a
Dansette.

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

True, but that wasn't the point.

David.