From: Sushi (Sushi_at_ragingbull.com)
Date: Tue Feb 17 2004 - 06:57:36 PST
>On Feb 16, 2004, at 11:46 PM, Ed Kummel wrote:
>
>If you think paying double the price for a song that
>has 1/10th (or even less)the quality of the original
>CD...then yeah...anything iTunes related is a smart
>idea....for the company collecting the cash!
After seeing and hearing setups costing a quarter million, cheaper
systems pale by comparison. :-)
Besides, if it isn't on vinyl, then it isn't even in the ballpark! :-o
;-)
When CDs were introduced, the so called audiophiles reacted the same way.
The sound quality with CDs was not as good. You could actually hear the
difference they claimed. Some went so far as to state that music was
being butchered via conversion to CD. Yet today, everyone seems to
support the CD as the music standard for quality sound.
...and I have yet to hear someone state that they miss the infamous
"pops" made when playing a regular vinyl record.
Anyhow, I would venture to say, that the average person can not tell the
difference between a CD version and a quality MP3 recording of a song
when played through the same system.
And to have the advantage of carrying around a huge collection in the
palm of your hand, in itself, is reason enough to have an iPod or mini
iPod.
As for me, I am not looking back...there is no reason to. The popular
DL'ing of digital music is here to stay it looks like.
Times be a changing! :-)
Sushi
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries List FAQ/Etiquette/Terms: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 17 2004 - 08:30:02 PST