"David Looser" wrote


downloading, the suggestion that downloaders might be motivated by a
disatisfation with the audio quality of CDs has never, to my knowledge,
been made.


It hasn't - it's just another one of those things you pulled out of your
arse to make an argument.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"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.


No idea what that means.


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.


All of them? You know this or are we just looking at another OSAF here..??



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.


More guesswork. You are applying your own criteria to the music-buying
masses. One of the things that crops up frequently with vinyl noobies coming
away from MP3s is that they are tickled by being able to physically hold the
*music* while in the same breath CDs are described as 'throwaways' - like
being only a 'carrier' to get the music onto their iPods or whatever.



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.


Again, you are applying your own criteria to others - lots of others.


An LPCM 44.1/16bit download *is* a CD as far as audio
quality and content are concerned.


In *your* opinion - probably nobody else's!


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).


I doubt that.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"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.


No idea what that means.

I believe you.

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.


All of them? You know this or are we just looking at another OSAF here..??

Try learning what the word "quality" means. It does not mean "hand-crafted",
"low production runs" or "one-off".

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.


More guesswork. You are applying your own criteria to the music-buying
masses. One of the things that crops up frequently with vinyl noobies
coming away from MP3s is that they are tickled by being able to physically
hold the *music* while in the same breath CDs are described as
'throwaways' - like being only a 'carrier' to get the music onto their
iPods or whatever.

Why not offer them shellac to hold rather than vinyl? More to hold, more to
store, even more outdated. Should make one of your "noobies" even more
tickled. (better still a cylinder, now there's a *real* object!)

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.


Again, you are applying your own criteria to others - lots of others.

Hang on, above you said that even those who are "tickled" by being able to
hold an LP regard a CD as "throwaway", now you are saying that the idea that
people don't care about the CD as a physical object is just my criteria.

And since we know that music buyers are deserting physical media for
downloads we can safely conclude that the majority of music buyers actually
want to buy music, not physical objects.


An LPCM 44.1/16bit download *is* a CD as far as audio
quality and content are concerned.


In *your* opinion - probably nobody else's!

That's not my opinion, it's a fact. Did you not notice the phase "as far as
audio quality and content are concerned"?


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).


I doubt that.

Which bit do you doubt? That most record sales are to young people with
low-quality players, or that the iPod delivers a far better audio quality
than a Dansette? Because again both are simply verifiable facts.

David.

In article ,
"Keith G" wrote:

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.


All of them? You know this or are we just looking at another OSAF here..??

He's arguing by definition again.

Stephen

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


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.


All of them? You know this or are we just looking at another OSAF
here..??

Try learning what the word "quality" means. It does not mean
"hand-crafted",
"low production runs" or "one-off".


Okay, okay! What say we qualify the word 'quality' and make it 'high
quality' items tend to be the 'hand crafted' low production run or even
one-off stuff. Is that better?

One of your problems is you see one thing and think the reverse is being
implied. For instance, you see the phrase 'high quality items tend be
expensive' and, it seems to me, translate that as 'inexpensive items tend to
be poor quality' or somesuch. Until you curb that propensity there is always
going to be too much jumping to the wrong conclusions and misunderstandings
to make further debate worthwhile.




More guesswork. You are applying your own criteria to the music-buying
masses. One of the things that crops up frequently with vinyl noobies
coming away from MP3s is that they are tickled by being able to
physically
hold the *music* while in the same breath CDs are described as
'throwaways' - like being only a 'carrier' to get the music onto their
iPods or whatever.

Why not offer them shellac to hold rather than vinyl? More to hold, more
to store, even more outdated. Should make one of your "noobies"


*My* noobies?


even more
tickled. (better still a cylinder, now there's a *real* object!)


Or worry beads?



Hang on, above you said that even those who are "tickled" by being able to
hold an LP regard a CD as "throwaway", now you are saying that the idea
that people don't care about the CD as a physical object is just my
criteria.


OK, so you have something in common with serious vinyl enthusiasts! :-)

But you don't speak for ordinary CD buyers and those that like the CDs in
fancy fold-out boxes, with printed graphics, booklets &c.



And since we know that music buyers are deserting physical media for
downloads we can safely conclude that the majority of music buyers
actually want to buy music, not physical objects.


Yes, even the 'extras' mentioned above aren't enough to tempt them.

Worth remembering that not everyone wants to collect music per se - more
play it to death until the next new thing comes out. Much like it was with
45rpm pop singles 'back in the day'.

Which is just as well as all those gadgets with thousands of tracks stored
on them are going to go tits-up sooner or later (or get lost or stolen). Woe
betide he/she who has not backed up all their music!




An LPCM 44.1/16bit download *is* a CD as far as audio
quality and content are concerned.


In *your* opinion - probably nobody else's!

That's not my opinion, it's a fact. Did you not notice the phase "as far
as
audio quality and content are concerned"?


'Is equal to' (or similar) would have been a better phrase.



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).


I doubt that.

Which bit do you doubt? That most record sales are to young people with
low-quality players, or that the iPod delivers a far better audio quality
than a Dansette? Because again both are simply verifiable facts.


I doubt the iPod sounds better than the Dansette.

It certainly wouldn't be much good for playing my records, would it?

:-)

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

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


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.


All of them? You know this or are we just looking at another OSAF
here..??

Try learning what the word "quality" means. It does not mean
"hand-crafted",
"low production runs" or "one-off".


Okay, okay! What say we qualify the word 'quality' and make it 'high
quality' items tend to be the 'hand crafted' low production run or even
one-off stuff. Is that better?

No it isn't. When talking about a "quality item" the word "high" is implied.
And I still entirely disagree with your premise that "high quality" items
"tend to be the 'hand crafted' low production run or even one-off stuff". In
the days before mass-production it might have been, it isn't now. One of the
effects of automated production lines is that mass-produced items can be
both cheap and high-quality at the same time. With technology products it's
hard, sometimes impossible, to achieve similar quality from a (far more
expensive) hand crafted item.

One of your problems is you see one thing and think the reverse is being
implied. For instance, you see the phrase 'high quality items tend be
expensive' and, it seems to me, translate that as 'inexpensive items tend
to be poor quality' or somesuch.

The second statement follows from the first. Sorry you can't see that.


I doubt the iPod sounds better than the Dansette.

Have you ever heard an iPod played through a good audio system? I guess not
otherwise you'd never say a silly thing like that. The iPod is capable of
really excellent sound quality, depending, of course, on the bit rate of the
mp3s. But even with a low bit-rate mp3 it still sounds far better than a
Dansette.

It certainly wouldn't be much good for playing my records, would it?

True, but that wasn't the point.

David.

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

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


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.


All of them? You know this or are we just looking at another OSAF
here..??

Try learning what the word "quality" means. It does not mean
"hand-crafted",
"low production runs" or "one-off".


Okay, okay! What say we qualify the word 'quality' and make it 'high
quality' items tend to be the 'hand crafted' low production run or even
one-off stuff. Is that better?

No it isn't. When talking about a "quality item" the word "high" is
implied. And I still entirely disagree with your premise that "high
quality" items "tend to be the 'hand crafted' low production run or even
one-off stuff". In the days before mass-production it might have been, it
isn't now. One of the effects of automated production lines is that
mass-produced items can be both cheap and high-quality at the same time.
With technology products it's hard, sometimes impossible, to achieve
similar quality from a (far more expensive) hand crafted item.


You are really stretching to make a point here, aren't you? No-one has said
inexpensive items can't be very good or good items can't be inexpensive, but
no-one 'normal' would regard an inexpensive (cheap) item as 'high quality'
(or high end?) irrespective of its performance, construction or appearance
and before you continue to try and 'educate' me in these matters be aware
that no-one is more appreciative of a value for money bargain than I am.

IOW, I've got some Sony here and there but I never dropped a wad for
'Naimed' stuff! ;-)



One of your problems is you see one thing and think the reverse is being
implied. For instance, you see the phrase 'high quality items tend be
expensive' and, it seems to me, translate that as 'inexpensive items tend
to be poor quality' or somesuch.

The second statement follows from the first. Sorry you can't see that.


But it doesn't! Sorry you can't see that.




I doubt the iPod sounds better than the Dansette.

Have you ever heard an iPod played through a good audio system? I guess
not otherwise you'd never say a silly thing like that. The iPod is
capable of really excellent sound quality, depending, of course, on the
bit rate of the mp3s. But even with a low bit-rate mp3 it still sounds
far better than a Dansette.


All far too subjective (Loosercentric) to have any real meaning, isn't it?

Anyway, that's yer lot - my (digital) projector's burning away...

;-)

"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... :-)

Are you aware of this?:

http://audiophilereview.com/audiophi...or-itunes.html

"...this is a rumor about one of the most tight-lipped companies in the
world, but more and more people are talking about Apple offering HD files
via their uber-profitable, iTunes music store. The rumor comes as
audiophiles en masse adopted the MacBook Pro as a trustworthy music source
for audiophile systems during last week's CES trade show. Most were using
AIFF files ripped from Compact Discs into high resolution DACs. Others used
software to transcode 24 bit 96 kHz audio from sites like HD Tracks or B&W's
Society of Sound over to iTunes.

"If Apple really starts selling their music in HD formats like 24/96 stereo
you will finally have the ultimate "killer application" for audiophiles. For
the first time since the Compact Disc there would be a reason to buy your
music collection all over again. "

In article , Arny
Krueger
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... :-)

Are you aware of this?:

http://audiophilereview.com/audiophi...or-itunes.html

Nope.

"...this is a rumor about one of the most tight-lipped companies in the
world, but more and more people are talking about Apple offering HD
files via their uber-profitable, iTunes music store.

But are they going to be suppling DRM-free 'HD' LPCM/FLAC - as for example
Linn and Chandos have already been doing here in the UK for some time?
Indeed, they are also providing 192k/24 DRM-free. Although once again I
can't say how often that sounds 'better' or even 'different' to ye olde
CDDA.


"If Apple really starts selling their music in HD formats like 24/96
stereo you will finally have the ultimate "killer application" for
audiophiles. For the first time since the Compact Disc there would be a
reason to buy your music collection all over again. "

Nice hyperbole they use. :-) But I presume you've been playing 96k/24 LPCM
for longer than I have without needing either a Mac or iToons. So, like
myself, quite aware that you don't need a commercial OS or software to play
96k/24bit files.

Looks like Apple play the same game as MS and tell their users that they
are making a great 'advance'... that others have already made without
having to use their commercial or tied software. :-)

So Apple may be a bit late calling this their 'killer app' - except perhaps
for people in their walled garden who don't know about the world outside.
Apples are not the only fruit. ;-

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
, Arny
Krueger
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... :-)

Are you aware of this?:

http://audiophilereview.com/audiophi...or-itunes.html

Nope.

Or this?

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+...-bad-for-users


"...this is a rumor about one of the most tight-lipped
companies in the world, but more and more people are
talking about Apple offering HD files via their
uber-profitable, iTunes music store.

But are they going to be suppling DRM-free 'HD' LPCM/FLAC
- as for example Linn and Chandos have already been doing
here in the UK for some time? Indeed, they are also
providing 192k/24 DRM-free. Although once again I can't
say how often that sounds 'better' or even 'different' to
ye olde CDDA.

It could at least sound different if remastered.

"If Apple really starts selling their music in HD
formats like 24/96 stereo you will finally have the
ultimate "killer application" for audiophiles. For the
first time since the Compact Disc there would be a
reason to buy your music collection all over again. "

The last such opportunity was the SACD and DVD-A.

Nice hyperbole they use. :-) But I presume you've been
playing 96k/24 LPCM for longer than I have without
needing either a Mac or iToons. So, like myself, quite
aware that you don't need a commercial OS or software to
play 96k/24bit files.

SACD and DVD-A, RIP.

Looks like Apple play the same game as MS and tell their
users that they are making a great 'advance'... that
others have already made without having to use their
commercial or tied software. :-)

Agreed. We are already seeing the non-genius of the post-Steve Jobs Apple?
:-(

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusive...-where-patrick