CNN has a story on stereos

Jstas

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/04/23/lofi.america.ap/index.html

So what do you think? Are they right? Could companies like Polk Audio bringing out lines of gear geared towards the iPod and teh associated culture be contributing to the demise?

Jstas

Add to that this though. How much has DRM (Digital Rights Management) contributed to this?

Shizelbs

This same article is also being discussed over at the Head Fi forums.

What I don't like, the irresponsible journalism that is responsible for the caption beneath the picture saying "The days of the high-fidelity component stereo system are pretty much over..."

Bullcrap. The numbers may be declining, but the hifi hobby is still very much alive. Not counting vintage tubes, its not like we are all fighting over used gear only. Manufacturers are still coming out with great new products every year.

Jstas

One more thing, this excerpt from the article is inaccurate:

"When Philips and Sony first made the CD, they didn't cut any corners because they were careful to preserve everything that was there, even if you couldn't hear it," MacFarlane said. "That 128 is pretty darn good. A lot of Ph.D.s went in to making that 128 kbps work well and sound well."

The orginal CD medium was woefully lacking although better than the MP3 format, it still lacked a full frequency range for reproduction. In the ensuing years, they subsequently found ways to compress the stream to fit the entire frequency spectrum in the bandwidth that the CD medium allowed. Thus we have what is called dynamic compression and every current CD recording is subject to it. The CD media is inadequate also but a far bit better than any MP3. Please don't let that last paragraph cause you to think that the CD is something it isn't.

Danny Tse

Jstas wrote: »

One more thing, this excerpt from the article is inaccurate:

"When Philips and Sony first made the CD, they didn't cut any corners because they were careful to preserve everything that was there, even if you couldn't hear it," MacFarlane said. "That 128 is pretty darn good. A lot of Ph.D.s went in to making that 128 kbps work well and sound well."

The orginal CD medium was woefully lacking although better than the MP3 format, it still lacked a full frequency range for reproduction. In the ensuing years, they subsequently found ways to compress the stream to fit the entire frequency spectrum in the bandwidth that the CD medium allowed. Thus we have what is called dynamic compression and every current CD recording is subject to it. The CD media is inadequate also but a far bit better than any MP3. Please don't let that last paragraph cause you to think that the CD is something it isn't.

In a way, I agree with this. However, the article is most likely targeted for the masses, for which the CD is "the uppermost of the toppermost" in terms of sound quality.

Jstas

Danny Tse wrote: »

In a way, I agree with this. However, the article is most likely targeted for the masses, for which the CD is "the uppermost of the toppermost" in terms of sound quality.

I understand your point completely but ignorance of the masses is still no excuse for ignorance. It would be a disservice to my fellow man to allow such a travesty as ignorance due to mis-information to propagate and flourish to be accepted as truth.

The best digital medium so far has been DAT. Sadly, the recording industry feared DAT so much and wanted to hold on to thier greedy little profits that they had Congress essentially legislate it out of existence.

That's why I ask the question of DRM's influence on all of it. They did it to DAT, now they are going to do it to CD's, MP3's and other lossy and lossless encoding algorithms.

aaharvel

What an interesting news piece... good news or bad.. i always like to see the word "audiophile" in the mainstream media, probably because it never happens. Good catch Jstas and thanks!

Sami

Some of them are telling the truth though, would you hear the difference between a lossless track and mp3 if you played it back throught the iPod headset?

Music to mainstream is not something that you sit down to listen, it is more of a background noise. I'm on the road right now, listening to iPod with Sennheiser HD580's, not quite the same as listening at home but it's what most people are after. Even though the iPod doesn't have what it takes to drive the Senns, and it's mp3's, it's still leaps better than what most people listen to.

Rivrrat

We here are already a niche market. What they're talking about has little to do with people like us. We're not really the i-pod crowd (although, I'm thinkng about getting one), we're not HT in a box here, We're not CC, BB, Fry's or even Tweeter for the most part. That's the market the article is talking about.

I understand your point completely but ignorance of the masses is still no excuse for ignorance. It would be a disservice to my fellow man to allow such a travesty as ignorance due to mis-information to propagate and flourish to be accepted as truth.

In the market they're talking about ignorance is bliss. The don't want to play with equipment they don't understand, they didn't even want to know how to set set up a flippin vcr. I know people at work that can't figure out HT in a box, or how to set up their new LCD to play in composite or component vid, And I even tell them how. Most of these people look at our setups and think "too big", even when they hear great they sound (if they even get that).

There will always be someplace for us to go drool over the newest coolest, and if anything, it'll go back to the old days like when you went to a hi-fi store, it had real high end stuff, instead of mass market crap.

But this is all JMHO.

Jstas

I'm not asking you to tell me what market they are talking about. I know what market they are talking about. I'm not worried about what the common joe thinks of equipment. I asking for what you think about the questions I posted at the top of the thread.

I cannot force someone to learn something. I can however, put it out there for them to learn...or not. That part is not on me. However, if I have information that could be useful to them and I don't share it, that is on me.

Rivrrat

Ok, I can accept that, however, I've learned not to offer info to those that aren't interested. If you have guests over and they are interested, you're right, it is incumbent upon you to inform them, or if you're asked at work, same thing. But if you plan on being the pied piper of high end audio for those that don't care, or don't understand and don't want to, that's your choice.

The only thing I can offer is my own experience, and my own experience is telling me they don't care. What I said about "too big" is something I heard in my own house about my m10's. It's a plug and play on the go generation now.

Do you have kids? I do. 30-13 And all four of them have cell phones and an I-pods. Not one of them has anything remotely like a decent system. Of course the manufactures are going to cater to them.

And I did answer your questions. It's just not what you wanted to hear. Maybe what I should've said when I mentioned CC BB Fry's Tweeter etc having problems, was said yes, companies like Polk pushing I-pod and mp3 is contributing to the demise. what it was, was just an example of the demise, and along with that , the market is the driving factor in the demise.

TroyD

Jstas wrote: »

I understand your point completely but ignorance of the masses is still no excuse for ignorance. It would be a disservice to my fellow man to allow such a travesty as ignorance due to mis-information to propagate and flourish to be accepted as truth.

The best digital medium so far has been DAT. Sadly, the recording industry feared DAT so much and wanted to hold on to thier greedy little profits that they had Congress essentially legislate it out of existence.

That's why I ask the question of DRM's influence on all of it. They did it to DAT, now they are going to do it to CD's, MP3's and other lossy and lossless encoding algorithms.

Actually, DAT's failure was a market issue. For a pretty good explanation, check out what Matt Polk had to say which is relavant to the topic at hand (lest we be acccused of running amok in one of Jstas's threads)

MP: Every time we see new technologies develop, everybody wonders if this is going to be the next greatest thing. And there are three or four questions that I always ask about these technologies. First of all, is it more convenient? Convenience is a huge motivator for a lot of people to adopt new technology. Second, is there an economic benefit -- does the technology lower the cost of partaking in that activity in some way? Third, is it higher in performance? People tend to like better performance if it’s easy for them. Fourth, does it improve access to the entertainment? Typically, you have to have a "yes" answer to at least three of these questions for a successful technology in a marketplace. This is interesting because it means that if it’s simply improving performance and the answer is "no" to the other questions, it’s not going to happen.

If you remember back to the introduction of DAT, which is almost ten years ago now, the people thought that this was going to be the next greatest thing. But if you ask those questions…. Does it improve performance? Yes, it does. Is there an economic advantage? Well, no. Actually, it’s more expensive. Is it more convenient? Well, this is an interesting question with regard to DAT because the answer is really no. This is because people who were interested in making recordings already have huge libraries of cassette tapes. So, is it convenient for them to adopt a new recording strategy? Absolutely not. And, of course, does it improve access to the entertainment? No, it’s a push -- it’s the same as it was before. In fact, it’s even a little more complicated than before because of the perceived schemes for copy protection since it’s a digital medium, etc. And while DAT is a wonderful technology, it was a complete bust as a consumer technology.

You can answer "yes" to most of those questions with a lot of the things that are coming along now, though. If you look at online delivery of software, certainly there is the potential to answer "yes" to all of those questions with the possible exception of performance. And that’s still the wild card out there. Right now I think it’s generally -- at least outside of the computer industry -- it’s generally accepted that MP3 quality is not the same as CD quality. If you talk to people in the computer industry, it’s the same, it’s "perfect!" Although many more people in the computer industry are beginning to accept that while MP3 has its applications, it’s not a substitute for CD-quality audio.

Nevertheless, answering "yes" for three of the four questions -- the one question mark being performance -- suggests to me that MP3 has a real future and that it’s definitely going to succeed. I think that the higher performance options will come along as the bandwidth makes them practical. Right now, online download on demand of software is the first mainstream application that really requires broadband access to work. And it’s no surprise that it’s enormously popular with two groups of people – high-school and college kids. In the case of college kids…

Jstas

Rivrrat wrote: »

Ok, I can accept that, however, I've learned not to offer info to those that aren't interested. If you have guests over and they are interested, you're right, it is incumbent upon you to inform them, or if you're asked at work, same thing. But if you plan on being the pied piper of high end audio for those that don't care, or don't understand and don't want to, that's your choice.

The only thing I can offer is my own experience, and my own experience is telling me they don't care. What I said about "too big" is something I heard in my own house about my m10's. It's a plug and play on the go generation now.

Do you have kids? I do. 30-13 And all four of them have cell phones and an I-pods. Not one of them has anything remotely like a decent system. Of course the manufactures are going to cater to them.

And I did answer your questions. It's just not what you wanted to hear. Maybe what I should've said when I mentioned CC BB Fry's Tweeter etc having problems, was said yes, companies like Polk pushing I-pod and mp3 is contributing to the demise. what it was, was just an example of the demise, and along with that , the market is the driving factor in the demise.

You have not answered any of the question that I posed. I don't understand why it is so difficult for someone to answer the questions that were asked. I didn't ask you to school me or educate me or even lecture to me about equipment and who owns what and who doesn't want it. I asked you what you thought about the article. Not once, in this entire thread, did I address any issues that you have brought up. I found an inaccuracy in the article and felt it prudent to point it out and state why it was inaccurate. I don't know why any one would take exception to such a thing but obviously you have.

You have children that are old and young so that must mean you are old and know everything already. Far be it from me to have any insight into anything beyond what you already know. I apologize, I'll try not to let it happen again. Beyond that, the issue is that you missed the whole point of the thread. Thanks for playing. Have a good day.

Jstas

TroyD wrote: »

Actually, DAT's failure was a market issue. For a pretty good explanation, check out what Matt Polk had to say which is relavant to the topic at hand (lest we be acccused of running amok in one of Jstas's threads)

While I don't disagree with Mr. Polk's assessment, it is an opinion. It is a good opinion based on an accurate assessment of market trends but I believe that DRM issues had more to do with it than Mr. Polk is allowing.

The reason that I believe this is because of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. From Wikipedia:

Modern DAT has not been very popular outside of professional and semi-professional music artists. However, the prospect of perfect digital copies of copyrighted material prompted the lobbying of the US government by the music industry which resulted in the passage of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, the so-called DAT Tax. The inclusion of the Serial Copy Management System in DAT recorders, to prevent digital copying for more than a single generation, was another response. Flaws on the tape or heads can cause the signal to mute briefly on playback, which can be frustrating when attempting to copy material. DAT format was initially quite popular for trading recordings of live music, as available DAT players predated affordable CD recorders. DAT was envisaged as the successor format to analogue audio cassettes in the way that the compact disc was the successor to vinyl-based recordings; however, the technology was never as commercially popular as CD. DAT was introduced in Third World countries, which still make good use of audio cassettes, but it is now cheaper to use CD and CDR.

The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 from Wikipedia also:

The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA) amended the United States copyright law by adding chapter 10 "Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media." The act enabled the release of recordable digital formats such as Sony and Phillips' Digital Audio Tape without fear of contributory infringement lawsuits.

The RIAA and music publishers, concerned that consumers' ability to make perfect digital copies of music would destroy the market for audio recordings, had threatened to sue both companies and lobbied Congress to pass legislation imposing mandatory copy protection technology and royalties on devices and media.

The AHRA is often overlooked, but it establishes a number of important precedents in US copyright law that defined the debate between device makers and the content industry for the ensuing two decades.These include:

* the first government technology mandate in the copyright law, requiring all digital audio recording devices sold, manufactured or imported in the US to include the Serial Copy Management System (SCMS).
* the first anti-circumvention provisions in copyright law, later applied on a much broader scale by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
* the first government-imposed royalties on devices and media, a portion of which is paid to the record industry directly.

The Act also includes blanket protection from infringement actions for private, non-commercial analog audio copying, and for digital audio copies made with digital audio recording devices.

Researching a topic of discussion is easy as pie with the Internet. While I don't doubt Mr. Polk's level of intelligence or insight into the industry, I do take issue with the fact that the AHRA had so little to do with the demise of DAT. I don't take everything I read or hear as gospel and I do respect Mr. Polk's words but one cannot refute the fact that there is a law enacted, on the books of the U.S. Government that had a very heavy hand in dealing death blows to DAT. DAT may not have been the perfect format but it was a good step in a better direction than what we currently have.





As far as your cheap shots, you can continue with them if you like. I don't stomp on your threads with childish insults, sarcasm and juvenille responses. If you are incapable of having a discussion without losing your temper or resorting to such shenanigans then please, just bow out. I won't gloat, I won't chalk it up as a win for me, I won't even be a jerk about it, I just won't care.

Rivrrat

You have not answered any of the question that I posed. I don't understand why it is so difficult for someone to answer the questions that were asked. I didn't ask you to school me or educate me or even lecture to me about equipment and who owns what and who doesn't want it. I asked you what you thought about the article. Not once, in this entire thread, did I address any issues that you have brought up. I found an inaccuracy in the article and felt it prudent to point it out and state why it was inaccurate. I don't know why any one would take exception to such a thing but obviously you have.

Ok, I understand that I'm the new guy here. But what's hard to understand about me saying this is market driven? You can lay out all the paragraphs you want and it all comes down to this.

High fidelity takes backseat to portability

That's the title of the article you posted, and in a nutshell I said it's all market driven, and now we're a niche market. What else would you like me to say?

Oh, I never said what I think about it, maybe that's it. I don't like it, and progress isn't always a positive thing. Is that better? Where I usually post, people can read into that kind of thought.

I could go on ad nauseum about why DAT didn't work, and why mp3 does, but it doesn't matter. The market is driving this, and whether you want to school everyone on high fidelity or not, or try to school me for that matter, it's not going to change anything. Do I like it? No, but it doesn't matter a bit.

Now I did tell you what I thought about your article. You may not like what I said, but I told you, you may not like how I told you, Bit I did tell you what I thought. Maybe I expected you to want a discourse on the subject, instead of one liners agreeing with everything you say. My mistake.

Now that you're having a go at two people here, looking back, I can see your MO.

Sorry for posting to your thread. Now FWIW, until you decided to light me up, nothing was directed at you, it was just my humble opinion. In fact that is what JMHO means.

I'm done with this.

ESavinon

Hi fi audio be it digital or analog,multichannel or stereo has always been and always will be a niche market.
I don't believe that convenience will overtake our hobby.
Check out the history of portable music (cassettes,8 tracks,dat,dcc tapes,cds,mp3,etc)neither of these convenient formats have been able to eliminate or even placate our hobby.

I believe that portable technology will eventually aid our hobby as soon as the media storage used to store digital medium becomes large enough and cheap enough to make true to master copies and any and all issues regarding drm are resolved.

snow

Jstas wrote: »

I'm not asking you to tell me what market they are talking about. I know what market they are talking about. I'm not worried about what the common joe thinks of equipment. I asking for what you think about the questions I posted at the top of the thread.

I cannot force someone to learn something. I can however, put it out there for them to learn...or not. That part is not on me. However, if I have information that could be useful to them and I don't share it, that is on me.

What exactly are you trying to teach us? That the ipod. mp3 etc is leading to the demise of audiophile recordings and audiophile gear in general? If so you are preaching to a crowd that allready realizes this.

As far as whether polk is contributing to this. No i dont think so because there will always be a certain group of people who will continue to buy audiophile components and music both. And polk continues to sell to this group.

But you need to realize that things are changing and if you wish to remain compeitive you have to adjust accordingly. When the price of oil went up, big cars were losers for the auto companys. if they had continued to only sell these massive machines they would have went **** up forthwith.

I personally see nothing wrong with catering to both groups, and if polk wishes to sell ipod type components. Bully for them. Its only good buisness sense.



Btw your attitude sucks. If you have the answers allready, why ask us?

It seems to me that you started this thread not for answers for your questions, but so you could quote what other people have wrote. so as to appear intelligent. Why? if you are attempting to to impress me you have failed sadly at this endeavor.

SNOW

F1nut

Geez, must be his time of the month.

liordra

What about home cinema? I don't see ppl discard DTS for an iPod. Then again, I don't see ppl buy a 50" 1080p screen, and listen to one of those hi-fi in a box, but I know they're out there.
that said, I think CDs are obsolete. they are plasticy containers of digital files.
you're better off with a lossless portable format. just make sure u have a nice Hi-Fi external DAC.

the bottom line is that since I bought my IAudio X5 and Senn HD 595, I listen to music more often.

TroyD

Whatever, Napolean, it's your world, we are just living in it.

BTW, anyone seen John's XM tuna?

BDT

SNOW, it's because he's an ****.

Jstas

snow wrote: »

What exactly are you trying to teach us? That the ipod. mp3 etc is leading to the demise of audiophile recordings and audiophile gear in general? If so you are preaching to a crowd that allready realizes this.

As far as whether polk is contributing to this. No i dont think so because there will always be a certain group of people who will continue to buy audiophile components and music both. And polk continues to sell to this group.

But you need to realize that things are changing and if you wish to remain compeitive you have to adjust accordingly. When the price of oil went up, big cars were losers for the auto companys. if they had continued to only sell these massive machines they would have went **** up forthwith.

I personally see nothing wrong with catering to both groups, and if polk wishes to sell ipod type components. Bully for them. Its only good buisness sense.



Btw your attitude sucks. If you have the answers allready, why ask us?

It seems to me that you started this thread not for answers for your questions, but so you could quote what other people have wrote. so as to appear intelligent. Why? if you are attempting to to impress me you have failed sadly at this endeavor.

SNOW

What is it here? I'm not trying to teach anyone anything. I found an interesting article in a mainstream press outlet and thought it'd be good for discussion. I just wanted to know what people thought. I didn't need to be lectured by an old man and then ganged up on by other members. The article had a point that was wrong and I felt it needed clarification. That's it.

You, unlike Rivrrat, answered the questions and gave good insight. The rest, including your personal commentary, wasn't needed. I asked some simple questions. I couldn't make them any more plain in thier presentation. I found an inaccuracy in the article that I felt would unfairly bias opinions based on that inaccurate information and I wanted to clear it up.

Lastly, I don't have the answers. You do. Everyone else does. All I wanted to do was foster some discussion on a topic that we all might have some insight on. Just for edification, here is the definition of discussion:

discussion - an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.

One person makes a post, another person responds, person number one gets to respond back and question the other's stance and vice-versa. How is anyone suppose to understand your point if they can't ask questions or present counter points to clarify your position? It's not an argument nor a demand but rather an exploration of a different point of view.

Jstas

liordra wrote: »

What about home cinema? I don't see ppl discard DTS for an iPod. Then again, I don't see ppl buy a 50" 1080p screen, and listen to one of those hi-fi in a box, but I know they're out there.
that said, I think CDs are obsolete. they are plasticy containers of digital files.
you're better off with a lossless portable format. just make sure u have a nice Hi-Fi external DAC.

the bottom line is that since I bought my IAudio X5 and Senn HD 595, I listen to music more often.

One thing the CD does that the hard drive or flash memory doesn't do is store the data with minimal risk of loss or destruction. If you have a hardware failure on your MP3 player, you lose your data. If you have a hardware failure on your CD player, you find another one, transfer your disc and keep playing. Sorry, that's the admin in me. Still though, I see your other points but I don't think the CD is obsolete. At least not yet, not until a format for DVDs and DVD-Audio discs can be agreed upon and instituted. Overall though, for playback, you might be correct in that the CD is obsolete. For storage though, a CD is hard to beat. Even if it isn't archive quality, the blank CDs you buy in the store will last 7-10 years before the recording medium starts to degrade. The pre-recorded CD you get from the store will last much longer than that.

markmarc

So what do you think? Are they right? Could companies like Polk Audio bringing out lines of gear geared towards the iPod and the associated culture be contributing to the demise?

Jstas:
First, this article is typical of quick, write it and move on journalism, rather than proper research. Keep in mind he failed to address the high quality headphones and headphone amps that are a big part of that festival.

Yes, the market is evolving, traditional 2 channel for the masses has been replaced by HT. The car culture has teen boys sinking more into car stereos than 20 years ago. The walkman and the boombox has been replaced by the iPod.

But the key is the transition from having a music source to wanting the best sound has always been a small, core group of fanantics. the fact that Tweeters is closing a third of their stores and Circuit City issues, are evidence of two things, the big boxes killing each other off and the rise of Internet marketing.

I would not be surprised if Polk came out with a quality line of self-powered speakers for iPods. personally, I think they are overdue on doing this. But the audio industry as a whole has been way behind on the iPod rage. Very few receivers, integrated amps, or amps have USB inputs for plugging an iPod in directly. Music Hall has halfway solved the issue with it's Maven receiver having a built-in DAC, but without the USB, they are still missing the iPod culture.

The other missing element is the failure of the big guns in audio to welcome in music servers as an audio component. Whether it's a failure to accept the changing paradigm; or, the lack of flexibility, I just am puzzled by this failure of foresight.

Jstas

markmarc wrote: »

Jstas:
But the key is the transition from having a music source to wanting the best sound has always been a small, core group of fanantics. the fact that Tweeters is closing a third of their stores and Circuit City issues, are evidence of two things, the big boxes killing each other off and the rise of Internet marketing.

I would not be surprised if Polk came out with a quality line of self-powered speakers for iPods.

The other missing element is the failure of the big guns in audio to welcome in music servers as an audio component. Whether it's a failure to accept the changing paradigm; or, the lack of flexibility, I just am puzzled by this failure of foresight.

Well first off, that is a good point about the big boxes killing each other off. I'm starting to wonder about the Internet sourcing though. Like you said, it's there and I have no doubt it's a huge contributor to the status of CC and Tweeter. I'm wondering why now though. At first, it was price. Most of the online guys were non-authorized dealers selling at wholesale prices. That's slowly starting to go away. Not much of that is avaialble now. However, the demise of the small shop because of the big boxes is making me think that alot of what is driving that migration of customers to the Internet is not prices anymore as much as it is selection and quantity. If it weren't for the Internet, I wouldn't know about certain companies because magazines have given them minimal coverage and the stores around me don't carry them.


I think Polk is coming out with self-powered speakers. They have the MiDock already and there are other products on that product page too. Is that the kind of thing you were talking about?


I think that the media server market is grossly overlooked. The problem you have is that computer companies are building the systems with very little insight into what the customers want/need for such a specific application and what the audio companies are actually making. Most of the turn-key solutions have been lackluster at best and with the Windows Media version of XP being so fouled up it barely runs, it's not doing well. I think Mac could do a spectacular version of a home media server but they are too busy with the iPod kick. However, the biggest issue I see is this. These big computer companies do business one way. They look at thier market and build to suit. With gigantic corporations to small businesses, the requirements are very similar, it's scale that is different. For your average home user, scale is similar across the board except for those few very esoteric people who want big, bad and expensive. What the big problem here is that home users have different requirements. Those requirements tend to change as time goes on too. So scaling isn't the problem. Flexibility and reliability are. For a large corporation, a multi-thousand dollar service plan is a drop in the bucket. For a home user, a new, $200 hard drive replacement can really hurt. So add that to the mutating requirments over the life of the product and you start running into big financial problems. How did they solve that for the home computer market? They tool an amalagam of teh most common options and offered a limited list of upgrades to keep costs down and profitability high. That approach just doesn't seem like it's going to work in this media server market.

One thing I have seen is that Linux is quickly stepping up to the plate of media server status. There has been alot of work on that recently and if a company can offer an expandable media server solution running Linux that is turn-key, I think they could shake up the market. Especially if the system was affordable. However, I don't think the hardware is there to support such an effort on the high end yet.

Those are some very interesting points markmarc and a very interesting post.

krabby5

I have a Pioneer Elite receiver, Rt800i mains, CS400i center, fx300 surrounds, an SVS sub, a 46" Sony LCD tv along with an HD DVR..Denon upconverting dvd player, and an Xb0x360....all while using a Harmony 720 remote..

Now..I'm certainly not bragging about my stuff..I realize this is far from high-end compared to a lot of you...but I'm pretty sure I have much more money invested in my HT than the average Joe...

That being said...i absolutely LOVE my iPod...I was able to put all of my 400 cds on a device the size of a business card holder...

It sounds good enough for me through the Pioneer's proprietary digital cable...

Convenience is definately a factor for me...Before I had the iPod, I would NEVER listen to my cd's because I could never find ONE that I wanted to listen to..now i can listen to all of them at the press of a button..

F1nut

TroyD wrote: »

BTW, anyone seen John's XM tuna?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

TroyD

You have not answered any of the question that I posed. I don't understand why it is so difficult for someone to answer the questions that were asked

then

I found an interesting article in a mainstream press outlet and thought it'd be good for discussion. I just wanted to know what people thought

So, which is it, Napolean? Do you invite a discussion or just one within your parameters?

As for the DAT thing, one the one hand, I could believe someone who is intimately involved in the industry or a theory that is big on paranoia and supposition.....gee, I wonder who I'm going to give more creedance to.

As for the rest of it, The iPod and it's associated genre is not killing 'our' flavor of audio. Mainstream audio has always been more about convenience and cost than quality. It's just evolving past our, for lack of a better term, comfort zone.

My parents had portable turntables and transistor radios...I had a walkman..etc etc, it's just natural progression. Folks interested, primarily, in audiophilia are no more or less a factor than ever.

BDT

snow

Jstas wrote: »

What is it here? I'm not trying to teach anyone anything.

You, unlike Rivrrat, answered the questions and gave good insight. The rest, including your personal commentary, wasn't needed.

Lastly, I don't have the answers. You do. Everyone else does. All I wanted to do was foster some discussion on a topic that we all might have some insight on. Just for edification, here is the definition of discussion:

discussion - an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.

One person makes a post, another person responds, person number one gets to respond back and question the other's stance and vice-versa. How is anyone suppose to understand your point if they can't ask questions or present counter points to clarify your position? It's not an argument nor a demand but rather an exploration of a different point of view.

Ok read this carefully and perhaps you will see why I said what I did.

1. You having a bad attitude is because of your response to Rivrrat for example.This is a public forum. He doesnt have to answer your questions the way you want, or at all for that matter. Thats no reason to throw a fit.

2. And as far as your Trying to teach us. Look at what you posted in your quote. You are trying to explain to me what a discussion is now.

You would be well advised to look carefully at what it says. I will point out a few key phrases.

1. informal debate

2.How is anyone suppose to understand your point if they can't ask questions or present counter points to clarify your position?


3.It's not an argument nor a (demand)but rather an exploration of a different point of view.


So if you actually want a (discussion) than dont get upset because they dont answer you questions formally.


I dont need to be taught what the meaning of a discussion is. I have an IQ of 166.


Dont get upset by any of this. I am only (discussing) your attitude.


REGARDS SNOW

liordra

Jstas wrote: »

One thing the CD does that the hard drive or flash memory doesn't do is store the data with minimal risk of loss or destruction. If you have a hardware failure on your MP3 player, you lose your data. If you have a hardware failure on your CD player, you find another one, transfer your disc and keep playing. Sorry, that's the admin in me. Still though, I see your other points but I don't think the CD is obsolete. At least not yet, not until a format for DVDs and DVD-Audio discs can be agreed upon and instituted. Overall though, for playback, you might be correct in that the CD is obsolete. For storage though, a CD is hard to beat. Even if it isn't archive quality, the blank CDs you buy in the store will last 7-10 years before the recording medium starts to degrade. The pre-recorded CD you get from the store will last much longer than that.

It is true that Original CDs lasts longer then burned ones. but I say why burn at all? most my music is synced reguraly to each computer I use. 2 @ home, a laptop, and a descktop @ work. when I buy a CD, I hate shlapping it around to the living room, my home office , car and work. Hell, if the wife likes that CD I'm screwd as she is the bermuda triangle of stuff that I like and she boroughs. what about 2 CDs? or 10? now, as a music lover none of this is new to u, but nowdays we have an alternative. the future is funny that way.

cmy330go

TroyD wrote: »

...So, which is it, Napolean? Do you invite a discussion or just one within your parameters?

Thank you! I was starting to wonder if I was the only one seeing this self contradiction.

TroyD wrote: »

As for the rest of it, The iPod and it's associated genre is not killing 'our' flavor of audio. Mainstream audio has always been more about convenience and cost than quality. It's just evolving past our, for lack of a better term, comfort zone.

My parents had portable turntables and transistor radios...I had a walkman..etc etc, it's just natural progression. Folks interested, primarily, in audiophilia are no more or less a factor than ever.

BDT

I strongly agree with this. I personally will never give up my home audio systems. I will however take full advantage of the portability of digital audio. In fact the wife and I just upgraded to the new 80gig iPods so that when in the car or on a trip we can listen to anything from our entire library.

There is no doubt that digital media and devices are grabbing more and more of the market. However I think there is also something to the fact that vinyl sales have been on the rise over the last few years, especially in the UK. But even locally I've seen a rise in the number of young people at the local record shop. At first I assumed these we just new, experimenting DJs looking for stuff to spin and sample, but after talking to a few I've found that many of them just prefer the sound. In addition to this I've been to a number of concerts lately and have noticed that a larger number of artists are offering their music on LP again, and from what I've seen it's quite popular. For example a few days ago I went to a Decemberists concert in Kansas City. At the merchandise counter they had their albums on both CD and LP and from what I saw the LPs were outselling CDs even though they were the same price. Don't get me wrong I don't by any means expect Vinyl to take over the market again. But the fact that young people are buying vinyl tells me they've got something other than iPods at home.

TroyD

I think the resurgence in vinyl is a VERY good sign. One, I think that the 'demand' never really went away....publishers really abandoned it, IMHO. Two, decent vinyl playback right now is probably as inexpensive as it ever has been. Three, there is really no 'shortage' of software (quality is a different issue) Four, it's trendy right now. Good for us.

Again, the high end of audio isn't going to fundamentally change. I actually think it's as healthy as ever. This CNN article wasn't aimed at us and was written by a dude that really has no idea about the audiophile market. IMHO, it really isn't even a 'new' discussion here or anywhere amongst audio enthusiats. Dead, horse, beat...that whole thing.

I'm going to bow out of this topic before teeth start getting knocked down throats.

BDT