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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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.

"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.