Re: Used CD's - opinions?
Steven Sullivan
> Is it wrong to buy and sell used CD's (of in-print items)/
> I see a lot of discussion about the sins of selling unauthorized
> copies and I am just wondering if selling or buying used CD's is also
> wrong.
No. Why would it be?
> I realize it's a matter of scope (I'm only selling one copy,
> as opposed to burning hundreds and selling them) but it does seem to
> raise the same moral questions.
No, it doesn't. The only 'moral' (ethical) questions arise
when you *keep* a copy of the CD you sell, or make multiple
copies to sell.
--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.
David Rheault
"Kelly" <txxxxxxxx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41783053...@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> Is it wrong to buy and sell used CD's (of in-print items)/
>
> I see a lot of discussion about the sins of selling unauthorized
> copies and I am just wondering if selling or buying used CD's is also
> as opposed to burning hundreds and selling them) but it does seem to
> raise the same moral questions.
Because we have become a throw-away society, and music companies invariably
produce more CDs in a given run than they can realistically sell, you have
secondary markets that develop to accept the excess stock. And since most
music companies charge too much for their products in the first place many
people turn to that secondary market. What adds to that excess stock is
personal preference, people don't like everything they buy and accept to
trade in and purchase used goods. People used to turn to actual secondary
shops to sell their used stuff. Nowadays, the shops don't give fair trade
prices for merchandise so people use online media. Actually, independent
shops are also turning to online media to market their wares and can often
undercut major music company prices (but not for new titles). Music is no
different from books and a lot of other items being traded in lively used
markets.
The CD is a very fickle item and mainly a kind of medium. It has not held
its value very well, apart from some collector's items. CDs I see that cost
a lot of money are usually an anomaly, one that is inevitably corrected by
re-issues. It's probably somewhat important to support your favorite bands
by buying their records at full price. That way they get some royalties from
the sale of them. It is quite possible that the used item was once purchased
at full price (not in the case of overstock, however that is the record
company's attempt to cover a loss and not necessarily that of the artist or
purchaser) But we'd all be broke all of the time if we bought every
recording at full price.
dcr
Karthik Subramanian
unless you are copying it for yourself, it is perfectly legal. Is it moral?
I cant really say, since it is so subjective. here's my view...
Once the first-sale is made and the artist gets his royalties, there is
nothing to worry about. Even though some might argue that it devalues the
product (by reducing demand for the new products), the publishers are fully
aware of this and mark up new prices accordingly. The used good industry
also caters to its own unique market. I personally would not have become so
interested in collecting progressive music, had it not been for the
relatively inexpensiveness of the hobby. And it is also true that I've
bought more "new" music as a consequence of my whetted appetite.
I also think that it keeps products in circulation for longer...increasing
their longevity and in a sense, their artistic life. It makes art and goods
more accesible to a greater number of people. Besides, in a free market, it
is silly to keep something that you do not want, and that others want and
for which they are willing to pay a price. It may be argued that its
"ethically" wrong to keep something that someone else has a need for.
And finally, I like it since it throws a curveball at the classic
supply-side corporate controlled music business and empowers the consumer
rather than the producer. So yeah go for it....
"Kelly" <txxxxxxxx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41783053...@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> Is it wrong to buy and sell used CD's (of in-print items)/
>
> I see a lot of discussion about the sins of selling unauthorized
> copies and I am just wondering if selling or buying used CD's is also
> wrong. I realize it's a matter of scope (I'm only selling one copy,
> as opposed to burning hundreds and selling them) but it does seem to
> raise the same moral questions.
>
> Thank you for your opinions.
>
> Kelly
Karthik Subramanian
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cl9c4k$jai$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Kelly <txxxxxxxx...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Is it wrong to buy and sell used CD's (of in-print items)/
>
>> I see a lot of discussion about the sins of selling unauthorized
>> copies and I am just wondering if selling or buying used CD's is also
>> wrong.
>
> No. Why would it be?
>
>> I realize it's a matter of scope (I'm only selling one copy,
>> as opposed to burning hundreds and selling them) but it does seem to
>> raise the same moral questions.
>
> No, it doesn't. The only 'moral' (ethical) questions arise
> when you *keep* a copy of the CD you sell, or make multiple
> copies to sell.
Actually that is not just a moral issue but a legal one too.
Tony Elka
<txxxxxxxx...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Is it wrong to buy and sell used CD's (of in-print items)/
I'm sure the auto manufacturers would be thrilled if nobody ever sold
their used cars but just had them junked.
Not the way the world works.
Tony
cap...@hotmail.com
question for the panel. (Since every fucking one seems to be lately.)
Kevin Lighton
> Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>No, it doesn't. The only 'moral' (ethical) questions arise
>>when you *keep* a copy of the CD you sell, or make multiple
>>copies to sell.
>
> a copy or not. I thought it had more to do with depriving the
> creative artist of compensation. Which is what you are doing when you
> buy a used album rather than buy a new one which would pay the artist
> royalties..........
The difference is that no matter how many times a used album is sold and
resold, there's still only the one copy, which the artist received
compensation for from the initial sale. With someone making copies and
selling them, giving them away, or keeping the copy and selling/giving
away the original, there are copies that the artist never got compensation
for in circulation.
Ja, mata
--
Kevin Lighton lig...@bestweb.net or shin...@operamail.com
"I thought he was too arrogant to have an escape pod!" Vyse, _Skies of
Arcadia_
Karthik Subramanian
k
(feeling devilish a la Mr. Burns)
<cap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j8vgn0t9fqqehsb1b...@4ax.com...
cap...@hotmail.com
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:09:23 -0400, "Karthik Subramanian"
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >No, it doesn't. The only 'moral' (ethical) questions arise
> >when you *keep* a copy of the CD you sell, or make multiple
> >copies to sell.
> I did not realize the crux of the ethical issue was whether I retained
> a copy or not. I thought it had more to do with depriving the
> creative artist of compensation.
In all the multitude of markets for multitudes of used, 'reconditioned',
'antique', 'pre-owned' or 'for auction' items,
is it normal or even sensible for the original maker to be
compensated every time a particular item
is resold?
> Which is what you are doing when you
> buy a used album rather than buy a new one which would pay the artist
> royalties..........
That has not *ever* been the crux of the issue, any more than it
has been in the used car market.
A used car buyer pays a price to the seller. The seller
pays a price too: he no longer possesses that car.
If he wants that car back, or one just like it,
he must buy it again, either new from the maker
(paying another 'royalty') or used from the used market
(where someone else has paid the royalty).
The one-to-one correspondence of ownership of one
copy to payment of one royalty, is
maintained. The correspondence is of course broken
if the owner somehow sells the car but keeps a
copy of that particular car for himself --
something not possible with cars, but quite possible with
CDs.
herb atlas
also selling the right to listen to it. So the only legality issue is if
you keep a copy - cdr or mp3 - for yourself. Simple answer is you
shouldn't. Whether a title is in-print or out-of-print is completely
irrelevant in the equation.
Whether you choose to support the artist and buy a "new" copy through a
channel like Amazon or CDUniverse or a record shop is however,
very relevant. I bypassed a used copy of Gong's Acidmotherhood in order to
buy a new one. Cost me a couple of bucks extra, but Gong (in theory)
recorded a sale.
Now the soapbox:
In the large urban city where I live, the better used cd shops
are flourishing while most chain "new" cd shops have closed up. In fact,
vinyl only shops are also doing quite well. I would venture to say that
Used cds have more to do with the purported decline in record sales than
the industry acknowledges. Take a look through any used record store and
you'll see what people keep and what they don't. But take note: there's a
ton of cds out there. More and more, people are probably ripping them and
selling them (and hopefully backing up those rips!)
Prog CDs haven't gone up in price over the past few years, but good titles
are increasingly hard to find. Whenever a band gets remastered, there's
always a flood of the older pressings. Thank God for suckers like me who
buy the remasters! Prog records on the other hand, are much harder to find
than they were even five years ago, and certainly have gone up in price.
Ultimately, the used cd or record never gets destroyed, it just sits until
it finds finds a new home. The question is which does the consumer find
first: the new copy or the used one.
c
David Rheault
"herb atlas" <djf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.10.22....@yahoo.com...
> When you sell your cd, in addition to selling the physical disc, you are
> also selling the right to listen to it. So the only legality issue is if
> you keep a copy - cdr or mp3 - for yourself. Simple answer is you
> shouldn't.
There is the simple matter of those increasingly cheap big boxes of blank
CDs they sell at mega office stores like Office Depot and Staples...
So therefore, you can and should and do. You don't own an original, you own
an inferior copy. Is there any difference between the two? Some say yes and
some say no.
> Whether you choose to support the artist and buy a "new" copy through a
> channel like Amazon or CDUniverse or a record shop is however,
> very relevant.
>I bypassed a used copy of Gong's Acidmotherhood in order to
> buy a new one. Cost me a couple of bucks extra, but Gong (in theory)
> recorded a sale.
Yes! I advocated direct support of your fav artists through "new" purchases
of their recorded output.
> Now the soapbox:
> In the large urban city where I live, the better used cd shops
> are flourishing while most chain "new" cd shops have closed up. In fact,
> vinyl only shops are also doing quite well. I would venture to say that
> Used cds have more to do with the purported decline in record sales than
> the industry acknowledges. Take a look through any used record store and
> you'll see what people keep and what they don't. But take note: there's a
> ton of cds out there. More and more, people are probably ripping them and
> selling them (and hopefully backing up those rips!)
I completely agree although the used shops are not giving fair prices for
trades anymore and will eventually cause consumers to turn to online sources
in order to get fairer trades/deals for their merchandise. The shops are
also selling online.
And why does vinyl survive? It hasn't survived everywhere but I guess, a
small shop, specifically focused, could still make it.
> Prog CDs haven't gone up in price over the past few years, but good titles
> are increasingly hard to find. Whenever a band gets remastered, there's
> always a flood of the older pressings. Thank God for suckers like me who
> buy the remasters! Prog records on the other hand, are much harder to find
> than they were even five years ago, and certainly have gone up in price.
>
> Ultimately, the used cd or record never gets destroyed, it just sits until
> it finds finds a new home. The question is which does the consumer find
> first: the new copy or the used one.
All good points.
dcr
David Rheault
> In all the multitude of markets for multitudes of used, 'reconditioned',
> 'antique', 'pre-owned' or 'for auction' items,
> is it normal or even sensible for the original maker to be
> compensated every time a particular item
> is resold?
And if we want to drag copyright into it we could ask whether it is right
for an artist to be compensated for a work created say 40 years ago? How
many original recordings or compilations have we seen out there where
"current" owners receive compensation for new copies sold but not even the
original artists who created them. And of course, there is no issue at all
with respect to online file-sharing of songs long in the public domain.
> The correspondence is of course broken
> if the owner somehow sells the car but keeps a
> copy of that particular car for himself --
> something not possible with cars, but quite possible with
> CDs.
Hence, that little theory that says that a CD is only a medium.
It is also interesting to see that bands are slowly, but surely, jumping
onto the DVD wagon as the best way to insure sales of "product" that they
create.
dcr
Henry Potts
> Kelly <txxxxx...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Steven Sullivan wrote
> > >No, it doesn't. The only 'moral' (ethical) questions arise
> > >when you *keep* a copy of the CD you sell, or make multiple
> > >copies to sell.
> >
> > I did not realize the crux of the ethical issue was whether I retained
> > a copy or not. I thought it had more to do with depriving the
> > creative artist of compensation.
If you buy an album new, then a portion of what you pay
(should/usually) goes to the artist. If you buy an album second-hand,
this doesn't happen. However, as Steven S. points out below, that is
true of every second-hand market. Part of what the original buyer paid
went to the artist and, having bought the CD, it is the original
buyer's moral right to re-sell it.
The creative artist would benefit if you bought the CD new instead of
second-hand. The creative artist would probably also benefit more if
you bought the CD from their website or after a gig than if you bought
it in a store. The creative artist might not benefit as much or at all
if you bought the album in some types of sale or through a music club
deal. The creative artist may benefit more or less depending on in
what country you buy the CD. The creative artist would benefit if you
sent him/her a bundle of cash in an envelope. If you want to support
an artist, do these things. However, it is not unethical to not do
these things; it is not unethical to just buy a CD second-hand or in a
sale.
I sometimes consciously subsidise artists by buying CDs straight from
them when I could probably get the CD cheaper elsewhere (e.g.
second-hand). There are many prog artists who are desperately poor or
who cannot work fulltime on their music and I hope fans, like us here,
are willing to support them. However, I also buy vast numbers of
second-hand CDs because they're cheap and often offer more variety.
There are many CDs I wouldn't buy full-price, but will try if I see
them cheap.
> In all the multitude of markets for multitudes of used, 'reconditioned',
> 'antique', 'pre-owned' or 'for auction' items, is it normal or even sensible
> for the original maker to be compensated every time a particular item is
> resold? [...]
It has been suggested for fine art auctions and, I think, there is a
system in place in some European countries. With fine art, it is not
uncommon for a young artist to sell works cheaply when they are an
unknown. Years later, when the artist has become better known, people
put up for auction these early works, which sell for many, many times
what was originally paid for them. This annoys the artists. The sums
involved here are very different to the used CD market, but whether
you feel that changes the morality of the situation...
--
Henry
Brett...
>
> And why does vinyl survive? It hasn't survived everywhere but I
> guess, a small shop, specifically focused, could still make it.
>
>
It sounds better than CD...
--
Brett
David Rheault
"Henry Potts" <h.p...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a5d71260.0410...@posting.google.com...
>
> The creative artist would benefit if you bought the CD new instead of
> second-hand. The creative artist would probably also benefit more if
> you bought the CD from their website or after a gig than if you bought
> it in a store. The creative artist might not benefit as much or at all
> if you bought the album in some types of sale or through a music club
> deal. The creative artist may benefit more or less depending on in
> what country you buy the CD. The creative artist would benefit if you
> sent him/her a bundle of cash in an envelope. If you want to support
> an artist, do these things. However, it is not unethical to not do
> these things; it is not unethical to just buy a CD second-hand or in a
> sale.
LOL! As I recall fans of Gentle Giant were trying to cajole the band back
into existance by offering to have a critical mass of fans pay something
like $75 for the album (collected in advance). If GG were really going to do
another Prog album I could probably be "cajoled" into participating. ;>
> I sometimes consciously subsidise artists by buying CDs straight from
> them when I could probably get the CD cheaper elsewhere (e.g.
> second-hand). There are many prog artists who are desperately poor or
> who cannot work fulltime on their music and I hope fans, like us here,
> are willing to support them.
Yes yes yes! Essential.
>However, I also buy vast numbers of
> second-hand CDs because they're cheap and often offer more variety.
> There are many CDs I wouldn't buy full-price, but will try if I see
> them cheap.
I think we all do this more or less.
> > In all the multitude of markets for multitudes of used, 'reconditioned',
> > 'antique', 'pre-owned' or 'for auction' items, is it normal or even
sensible
> > for the original maker to be compensated every time a particular item is
> > resold? [...]
>
> It has been suggested for fine art auctions and, I think, there is a
> system in place in some European countries. With fine art, it is not
> uncommon for a young artist to sell works cheaply when they are an
> unknown. Years later, when the artist has become better known, people
> put up for auction these early works, which sell for many, many times
> what was originally paid for them. This annoys the artists. The sums
> involved here are very different to the used CD market, but whether
> you feel that changes the morality of the situation...
It may annoy the artist but a certain amount of art buying revolves around
the speculative risk the buyer takes in purchasing art from an unknown
artist. The buyer ultimately buys the art because he/she likes it, but smart
buyers always have an eye for value. Later selling it for a premium is a
just reward for the early outlay.
dcr
Karthik Subramanian
<cap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i15hn0pe3bst4dkae...@4ax.com...
David Rheault
"Brett..." <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:2tsrpvF...@uni-berlin.de...
So the purists say...
Vinyl is a memory of my youth, a medium I shed later and doubt I'll return
to.
dcr
Stu Mark
a5d71260.0410...@posting.google.com, "Henry Potts"
<h.p...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In all the multitude of markets for multitudes of used, 'reconditioned',
>> 'antique', 'pre-owned' or 'for auction' items, is it normal or even sensible
>> for the original maker to be compensated every time a particular item is
>> resold? [...]
>
> It has been suggested for fine art auctions and, I think, there is a
> system in place in some European countries. With fine art, it is not
> uncommon for a young artist to sell works cheaply when they are an
> unknown. Years later, when the artist has become better known, people
> put up for auction these early works, which sell for many, many times
> what was originally paid for them. This annoys the artists. The sums
> involved here are very different to the used CD market, but whether
> you feel that changes the morality of the situation...
First off, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Stu and I have been a
rec.music.progressive lurker for a few months now. Normally I hang out in
alt.fan.frank-zappa (where I've been a regular poster for quite a few
years).
Second, I'd like to take this time to acknowledge the good writing that
happens in this newsgroup. (See the example above)
For those writers who try to craft a good post, you have at least one reader
out there who cares. So thanks.
Stu
(who thanks you both for reading)
NP: Little Umbrellas by The Amsterdam Sax Quartet
herb atlas
most certainly; to me, vinyl is the 'real' thing. of course, i spend far
too much time on soulseek looking for a digital copy for my hard drive..!
herb atlas
different than making a cassette. But a cloned CD is just as good as the
original... is there debate about that?
c
David Rheault
> different than making a cassette.
>But a cloned CD is just as good as the
> original... is there debate about that?
>
No lyrics, no liner notes, no lineup info. No it's not.
dcr
stereoroid
"Kelly" <txxxxxxxx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41783053...@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> Is it wrong to buy and sell used CD's (of in-print items)/
>
> I see a lot of discussion about the sins of selling unauthorized
> copies and I am just wondering if selling or buying used CD's is also
> wrong. I realize it's a matter of scope (I'm only selling one copy,
> as opposed to burning hundreds and selling them) but it does seem to
> raise the same moral questions.
>
> Thank you for your opinions.
>
> Kelly
In the USA, didn't the question of "first sale" get to the Supreme Court,
and they came out supporting the right to resell copyrighted works without
additional fees to the original maker?
Google says...
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/First%20sale%20doctrine - yep,
it's legal. Which is not a moral judgement, of course, but it's something.
Cheers,
--
stereoroid
dublin, ireland
stere...@gmail.com
(let's see how well GMail handles spam, shall we?)
Mozorael
>and they came out supporting the right to resell copyrighted works without
>additional fees to the original maker?
>
In the USA you can re-sell cds and videos. You can also rent vidoes, but you
can't rent cds.
cap...@hotmail.com
>>In the USA, didn't the question of "first sale" get to the Supreme Court,
>>and they came out supporting the right to resell copyrighted works without
>>additional fees to the original maker?
>
>In the USA you can re-sell cds and videos. You can also rent videos, but you
>can't rent cds.
But......
Say you buy a CD for $15. Later on you sell it for $5. That means,
basically, you paid $10 for the time that you had it.
Looks....walks......quacks.
A fine example of how silly amd meaningless words can be, especially
in the legal sense.
Karthik Subramanian
"Mozorael" <mozo...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20041022223238...@mb-m19.aol.com...
Steven Sullivan
I'm sure it annoys the artist, but the artist has also become 'famous'
in the process, thereby increasing the value of whatever work he or she
*now* produces far beyond what he or she could command when starting out.
So it's not a totally one-sided benefit.
Perhaps artists need to take out insurance policies when they start out --
ones that would only pay off *if* they become famous? ;>
Steven Sullivan
Vinyl has survived primarily because of hip-hop and DJing.
The 'audiophile' market, a subset of which prefers the
the euphonic distortions of LPs to digital media, is a
a mere fraction of the LP market. There's also a fad
aspect -- kids too young to remember vinyl,
'discovering' the joys album art and digging the retro
aspect of it all.
David Rheault
"Karthik Subramanian" <subram...@er6s1.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in
message news:cldav4$fa8$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
If you return it late, you pay a fee. So there you go...
dcr
David Rheault
> Brett... <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote:
> > David Rheault wrote:
>
> > >
> > > And why does vinyl survive? It hasn't survived everywhere but I
> > > guess, a small shop, specifically focused, could still make it.
> > >
> > >
>
> > It sounds better than CD...
>
> Vinyl has survived primarily because of hip-hop and DJing.
> The 'audiophile' market, a subset of which prefers the
> the euphonic distortions of LPs to digital media, is a
> a mere fraction of the LP market. There's also a fad
> aspect -- kids too young to remember vinyl,
> 'discovering' the joys album art and digging the retro
> aspect of it all.
Good points all!
dcr
cap...@hotmail.com
Another good one. Forgot all about that - and I do it on a regular
basis!
Terrell Miller
>> The creative artist would benefit if you bought the CD new instead of
>> second-hand. The creative artist would probably also benefit more if
>> you bought the CD from their website or after a gig than if you bought
>> it in a store. The creative artist might not benefit as much or at all
>> if you bought the album in some types of sale or through a music club
>> deal. The creative artist may benefit more or less depending on in
>> what country you buy the CD. The creative artist would benefit if you
>> sent him/her a bundle of cash in an envelope. If you want to support
>> an artist, do these things. However, it is not unethical to not do
>> these things; it is not unethical to just buy a CD second-hand or in a
>> sale.
>
>> I sometimes consciously subsidise artists by buying CDs straight from
>> them when I could probably get the CD cheaper elsewhere (e.g.
>> second-hand). There are many prog artists who are desperately poor or
>> who cannot work fulltime on their music and I hope fans, like us here,
>> are willing to support them. However, I also buy vast numbers of
>> second-hand CDs because they're cheap and often offer more variety.
>> There are many CDs I wouldn't buy full-price, but will try if I see
>> them cheap.
FWIW, back when I was still actively trading CDs I did a lot of business
directly with the artists (maybe when I get caught up again, as if). I was a
little leery of what they would think when they saw me asking for used
copies of their work, or indeed offering my used copy for trade, but the
universal response I got was along the lines of "obviously I'd prefer
everybody bought a new copy from me, but if you do trade my album, I'd
prefer that you send it directly to a prog fan instead of taking it to a
used record store".
To a man the ones I did business with were a lot more flexible and realistic
than I would have imagined. And indeed, with most of them I didn't buy their
album but instead just swapped CDs with them for their work.
So I think that if you ask the prog artists themselves, they are a lot more
interested in just getting their material in circulation than they are in
making money off it. Most seem to be doing it as a labor of love, not in any
expectation that they will profit from their work.
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
" A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
sdavmor
> How did this thread not get cross-posted to the Jehovah freaks, is my
> question for the panel. (Since every fucking one seems to be lately.)
Don't tempt someone to do that, you slithering degenerate prog-rock
listening serpent you!
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
garageband <http://www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
NP: nothing
sdavmor
Henry's a sharp guy with a good head on his shoulders. You can count on
him for interesting informative posts.
Mozorael
>> aspect -- kids too young to remember vinyl,
>> 'discovering' the joys album art and digging the retro
>> aspect of it all.
Vinyl is making somewhat of a comeback the past couple of years. Sales of used
albums are up while used cd sales are down, and the biggest problem selling
vinyl is getting quality stuff, not finding buyers for it. They're also
willing to pay higher prices than 5 years ago, especially for good titles, even
if they're out on cd. More kids under 20 are buying records also, although
many don't call them records. They buy "vinyls." They also think of Paul
McCartney as the guy in that oldies band.....Wings!!
-= H.=-
I wonder what it is like to never have experienced the vinyl-only
era, i.e. before ~1983.
I remember when the compact disc arrived. We didn't listen
to the music, we listened to the *silence*. It was like
magic.
--
Håkan
remove ___ in e-mail address to reply
cap...@hotmail.com
<sda...@fakeemailaddress.com> wrote:
>cap...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> How did this thread not get cross-posted to the Jehovah freaks, is my
>> question for the panel. (Since every fucking one seems to be lately.)
>
>Don't tempt someone to do that, you slithering degenerate prog-rock
>listening serpent you!
Wow - don't I feel all special now...
David Rheault
"-= H.=-" <byzant...@cyberdude.com> wrote in message
news:2tvtsiF...@uni-berlin.de...
Yeah. I think I dig that more than snap, crackle and pop!
But vinyl still smells delicious--a whole shop of new records!
dcr
David Rheault
"Mozorael" <mozo...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
I think sales are down in used CD shops because they won't give fair trade
prices for used items anymore. They used to give minimum $4 for a CD.
Nowadays, you're lucky to get $3 and more likely it's $2 or $1! With that
law of diminishing returns in place, fans have turned to online sources.
dcr
Stu Mark
20041023162557...@mb-m29.aol.com, "Mozorael"
<mozo...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> Vinyl is making somewhat of a comeback the past couple of years.
I would assume that relates to the available technology to convert Vinyl to
Digital.
Stu
(who is just guessing)
NP: Biko by Peter Gabriel
cap...@hotmail.com
<drhe...@erols.com> wrote:
>I think sales are down in used CD shops because they won't give fair trade
>prices for used items anymore. They used to give minimum $4 for a CD.
>Nowadays, you're lucky to get $3 and more likely it's $2 or $1! With that
>law of diminishing returns in place, fans have turned to online sources.
However, most (though certainly not all) places are also selling used
CD's for less now. The average price I see these days is probably
around $6.50-$7, down a bit from a few years ago.
So do what I do - buy used at a store when it's a decent deal - and
when it comes to selling, go the eBay or personal sale route, and
eliminate the middle man.
David Rheault
cap...@hotmail.com
Dickson) wrote:
>In article <v5jln05gikt4rkpu6...@4ax.com> cap...@hotmail.com wrote...
>
>> However, most (though certainly not all) places are also selling used
>> CD's for less now.
> ^^^^
>You really are looking for a Right Good Kicking, aren't you?
?? I must have missed something. Elaborate. Or not.
cap...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>cap...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> However, most (though certainly not all) places are also selling used
>> CD's for less now. The average price I see these days is probably
>> around $6.50-$7, down a bit from a few years ago.
>
>Damn, where are YOU shopping? I'm increasingly irritated at how many
>used CDs I'm seeing for $9.99 and $10.99.
Damn yourself - and where are YOU shopping? I can't think of anywhere
- at anytime - that I've ever seen break the $9.99 barrier (for a
single CD, I mean.)
One of the main stores where I live now seems to have the vast
majority of their used stuff at $6.99-$7.99. Last year when I was in
Vegas, there was a place that had quite a bit below that. Going back
another few years - most Amsterdam shops used sections hovered in the
US $5-7 range. And I remember quite a few places in London that were
reasonable. (Record & Tape Exchange, however, most emphatically NOT
being one of them.)
However - a downside of this (for me, anyway) is that I don't often
see a used selection that has much of anything good in it anymore.
There could be a number of reasons for that - hard to say for sure
which. Varies from place to place : buyer stupidity, customer
stupidity, locale and clientele of store, among others.
I do think though that finally - and later than it should have taken
for many - people dealing with them have realized that if you're not
careful, you can get buried under that shit like quicksand before you
know it. And, along with that, there may be quite a few people now
balking at giving away anything decent for the pittance that most
places pay out now, further thinning the available pool. (Or I guess
maybe that should be "draining" the pool...)
cap...@hotmail.com
Dickson) wrote:
>In article <4semn05ertrbfvvif...@4ax.com> cap...@hotmail.com wrote...
>
>> >> However, most (though certainly not all) places are also selling used
>> >> CD's for less now.
>> > ^^^^
>> >You really are looking for a Right Good Kicking, aren't you?
>>
>> ?? I must have missed something. Elaborate. Or not.
>
>'The crux of the biscuit', as Zappa would say, 'is the Apostrophe'.
Oh that. 'Scusi. : >
Steven Sullivan
look up 'greengrocer's apostrophe'
Brett...
> Brett... <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote:
>> David Rheault wrote:
>
>>>
>>> And why does vinyl survive? It hasn't survived everywhere but I
>>> guess, a small shop, specifically focused, could still make it.
>>>
>>>
>
>> It sounds better than CD...
>
> Vinyl has survived primarily because of hip-hop and DJing.
> The 'audiophile' market, a subset of which prefers the
> the euphonic distortions of LPs to digital media, is a
> a mere fraction of the LP market. There's also a fad
> aspect -- kids too young to remember vinyl,
> 'discovering' the joys album art and digging the retro
> aspect of it all.
In my experience every person who has listened to a reasonably priced
turntable/arm/cartridge comes to the conclusion that a t/table will
outperform a similarly priced cd player.
Most people's experience of turntableds are the horrid, nasty things that
came with radiograms and the like and that is why they have such a bad name.
Like many others my main medium is CD but I do know which of the two sounds
better.
--
Brett
David Rheault
"Brett..." <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:2u4af5F...@uni-berlin.de...
HISSSSSSSSSS. Snap, crackle, POP...
Andy
If you are interested in a good source of used Rock Cds take a look at
my exchange site www.reloadexchange.co.uk. Any comments appreciated.
Andy
Brett...
Distort, blur, misreprent...
--
Brett
David Rheault
"Mike Dickson" <mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CheetahPRO_v...@blackcat.demon.co.uk...
> In article <ldydnZWkWe4...@rcn.net> drhe...@erols.com wrote...
>
> > HISSSSSSSSSS. Snap, crackle, POP...
>
> If you use your records as frisbees and encourage the dog to sit on them
> I can't really help you.
Mike,
Do you have records that have never been played...indeed can not ever be
played?
The black vinyl sits in its sleeve for all eternity.
dcr
Steven Sullivan
> Distort, blur, misreprent...
er...quite.
Steven Sullivan
> In article <ldydnZWkWe4...@rcn.net> drhe...@erols.com wrote...
> > HISSSSSSSSSS. Snap, crackle, POP...
> If you use your records as frisbees and encourage the dog to sit on them
> I can't really help you.
Surface noise is a given with LP, whether it be low-level (but
audible) hiss, or crackle/snaps/pops (which I've encountered
with brand new, never played LPs). And of course, it can
only ever get incrementally worse with time and repeated use.
Then again, what else could one expect from a technology that involves
dragging a rock across a piece of stamped plastic? Amazing that it's
listenable at all, much less often sounds good.
Brett...
> Mike Dickson <mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <ldydnZWkWe4...@rcn.net> drhe...@erols.com
>> wrote...
>
>>> HISSSSSSSSSS. Snap, crackle, POP...
>
>> If you use your records as frisbees and encourage the dog to sit on
>> them I can't really help you.
>
>
> Surface noise is a given with LP, whether it be low-level (but
> audible) hiss, or crackle/snaps/pops (which I've encountered
> with brand new, never played LPs). And of course, it can
> only ever get incrementally worse with time and repeated use.
>
All very true but the actual sounds that are reproduced are far superior.
In addition a decent t/table/arm/cartridge will not make such a fuss of the
imperfections.
> Then again, what else could one expect from a technology that involves
> dragging a rock across a piece of stamped plastic? Amazing that it's
> listenable at all, much less often sounds good.
Ah now you are missing the point and your comments lead me to the conclusion
that you haven't heard vinyl through a decent t/table/arm/cartridge.
But there again I suppose some people think microwaved food tastes better
than food cooked in the "old" fashioned way.
--
Brett
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Mike Dickson <mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In article <ldydnZWkWe4...@rcn.net> drhe...@erols.com
> >> wrote...
> >
> >>> HISSSSSSSSSS. Snap, crackle, POP...
> >
> >> If you use your records as frisbees and encourage the dog to sit on
> >> them I can't really help you.
> >
> >
> > Surface noise is a given with LP, whether it be low-level (but
> > audible) hiss, or crackle/snaps/pops (which I've encountered
> > with brand new, never played LPs). And of course, it can
> > only ever get incrementally worse with time and repeated use.
> >
> All very true but the actual sounds that are reproduced are far superior.
In your humble opinion. Objectively, of course, they aren't at all superior
to CD, nor even as good in most cases.
> In addition a decent t/table/arm/cartridge will not make such a fuss of the
> imperfections.
They will not exactly eliminate them , either.
> > Then again, what else could one expect from a technology that involves
> > dragging a rock across a piece of stamped plastic? Amazing that it's
> > listenable at all, much less often sounds good.
> Ah now you are missing the point and your comments lead me to the conclusion
> that you haven't heard vinyl through a decent t/table/arm/cartridge.
Gosh, now *there's* a novel argument from 'vinylphiles'.
"You like CD better than vinyl? You must not have heard my rig! "
Go retail that line over on rec.audio.high-end. I could use a laugh.
> But there again I suppose some people think microwaved food tastes better
> than food cooked in the "old" fashioned way.
I suppose some people prefer refrigerators to blocks of ice...FOOLS
THEY ARE.
I don't prefere CD to LP because it's new. I prefer it because it
'works' *as well or better* than the old technology, *and* is more
user friendly.
cap...@hotmail.com
<ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>I suppose some people prefer refrigerators to blocks of ice...FOOLS
>THEY ARE.
I've been sick as a dog the last two days - that was a much needed
laugh, man. Thanks.
>I don't prefere CD to LP because it's new. I prefer it because it
>'works' *as well or better* than the old technology, *and* is more
>user friendly.
Ah, but my friend Mr. Minidisc - now *he's* a spiffy little fella,
lemme tell ya.
Brett...
> Brett... <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>> Mike Dickson <mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article <ldydnZWkWe4...@rcn.net> drhe...@erols.com
>>>> wrote...
>>>
>>>>> HISSSSSSSSSS. Snap, crackle, POP...
>>>
>>>> If you use your records as frisbees and encourage the dog to sit on
>>>> them I can't really help you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Surface noise is a given with LP, whether it be low-level (but
>>> audible) hiss, or crackle/snaps/pops (which I've encountered
>>> with brand new, never played LPs). And of course, it can
>>> only ever get incrementally worse with time and repeated use.
>>>
>
>> All very true but the actual sounds that are reproduced are far
>> superior.
>
> In your humble opinion. Objectively, of course, they aren't at all
> superior to CD, nor even as good in most cases.
>
Objectively my arse, in your humble opinion actually.
>> In addition a decent t/table/arm/cartridge will not make such a fuss
>> of the imperfections.
>
> They will not exactly eliminate them , either.
>
Absolutely. I'm in total agreement with you.
>>> Then again, what else could one expect from a technology that
>>> involves dragging a rock across a piece of stamped plastic? Amazing
>>> that it's listenable at all, much less often sounds good.
>
>> Ah now you are missing the point and your comments lead me to the
>> conclusion that you haven't heard vinyl through a decent
>> t/table/arm/cartridge.
>
> Gosh, now *there's* a novel argument from 'vinylphiles'.
>
> "You like CD better than vinyl? You must not have heard my rig! "
>
Not mine, anyones!
So have heard a decent vinyl system?
> Go retail that line over on rec.audio.high-end. I could use a laugh.
>
Silly boy.
>
> I don't prefere CD to LP because it's new. I prefer it because it
> 'works' *as well or better* than the old technology, *and* is more
> user friendly.
Well I obviously disagree on the former but I do concur with the latter.
--
Brett
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Brett... <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote:
> >> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >>> Mike Dickson <mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> In article <ldydnZWkWe4...@rcn.net> drhe...@erols.com
> >>>> wrote...
> >>>
> >>>>> HISSSSSSSSSS. Snap, crackle, POP...
> >>>
> >>>> If you use your records as frisbees and encourage the dog to sit on
> >>>> them I can't really help you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Surface noise is a given with LP, whether it be low-level (but
> >>> audible) hiss, or crackle/snaps/pops (which I've encountered
> >>> with brand new, never played LPs). And of course, it can
> >>> only ever get incrementally worse with time and repeated use.
> >>>
> >
> >> All very true but the actual sounds that are reproduced are far
> >> superior.
> >
> > In your humble opinion. Objectively, of course, they aren't at all
> > superior to CD, nor even as good in most cases.
> >
> Objectively my arse, in your humble opinion actually.
By practically every measurable spec, CD meets or exceeds LP performance.
That''s about as objective as it gets.
> > Gosh, now *there's* a novel argument from 'vinylphiles'.
> >
> > "You like CD better than vinyl? You must not have heard my rig! "
> >
> Not mine, anyones!
> So have heard a decent vinyl system?
Yes.
> > Go retail that line over on rec.audio.high-end. I could use a laugh.
> >
> Silly boy.
Scaredy-cat.
David Rheault
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:clloap$h1q$3...@reader1.panix.com...
> > >
>
> > Objectively my arse, in your humble opinion actually.
>
> By practically every measurable spec, CD meets or exceeds LP performance.
> That''s about as objective as it gets.
Victrolas are nice...
http://www.victor-victrola.com/
dcr
Brett...
>
> By practically every measurable spec, CD meets or exceeds LP
> performance. That''s about as objective as it gets.
>
>
Except one - your ears.
>>> Gosh, now *there's* a novel argument from 'vinylphiles'.
>>>
>>> "You like CD better than vinyl? You must not have heard my rig! "
>>>
>
>> Not mine, anyones!
>> So have heard a decent vinyl system?
>
> Yes.
>
>
Fair enough then.
--
Brett
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >
> > By practically every measurable spec, CD meets or exceeds LP
> > performance. That''s about as objective as it gets.
> >
> >
> Except one - your ears.
That, of course, would be a highly *subjective* measure, not *objective*.
Brett...
> Brett... <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>>>
>>> By practically every measurable spec, CD meets or exceeds LP
>>> performance. That''s about as objective as it gets.
>>>
>>>
>
>> Except one - your ears.
>
> That, of course, would be a highly *subjective* measure, not
> *objective*.
I think at last you've got it!
Do you like Robert Fripp by any chance?
--
Brett
cap...@hotmail.com
Dickson) wrote:
>*shiny blue fuck*
Damn, this is shaping up into a good week.
sdavmor
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:02:23 GMT, mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk (Mike
> Dickson) wrote:
>
>
>>*shiny blue fuck*
As opposed to *matte red buggery*
> Damn, this is shaping up into a good week.
Only if you get reach around...
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
garageband <http://www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
NP: nothing
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Brett... <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote:
> >> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> By practically every measurable spec, CD meets or exceeds LP
> >>> performance. That''s about as objective as it gets.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >> Except one - your ears.
> >
> > That, of course, would be a highly *subjective* measure, not
> > *objective*.
> I think at last you've got it!
Well, that makes *one* of us. So, for your sake, let me
repeat: by practically every objective standard, CD meets or
exceeds LP performance.
> Do you like Robert Fripp by any chance?
Why do you ask?
Stu Mark
<sda...@fakeemailaddress.com> wrote:
>>> *shiny blue fuck*
>
> As opposed to *matte red buggery*
I always thought it was matte *grey* buggery.
Stu
(who is listening to too much music lately)
NP: Broke In Two by They Might Be Giants
David Rheault
"Mike Dickson" <mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CheetahPRO_v...@blackcat.demon.co.uk...
>
> > Do you have records that have never been played...indeed can not ever be
> > played?
>
> play it because it 'can not ever be played'? That sounds like a plot
> from a rejected pitch on a Hammer House of Horror film, budget six
> pounds fifty.
>
> > The black vinyl sits in its sleeve for all eternity.
>
>
The polyvinyl chloride plastic disc rested in its sheaf, unplayed for all
eternity. The alien visitors discovered it in the ruins of an old
civilization from a dying planet. Catching their decorative fancy, loyal
wards served their kings from it. Never knowing that to play it, you must
scratch it more...
dcr
Steven Sullivan
> On 10/26/04 2:39 PM, in article 2u7ugmF...@uni-berlin.de, "sdavmor"
> <sda...@fakeemailaddress.com> wrote:
> >>> *shiny blue fuck*
> >
> > As opposed to *matte red buggery*
> I always thought it was matte *grey* buggery.
Whatever. All we need is something in yellow, and
we have a new set of King Crimson records.
Jeremy Weissenburger
CheetahPRO_v...@blackcat.demon.co.uk, "Mike Dickson"
<mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <clmktq$rvd$5...@reader1.panix.com> ssu...@panix.com wrote...
>
>>>> As opposed to *matte red buggery*
>>
>>> I always thought it was matte *grey* buggery.
>>
>> Whatever. All we need is something in yellow, and
>> we have a new set of King Crimson records.
>
> 'Yellow rubbery fuck' is not bad.
Isn't that a line from "I Am The Walrus"? ;)
--Jeremy
--
"Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding." -- They Might
Be Giants
Steven Sullivan
> In article <clmktq$rvd$5...@reader1.panix.com> ssu...@panix.com wrote...
> > > > As opposed to *matte red buggery*
> >
> > > I always thought it was matte *grey* buggery.
> >
> > Whatever. All we need is something in yellow, and
> > we have a new set of King Crimson records.
> 'Yellow rubbery fuck' is not bad.
hmm..this is getting way too *euro* for me..if we
continue, can we at least agree on a 'safe word'
first?
Terrell Miller
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>>
>> By practically every measurable spec, CD meets or exceeds LP
>> performance. That''s about as objective as it gets.
>>
>>
>
> Except one - your ears.
heh heh
twenty years ago everybody was raving about the pristine sounds of digital
synthesizers and slagging those "cheesy analog synths"
Five years ago everybody was raving about the warm richness of modeled
analog synths and slagging those cheesy digital synthesizers.
Now of course everybody is busily replacing their entire hardware rig with
VST plugins and a USB controller.
Oh, and business dress is coming back in, so we'll all have to spend a lot
of money on our wardrobes again.
LOL *Consumers*
;)
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
" A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
stereoroid
"Terrell Miller" <mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:6JXfd.48875$mn5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> heh heh
>
> twenty years ago everybody was raving about the pristine sounds of digital
> synthesizers and slagging those "cheesy analog synths"
>
> Five years ago everybody was raving about the warm richness of modeled
> analog synths and slagging those cheesy digital synthesizers.
>
> Now of course everybody is busily replacing their entire hardware rig with
> VST plugins and a USB controller.
>
Oh damn, now you tell me. I was thinking about buying a new Alesis Micron
(analog modelling) this weekend, to compliment my 8-year old Kawai K5000S
(digital additive, pristine, seriously un-cheesy). I use Sonar with plugins
like FM7 and B4 - emulations of even older gear.
Some folks once said that synth bass would replace real bass. So? Sometimes
I use both in the same track, even at the same time.
I can't wait for the next fashion cycle, so I can do all the cool new stuff
along with all the cool old stuff!
Can I add my opinion to this debate? Both CDs and Vinyl have different
things that can go wrong during their creation. I would _love_ to hear a
recording made on a top-class analogue multitrack, mixed to 2-track at
30ips, mastered through an Avalon direct to virgin* vinyl, played back on a
top class turntable. But that's not practical, on my budget.
I have some CDs I can barely listen to, like Rush's "Vapor Trails", despite
the excellent music on them - I think that album's sonic shortcomings have
been covered here before. Then there are excellent ones, and there are
positive technical developments that make a real difference. Do I have to
start on about Super Bit Mapping and other dithering algorithms, brickwall
filters, etc?
All I'm trying to say is: the Vinyl vs CD debate is part of a wider analogue
vs. digital debate which has been done to death already. Personally, I don't
think ordinary CDs are representative of what digital recording is capable
of if done carefully. I'd rather have my music on a medium that precisely
replcates what it sounded like in the studio; I can always feed it though a
tube preamp if I want to warm it up, but once any fidelity is lost, you
can't get it back again, even if the sound becomes warmer in the process.
--
stereoroid
dublin, ireland
stere...@gmail.com
(let's see how Gmail handles Spam, shall we?)
* Trivia - that's how Virgin Records got their name: Branson's original
policy was to use new, unrecycled vinyl and the best mastering processes
available. Tempus Fugit, and all that...
Brett...
> Brett... <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>> Brett... <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote:
>>>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By practically every measurable spec, CD meets or exceeds LP
>>>>> performance. That''s about as objective as it gets.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> Except one - your ears.
>>>
>>> That, of course, would be a highly *subjective* measure, not
>>> *objective*.
>
>
>> I think at last you've got it!
>
> Well, that makes *one* of us. So, for your sake, let me
> repeat: by practically every objective standard, CD meets or
> exceeds LP performance.
>
>
Come on it's not that difficult, do you think the process of listening to
music is an objective or subjective one?
>> Do you like Robert Fripp by any chance?
>
>
> Why do you ask?
Answer my question first :-)
--
Brett
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Brett... <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote:
> >> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >>> Brett... <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By practically every measurable spec, CD meets or exceeds LP
> >>>>> performance. That''s about as objective as it gets.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>> Except one - your ears.
> >>>
> >>> That, of course, would be a highly *subjective* measure, not
> >>> *objective*.
> >
> >
> >> I think at last you've got it!
> >
> > Well, that makes *one* of us. So, for your sake, let me
> > repeat: by practically every objective standard, CD meets or
> > exceeds LP performance.
> >
> >
> Come on it's not that difficult, do you think the process of listening to
> music is an objective or subjective one?
Come on, it's not that difficult. Listening to music is a subjective experience,
and subjective perceptions are demonstarbly
prone to error. So if you want to make a nontrivial
statement of fact about the experience -- one that is applicable to
more than just you -- you have to control for the sources of error.
Brett...
>
>> Come on it's not that difficult, do you think the process of
>> listening to music is an objective or subjective one?
>
>
> Come on, it's not that difficult. Listening to music is a subjective
> experience, and subjective perceptions are demonstarbly
> prone to error. So if you want to make a nontrivial
> statement of fact about the experience -- one that is applicable to
> more than just you -- you have to control for the sources of error.
No no no. It is much easier than that. You listen and decide if it sounds
better.
That is all you need to do.
You cannot prove it is better or worse by producing a graph or looking at an
ocilloscope.
This is what the hi-fi nutters of the 1970's tried to do and the result was
the awful Shure V15 III
--
Brett
stePH
> "herb atlas" <djf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.10.22....@yahoo.com...
>
>>what one should do is entirely up to them! of course, the mp3 is not
>>different than making a cassette.
>
>
>>But a cloned CD is just as good as the
>>original... is there debate about that?
>>
>
>
>
> No lyrics, no liner notes, no lineup info. No it's not.
I was about to post that the absence of the original packaging materials
(artwork etc.) is the only way that a digitally-ripped and cloned CD is
inferior to the original. I see now that I didn't think of it first.
stePH
--
"A lion will exert himself to the utmost, even when entering the tiger's
den to throw baby rabbits off a cliff!" -- Moroboshi Ataru
stePH
> "Mozorael" <mozo...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:20041022223238...@mb-m19.aol.com...
>
>>In the USA you can re-sell cds and videos. You can also rent vidoes, but
>>you can't rent cds.
>
> but then you can, cant you? at public libraties, ie renting cds.
I've only ever seen *lending* libraries. Not *renting* libraries.
Karthik Subramanian
>>>In the USA you can re-sell cds and videos. You can also rent vidoes, but
>>>you can't rent cds.
>>
>> but then you can, cant you? at public libraties, ie renting cds.
>
> I've only ever seen *lending* libraries. Not *renting* libraries.
That is indeed true. So I dont know if that qualifies. On the other hand,
public libraries charge late fines too and so in some way are renting them
out. At public libraries, AFAIK, books and cds are treated as similar items,
while DVDs and videos qualify as another and CD-ROMS as yet another. I may
be wrong.
Terrell Miller
news:2unkqoF...@uni-berlin.de...
> I've only ever seen *lending* libraries. Not *renting* libraries.
well...taxpayer-funded "lending" libraries, to be precise
Jeremy Weissenburger
"Karthik Subramanian" <subram...@er6s1.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
That seems to be pretty much the norm. My mother is a librarian, and the
whole movie rental thing is pretty much a newer service in libraries. To
keep up with costs, they have to charge a small fee for DVDs and/or videos,
but not CDs (unless, of course it's overdue or late).
I seem to recall my local library was at first charging for CDs as well, but
not anymore.
--Jeremy
--
"Be like a stamp: stick to one thing until you get there."
stePH
The Snohomish/Island County library system (in the state of Washington)
doesn't even charge late fees. Apparently they think this provides a
better incentive to bring the book back, rather than to put it away and
forget about it so as to not have to pay a late charge.
Yesstiles
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >> Come on it's not that difficult, do you think the process of
> >> listening to music is an objective or subjective one?
> >
> >
> > Come on, it's not that difficult. Listening to music is a subjective
> > experience, and subjective perceptions are demonstarbly
> > prone to error. So if you want to make a nontrivial
> > statement of fact about the experience -- one that is applicable to
> > more than just you -- you have to control for the sources of error.
> No no no. It is much easier than that. You listen and decide if it sounds
> better.
> That is all you need to do.
And then you shut the fuck up about it, unless you're willing to
define what 'better' means.
> You cannot prove it is better or worse by producing a graph or looking at an
> ocilloscope.
> This is what the hi-fi nutters of the 1970's tried to do and the result was
> the awful Shure V15 III
See my advice above? Please take it.
Brett...
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Brett... <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> Come on it's not that difficult, do you think the process of
>>>> listening to music is an objective or subjective one?
>>>
>>>
>>> Come on, it's not that difficult. Listening to music is a
>>> subjective experience, and subjective perceptions are demonstarbly
>>> prone to error. So if you want to make a nontrivial
>>> statement of fact about the experience -- one that is applicable to
>>> more than just you -- you have to control for the sources of error.
>
>> No no no. It is much easier than that. You listen and decide if it
>> sounds better.
>> That is all you need to do.
>
> And then you shut the fuck up about it, unless you're willing to
> define what 'better' means.
>
Ok lets try this from another angle...
If you thought that King Crimson are better than Yes, would you try to
objectively measure why one was better than the other?
>> You cannot prove it is better or worse by producing a graph or
>> looking at an ocilloscope.
>> This is what the hi-fi nutters of the 1970's tried to do and the
>> result was the awful Shure V15 III
>
> See my advice above? Please take it.
Did you answer yes to the question above?
--
Brett
cap...@hotmail.com
Eiron
>>>You cannot prove it is better or worse by producing a graph or
>>>looking at an ocilloscope.
>>>This is what the hi-fi nutters of the 1970's tried to do and the
>>>result was the awful Shure V15 III
>>
>>See my advice above? Please take it.
>
>
> Did you answer yes to the question above?
Brett - what, in your opinion, was wrong with the V15 III?
Did you dislike the flat frequency response, the low distortion
or its unequalled "Trackability"?
Or did you just have a crappy heavyweight arm more suited to an MC?
--
Eiron.
Steven Sullivan
> I thought this thread had died!
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Brett... <blan...@saltwells.dudley.gov.uk> wrote:
> >> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>> Come on it's not that difficult, do you think the process of
> >>>> listening to music is an objective or subjective one?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Come on, it's not that difficult. Listening to music is a
> >>> subjective experience, and subjective perceptions are demonstarbly
> >>> prone to error. So if you want to make a nontrivial
> >>> statement of fact about the experience -- one that is applicable to
> >>> more than just you -- you have to control for the sources of error.
> >
> >> No no no. It is much easier than that. You listen and decide if it
> >> sounds better.
> >> That is all you need to do.
> >
> > And then you shut the fuck up about it, unless you're willing to
> > define what 'better' means.
> >
> Ok lets try this from another angle...
I still recommend shutting the fuck up about it, in your case.
> If you thought that King Crimson are better than Yes, would you try to
> objectively measure why one was better than the other?
If I intended to debate *why* I thought something was 'better',
I would define what I meant by 'better'.
If 'better' *only* means 'personal preference', with all its
attendant biases, then no, of course I wouldn't 'measure' it.
I would state a preference, acknowledge readily that it
is nothing more than that (if asked), and shut the fuck up about
it.
If 'better' refers to some measurable criterion then of course, yes
I would explain the objective reasons why one was 'better' than
another.
Of course,in the case of bands, there's no question that one
sounds *different* from the other. As regards audio, it's often the
case that mere *difference* hasn't even been established, much
less which might be 'better'. Nor is it often demonstrated
that a stated 'preference' is *only* due to audio performance, even
thought that is implied.
> >> You cannot prove it is better or worse by producing a graph or
> >> looking at an ocilloscope.
> >> This is what the hi-fi nutters of the 1970's tried to do and the
> >> result was the awful Shure V15 III
> >
> > See my advice above? Please take it.
> Did you answer yes to the question above?
Do you have even a single tiny clue? What , for example, makes
you say the Shure V15 III was 'awful'? Was it an opinion derived
from listening, measurements, reviews, or some combination?
And were the evaluations bias-controlled? If not, are you willing
to allow the possibility that your judgement of 'awful'
might *not* be due to just the *actual*
audio performance of the cart? Such that , if you were
prevented from knowing which cart you were listening to,
you *might* come to a completely different conclusion about the
Shure V15 III?
If your answer is no, then you not only should take my advice
and shut the fuck up about 'better' as regards audio,
you should go and read up on basic psychology.
Steven Sullivan
The fellow can't even get the meaning of 'objective' and 'subjective'
right -- and you throw *this* at him?
Brett...
> Eiron <e1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Brett... wrote:
>
>>>>> You cannot prove it is better or worse by producing a graph or
>>>>> looking at an ocilloscope.
>>>>> This is what the hi-fi nutters of the 1970's tried to do and the
>>>>> result was the awful Shure V15 III
>>>>
>>>> See my advice above? Please take it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you answer yes to the question above?
>
>> Brett - what, in your opinion, was wrong with the V15 III?
>> Did you dislike the flat frequency response, the low distortion
>> or its unequalled "Trackability"?
>> Or did you just have a crappy heavyweight arm more suited to an MC?
>
>
> The fellow can't even get the meaning of 'objective' and 'subjective'
> right -- and you throw *this* at him?
Oh dear...
--
Brett
Brett...
This is exactly the point - on paper it was perfect, it couldn't be
faulted which was great...
Until you actually listened to the thing. Virtually everyone who heard it
(regardless of the arm) thought it sounded the pits.
--
Brett
Eiron
>>Brett - what, in your opinion, was wrong with the V15 III?
>>Did you dislike the flat frequency response, the low distortion
>>or its unequalled "Trackability"?
>>Or did you just have a crappy heavyweight arm more suited to an MC?
>
>
> This is exactly the point - on paper it was perfect, it couldn't be
> faulted which was great...
> Until you actually listened to the thing. Virtually everyone who heard it
> (regardless of the arm) thought it sounded the pits.
Did you listen to any LPs through a V15?
Do you actually know anyone who did?
Nobody who listened to mine ever thought it sounded less than perfect,
though to be fair, some of them were used to Goldring cartridges.
--
Eiron.
Brett...
>
> I still recommend shutting the fuck up about it, in your case.
Oh dear
>
>> If you thought that King Crimson are better than Yes, would you try
>> to objectively measure why one was better than the other?
>
> If I intended to debate *why* I thought something was 'better',
> I would define what I meant by 'better'.
>
I take that as a "no" then. Good. Moving on...
> If 'better' *only* means 'personal preference', with all its
> attendant biases, then no, of course I wouldn't 'measure' it.
> I would state a preference, acknowledge readily that it
> is nothing more than that (if asked), and shut the fuck up about
> it.
Right and going back to the start of this, I gave a suggestion that the
reason why people might have the temerity to choose vinyl over CD was that
it sounded better. Perhaps for you, I should have added ...to them.
>
> If 'better' refers to some measurable criterion then of course, yes
> I would explain the objective reasons why one was 'better' than
> another.
Quite and that is the problem. Your measuring instruments tell you it
reproduces more faithfully. The problem is (and I know you are not going to
like this) for many our ears tell us a different story.
>
> Of course,in the case of bands, there's no question that one
> sounds *different* from the other. As regards audio, it's often the
> case that mere *difference* hasn't even been established, much
> less which might be 'better'. Nor is it often demonstrated
> that a stated 'preference' is *only* due to audio performance, even
> thought that is implied.
>
Agreed.
>>>> You cannot prove it is better or worse by producing a graph or
>>>> looking at an ocilloscope.
>>>> This is what the hi-fi nutters of the 1970's tried to do and the
>>>> result was the awful Shure V15 III
>>>
>>> See my advice above? Please take it.
>
>> Did you answer yes to the question above?
>
> Do you have even a single tiny clue? What , for example, makes
> you say the Shure V15 III was 'awful'? Was it an opinion derived
> from listening,
Yes
> measurements,
No
> reviews,
No, I seem to remember the press raving about it at the time, only admitting
that that they got it all wrong later. But that had no bearing on my
decision.
or some combination?
No just my ears.
> And were the evaluations bias-controlled?
You really don't trust your ears do you?
> If not, are you willing
> to allow the possibility that your judgement of 'awful'
> might *not* be due to just the *actual*
> audio performance of the cart?
Ok I take the "awful" back in the context of what was around at the time,
but I have to say that compared with most of the cartridges that came out
after the Shure era did make it in relative terms sound - "awful".
> Such that , if you were
> prevented from knowing which cart you were listening to,
> you *might* come to a completely different conclusion about the
> Shure V15 III?
>
Living with one for 12 months was enough empirical evidence for me.
> If your answer is no, then you not only should take my advice
> and shut the fuck up about 'better' as regards audio,
> you should go and read up on basic psychology.
Thanks for that lucid vision.
--
Brett