"Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:UomdnRvCc-0G7L3VnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:o96dnVBO1fjOor3VnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Romeo Rondeau" <eveyone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:KkPTj.2370$3O7.1254@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> You don't buy an iPod for quality, you buy it for
>>> convenience.
>>
>> What you get with at least the larger iPods is an audio
>> playback device whose electrical output is about as
>> clean as a CD player, but that has a low source
>> impedance designed for driving headphones. If you load
>> it with uncompressed audio files, it is the functional
>> equivalent of a high quality ****table CD player.
>>> If you want quality buy something that was designed for
>>> it.
>>
>> IOW, an iPod or high quality competitive product.
>>
>> Several of us enjoyed the use of the Nomad Jukebox 3,
>> which was a logical predecessor of either the iPod or
>> the Microtrack. At this point I don't think that the professional
>> utility and perhaps even the professional stature of the
>> Microtrack and competitive products are in doubt by many.
>>
>> Technically, the larger iPods are just Microtracks
>> without the extensive facilities for location recording,
>> but with a more user-friendly file system.
> The zeitgeist manifests not in the hardware platform,
> which is decent, but in the mastering and the
> compression.
So then this isn't about iPods or storage media, its about mastering.
> The hardware is equivalent or better than a
> typical CD Walkman of the 90's, but the sound is not.
Given that the hardware can be loaded with what have you, then your
statement makes no sense.
Are you decrying customer preferences or hardware?
> But the zeitgeist also manifests in the market share of flash
> player music, which occured with the changing role of
> music in our society.
Do tell, what is "flash player music", and how does it differ from the
finest digital recordings ever made?
> In the past, music was marketed as a performance.
Silly me, I thought it was marketed as something that you wanted to listen
to.
> High fidelity was a privilege equivalent
> to a good seat in the hall.
Silly me, I always preferred the good seat in the good hall.
> That is now quite secondary.
Speak for yourself!
> Music is now principally a pacifier, an auxilary
> brainwave.
For some people, probably.
> I would guess that most audio professionals
> hear music fewer hours of the day than the typical flash
> player addict, but we listen more intently.
Your point?
|
