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.

"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.

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

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

"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.

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.

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.

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

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

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