High Definition Audio.
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Sales didn't take off until portables were available

Sales took off immediately. Portables were not available immediately.

I can only give my impression of what happened in the UK.

--
*Why can't women put on mascara with their mouth closed?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

High Definition Audio.
 

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
I don't think people are that bothered about sound quality on the
whole.

Oh c'mon. The fact they were said to be near indestructible was a big
selling point.

Exactly - that's part of convenience rather than sound quality.
Treatment that would ruin an LP won't damage a CD. You can let a four-
year-old use an expensive CD player.

Why did you snip the crackles and pops bit? That was perhaps the biggest
selling point to many. Even brand new vinyl often had a few. And it only
ever got worse.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

High Definition Audio.
 

In article , Phil Allison
scribeth thus

"MiNe 109"
D.M. Procida

Oh c'mon. The fact they were said to be near indestructible was a big
selling point. Very few liked the cracks and pops off vinyl.

When they first arrived, there were no portables or car units, so they
replaced the record deck in a Hi-Fi installation - so physical
convenience
wasn't much of an issue.

Sales didn't take off until portables were available and lps disappeared
from store shelves.


** When the first CD players appeared in hi-fi stores in Sydney ( May
83) - there were * NO * discs available to play on them !! After a week,
a few CD titles turned up in an import record store. There were then only a
couple of CD pressing plants operating in the world and so all discs sold
here were imported.

The first CD players were very expensive, so the ONLY initial buyers were
folk with good hi-fi systems keen to try this new marvel. Within about a
year or so the number of CD titles available was in the thousands and
cheaper, more basic players began to appear.

My impression was that the record industry was *very keen* that CDs take
over for THEIR CONVENIENCE - as CD discs were cheap to make, took up
far less storage space, were cheaper to freight anywhere, had perfect
consistency sample to sample, were not easily damaged in transit nor subject
to problems like warping. The rate of customer returns of CDs was very low.
All this saved everyone involved lots of time and cost.

The appearance of hand held players had almost no effect on CD sales as
their numbers were relatively tiny - same goes for in-car CD players.

The eventual appearance of portable music centres incorporating CD players
made a big difference, by-passing the need to own a hi-fi system with
separate CD player. The first generation of these were also fitted with
cassette players and allowed copying of CDs to cassette. The previous
assumed link between CDs and genuine hi-fi sound was now broken which
finally made CDs into a mass market format.



..... Phil



Wow!, a post without all the abuse we've come to expect from down
under!..
..
.............See it can be done;)..
--
Tony Sayer

High Definition Audio.
 

Don Pearce wrote

In the past the classical listener was always the early
adopter,
driving the technology forwards. That situation existed
up to and
including the CD. But the classical listener is
generally a little
more intelligent and canny than other music followers,
and since the
trend moved away from increasing quality, he has refused
to follow.
The early adopters now are generally children listening
to highly
compressed pop.

In the past, developments in technology:

* were often big step changes
* required investment in new equipment
* came at a relatively slow pace


I think the point is more that in the past the
developments were
always towards better sound reproduction - eg 78 shellac
became 33
microgroove, which became stereo, which became CD. Along
the way there
was the compact cassette which was largely ignored by the
classical
audience because it was audibly worse than its peers.

At the time of its introduction into audio systems, the main
advantage of solid state was convenience, surely?

Generally, changes have offered greater convenience or new
features, with acceptable quality. Fidelity improves when a
technology achieves commodity status, when all examples
become equally convenient or have the same features. Then
sound quality on the one hand, and price on the other,
become the key areas of competition.

Maybe.

Ian

New developments:

* are typically more incremental
* require more minor investments in new hardware
* arrive thick and fast


Since the CD there has not been a single development that
has improved
the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the
classical listener.

No wonder they tend to be picked up by the kidz.


Well, if they are going to spell it with a z, they deserve
what they
get.

d

High Definition Audio.
 

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...


My impression was that the record industry was *very keen* that CDs take
over for THEIR CONVENIENCE - as CD discs were cheap to make, took up
far less storage space, were cheaper to freight anywhere, had perfect
consistency sample to sample, were not easily damaged in transit nor
subject to problems like warping. The rate of customer returns of CDs was
very low. All this saved everyone involved lots of time and cost.


Yes. That was exactly the reaction of the record companies.
Even though rejection rates during manufacture were high at the start
they had a product that was far easier and cheaper to manufacture
usign far less people, with extremely low levels of returns.

There was of course also the added attraction being able to
re-issue huge amounts of back-catalogue material for which
there would otherwise have been little demand.

It was forecaste that CD costs would "tumble" once manufacturing
glitches were sorted out. This happened very quickly, but
retail prices of CDs stayed high.

Iain

High Definition Audio.
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:30:50 -0000, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

At the time of its introduction into audio systems, the main
advantage of solid state was convenience, surely?

I didn't mention solid state because it didn't represent a change in
recorded medium - you could just change an amplifier without needing
to buy a whole new library.

Of course solid state had huge advantages over valves - no warm-up,
staggeringly better fidelity (once the first disastrous efforts were
abandoned), longer lifetime (I well remember trips to the radio shop
to test dodgy valves). Convenience came into it too, particularly for
portable applications - no more high and low tension batteries for the
radio.

Generally, changes have offered greater convenience or new
features, with acceptable quality. Fidelity improves when a
technology achieves commodity status, when all examples
become equally convenient or have the same features. Then
sound quality on the one hand, and price on the other,
become the key areas of competition.

Maybe.

Ian

Well, the changes I detailed were all fundamental, and all represented
a clear and audible progression in quality right up to the CD. For the
larger - less critical - part of the market, the decision appears to
have been made that CD is better than is required, and the preference
is coming down on the side of quantity and convenience in the form of
the MP3. But that part of the market that followed my first
progression up to CD as the early adopters is, I believe, largely
sticking with the CD and not downgrading to MP3.

There are definitely two (at least) entirely different markets at work
for music today.

d

High Definition Audio.
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,

Arny Krueger wrote:

Sales didn't take off until portables were available

Sales took off immediately. Portables were not available immediately.

I can only give my impression of what happened in the UK.

I don't see a lot of difference in terms of how rapidly CD took off, or the
availability of portables.

The players were very expensive, no matter where you bought them. I paid
$936 for my first one.

The UK was physically far closer to the European CD media plants - there was
initially no CD pressing plant in the US, so all discs were imports from
Europe or Japan.

Legend has it that LP's didn't die off as rapidly in the UK as in the US.

High Definition Audio.
 

In article 49916db9.489311531@localhost,
Don Pearce (Don Pearce) wrote:
Of course solid state had huge advantages over valves - no warm-up,
staggeringly better fidelity (once the first disastrous efforts were
abandoned), longer lifetime (I well remember trips to the radio shop
to test dodgy valves). Convenience came into it too, particularly for
portable applications - no more high and low tension batteries for the
radio.

Took 'them' some time, though.

At the time of the transition, the BBC designed most of its audio gear -
with the exception of LS power amps. And early BBC transistorized gear -
type C - wasn't a patch in performance to the older type B valve stuff. Of
course it allowed great space savings so more complication.

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

High Definition Audio.
 

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I don't think people are that bothered about sound quality on the
whole.

Oh c'mon. The fact they were said to be near indestructible was a big
selling point.

Durability was a selling point. Sound quality was the largest and most
important selling point. People were so desperate to shed the shackles of
analog that they were seriously considering using Video Discs, especially
once VDs started having PCM sound tracks.

Exactly - that's part of convenience rather than sound quality.

Nobody is saying that CDs *weren't* more convenient. It was a secondary
advantage.

Treatment that would ruin an LP won't damage a CD. You can let a four-
year-old use an expensive CD player.

When CD players cost like $1,000, and record stores had very few CD titles,
very few people letting their 4-year-olds use them.

High Definition Audio.
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:33:23 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article 49916db9.489311531@localhost,
Don Pearce (Don Pearce) wrote:
Of course solid state had huge advantages over valves - no warm-up,
staggeringly better fidelity (once the first disastrous efforts were
abandoned), longer lifetime (I well remember trips to the radio shop
to test dodgy valves). Convenience came into it too, particularly for
portable applications - no more high and low tension batteries for the
radio.

Took 'them' some time, though.

At the time of the transition, the BBC designed most of its audio gear -
with the exception of LS power amps. And early BBC transistorized gear -
type C - wasn't a patch in performance to the older type B valve stuff. Of
course it allowed great space savings so more complication.

You have summed up the problem with that word - transistorized. That
is exactly what they tried to do; design valve circuits using
transistors. So much of that early gear had driver transformers,
ultralinear output transformers and goodness only knows what other
horrors. It wasn't until people started to understand that you design
with transistors in a completely new way that things started getting
good.

d

High Definition Audio.
 

Ian Iveson" wrote in message
...

At the time of its introduction into audio systems, the main advantage of
solid state was convenience, surely?

Good question, because at the time of its introduction into audio systems,
SS wasn't all that convenient. The first SS power amps were fragile, and
some sounded bad all the time, others sounded bad with certain speakers.

Generally, changes have offered greater convenience or new features, with
acceptable quality.

No, better sound has always been the first priority for most audio
innovations. Sound quality in home systems as a rule improved steadily until
at least the mid-80s. Since then, most gains have related to video,
portability or over-all cost.

Recently, real gains have shifted to the area of convenient delivery of
recordings, audio or video.

Fidelity improves when a technology achieves commodity status, when all
examples become equally convenient or have the same features.

No, fidelity improves when a technology achieves commercial viability which
usually implies a large degree of practicality.

High Definition Audio.
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Eiron
wrote:


One annoying thing about MP3 is that files cannot be seamlessly linked.
As many of my albums do not have a period of silence between tracks I
prefer not to have one inserted by the player. The only solution I have
found so far is to copy a time range spanning the required multiple
tracks from the CD using Goldwave or similar.

I can't see any inherent reason why it is impossible for playing devices to
play sequential mp3 files with no gap. Presumably the problem is that none
of them bother to do so as the designers/programers presume 'tracks' and
'songs' not movements or sections from a longer work where they may be no
gap in the music.

Slainte,

Jim

The iPod can play with no gap.

High Definition Audio.
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
I don't think people are that bothered about sound quality on the
whole.

Oh c'mon. The fact they were said to be near indestructible was a big
selling point.

Exactly - that's part of convenience rather than sound quality.
Treatment that would ruin an LP won't damage a CD. You can let a four-
year-old use an expensive CD player.

Why did you snip the crackles and pops bit? That was perhaps the biggest
selling point to many. Even brand new vinyl often had a few. And it only
ever got worse.

Because the selling point you mentioned was their indestructability -
which obviously isn't why *brand new* vinyl has pops and crackles.

It's quite true that CD doesn't suffer from vinyl's pops and crackles,
and I'm pretty sure most people didn't actively like the latter.
However, I am far from convinced that they were that bothered about
them, or indeed about most sonic defects.

Daniele
--
Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance
to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world!

http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658

High Definition Audio.
 

Rob wrote:

I've never noticed this gap problem with iTunes. When 'loading up' a
music file or CD, it goes through a process, which is long the lines of
'looking for gapless recordings', that seems to leave the recording as
intended. Just like LP in fact :-)

Rob
Is this the difference between AAC and MP3, or something more clever? I
thought that the gaps were an inherent feature of the MP3, but sometimes
sidestepped by the player.
I usually work around this on my PC using media player by setting the
tracks to crossfade, with the overlap zero seconds.
My not-an-ipod mp3 portable still puts gaps in though.

Roger Thorpe

High Definition Audio.
 

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:40:06 GMT, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
[...]
In the past the classical listener was always the early adopter,
driving the technology forwards. That situation existed up to and
including the CD. But the classical listener is generally a little
more intelligent and canny than other music followers, and since the
trend moved away from increasing quality, he has refused to follow.
The early adopters now are generally children listening to highly
compressed pop.

Where on earth do you get hold of the notion that people (men?) who
listen to classical music are 'more intelligent and canny' than other
music genre followers?!

Rob


Because classical music is generally far more complex and demanding
than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it. As for canny - classical listeners are
in general older and thus much less prone to purchases based on
fashion and peer pressure. that is why they, in general, have not
followed the MP3 path to any great degree, and have stopped at the
audio pinnacle which is CD. I make no comment on your (men?)
insertion.

d

Where's your evidence of what 'is'?

You introduced gender contextualising your 'facts'.

Rob

High Definition Audio.
 

Roger Thorpe wrote:
Rob wrote:

I've never noticed this gap problem with iTunes. When 'loading up' a
music file or CD, it goes through a process, which is long the lines
of 'looking for gapless recordings', that seems to leave the recording
as intended. Just like LP in fact :-)

Rob
Is this the difference between AAC and MP3, or something more clever? I
thought that the gaps were an inherent feature of the MP3, but sometimes
sidestepped by the player.
I usually work around this on my PC using media player by setting the
tracks to crossfade, with the overlap zero seconds.
My not-an-ipod mp3 portable still puts gaps in though.


So long as iTunes can recognise the music (which it does most of the
time, be it AAC, mp3, whatever) it sorts out albums to provide a
seamless playback. I don't listen to much classical music - but on say
Abbey Road each track merges as it should, with no breaks. Same with
iPod Touch.

I've not done a forensic analysis of this - I'd suggest downloading
iTunes and give it a whirl?

I don't in fact like iTunes that much - it makes too many strange
decisions about cataloguing my disparate collection, and the interface
is a dog's dinner. It's typical Mac - you do it their way or it has a
tantrum. But do it their way and it almost always works properly. Try
the 'Genius' feature though - quite amusing for a while.

I used to use your method when burning CDs on a PC. Worked most of the
time, except on some - Dark Side of the Moon for example.

Rob

High Definition Audio.
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:00:33 GMT, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:40:06 GMT, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
[...]
In the past the classical listener was always the early adopter,
driving the technology forwards. That situation existed up to and
including the CD. But the classical listener is generally a little
more intelligent and canny than other music followers, and since the
trend moved away from increasing quality, he has refused to follow.
The early adopters now are generally children listening to highly
compressed pop.

Where on earth do you get hold of the notion that people (men?) who
listen to classical music are 'more intelligent and canny' than other
music genre followers?!

Rob


Because classical music is generally far more complex and demanding
than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it. As for canny - classical listeners are
in general older and thus much less prone to purchases based on
fashion and peer pressure. that is why they, in general, have not
followed the MP3 path to any great degree, and have stopped at the
audio pinnacle which is CD. I make no comment on your (men?)
insertion.

d

Where's your evidence of what 'is'?


See another recent post - or even just have a think about it yourself.
Some things really don't merit an argument.

You introduced gender contextualising your 'facts'.


No, I was using the non-gender-specific, generic he. I could hardly
say "it".

d

High Definition Audio.
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I don't think people are that bothered about sound quality on the
whole.

Oh c'mon. The fact they were said to be near indestructible was a big
selling point.

Durability was a selling point. Sound quality was the largest and most
important selling point. People were so desperate to shed the shackles of
analog that they were seriously considering using Video Discs, especially
once VDs started having PCM sound tracks.

Exactly - that's part of convenience rather than sound quality.

Nobody is saying that CDs *weren't* more convenient. It was a secondary
advantage.

Treatment that would ruin an LP won't damage a CD. You can let a four-
year-old use an expensive CD player.

When CD players cost like $1,000, and record stores had very few CD titles,
very few people letting their 4-year-olds use them.


1. Notions of durability. CD was heralded some time before its launch on
a BBC technology programme (Tomorrow's World), which involved smearing a
CD with muck, and then marvelling at how it still played after it was
cleaned. This was a direct comparison with LP. I seem to remember this
was quite a milestone. And yes, we didn't get out much.

2. Convenience/fad. This wasn't just about storage - quick track
selection, (later) remote controls, and random play. All high gadget
amusement factor.

3. Obsolescence. People were less likely to buy new music on LP because
of stories, which of course became true (self-fulfilling prophecy), that
it was a dead format.

4. Marketing. (1) and (2) featured large. In addition, notions of
'digital sound', 'pure sound', 'low distortion' and so on were banded about.

5. Sound. Few really knew what that 'digital' meant in terms of enjoying
listening to music. We were told it was better because it was digital,
and that really was an end to it. Of course, there were tangible
advantages, such as less crackle and pop, but quite how much this ever
got in the way of enjoying music was never made clear. And hindsight has
revealed that in many cases we were sold a pup - the digital
transcription was often a mess, and the scramble for 'remasters' had begun.

I think your version is skewed by your experience in the US. Perhaps you
were (are?) more into 'high fidelity'?

Rob

High Definition Audio.
 

"Rob" wrote in message
m...


Of course, there were tangible advantages, such as less crackle and pop,
but quite how much this ever got in the way of enjoying music was never
made clear.

Good heavens! Crackle and Pop (not forgetting all those clicks) are a
distraction from the music, how can they *not* get in the way of enjoying
the music?. As is that 'orrible HF distortion that vinyl is so prone to.

And hindsight has revealed that in many cases we were sold a pup - the
digital transcription was often a mess, and the scramble for 'remasters'
had begun.

With stuff that was recorded digitally "digital transcription" isn't an
issue. And whilst there certainly have been poor digital transcriptions of
older recordings, generally it's the modern "remasters" that sound dreadfull
because of the "loudness" obsession.


There's no contest IMO, CD wins by a mile.

David.

High Definition Audio.
 

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...

It's quite true that CD doesn't suffer from vinyl's pops and crackles,
and I'm pretty sure most people didn't actively like the latter.

You've got that right! Both coutns.

However, I am far from convinced that they were that bothered about
them,

You wouldn't be if you had been around in those days.

or indeed about most sonic defects.

Why do you think that? That people are tolerating the (relatively small)
audible flaws in MP3s proves nothing, because the flaws in legacy media (LP,
consumer analog tape) was far more audible.

High Definition Audio.
 

"Rob" wrote in message
m...

5. Sound. Few really knew what that 'digital' meant in terms of enjoying
listening to music.

Their own ears told the story when digital became readily available.

We were told it was better because it was digital, and that really was an
end to it.

People had previously been told that many other things were better such as
Dolby cassettes, but none were as much better, and none had as much staying
power. Just being told that something is better does not produce dramatic
long-term sales trends like the CD hs enjoyed. The failure of SCAD and DVD-A
are recent examples of that.

Of course, there were tangible advantages, such as less crackle and pop,
but quite how much this ever got in the way of enjoying music was never
made clear.

Those still-unsolved issues with the LP were clearly audible and very clear
to every music lover. There was a major market composed of record cleaners,
for example.

And hindsight has revealed that in many cases we were sold a pup - the
digital transcription was often a mess,

There were a few messy digital transcriptions, but the vast majority were
soncially advantageous, as the booming sales for CD versions of LP titles
clearly shows.

and the scramble for 'remasters' had begun.

CD versions of LPs had a massive market that lasted for a decade or more.
This was all about sound quality.

I think your version is skewed by your experience in the US. Perhaps you
were (are?) more into 'high fidelity'?

The fact that the LP market slid to less than 1% of the CD market was all
about sound quality. The fact that consumers rejected SACD and DVD-A which
had negligable sound quality advantages shows how sensitive they are to the
sound quality advantage of the CD over the LP and cassette, as a general
rule.

High Definition Audio.
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...

It's quite true that CD doesn't suffer from vinyl's pops and crackles,
and I'm pretty sure most people didn't actively like the latter.

You've got that right! Both coutns.

However, I am far from convinced that they were that bothered about
them,

You wouldn't be if you had been around in those days.

I was around. What's more, those days are still around, every time
someone plays an LP.

or indeed about most sonic defects.

Why do you think that? That people are tolerating the (relatively small)
audible flaws in MP3s proves nothing, because the flaws in legacy media (LP,
consumer analog tape) was far more audible.

I think it for the reasons I've already given: wherever you go, people
are listening to very badly-distorted sound, as they have done for
decades, without any sign that they notice a problem.

I don't actively enjoy vinyl's pops and crackles, but I don't mind them
that much. My brain seems to tune them out, unless they're very bad. The
same goes for tape hiss. I can hear it if I listen for it, but unless
it's excessive, it gets tuned out. In fact, the more I listen to the
music, the less I hear those defects.

On the other hand, I strongly dislike MP3s compression, and in
particular the way it can turn things like cymbals into an undefined
mmssssshhhhhh sound. And in the case of MP3, the more carefully I listen
the more I hear the distortion and the more it spoils the music.

Sonic defects that are laid over the sound (such as vinyl surface noise,
tape hiss) I find easy to ignore.

Those that distort the sounds themselves (MP3 compression, the glassy
distortion of a badly-tracked record) I find much more unpleasant, and I
remain bewildered at the boundless ability of other people to tolerate
them.

Daniele
--
Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance
to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world!

http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658

High Definition Audio.
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

The fact that consumers rejected SACD and DVD-A which had negligable sound
quality advantages shows how sensitive they are to the sound quality
advantage of the CD over the LP and cassette, as a general rule.

That's a complete non-sequitur. It actually made me laugh out loud.

You can't just make assert any old two factual claims and then join them
up with words like "because" or "it shows".

You need to join them up with reasoning and evidence, not by randomly
inserting the words that people who do have some kind of grasp of
logical form tend to use when asserting connections.

Daniele
--
Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance
to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world!

http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658

High Definition Audio.
 

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...

Because the selling point you mentioned was their indestructability -
which obviously isn't why *brand new* vinyl has pops and crackles.

It's quite true that CD doesn't suffer from vinyl's pops and crackles,
and I'm pretty sure most people didn't actively like the latter.
However, I am far from convinced that they were that bothered about
them, or indeed about most sonic defects.


This does seem to me to be a particularly pointless argument. Obviously
people differ in what matters to them. No doubt some switched to CD
primarily for reasons of convenience (though since CDs were twice the price
of equivalent LPs in the early years it was an expensive convenience) whilst
others did so primarily for reasons of sound quality. Who is to say how much
of each was important to what proportion of the buying public?, the data
simply doesn't exist. Some people will clearly put up with a good deal of
"snap, crackle and pop", whilst to me it was enough to stop me buying LPs
even before CDs became available.

David.

High Definition Audio.
 

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...


I don't actively enjoy vinyl's pops and crackles, but I don't mind them
that much. My brain seems to tune them out, unless they're very bad. The
same goes for tape hiss. I can hear it if I listen for it, but unless
it's excessive, it gets tuned out. In fact, the more I listen to the
music, the less I hear those defects.

and:

And in the case of MP3, the more carefully I listen
the more I hear the distortion and the more it spoils the music.

Indeed. The more you listen to the music the less you hear the defects, the
more carefully you listen to the distortion the more it spoils the music,
'twas always thus.


On the other hand, I strongly dislike MP3s compression, and in
particular the way it can turn things like cymbals into an undefined
mmssssshhhhhh sound.

Analogue tape does the same thing.

Sonic defects that are laid over the sound (such as vinyl surface noise,
tape hiss) I find easy to ignore.

Those that distort the sounds themselves (MP3 compression, the glassy
distortion of a badly-tracked record) I find much more unpleasant, and I
remain bewildered at the boundless ability of other people to tolerate
them.


There's a lot that bewilders me about other people's behaviour and beliefs.

David.

High Definition Audio.
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Rob wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
[...]

In the past the classical listener was always the early adopter,
driving the technology forwards. That situation existed up to and
including the CD. But the classical listener is generally a little
more intelligent and canny than other music followers, and since the
trend moved away from increasing quality, he has refused to follow.
The early adopters now are generally children listening to highly
compressed pop.


Where on earth do you get hold of the notion that people (men?) who
listen to classical music are 'more intelligent and canny' than other
music genre followers?!

Baroque and Renaissance music is the thing.
The 'dumbing down' started in the late eighteenth century. :-)


Excellent, Eiron, excellent:-)))

High Definition Audio.
 

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Arny Krueger
wrote:

That people are tolerating the (relatively small) audible flaws in
MP3s proves nothing, because the flaws in legacy media (LP, consumer
analog tape) was far more audible.

I have very limited experience of mp3 players but I have on occasion had
friend's players wired into my Hi-Fi. I have to say I found them
worryingly disappointing and obviously inferior to CD.

This may depend on what you use as an 'mp3 player' and the details of the
mp3 recordings being played. My introduction to using mp3 was the free
downloads the Concertegbouw made available last year. These were 384kbps
and can I play them using machines like the Rega Apollo. Doing this, they
sound fairly good. I also converted them to LPCM so I could easily make
tracks of the movements. I don't know I could tell them from a decent
commercial CDA.

However if I play some of the low rate net radio stations they do sound
poor, and even some at 256kbps show up audible problems.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

High Definition Audio.
 

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:18:20 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Arny Krueger
wrote:

That people are tolerating the (relatively small) audible flaws in
MP3s proves nothing, because the flaws in legacy media (LP, consumer
analog tape) was far more audible.

I have very limited experience of mp3 players but I have on occasion had
friend's players wired into my Hi-Fi. I have to say I found them
worryingly disappointing and obviously inferior to CD.

This may depend on what you use as an 'mp3 player' and the details of the
mp3 recordings being played. My introduction to using mp3 was the free
downloads the Concertegbouw made available last year. These were 384kbps
and can I play them using machines like the Rega Apollo. Doing this, they
sound fairly good. I also converted them to LPCM so I could easily make
tracks of the movements. I don't know I could tell them from a decent
commercial CDA.

However if I play some of the low rate net radio stations they do sound
poor, and even some at 256kbps show up audible problems.

Slainte,

Jim

Have you tried any of the AAC streams yet? They seem to survive even
very low bit rates. In particular I find the image is far steadier
than medium rate MP3.

d

High Definition Audio.
 

In article ,
Rob wrote:
5. Sound. Few really knew what that 'digital' meant in terms of enjoying
listening to music. We were told it was better because it was digital,
and that really was an end to it. Of course, there were tangible
advantages, such as less crackle and pop, but quite how much this ever
got in the way of enjoying music was never made clear. And hindsight has
revealed that in many cases we were sold a pup - the digital
transcription was often a mess, and the scramble for 'remasters' had
begun.

The joke is that any analogue master ever made could just be transcribed
straight to CD - very unlike making an LP. But the suits had an obsession
about hearing any tape hiss which often meant chopping the ends of tracks.
Pure madness.

However, I've never bought a CD which was also available at one time as an
LP and would describe it as a 'pup'. Indeed, quite the reverse. Plenty of
CDs from old analogue masters which were originally only sold on very poor
vinyl.

--
*The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

High Definition Audio.
 

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4992198a.402223734@localhost...

Because classical music is generally far more complex and demanding
than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it.

You can extrapolate this from just classical music to much "traditional"
music.

I suspect that the simplification is largely driven by the fact that
spending dedicated time just listening to music is becoming far less common
as other art forms have become more practical to enjoy.

In the days when traditional music was king, there was no TV, etc.

High Definition Audio.
 

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4993d29d.580677562@localhost...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:18:20 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf

Have you tried any of the AAC streams yet? They seem to survive even
very low bit rates. In particular I find the image is far steadier
than medium rate MP3.

AAC is far newer technology, and was designed for equal quality at half the
bitrate. I don't know that it is quite that good, but there are technical
reasons for it to be better, all other things being equal.

High Definition Audio.
 

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:

That people are tolerating the (relatively small) audible flaws in MP3s
proves nothing, because the flaws in legacy media (LP, consumer analog
tape) was far more audible.

I have very limited experience of mp3 players but I have on occasion had
friend's players wired into my Hi-Fi. I have to say I found them
worryingly disappointing and obviously inferior to CD. I'm very keen on
the solidity of the stereo image and for this alone I find LP
significantly better than mp3. Though as I say, I have limited experience
of mp3.

MP3 has been around so long, and has had so many implementations, that
unless you make the MP3s yourself, you may not have a clue as to whether it
was made with the latest-greatest technology, or 1996 technology, or
something in-between.

MP3 sound quality at a given bitrate generally improved tremendously from
1996 to 2005 or so. Only the decoder is standardized, so the encoder
technology may improve further even though the rate of improvement has
slowed. There are no doubt significant numbers of pre- 2000 MP3.s kicking
around.

High Definition Audio.
 

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:21:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4992198a.402223734@localhost...

Because classical music is generally far more complex and demanding
than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it.

You can extrapolate this from just classical music to much "traditional"
music.

I suspect that the simplification is largely driven by the fact that
spending dedicated time just listening to music is becoming far less common
as other art forms have become more practical to enjoy.

In the days when traditional music was king, there was no TV, etc.


I remember when just about every house had a piano. When 45 records
really took off they pretty much all appeared on the market
simultaneously. I bought a really good quality (like Bosendorfer
quality) upright for 5 pounds. Really wish I still had it - stuck with
a Yamaha now.

d

High Definition Audio.
 

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:24:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote in message news:4993d29d.580677562@localhost...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:18:20 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf

Have you tried any of the AAC streams yet? They seem to survive even
very low bit rates. In particular I find the image is far steadier
than medium rate MP3.

AAC is far newer technology, and was designed for equal quality at half the
bitrate. I don't know that it is quite that good, but there are technical
reasons for it to be better, all other things being equal.


What AAC does very well is provide perfectly passable quality at
stupidly low bit rates.

d

High Definition Audio.
 

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...

Arny Krueger wrote:

The fact that consumers rejected SACD and DVD-A which had negligable
sound
quality advantages shows how sensitive they are to the sound quality
advantage of the CD over the LP and cassette, as a general rule.

That's a complete non-sequitur.

Only as you edited it.

It actually made me laugh out loud

Hyenas are also said to laugh.

You can't just make assert any old two factual claims and then join them
up with words like "because" or "it shows".


Let's see if I can break it down for you:

The hypothesis is that consumers tend to make purchase decisions based on
reproduction quality. When reproduction quality significantly improves they
tend to purchase products that incorporate the improvement. When
reproduction quality stays about the same, they may still be attracted by
other advantages such as convenience. Products with signficantly poorer
reprodution quality will lose market and usage share, even if they are
cheaper, even if they are already owned, even if more familiar, even if they
are easier to find to purchase, and even if the new product requires a new,
more expensive player.

According to the hypothesis, the SACD and DVD-A which offered no
significant sound quality advantage can be reasonably expected to fail in
the marketplace. They did.

According to the hypothesis, the CD which offered a very significant sound
quality advantage over the LP and cassette can be reasonably expected to
succeed in the marketplace. It did.

According to the hypothesis, the video DVD which offered a significant
sound and picture quality advantage over the VHS tape, could be reasonably
expected to succeed in the marketplace. It did.

High Definition Audio.
 

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4994fdd3.591739125@localhost...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:21:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4992198a.402223734@localhost...

Because classical music is generally far more complex and demanding
than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it.

You can extrapolate this from just classical music to much "traditional"
music.

I suspect that the simplification is largely driven by the fact that
spending dedicated time just listening to music is becoming far less
common
as other art forms have become more practical to enjoy.

In the days when traditional music was king, there was no TV, etc.

I remember when just about every house had a piano.

Or an organ or some other solo musical instrument.

Before TVs.

When 45 records
really took off they pretty much all appeared on the market
simultaneously.

Didn't happen that way in the US. One relevant fact may that US homes tend
to be more accommodating of large instruments like pianos.

I bought a really good quality (like Bosendorfer
quality) upright for 5 pounds. Really wish I still had it - stuck with a
Yamaha now.

Acoustic piano sales have declined sharply in the US, but it seems like this
was a strong trend only in the past decade or so. I notice that more piano
stores have been going out of business lately. Before that it was a slow
trend, and new piano stores even opened up in the past 20 years.

Acoustic pianos were *sold* in many cases when the kids wanted to learn to
play piano at school and the school had acoustic pianos.

Guitars and turntables got hip, and the schools now pretty much use
electronic keyboards.

High Definition Audio.
 

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4995fe78.591905000@localhost...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:24:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote in message news:4993d29d.580677562@localhost...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:18:20 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf

Have you tried any of the AAC streams yet? They seem to survive even
very low bit rates. In particular I find the image is far steadier
than medium rate MP3.

AAC is far newer technology, and was designed for equal quality at half
the
bitrate. I don't know that it is quite that good, but there are technical
reasons for it to be better, all other things being equal.

What AAC does very well is provide perfectly passable quality at
stupidly low bit rates.

Agreed. WMA also.

If you tune it well, MP3 can do surprisingly well at very low bit rates -
force mono and a low bandpass.

High Definition Audio.
 

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:54:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote in message news:4994fdd3.591739125@localhost...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:21:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4992198a.402223734@localhost...

Because classical music is generally far more complex and demanding
than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it.

You can extrapolate this from just classical music to much "traditional"
music.

I suspect that the simplification is largely driven by the fact that
spending dedicated time just listening to music is becoming far less
common
as other art forms have become more practical to enjoy.

In the days when traditional music was king, there was no TV, etc.

I remember when just about every house had a piano.

Or an organ or some other solo musical instrument.

Before TVs.

When 45 records
really took off they pretty much all appeared on the market
simultaneously.

Didn't happen that way in the US. One relevant fact may that US homes tend
to be more accommodating of large instruments like pianos.

I bought a really good quality (like Bosendorfer
quality) upright for 5 pounds. Really wish I still had it - stuck with a
Yamaha now.

Acoustic piano sales have declined sharply in the US, but it seems like this
was a strong trend only in the past decade or so. I notice that more piano
stores have been going out of business lately. Before that it was a slow
trend, and new piano stores even opened up in the past 20 years.

Acoustic pianos were *sold* in many cases when the kids wanted to learn to
play piano at school and the school had acoustic pianos.

Guitars and turntables got hip, and the schools now pretty much use
electronic keyboards.


Things have changed - my school had four Steinways (model D, I think).
I believe it still has one for the assembly hall, but everything else
is electronic.

d

High Definition Audio.
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

The hypothesis is

[actually it wasn't - you originally said something somewhat different,
but never mind, we'll go with this, vague and woolly ("tend to") as it
is]

that consumers tend to make purchase decisions based on
reproduction quality.

.... and then you provide some corroborating examples. That's great. But
you can't prove a hypothesis with corroborating examples, no matter how
many you have.

However, you can falsify a hypothesis with just one counter-example.

Here's a counter-example: the CD is losing out to poorer-quality
compressed digital audio formats.

I think that:

(1) consumers value convenience above sound quality, to the extent
that only if a new format offers significantly greater
convenience can it succeed an older one

and:

(2) it is false that a new format must be of higher quality to
succeed an existing one

A single confirmatory example of (2), in other words of the claim "a new
format can squeeze out an existing one of higher quality" serves to
disprove your hypothesis.

I can't think of a single counter-example to (1).

I think that's all I have to say about this.

Daniele
--
Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance
to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world!

http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658

High Definition Audio.
 

D.M. Procida wrote:

I think that's all I have to say about this.

Daniele

I'm glad about that, because what I came here for was opinions rather
than rigorous logical arguments. I've seen the way they go on usenet too
many times.
It doesn't matter that you disagree, we'll all be able to make our minds
up where our own opinions lie, and frankly I do value both yours and
Arny's. I think that we can tolerate a bit of ambivalence about this ..
or maybe I don't.


Roger Thorpe