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

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.

Since you do exactly the same thing below, your discussion of proof is just
so much wind.

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

Depends on the relevance and quality of the counter example.

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

I think that:

IOW, no supporting evience - just another hypothesis.

(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

Already proven false by a well-known example:

The Stereo LP offered less convenience than the Mono LP, yet it displaced
it.

Stereo LPs were less convenient than mono LPs because they required
significant equipment upgrades to play without being damaged, required far
more expensive equipment to play (2 amps and 2 speakers), were initially in
short supply, and were always far more susceptible to noise because they
used vertical recording. They were generally more costly.

The only advantage of the Stereo LP over the Mono LP was that it offered
improved sound quality,

Yet, the stereo LP essentually completely displaced the mono LP, even when
retailers stocked both or had larger stocks of mono LPs.

"Roger Thorpe" wrote in message
...
D.M. Procida wrote:

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


I'm glad about that, because what I came here for was opinions rather than
rigorous logical arguments.

Interesting that Danielle said this while posting one of the most easily
falsified hypothesis I've ever seen on an audio group!

Namely:

"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"

This hypothesis was disproven by the fact that the Stereo LP nearly totally
displaced the Mono LP. The stereo LP offered nothing but improved sound
quality and inconvenience as compared to the Mono LP.

Therefore the Stereo LP shows that consumers will prefer a format that has
no advantages other than improved sound quality, even if it has a host of
other inconveniences.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...

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.

Since you do exactly the same thing below, your discussion of proof is just
so much wind.

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

Depends on the relevance and quality of the counter example.

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

I think that:

IOW, no supporting evience - just another hypothesis.

(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

Already proven false by a well-known example:

The Stereo LP offered less convenience than the Mono LP, yet it displaced
it.

Stereo LPs were less convenient than mono LPs because they required
significant equipment upgrades to play without being damaged, required far
more expensive equipment to play (2 amps and 2 speakers), were initially in
short supply, and were always far more susceptible to noise because they
used vertical recording. They were generally more costly.

The only advantage of the Stereo LP over the Mono LP was that it offered
improved sound quality,

Yet, the stereo LP essentually completely displaced the mono LP, even when
retailers stocked both or had larger stocks of mono LPs.


That's quite interesting; hadn't thought of it. However(!) wasn't it the
case that music, and new music in particular, was *only* released in
stereo after a while. Therefore, if you wanted to listen to it in
stereo, you simply had to invest in new machinery.

Incidentally, a 'proper' jazz musician friend of mine simply won't
listen to music in stereo. He was most put out that he couldn't buy a
single speaker when his old one broke. So, I suppose, stereo wasn't
necessarily a step up in sound quality

I'm afraid I'm not old enough to remember in detail - ISTR that we
played our xmas stereo records on a mono 50s Decca with a ceramic
cartridge (I don't know if was stereo or mono). We certainly didn't
'upgrade' until about 1975. And that had nothing to do with sound
quality. The Decca broke.

Rob

"Rob" wrote in message
om...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...

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.

Since you do exactly the same thing below, your discussion of proof is
just so much wind.

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

Depends on the relevance and quality of the counter example.

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

I think that:

IOW, no supporting evidence - just another hypothesis.

(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

Already proven false by a well-known example:

The Stereo LP offered less convenience than the Mono LP, yet it displaced
it.

Stereo LPs were less convenient than mono LPs because they required
significant equipment upgrades to play without being damaged, required
far more expensive equipment to play (2 amps and 2 speakers), were
initially in short supply, and were always far more susceptible to noise
because they used vertical recording. They were generally more costly.

The only advantage of the Stereo LP over the Mono LP was that it offered
improved sound quality,

Yet, the stereo LP essentially completely displaced the mono LP, even
when retailers stocked both or had larger stocks of mono LPs.

That's quite interesting; hadn't thought of it.

I lived it! ;-)

However(!) wasn't it the case that music, and new music in particular, was
*only* released in stereo after a while.

Of course, but the period of overlap was several years, and by then the
market was basically stereo. There were a few oddities like hits by the
Beatles and Stones that were basically mono only.

There are always people who will whine about being forced to upgrade due to
the lack of availability of the old stuff. We hear the same thing about CDs,
and that was about 20 years later.

Therefore, if you wanted to listen to it in stereo, you simply had to
invest in new machinery.

Incidentally, a 'proper' jazz musician friend of mine simply won't listen
to music in stereo. He was most put out that he couldn't buy a single
speaker when his old one broke. So, I suppose, stereo wasn't necessarily a
step up in sound quality

There are always a few people who don't want to adapt to new technology.

I actually ran into someone back in the day who was some kind of an
audiophile but didn't want to upgrade to stereo, even several years later.
OTOH, we were selling equipment for upgrades to stereo like crazy.

So one guy who resisted to the bitter end as compared to 100's or 1000s who
simply kept up.

I'm afraid I'm not old enough to remember in detail - ISTR that we played
our xmas stereo records on a mono 50s Decca with a ceramic cartridge (I
don't know if was stereo or mono). We certainly didn't 'upgrade' until
about 1975. And that had nothing to do with sound quality. The Decca
broke.

I worked in an audio store about the same time as the upgrade happened. My
own family didn't even have a record player until I built my first stereo.

On 2009-02-09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
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?!

Given that pretty well all pop music is heavily processed *after* the
studio etc recording to make it sound as loud as possible - and this
apparently helps sales - it would be fair to say the average pop listener
has little interest in quality. Most classical music lovers would be
horrified if the same techniques were applied to that. And would return
the recording as unusable.

I speculate that the acceptability of processing may possibly be related
to whether the music has an "acoustic reference" or not.

I suspect that music of the classical, jazz, etc. type has a sound
that listeners recognize from live performance and it therefore sounds
unacceptably wrong if processed in any significant way. Other, largely
"electronic" genres (whether studio-only or live) has no such acoustic
reference and can be produced (or reproduced) in manipulated form without
causing such clear offence.

--
John Phillips

Don Pearce wrote:
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.


Well, they certainly merit discussion. I think your substantiated
thinking appears in another thread so I'll take a look.

You introduced gender contextualising your 'facts'.


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


It's now form to use 'she' in such contexts if you must. Unless you are
a classical listener who only reads the Daily Mail, ergo more
intelligent than younger non-classical listening people, and
unsusceptible to fashion and peer pressure. Bets anyone? ;-)

Rob

On 2009-02-12, Adrian C wrote:
John Phillips wrote:
I speculate that the acceptability of processing may possibly be related
to whether the music has an "acoustic reference" or not.

I suspect that music of the classical, jazz, etc. type has a sound
that listeners recognize from live performance and it therefore sounds
unacceptably wrong if processed in any significant way. Other, largely
"electronic" genres (whether studio-only or live) has no such acoustic
reference and can be produced (or reproduced) in manipulated form without
causing such clear offence.

You may have something in that, but really with all stuff intended for
chart play, forget the genre; doesn't matter ...

Yes. The genre actually doesn't matter. You have to postulate both the
existence of an "acoustic reference" and experience of it. Otherwise how
do you explain the listener figures for Classic FM (a station I cannot
bear because of its processing). A station for those who never listen
to live classical music?

--
John Phillips

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...

Yes. The genre actually doesn't matter. You have to postulate both the
existence of an "acoustic reference" and experience of it. Otherwise how
do you explain the listener figures for Classic FM (a station I cannot
bear because of its processing). A station for those who never listen
to live classical music?

A station once described by it's MD as a "pop" station that happens to play
classical music. Sums it up pretty well IMO. I can't listen to it either,
not only because of the processing, but because it only plays short
"classical pops" or the well-known bits out of longer works. Oh, and all
those ****** adverts!

David.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:52:44 GMT, Rob
wrote:

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


Well, they certainly merit discussion. I think your substantiated
thinking appears in another thread so I'll take a look.

You introduced gender contextualising your 'facts'.


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


It's now form to use 'she' in such contexts if you must. Unless you are
a classical listener who only reads the Daily Mail, ergo more
intelligent than younger non-classical listening people, and
unsusceptible to fashion and peer pressure. Bets anyone? ;-)


Apart from the Daily Mail bit, you have me.

d

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4994eeea.653458343@localhost...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:52:44 GMT, Rob
wrote:


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


It's now form to use 'she' in such contexts if you must.

Only when refering to God.

David.