On 21/02/2011 12:57, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
eb.com
On 20/02/2011 12:30, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith wrote in message


Forgive me if I disagree with you, but the tone of your
posts (even today) is very often one of 'laying down the
law' (or trying to) rather than reasoned debate.

Root cause, someone who is willfully ignorant of
commonly known and understand physical laws.


Go on, I'll bite :-)

Which physical laws of yours would these be?

I have no physical laws, but the universe and Science have done well with
theirs.


Ah but you do :-)

Which of the laws is he wilfuly ignorant of?

Rob

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:


Nobody is ditching CDs in favour of downloads because they think
downloads have better fidelity,

Well, it may be that *some* people are switching to downloads to get
96k/24bit (or similar) LPCM because they regard that as "better fidelity"
than CD. How often they would be right to think this is another matter...
:-)

And how many downloads are avaiable in LPCM at all, let alone 96k/24bit?

David.

"David Looser" wrote


But there were people fascinated by TV at the time, and indeed there are
people today fascinated by this formative period in the history of TV. My
point is that by the logic that has been used to claim "fashionabilty" for
vinyl pre-war TV should also be "fashionable".


No idea, but then I don't think vinyl is 'fashionable' anyway. There has to
be something about it though - Yell.com are showing a guy searching record
shops (real records - LPs) in an ad I saw only last night.

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...lldotcomad.mpg

??




What's far more important is 'are SET valve amps fashionable'...??

Nope.


Aw....

:-(


OK, you got me there! I cannot *prove* that to be the case. Put it like
this, I see people out and about with mp3 players all the time.


This is where we differ, I haven't seen very many at all: mobile phones
stuck to the side of their heads - yes!


You really don't get out much do you Keith!


Not at the moment.


Try opening your eyes next time
you are on a bus or train (or are you one of those who never goes anywhere
by public transport?)


'Fraid so - it's been years since I was on a train and decades since I was
on a bus! :-)


'Commonplace' doesn't equate with *quality* - usually quite the reverse!

That comment shows that you are missing the point by miles! You were
talking about the *popularity* of vinyl and now, when I state that vinyl
is far less popular than CD or mp3 you start wittering on about quality.
Just try conceding a point when you lose, rather than try and pretend that
we were talking about something different. :-(


I think it's all in your head - when did I ever give you the impression that
I thought vinyl was currently popular with any more than a tiny majority?

(I don't think you need anyone else present to have an argument, you seem to
be able to handle 'both sides' on your own! :-)



BTW your statement "Commonplace' doesn't equate with *quality* - usually
quite the reverse" doesn't hold true these days. Automated mass production
not only produces items at low cost (thus allowing them to be
"commonplace") but also produces them at a consistent high quality.



Now you're the one *missing the point*....


The only 'opposition' you get here is to your oft-stated views on CD.


That they are crap? (I've only said that once before - yesterday, I
think! :-)

Whether you've used that exact expression before or not, you've expressed
that view frequently, so please don't try playing games with words. I
cannot decide whether you do this sort of thing deliberately to avoid
having to concede a point, or whether you genuinely cannot follow
arguments further back than one post in a thread.


That might be the best thing you've said - I almost never backtrack to find
what has gone before and it's fairly obvious there are occasionally some
misunderstandings. Can't be helped.





But it isn't - it's CDs which are crap! ;-)

Very much a minority view.


Plummetting sales say different!

Again you are totally missing the point (you do it so well Keith, and so
often!) Sales are not plumetting because people think CDs are "crap", they
are plumeting because music is increasingly being downloaded (often at no
cost) and listened to from mp3 players etc.

(They are obviously not good enough to prevent people ditching them in
favour of downloads for the same sort of money! :-)

Nobody is ditching CDs in favour of downloads because they think downloads
have better fidelity,


Who TF said they were? There you go again with the 'makey up'....


they are doing it because downloads are quick, because
they can buy the tracks they want rather than having to buy a whole album.
And, since they are going to play the music from their mp3 player anyway,
there's not really much point in bothering with a physical object.


You know all this for certain? My original point remains: CDs are obviously
not good enough to prevent people jacking them in in favour of downloads
even when the downloads work out more expensive - apparently, according to
an ad I referenced recently! You also seem to have missed the obvious with
downloads: people download because it is quick and convenient and they
either don't perceive a drop in 'digital sound quality' or don't care about
it.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...



'Commonplace' doesn't equate with *quality* - usually quite the reverse!

That comment shows that you are missing the point by miles! You were
talking about the *popularity* of vinyl and now, when I state that vinyl
is far less popular than CD or mp3 you start wittering on about quality.
Just try conceding a point when you lose, rather than try and pretend
that we were talking about something different. :-(


I think it's all in your head - when did I ever give you the impression
that I thought vinyl was currently popular with any more than a tiny
majority?

(I don't think you need anyone else present to have an argument, you seem
to be able to handle 'both sides' on your own! :-)

The problem with arguing anything with you Keith, is that you keep changing
your tack, it's like trying to hit a moving target :-(



BTW your statement "Commonplace' doesn't equate with *quality* - usually
quite the reverse" doesn't hold true these days. Automated mass
production not only produces items at low cost (thus allowing them to be
"commonplace") but also produces them at a consistent high quality.

Now you're the one *missing the point*....

Am I? can you explain what you think the point is?






(They are obviously not good enough to prevent people ditching them in
favour of downloads for the same sort of money! :-)

Nobody is ditching CDs in favour of downloads because they think
downloads have better fidelity,


Who TF said they were? There you go again with the 'makey up'....

Is that not what you said above? "(They are obviously not good enough to
prevent people ditching them in favour of downloads for the same sort of
money! :-)" Can you explain what you *did* mean if not what you appeared to
mean.


You know all this for certain? My original point remains: CDs are
obviously not good enough to prevent people jacking them in in favour of
downloads even when the downloads work out more expensive - apparently,
according to an ad I referenced recently!

Ah, maybe were are getting to the thinking behind your ramblings here. What,
*exactly* do you mean by "not good enough"? Since you said above that I was
making things up, when I assumed you meant their audio performance wasn't
good enough, it can't be that. So in what way *exactly* are you saying that
people don't think that CDs are "good enough"

You also seem to have missed the obvious with downloads: people download
because it is quick and convenient and they either don't perceive a drop
in 'digital sound quality' or don't care about it.

I didn't miss that point at all. CDs are actually unneccesarily good, in
terms of audio quality, for the mainstream domestic market. That market is
quite happy with mp3s.

David.

In article , David Looser
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:


Nobody is ditching CDs in favour of downloads because they think
downloads have better fidelity,

Well, it may be that *some* people are switching to downloads to get
96k/24bit (or similar) LPCM because they regard that as "better
fidelity" than CD. How often they would be right to think this is
another matter...
:-)

And how many downloads are avaiable in LPCM at all, let alone 96k/24bit?

No idea. Clearly non-zero, though. Or is your objection that FLAC, for
example, isn't LPCM when downloaded?

Erm... How many people did you mean by "nobody"? Or was your real point
that no-one (you know of) is discarding any CDs once they have a downloaded
'high rez' sic LPCM version? You don't actually say which (or all) CDs
you mean.

Or were you simply assuming a 'download' meant a low-rate mp3, and
forgetting the existence of high rate/depth LPCM downloads? That was the
impression you comment gave to me.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

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

I think it's all in your head - when did I ever give you the impression
that I thought vinyl was currently popular with any more than a tiny
majority?

(I don't think you need anyone else present to have an argument, you seem
to be able to handle 'both sides' on your own! :-)

The problem with arguing anything with you Keith, is that you keep
changing your tack, it's like trying to hit a moving target :-(


I really don't see why - my views don't change...??




BTW your statement "Commonplace' doesn't equate with *quality* - usually
quite the reverse" doesn't hold true these days. Automated mass
production not only produces items at low cost (thus allowing them to be
"commonplace") but also produces them at a consistent high quality.

Now you're the one *missing the point*....

Am I? can you explain what you think the point is?


Sure, these days 'quality' items tend to be the 'hand crafted' low
production run or even one-off stuff.

And before you pull your usual trick and translate/twist that into me
claiming *all* hand-made stuff is high quality or all mass-produced stuff is
not high quality let me say that I am well aware this is not the case.



(They are obviously not good enough to prevent people ditching them in
favour of downloads for the same sort of money! :-)

Nobody is ditching CDs in favour of downloads because they think
downloads have better fidelity,


Who TF said they were? There you go again with the 'makey up'....

Is that not what you said above? "(They are obviously not good enough to
prevent people ditching them in favour of downloads for the same sort of
money! :-)" Can you explain what you *did* mean if not what you appeared
to mean.


I'm afraid you are the only one up a gum-tree he I never mentioned
'better fidelity' - you did, read it again!




You know all this for certain? My original point remains: CDs are
obviously not good enough to prevent people jacking them in in favour of
downloads even when the downloads work out more expensive - apparently,
according to an ad I referenced recently!

Ah, maybe were are getting to the thinking behind your ramblings here.
What, *exactly* do you mean by "not good enough"? Since you said above
that I was making things up, when I assumed you meant their audio
performance wasn't good enough, it can't be that. So in what way *exactly*
are you saying that people don't think that CDs are "good enough"


Streuth, work it out for yourself! The fact that so many people download
music (at CD prices?) demonstrates clearly that those people don't consider
it worth waiting for the physical CD. If the physical CD was worth it and
they *cared* they would buy the frigging CDs, wouldn't they?

Savvy? :-)



You also seem to have missed the obvious with downloads: people download
because it is quick and convenient and they either don't perceive a drop
in 'digital sound quality' or don't care about it.

I didn't miss that point at all. CDs are actually unneccesarily good, in
terms of audio quality, for the mainstream domestic market. That market is
quite happy with mp3s.


Yep. I'll go along with that - thus what music is available nowadays is
(apparently) largely dictated by kids or kidults with iPods!

(Thank Gawd I've got me vinyl! :-)

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

I really don't see why - my views don't change...??

No, your views don't change, but your debating points are as insubstantial
as quicksand.


BTW your statement "Commonplace' doesn't equate with *quality* -
usually quite the reverse" doesn't hold true these days. Automated mass
production not only produces items at low cost (thus allowing them to
be "commonplace") but also produces them at a consistent high quality.

Now you're the one *missing the point*....

Am I? can you explain what you think the point is?


Sure, these days 'quality' items tend to be the 'hand crafted' low
production run or even one-off stuff.

Wrong! Those aren't "quality items" they are snob-appeal items.



(They are obviously not good enough to prevent people ditching them in
favour of downloads for the same sort of money! :-)


I'm afraid you are the only one up a gum-tree he I never mentioned
'better fidelity' - you did, read it again!

I know you didn't, you said "good". but since we talking about an object
whose only reason for existance is to deliver an audio signal it's
"goodness" is essentially it's ability to deliver a high fidelity audio
signal.




Streuth, work it out for yourself! The fact that so many people download
music (at CD prices?) demonstrates clearly that those people don't
consider it worth waiting for the physical CD. If the physical CD was
worth it and they *cared* they would buy the frigging CDs, wouldn't they?

Savvy? :-)

I see. What a *really* strange way of looking at things. Why would people
care about the physical CD?, it's what's on the CD they are buying, not the
physical object. An LPCM 44.1/16bit download *is* a CD as far as audio
quality and content are concerned. And in case you've been under the
illusion that *I* care about CDs as physical objects, I don't. I care about
audio quality, and currently the CD offers better audio quality than most
downloads do. If that changes, and the pricing is acceptable, I'd be quite
happy to buy downloads.

I didn't miss that point at all. CDs are actually unneccesarily good, in
terms of audio quality, for the mainstream domestic market. That market
is quite happy with mp3s.


Yep. I'll go along with that - thus what music is available nowadays is
(apparently) largely dictated by kids or kidults with iPods!

What's changed? The music that is available depends on what music gets
bought. In the past most record sales were to kids with Dansettes, nowadays
the kids have iPods (which, incidentally, deliver far better audio quality
than the Dansettes ever did).

David.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:


Nobody is ditching CDs in favour of downloads because they think
downloads have better fidelity,

Well, it may be that *some* people are switching to downloads to get
96k/24bit (or similar) LPCM because they regard that as "better
fidelity" than CD. How often they would be right to think this is
another matter...
:-)

And how many downloads are avaiable in LPCM at all, let alone 96k/24bit?

No idea. Clearly non-zero, though. Or is your objection that FLAC, for
example, isn't LPCM when downloaded?

Erm... How many people did you mean by "nobody"? Or was your real point
that no-one (you know of) is discarding any CDs once they have a
downloaded
'high rez' sic LPCM version? You don't actually say which (or all) CDs
you mean.

Or were you simply assuming a 'download' meant a low-rate mp3, and
forgetting the existence of high rate/depth LPCM downloads? That was the
impression you comment gave to me.


OK, Jim - you win!

As far as I am aware the overwhelming majority of downloads available are of
compressed mp3s, whilst the proportion of downloads available in better than
CD quality is minute. Furthermore, whilst there has been much said in the
media about the change of music buying habits in the direction of
downloading, the suggestion that downloaders might be motivated by a
disatisfation with the audio quality of CDs has never, to my knowledge, been
made.

So I withdraw "nobody" and substitute "hardly anybody". Will that satisfy
you?

David.

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Nobody is ditching CDs in favour of downloads because they think
downloads have better fidelity,

Well, it may be that *some* people are switching to downloads to
get 96k/24bit (or similar) LPCM because they regard that as "better
fidelity" than CD. How often they would be right to think this is
another matter...

[snip]

OK, Jim - you win!

As far as I am aware the overwhelming majority of downloads available
are of compressed mp3s, whilst the proportion of downloads available in
better than CD quality is minute.

Agreed.

Furthermore, whilst there has been much said in the media about the
change of music buying habits in the direction of downloading, the
suggestion that downloaders might be motivated by a disatisfation with
the audio quality of CDs has never, to my knowledge, been made.

Agreed.

So I withdraw "nobody" and substitute "hardly anybody". Will that
satisfy you?

Yes. Hence what I wrote previously.

I don't doubt that most of the downloads have been and are people getting
mp3s or similar, often at low rates of fairly poorly made content. But it
also seems clear that *some* people are downloading files which at least
have the theoretical potential to be 'better' than CDDA. How much "better"
any of them actually are, I dunno.

But as bandwidth rises I assume a growing set of people may choose to
download these 'high rez' files. Or at least move to higher bitrate better
formats. e.g. a drift from 128k mp3 to 320k aac+. Not LPCM but better than
poor rate mp3. Where that will end, I dunno. Maybe in the 'cloud'. Although
personally I am wary of the current fashion for thinking all our data can
be shifted into the 'cloud'.

Personally I *would* prefer to be able to buy 'high rez' good quality files
on a DVD with a nice booklet and case. But no doubt I am old-fashioned and
take music and audio more seriously than many people who just want the
sound they are happy with on their iPlop-clone. Perhaps we should call it
iPlop music. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Nobody is ditching CDs in favour of downloads because they think
downloads have better fidelity,

Well, it may be that *some* people are switching to downloads to
get 96k/24bit (or similar) LPCM because they regard that as "better
fidelity" than CD. How often they would be right to think this is
another matter...

[snip]

OK, Jim - you win!

As far as I am aware the overwhelming majority of downloads available
are of compressed mp3s, whilst the proportion of downloads available in
better than CD quality is minute.

Agreed.

Furthermore, whilst there has been much said in the media about the
change of music buying habits in the direction of downloading, the
suggestion that downloaders might be motivated by a disatisfation with
the audio quality of CDs has never, to my knowledge, been made.

Agreed.

So I withdraw "nobody" and substitute "hardly anybody". Will that
satisfy you?

Yes. Hence what I wrote previously.

I don't doubt that most of the downloads have been and are people getting
mp3s or similar, often at low rates of fairly poorly made content. But it
also seems clear that *some* people are downloading files which at least
have the theoretical potential to be 'better' than CDDA. How much "better"
any of them actually are, I dunno.

But as bandwidth rises I assume a growing set of people may choose to
download these 'high rez' files. Or at least move to higher bitrate better
formats. e.g. a drift from 128k mp3 to 320k aac+. Not LPCM but better than
poor rate mp3. Where that will end, I dunno. Maybe in the 'cloud'.
Although
personally I am wary of the current fashion for thinking all our data can
be shifted into the 'cloud'.

Personally I *would* prefer to be able to buy 'high rez' good quality
files
on a DVD with a nice booklet and case. But no doubt I am old-fashioned and
take music and audio more seriously than many people who just want the
sound they are happy with on their iPlop-clone. Perhaps we should call it
iPlop music. :-)

Agreed.

My point (made in reply to Keith's claim that CD wasn't "good enough" to
stop the move to downloads) was that it's not dissatisfaction with the audio
quality of CDs that's driving the mass-market move to downloads. Yes, there
may well be a small group of "audiophiles" who believe that 24bit and 96k or
192k must sound better than 44.1k/16bit, and will buy such "Hi-Res" files as
downloads in preference to CDs if they can. But such people represent a
microscopic part of the music-buying public, most of whom seem content with
128k mp3s. Whether those audiophiles can *actually* hear (rather than
imagine they can) an improvement in audio quality in moving to such Hi-Res
formats is, of course, another matter.

I take your point about an audio DVD in a case with a nice booklet, I'm
reminded of the 12" classical 78s my Grandad used to buy in *real* albums
with a leather-effect cover with embossed gold lettering and a booklet
printed on expensive looking paper inside. Goodness knows what the cost of
those albums was in real terms compared to a CD of the same music today. But
with the commercial failure of SACD and DVD-Audio I can't see the record
industry risking producing the sort of product you want. BTW I doubt that
it's being "old-fashioned" that makes you take music and audio more
seriously. At least as far as audio quality is concerned the mass market has
never been that fussy.

David.