Re: High Definition Audio.
- From: real-not-anti-spam-address@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (D.M. Procida)
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 18:09:58 +0000
Arny Krueger <arnyk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, that is an *assertion* that CD succeeded as a medium chiefly because
of its superior sound quality. I'm aware you think that. I was asking
*why* you think that.
I've got ears and 37 years of experience listening to LPs and analog tape
because there was no viable option.
Not only that, but I was around to see how high end audio dealers and
ragazines fabricated the myth of LP sonic superiority let alone parity, and
CD acceptance based primarily on convenience.
That doesn't answer the question.
I think that CD succeeded mostly because CDs were more convenient than
the existing alternatives: easier to store, play and look after, more
durable, and so on.
OK, so you bought the myth.
What myth?
I don't think that they succeeded because of superior sound quality,
Yet, that is their most obvious attribute.
To some people. To most people, I don't think it makes much difference.
If it did, the CD wouldn't now be losing out to lower-quality
(heavily-compressed, played on poorer equipment) but much more
convenient formats.
If quality were what made the difference, the convenient compact
cassette would not have taken the place of 1/4" tape running at four
times its speed.
Minidisc was (briefly) successful while it proved to be more convenient
than alternatives, but lost out when that advantage disappeared. Neither
its success nor its eclipse were related to the quality of its sound
related to other formats.
because all the evidence is that before and since the advent of CD the
vast majority of people are quite evidently happy listening to
appalling-reproduced sound, whether it's coming from over-driven PA
systems, badly-tuned radios, scratched records and rubbishy record
players, warbling cassettes or hideously-compressed MP3 files.
Your account of the evidence leaves a lot to be desired.
The evidence is all around. You only need to go anywhere music's being
played to hear it for yourself.
But you can't blame that on the CD.
Who's blaming anything on CDs?
I'm not even talking about the sound quality of CD, or indeed anything
else. The point I'm making is that most people don't seem to care very
much about sound quality, of anything, and that convenience rather than
sound quality is largely what makes a format a success.
You have still failed to provide any kind of reason for believing that
CD's superior sound quality is what made it a success. All you do is
keep repeating your assertion. On the other hand, I've given several
reasons to believe that what appears to determine the success of a
format is convenience:
* the very poor sound quality that most people seem to be
satisfied with
* the fact that new more convenient formats of poorer quality are
displacing CD as a format
* the fact that generally, convenience, not sound quality,
determines the success of a format
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>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: High Definition Audio.
- From: Arny Krueger
- Re: High Definition Audio.
- References:
- High Definition Audio.
- From: Roger Thorpe
- Re: High Definition Audio.
- From: Roger Thorpe
- Re: High Definition Audio.
- From: D.M. Procida
- Re: High Definition Audio.
- From: D.M. Procida
- Re: High Definition Audio.
- From: Arny Krueger
- Re: High Definition Audio.
- From: D.M. Procida
- Re: High Definition Audio.
- From: Arny Krueger
- Re: High Definition Audio.
- From: D.M. Procida
- Re: High Definition Audio.
- From: Arny Krueger
- High Definition Audio.
- Prev by Date: Re: Internet radio - classical music, etc
- Next by Date: Re: Internet radio - classical music, etc
- Previous by thread: Re: High Definition Audio.
- Next by thread: Re: High Definition Audio.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|