"Keith G" wrote in message

I remember in 1968 or '69 an American girl landed in the
UK to accept a friend of mine's invitation to stay (they
had been on the same kibbutz in Israel) and she was
astounded to find that he didn't have a phone when she
tried to contact him!

Telephones are another modern convenience that were at or near the 90%
penetration level in the US since the 1950s. Automobiles are another modern
convenience that have enjoyed far greater market penetration in the US. I
believe that we've had more automobiles than people since no later than the
1970s.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Serge Auckland" wrote
in message
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Now this is interesting on the Beeb news web site. A
bunch of graphs showing gadget ownership. Phones, CD
players and video recorders have all peaked, and are on
their way down. DVDs and mobiles are just about
plateau-ing. Internet related stuff is still climbing.
For how long, I wonder? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12058944

Some of the charts reflect trends in Europe and the UK, but not in the
USA. Central heating and washing machines have been at the 90%+ level
since or before the 1950s in the US. Even people living at or below the
poverty level had them. I surprised by the difference when I lived in
Germany in the 1960s.

Any survey of this sort depends rather on what the
question is, and how it's answered. For example, the
decline in telephone availability is pointless.If almost
everyone has access to a mobile 'phone, then the need for
a fixed telephone, which is I presume what the question
asked, goes away. Ditto with the question of a video
recorder: If they mean tape based, then of course it is
in decline, but if they include hard-disc based PVRs,
then I suggest that the availability of video recording
will possibly be greater now than before.

DVRs are very common in cable boxes that are used in the US. I believe
that some US cable-TV networks don't even offer cable interfaces that lack
DVR features.

What's sad for me is the decline in CD players, because
these will not have been replaced with networked audio
players of the Sooloos or Squeezebox kind, but have been
largely replaced by portable players, of the iPod kind,
or on-line players of the Spotify kind, both playing
heavily data-compressed audio. Nevertheless, both at
least (especially Spotify) encourage listening to a wider
genre of music, so are helping to widen musical
appreciation, which has to be for the good.

The presumption that portable players are necessarily playing
lossy-compressed files is false. At least three lossless compression
formats are in wide use, and many players (even my tiny Sansa Clip)
support plain old .wav files. There is considerable evidence that
lossless-compressed audio files play with identical fidelity as
uncompressed files.

I would bet money that the VAST majority of iPods, Sansa Clips etc are
playing at whatever is the default bit rate for the device concerned. The
people I regularly come into contact with have generally no idea what
"bit-rate" means, or the difference between MP3, MP2, AAC, lossless data
reduction or WAV. As far as most people are concerned, they use the device
as it comes out of the box and NEVER reconfigure any of the settings.

Yes, those of us here and on similar fora may find this hard to believe, but
in my discussions with many music-literate people at our local radio
station, only a couple out of the staff of around 50 had any idea what I was
talking about. None of the others had any idea what bit rates were, why it
made a difference, and how to change their ripping setting so that they
didn't play low-rate MP3s to air.

I've no reason to doubt that a portable player can perform equally to a
fixed player provided the audio files are to a decent standard.
Unfortunately, the Great Public have no knowledge of or interest in
maintaining audio standards.

S.

"Serge Auckland" wrote
in message

I would bet money that the VAST majority of iPods, Sansa
Clips etc are playing at whatever is the default bit rate
for the device concerned.

None of them have a default bit rate. What they do is solely determined by
the music files they play,which are totally at the discretion of the user. I
believe that every device you specifically mentioned suports both lossy and
lossless files.

The people I regularly come
into contact with have generally no idea what "bit-rate"
means, or the difference between MP3, MP2, AAC, lossless
data reduction or WAV.

No argument from me about that!

As far as most people are
concerned, they use the device as it comes out of the box
and NEVER reconfigure any of the settings.

There are no settings to configure.

Yes, those of us here and on similar fora may find this
hard to believe, but in my discussions with many
music-literate people at our local radio station, only a
couple out of the staff of around 50 had any idea what I
was talking about. None of the others had any idea what
bit rates were, why it made a difference, and how to
change their ripping setting so that they didn't play
low-rate MP3s to air.

How the technological training of radio station staff has fallen!

I've no reason to doubt that a portable player can
perform equally to a fixed player provided the audio
files are to a decent standard.

As a rule these portable players are capable of sonic transparency, given
appropriate music files. Some have built-in frequency response variations
that can be removed, but the default is for specific variations to be in
place. Some may evidence frequency response variations when loaded with
common kinds of earphones and headphones. If you back out the default
response variations and load them with a resistive load, they are as a rule
very good.

Unfortunately, the Great
Public have no knowledge of or interest in maintaining
audio standards.

Agreed. However, the general run of settings they don't choose tend toward
higher average sound quality than they have ever enjoyed in the past.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Some of the charts reflect trends in Europe and the UK, but not in the
USA. Central heating and washing machines have been at the 90%+ level
since or before the 1950s in the US. Even people living at or below the
poverty level had them. I surprised by the difference when I lived in
Germany in the 1960s.

That has a lot to do with the after-effects of WW2. The US had built up huge
industrial production capacity during the war which could be easily turned
to manufacturing consumer goods after 1945. Much of Europe, though, had been
devastated by the war. The immediate post-war priority was rebuilding
housing and infrastructure.

DVRs are very common in cable boxes that are used in the US. I believe
that some US cable-TV networks don't even offer cable interfaces that lack
DVR features.


Similarly here. The Sky HD box is only available with DVR functionality, I
beleive the same is true for some cable STBs. For historical reasons cable
has never been significant in the UK, most people get their TV over the air,
either from a UHF aerial (Freeview) or a satellite dish (Sky or Freesat).

David.

On 23/12/2010 22:44, David Looser wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:31:38 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote:



I'm not sure I agree with that. A mobile phone is a personal phone, a
fixed-line phone belongs to a premises; though I grant that this
distinction
is more relevant to businesses. Also of course a fixed-line phone is much
cheaper to use, and isn't going to fail because the batteries have gone
flat
or there isn't a signal.

You obviously haven't looked at BTs prices recently. £13.29 P.M.
standing charge, 10.9p connection charge and 6.4p per minute daytime
calls. Most mobile contracts are much cheaper than that.

Oh no they aren't!


Well, they can be - PAYG for example. One of the costs that rarely gets
discussed is that to the caller. My brother doesn't have a landline
because 'it works out cheaper' . . .

Rob

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Serge Auckland" wrote
in message

I would bet money that the VAST majority of iPods, Sansa
Clips etc are playing at whatever is the default bit rate
for the device concerned.

None of them have a default bit rate. What they do is solely determined by
the music files they play,which are totally at the discretion of the user.
I believe that every device you specifically mentioned suports both lossy
and lossless files.

Of course the players will play anything, but the rippers/music managers
used to get the music into the device in the first place have a default
format, of bit rate and type. For example, iTunes has 128k AAC as the
default if you don't change it yourself. Of the others, 128kMP3 is pretty
typical.


The people I regularly come
into contact with have generally no idea what "bit-rate"
means, or the difference between MP3, MP2, AAC, lossless
data reduction or WAV.

No argument from me about that!

As far as most people are
concerned, they use the device as it comes out of the box
and NEVER reconfigure any of the settings.

There are no settings to configure.

Please see above. The player usually comes with a CD of ripping/management
software or referes the user to the appropriate web site.

Yes, those of us here and on similar fora may find this
hard to believe, but in my discussions with many
music-literate people at our local radio station, only a
couple out of the staff of around 50 had any idea what I
was talking about. None of the others had any idea what
bit rates were, why it made a difference, and how to
change their ripping setting so that they didn't play
low-rate MP3s to air.

How the technological training of radio station staff has fallen!

I'm not sure that it's changed a lot amongst on-air presenters, it was never
that great. What has changed is that Stations once employed several
Engineering staff that made sure what went to air was technically sound. In
the last 20 years, that's pretty much gone, and a group of stations may
share one "Engineer" who's main job is to solder plugs back on headphones.

I've no reason to doubt that a portable player can
perform equally to a fixed player provided the audio
files are to a decent standard.

As a rule these portable players are capable of sonic transparency, given
appropriate music files. Some have built-in frequency response variations
that can be removed, but the default is for specific variations to be in
place. Some may evidence frequency response variations when loaded with
common kinds of earphones and headphones. If you back out the default
response variations and load them with a resistive load, they are as a
rule very good.

Agreed. It's a sad fact of modern life that music players come set by
default with all sorts of undesireable "improvements" that are far best
disabled. An iPod is then a very high quality source. I'm amused by those
who say an iPod can't be HiFi, then use a valve amplifier.......



Unfortunately, the Great
Public have no knowledge of or interest in maintaining
audio standards.

Agreed. However, the general run of settings they don't choose tend
toward higher average sound quality than they have ever enjoyed in the
past.

Agreed again.

Season's greetings to you and yours.

S.

I don't think you can do it that way really. The essence of a gadget is not
just which label its listed under. There is now a fashion element to
gadgetry, ie you need the right make of gadget as well as more things that
it will do.
Where is the mobile phone toilet seat, or the lcd window that doubles as
a screen?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
Now this is interesting on the Beeb news web site. A bunch of graphs
showing gadget ownership. Phones, CD players and video recorders have
all peaked, and are on their way down. DVDs and mobiles are just about
plateau-ing. Internet related stuff is still climbing. For how long, I
wonder?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12058944

d

Well a lot of people have gone the surround sound home cinema route and the
dvd player ever so conveniently plays cds of course.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
Now this is interesting on the Beeb news web site. A bunch of graphs
showing gadget ownership. Phones, CD players and video recorders have
all peaked, and are on their way down. DVDs and mobiles are just about
plateau-ing. Internet related stuff is still climbing. For how long, I
wonder?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12058944

d

Any survey of this sort depends rather on what the question is, and how
it's
answered. For example, the decline in telephone availability is
pointless.If
almost everyone has access to a mobile 'phone, then the need for a fixed
telephone, which is I presume what the question asked, goes away. Ditto
with
the question of a video recorder: If they mean tape based, then of course
it
is in decline, but if they include hard-disc based PVRs, then I suggest
that
the availability of video recording will possibly be greater now than
before.

What's sad for me is the decline in CD players, because these will not
have
been replaced with networked audio players of the Sooloos or Squeezebox
kind, but have been largely replaced by portable players, of the iPod
kind,
or on-line players of the Spotify kind, both playing heavily
data-compressed
audio. Nevertheless, both at least (especially Spotify) encourage
listening
to a wider genre of music, so are helping to widen musical appreciation,
which has to be for the good.

One question not asked was the availability of a fixed installed HiFi
system, the sort of Must-Have of the 1970s, even if it was a Curry's rack
system. I wonder how many of today's households own such a thing compared
with, say, 1980 or 1990.

S.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Well a lot of people have gone the surround sound home cinema route and
the dvd player ever so conveniently plays cds of course.


A lot? not that many really.

David.

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"Bill Taylor" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:31:38 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote:



I'm not sure I agree with that. A mobile phone is a personal phone, a
fixed-line phone belongs to a premises; though I grant that this
distinction
is more relevant to businesses. Also of course a fixed-line phone is much
cheaper to use, and isn't going to fail because the batteries have gone
flat
or there isn't a signal.

You obviously haven't looked at BTs prices recently. £13.29 P.M.
standing charge, 10.9p connection charge and 6.4p per minute daytime
calls. Most mobile contracts are much cheaper than that.

Oh no they aren't!

David.



For some the overall package may well be cheaper .. can you explain why
my 28 YO daughter and all her mates despite being in permanent
residences don't have landline phones anymore?..

An extra 13 or 14 odd quid a month can bring you a lot of extra calling
time..

After you have the mobile which for most all young people these days is
a must have..
--
Tony Sayer