"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Keith G" wrote


OK, that's where we differ - maybe my kit wasn't up to
it (Cambridge Audio P50 amp; Philips GA202 deck with
Ortofon Gawd knows what; AR 4Xa speakers) but I never
had to return a disc, they were all fine - as are the
ones I am playing right now.


Correction: the deck was a Philips GA212

http://sebastian-scherf.homepage.t-o...s_ga_212_1.jpg


Very 'chick' - it had green illuminated non-moving 'lift'
buttons to set the speed and a rocker switch to raise and
lower the tonearm.

My recollection is that unlike the Lenco L-7x series, this was actually a
pretty good piece of kit.


I liked it at the time. The mystery is what happenened to all that kit - I
don't still have (by some decades) and yet I don't remember how (or when) I
got rid of it!

Wish I still had it!

"Keith G" wrote

I liked it at the time. The mystery is what happenened to all that kit - I
don't still have (by some decades) and yet I don't remember how (or when)
I got rid of it!

Wish I still had it!


It must be an age thing, I have no recollection of how I came by the Luxman
DD turntable that I currently use. It was stored in my loft for a while
before I started using it, but as to how it got there...? I can only assume
I saw it on sale somewhere at a price I couldn't resist.

David.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message

Make your mind up as to what point you are making. One minute you are
saying that people (nationality not stated) *were* gullible, but aren't
now.


Where am I saying that?

quote
They are not so gullible these days
unquote


I'm saying the (Rip Off) Brits are gullible - I don't know about the rest.
I do know they got their CDs (and petrol) a lot cheaper than we did.

It is easy to label people who buy things that we personally regard as poor
value for money as being "gullible". To me that would be those who buy Rolex
watches, or designer clothes, or expensive branded trainers. But those
people in the main buy those things because, to them, the price is
acceptable. It's not for me to criticise them for spending their own money
in the way they see fit.

Brits didn't get the choice of whether to buy CDs or petrol at American
prices, in the case of petrol we still don't. So the fact that an item may
be available cheaper elsewhere does NOT make someone gullible for buying it
at the price that it is available for *to them*

David.

In article ,
"Keith G" wrote:

Wait and see - the remasters and releases are coming thick and fast; there's
no price premium for BluRay rentals and BD players are dropping fast in
price. I predict they will kill the ordinary DVD off if the Internet doesn't
do it first - things are moving quickly in the audiovisual/entertainment
world nowadays!

The internet may help the BluRay: many new players have wifi enabling
streaming video from NetFlix, etc.

Stephen

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote


sneeyip


We've seen DVD audio and SACDs fall on their arse

The fall was expedited by the excellent performance of the audio CD.


I agree that for 'digital' a good CD is all I need, but there were a
number of factors that went into the early demise of the DVDA and SACDs:

Not so much "early demise" as failure to ever take off in the first place.

They were greedily/discouragingly priced to start with; they needed an
expensive player; they didn't sound *that much* better (if at all) on
'hifi' equipment and almost certainly wouldn't have done on 'domestic'
(electrical hardware shop) kit and the first available titles seemed to be
not much more than obscure 'samplers'. Factor in also that I asked about
SACDs in a well-know music store (can't remember its name for the life of
me - HMV, Huntingdon?) and the sales assistant didn't know what I was
talking about!!


I agree with that assesment. The public simply couldn't see the point of
DVD-A or SACD. CD was (and remains) more than good enough for 2-channel
domestic replay and was readily available at an acceptable price with a good
choice of material. What did DVD-A or SACD offer the public that CD didn't?
nothing that they wanted.



Wait and see - the remasters and releases are coming thick and fast;
there's no price premium for BluRay rentals and BD players are dropping
fast in price. I predict they will kill the ordinary DVD off if the
Internet doesn't do it first - things are moving quickly in the
audiovisual/entertainment world nowadays!

IMO Bluray was launched slighlty too soon, timing is important in
introducing new AV formats, do it too soon and the public are wary of yet
another new format whilst they still regard the format before as the "new"
one. Launch too late and someone else has introduced a new format of their
own and stolen the market.

Fortunately for Bluray the 'format battle' with DVD-HD held it up long
enough. By now DVD has been around long enough to no longer be "new" and VHS
has gone the way of obsolete formats.

I agree that Bluray will eventually displace DVD, but there's plenty of life
in the DVD yet. The backward compatability means that people can replace an
old DVD player with a BD one and still play their DVDs on it. This will help
get BD players out into homes, and then you can sell BDs even to those who
can't see the difference

(Thank Gawd for the radio and LPs! :-)

No, thank gawd for radio and CDs!


David.

"Keith G" wrote

The shortage of people/businesses prepared to lend a 30-40K turntable

Are you serious? 30-40K for a TURNTABLE? What planet do these people live
on?

David.

"Keith G" wrote




You need to realise that some people (includes me and my partner) don't
perceive that 'dramatic improvement' - quite the opposite. I suspect you
are one of those people who hover over the speakers and only hear the
surface noise from LPs...??


Had you omitted "quite the opposite" I'd have had no problem with that
statement. If people say that vinyl is good enough, that they either can't
hear the difference or don't care I can understand that. So as some people
like the physical presence of an LP, the big sleeve etc. and many also enjoy
the "retro" experience of rotating turntables and all the rest of business
that goes with playing vinyl I can see why some may prefer it. I've heard
some say that it's a nostalgia thing, that records from the 50s and 60s
*should* be played as they would have been when new, that the clicks and
pops are all part of the authentic experience, well fair enough.

But you said "quite the opposite", implying that, to you, CD sounds *worse*.
Now that I cannot understand. In what way, exactly, does CD sound worse?
I've told you what is better about it: no surface noise, no impulse noise,
dramatically less distortion of the sort which leads to a strained quality
on high-level high pitched sounds such as violins or female voices. So what,
exactly, is worse about the sound quality of a CD?

You accused me of "hovering over the speakers" to hear the improvement that
CD offers. Actually the improvement is clearly audible in normal listening,
but are you not "hovering over the speakers" to hear whatever it is about
the LP that you appear to like?

The bizarre thing IMO is that some audiophools will spend a fortune on an
ultra-expensive turntable with, presumably, the intention of minimising the
distortions that are the audible signature of vinyl. Why not simply get a CD
player and be done with them altogether?

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote

The shortage of people/businesses prepared to lend a 30-40K turntable

Are you serious? 30-40K for a TURNTABLE? What planet do these people live
on?


Greece:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs1aUws0Lrs


See the magnetically suspended platter at about 3:20

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote


sneeyip


We've seen DVD audio and SACDs fall on their arse

The fall was expedited by the excellent performance of the audio CD.


I agree that for 'digital' a good CD is all I need, but there were a
number of factors that went into the early demise of the DVDA and SACDs:

Not so much "early demise" as failure to ever take off in the first place.


Quite so - I don't think I ever saw any announcements or ads for either
format or, if I did, they didn't 'stick' with me!


I agree with that assesment. The public simply couldn't see the point of
DVD-A or SACD. CD was (and remains) more than good enough for 2-channel
domestic replay and was readily available at an acceptable price with a
good choice of material. What did DVD-A or SACD offer the public that CD
didn't? nothing that they wanted.


I think Joe Snot remained blissfully unaware of their existence: even the
tiny few that were on the shelves were dual format and would play in a CD
player..


IMO Bluray was launched slighlty too soon, timing is important in
introducing new AV formats, do it too soon and the public are wary of yet
another new format whilst they still regard the format before as the "new"
one. Launch too late and someone else has introduced a new format of their
own and stolen the market.


I think BluRay had enough advertising/promotion material on DVDs and TV to
absolutely ensure a decent take-up, especially when the remastering 'before
and after' clips were showed.


Fortunately for Bluray the 'format battle' with DVD-HD held it up long
enough. By now DVD has been around long enough to no longer be "new" and
VHS has gone the way of obsolete formats.


There is no doubt DVD did exactly the same thing as CD in the development of
things.



I agree that Bluray will eventually displace DVD, but there's plenty of
life in the DVD yet. The backward compatability means that people can
replace an old DVD player with a BD one and still play their DVDs on it.
This will help get BD players out into homes, and then you can sell BDs
even to those who can't see the difference


Yes, but I bet many more BDs will be rented rather than bought for a while
yet.

"Keith G" wrote in message


Yes, but I bet many more BDs will be rented rather than
bought for a while yet.

I think this is due to a change in how the market is working, not any
reflection on BD technical benefits.

While many DVDs look better than ever on my new 60" HD set, the slight extra
cost for BD as opposed to DVD was easy to swallow.

The ready availability of rental media ensured that in nearly 2 decades I
purchased only integer numbers of pre-recorded tapes and DVDs.

Netflix selection by web and delivery by mail or download only made my
non-purchase habits more complete.