Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don't, we all need to decide what is important to us. But, like Zoet, you are missing the obvious. A cubic zirconia does not become a diamond just because someone does not care which is which.

True enough but the question of whether a diamond is better than a cubic zirconium rests on whether people care which is which.

Put differently, if people stop caring about the differences between diamonds and cubic zirconia those differences become little more than distinctions.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

I agree, BD prices are very low everything being equal. The problem is that because of the bigger entertainment pie, it is perceived as expensive, if only because it has so much competition compared to all previous formats.

And while that competition is of known lesser quality, the average Joe will use the easiest and cheapest way. Considering the explosion in all of home entertainment, BD having done so well up to now is great. And as of late, at least in the audio world, quality is now "IN" and will be the next big thing. I can't see how that won't transpose in the HT world, they're all the same players after all.

Quality in the audio world is not 'in' nor will it ever be. Cheap and nasty is the order of the day. Tinny mp3 and lots of it! That will only get worse when we see the smartwatch audio push. Bluetooth anyone? Pass me the sick bucket.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by octagon

True enough but the question of whether a diamond is better than a cubic zirconium rests on whether people care which is which.

Put differently, if people stop caring about the differences between diamonds and cubic zirconia those differences become little more than distinctions.

Yep, my point exactly. It all rests on the perceived value, and as said earlier, for many the real value is only in the content, and not its quality (hence the tablet, phone users). But as long as enough do perceive they added quality as a very cheap upgrade, it will always be there. Hence why an aversion to UHD isn't a good idea, with it, real upgrades in PQ and AQ are waiting to happen, and again, it's people like us that make it happen.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

True enough but the question of whether a diamond is better than a cubic zirconium rests on whether people care which is which.

Put differently, if people stop caring about the differences between diamonds and cubic zirconia those differences become little more than distinctions.

No they don't, they are still differences. It's the people that would have changed not the objects/items.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Quality in the audio world is not 'in' nor will it ever be. Cheap and nasty is the order of the day. Tinny mp3 and lots of it! That will only get worse when we see the smartwatch audio push. Bluetooth anyone? Pass me the sick bucket.

Well on this one Steed I'll just say that you are wrong. Hi res audio is thriving like never, vinyl is back with a vengeance, people will not double dip unless the AQ is better. But you do need to be part of that world to know, which I guess you're not, if you only see cheap audio you should jump on the audio and gear threads here buddy. PONO is so hot it's not funny, tons of new hi res gear. Seriously, the music world is going back to quality, just not on a hard format in general, and with more and more audio only BDs it's going well.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

Well on this one Steed I'll just say that you are wrong. Hi res audio is thriving like never, vinyl is back with a vengeance, people will not double dip unless the AQ is better. But you do need to be part of that world to know, which I guess you're not, if you only see cheap audio you should jump on the audio and gear threads here buddy. PONO is so hot it's not funny, tons of new hi res gear. Seriously, the music world is going back to quality, just not on a hard format in general, and with more and more audio only BDs it's going well.

I was speaking in general terms, I actually listen to vinyl and also have a separates system. I'm a bit surprised about your views on vinyl. Back with a vengeance? Really? Yes, it has seen a uptake, but I feel you are exaggerating. Same goes for the Pono. It's just a buzzword at the moment, nothing more in my opinion.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I was speaking in general terms, I actually listen to vinyl and also have a separates system. I'm a bit surprised about your views on vinyl. Back with a vengeance? Really? Yes, it has seen a uptake, but I feel you are exaggerating. Same goes for the Pono. It's just a buzzword at the moment, nothing more in my opinion.

Nah, dude, I got a John Lewis catalogue today, lots of stuff about hi def audio and 4k. Whole page explaining why MP3 isn't as good as CD.

And, yeah, vinyl is back in a big way. I don't remember it being this easy to buy new releases for a long time. It's rare now a new CD comes out without a vinyl version as well.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I was speaking in general terms, I actually listen to vinyl and also have a separates system. I'm a bit surprised about your views on vinyl. Back with a vengeance? Really? Yes, it has seen a uptake, but I feel you are exaggerating. Same goes for the Pono. It's just a buzzword at the moment, nothing more in my opinion.

However minor you might see it (though it really is very alive) the important factor is that there is demand for quality, and it is being answered extremely well. Only look in the last few years how many hi res remasters for SACD, DVD-A or BD audio. Hi res download sites abound, and with stuff you consider like a buzzword but the reality is it's really coming out and the campaign was a major success and they ain't giving it away.

Where I believe the distinction between hi res audio and HT lies is the fact the audio consumers seem to have made peace with downloads a little more, as they'd rather have that then nothing I guess, plus the PC is much more involved for music than HT.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Quality in the audio world is not 'in' nor will it ever be. Cheap and nasty is the order of the day.

And yet you say all you see are Beats. Aren't generic ten dollar ear buds a lot cheaper?

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by octagon

And yet you say all you see are Beats. Aren't generic ten dollar ear buds a lot cheaper?

yes, but they aren't stylish. don't forget that style wins above substance any day of the week. just look at the clothes market

[Nick The Slick]

Originally Posted by wormraper

yes, but they aren't stylish. don't forget that style wins above substance any day of the week. just look at the clothes market

Beats has made me tear my hair out a few times. I hate when I get a beats audio laptop repair and the complaint is "Defective speakers, doesn't sound like Beats" or even worse, the "there is no bass" complaint (you would be surprised how often this happens) Good marketing will make people believe anything.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by wormraper

yes, but they aren't stylish. don't forget that style wins above substance any day of the week. just look at the clothes market

So people buy decent headphones instead of cheap earbuds but we shouldn't read too much into that because they're probably buying them for the wrong reasons?

That's pretty convenient.

'Nobody cares about quality anymore' is a popular refrain (and has been for generations) but it doesn't really hold up. You mention clothes. Yes, people who buy designer or brand-name clothes pay a premium for the label but they're also paying for shoes that don't fall apart after moderate wear and shirts that don't fade or lose their shape the first time you wash them.

It's popular to dismiss people who buy Bose or Apple as trendy sycophants but as overpriced as they are Bose and Apple make some pretty decent stuff. Hell, Monster makes very nice cables. One might be able to make the case that people buying them are stupid but it's hard to say they don't care about quality.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by octagon

So people buy decent headphones instead of cheap earbuds but we shouldn't read too much into that because they're probably buying them for the wrong reasons?

That's pretty convenient.

'Nobody cares about quality anymore' is a popular refrain (and has been for generations) but it doesn't really hold up. You mention clothes. Yes, people who buy designer or brand-name clothes pay a premium for the label but they're also paying for shoes that don't fall apart after moderate wear and shirts that don't fade or lose their shape the first time you wash them.

It's popular to dismiss people who buy Bose or Apple as trendy sycophants but as overpriced as they are Bose and Apple make some pretty decent stuff. Hell, Monster makes very nice cables. One might be able to make the case that people buying them are stupid but it's hard to say they don't care about quality.

Oh boy... can of worms being opened right there.

You do know that Bose has been proven to use highly inferior materials to create their product right? Their speakers consistently fail to drop large portions of the mid-range audio in favour of the high and low ends... which is what makes them SEEM to be so good. Sure, you get nice deep bass and solid treble without any tinny effect, but is that really worth it when the normal audio spectrum is shit or even missing completely?

And Monster cables? That example is definitely not about quality... unless to say that they are almost the exact same quality as those available at Monoprice.com! There is no need to spend that kind of money on a cable that will function just as well and for just as long (if its properly taken care of) for 1/50th of the Monster price.

[octagon]

Whether people are getting a quality product when paying more for Bose or Apple or Monster is irrelevant to my point.

People who buy Bose or Apple or Monster believe they're getting a higher quality product and they're willing to pay more for it. That undercuts the notion that nobody but the enlightened few care about quality.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

So people buy decent headphones instead of cheap earbuds but we shouldn't read too much into that because they're probably buying them for the wrong reasons?

That's pretty convenient.

'Nobody cares about quality anymore' is a popular refrain (and has been for generations) but it doesn't really hold up. You mention clothes. Yes, people who buy designer or brand-name clothes pay a premium for the label but they're also paying for shoes that don't fall apart after moderate wear and shirts that don't fade or lose their shape the first time you wash them.

It's popular to dismiss people who buy Bose or Apple as trendy sycophants but as overpriced as they are Bose and Apple make some pretty decent stuff. Hell, Monster makes very nice cables. One might be able to make the case that people buying them are stupid but it's hard to say they don't care about quality.

Beats, IMO, has nothing to do with people enjoying good quality and everything to do with a sheep mentality. They are the 'in' thing. If it was really about quality, people have much better options for their money. It's the label, same as fashion. It's as simple as that.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by KRW1

Nah, dude, I got a John Lewis catalogue today, lots of stuff about hi def audio and 4k. Whole page explaining why MP3 isn't as good as CD.

And, yeah, vinyl is back in a big way. I don't remember it being this easy to buy new releases for a long time. It's rare now a new CD comes out without a vinyl version as well.

Vinyl is very niche at the moment. Last time I checked it was just 2% percent of the market. Unless anyone can update me?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

And yet you say all you see are Beats. Aren't generic ten dollar ear buds a lot cheaper?

Yes, but we ain't talking about quality. It's the brand, it's fashion. People will spend money to belong. (Not me) if it was about quality, Technics headphones would have been the headphone of choice everywhere years ago.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by KRW1

And, yeah, vinyl is back in a big way. I don't remember it being this easy to buy new releases for a long time. It's rare now a new CD comes out without a vinyl version as well.

Perhaps with certain genres or sub-genres it is the norm to always have a vinyl release for your album but certainly not across the entire music market.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by vargo

Perhaps with certain genres or sub-genres it is the norm to always have a vinyl release for your album but certainly not across the entire music market.

Possibly not, but I buy a wide variety of genres and don't seem to have to to look for something that doesn't exist anymore. Only a few years ago it wasn't this way.

Example - Rizzle Kicks, first album CD only (2011), second album Vinyl and CD (2013). Seems clear to me.

Looking at this weeks new releases on amazon, the only ones without vinyl counterparts are the compilations and, please, in the age of spotify, who on earth buys those?

Pretty sure you can dig about and find a release that doesn't have a vinyl version but, frankly, if I'm not interested in buying it, I don't care. Speaking for myself, as long as the stuff I want to buy comes out, I couldn't give a stuff, and it's coming out all the time.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by KRW1

Pretty sure you can dig about and find a release that doesn't have a vinyl version but, frankly, if I'm not interested in buying it, I don't care. Speaking for myself, as long as the stuff I want to buy comes out, I couldn't give a stuff, and it's coming out all the time.

That's all fine and well, but it just goes to show that as with most posters here, you allowed personal taste to cloud your objectivity.

You didn't say that most albums you are interested in buying come on vinyl. You said that "It's rare now a new CD comes out without a vinyl version as well" and clearly that statement is not true.

Using Amazon's new and forthcoming release section, I estimate that between 2/3 and 3/4 of new CD releases do not have an accompanying vinyl release. So to say that it's rare is completely incorrect.