"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"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.


You are really stretching to make a point here, aren't you? No-one has said
inexpensive items can't be very good or good items can't be inexpensive, but
no-one 'normal' would regard an inexpensive (cheap) item as 'high quality'
(or high end?) irrespective of its performance, construction or appearance
and before you continue to try and 'educate' me in these matters be aware
that no-one is more appreciative of a value for money bargain than I am.

IOW, I've got some Sony here and there but I never dropped a wad for
'Naimed' stuff! ;-)



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.


But it doesn't! 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.


All far too subjective (Loosercentric) to have any real meaning, isn't it?

Anyway, that's yer lot - my (digital) projector's burning away...

;-)