Question

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Matt Casey, May 16, 2009.

  1. Matt Casey

    Matt Casey Guest

    Vinyl records are back as a format. Stores carry them. Record players
    are back.....?
    Will vinyl records become the dominant format again and replace CDs
    and MP3s? I thought technology was going forward, not backward. It
    seems that people want to return to older technologies.
    Matt Casey, May 16, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:06:03 -0500, "Mark Jones" <>
    wrote:

    >Matt Casey wrote:
    >> Vinyl records are back as a format. Stores carry them. Record players
    >> are back.....?
    >> Will vinyl records become the dominant format again and replace CDs
    >> and MP3s? I thought technology was going forward, not backward. It
    >> seems that people want to return to older technologies.

    >
    >People still enjoy driving a Model T or A Ford, but I
    >wouldn't expect one on the dealer lot for sale.
    >

    The local Chevy dealer has a first year Suburban sitting on the
    pedestal, out in front of his lot in Carlsbad. It is for sale.

    Car lots DO sell used cars. Even old ones. Get a clue, or get relegated
    as yet another Usenet retard.
    Archimedes' Lever, May 16, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Matt Casey

    Tarkus Guest

    Matt Casey wrote:
    > Vinyl records are back as a format. Stores carry them. Record players
    > are back.....?
    > Will vinyl records become the dominant format again and replace CDs
    > and MP3s?


    No.

    What I really love is the vinyl cult who constantly preach about how
    much warmer and natural the sound is than digital, and then rip their
    LPs and proudly upload them to torrent sites, as if it's something special.

    When they rip them, they're converting them to digital, but not using a
    multi million dollar studio and the original source material that the CD
    producers use.

    So instead of that "warm, natural" sound, you're getting snap, crackle
    and pop on digital from an inferior source.
    Tarkus, May 16, 2009
    #3
  4. Matt Casey

    Matt Casey Guest

    On May 15, 8:05 pm, "The Mighty TB" <>
    wrote:
    > "Archimedes' Lever" farted:
    >
    > >>Matt Casey wrote:
    > >>> Vinyl records are back as a format. Stores carry them. Record players
    > >>> are back.....?
    > >>> Will vinyl records become the dominant format again and replace CDs
    > >>> and MP3s? I thought technology was going forward, not backward. It
    > >>> seems that people want to return to older technologies.

    >
    > >>People still enjoy driving a Model T or A Ford, but I
    > >>wouldn't expect one on the dealer lot for sale.

    >
    > >  The local Chevy dealer has a first year Suburban sitting on the
    > > pedestal, out in front of his lot in Carlsbad.  It is for sale.

    >
    > > Car lots DO sell used cars.  Even old ones. Get a clue, or get relegated
    > > as yet another Usenet retard.

    >
    > Like good ol' Archtard here.


    Will vinyl records replace CDs? I listen to audiobooks on CD and I
    don't want to switch to vinyl. How much of the market will vinyl
    records capture?
    Matt Casey, May 16, 2009
    #4
  5. Matt Casey

    Matt Casey Guest

    On May 15, 6:54 pm, "The Mighty TB" <>
    wrote:
    > "Matt Casey" wrote:
    > > Vinyl records are back as a format. Stores carry them. Record players
    > > are back.....?
    > > Will vinyl records become the dominant format again and replace CDs
    > > and MP3s? I thought technology was going forward, not backward. It
    > > seems that people want to return to older technologies.

    >
    > Vinyl records are a small niche market.  The format and the hardware never
    > really disappeared (what have djs and rappers been using the past 15
    > years?).  They are not "replacing" downloadable media like MP3s.  In
    > addition, there's a significant number of audiophiles who believe vinyl
    > records provide a superior listening experience to cds (or other digital
    > media).  Record albums (and their sleeves) also provide a tangible "object"
    > for collectors.
    >
    > Divx offers none of these perceived advantages and plenty of other
    > disadvantages compared to other video formats currently available for
    > consumers.  Laserdiscs have a better chance of returning than Divx.
    >
    > T.B.


    Are vinyl records replacing Cds?
    Matt Casey, May 16, 2009
    #5
  6. Archie - your anger has led you to babble utter nonsense here. What
    does a classic car (the Model A) versus a plain older vehicle (the
    Suburban) have in relation to a modern automobile that is comparable
    when looking at vinyl LPs against digital recording sources like CDs
    and MP3s?


    On Fri, 15 May 2009 18:01:59 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
    <> incoherently wrote:

    >On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:06:03 -0500, "Mark Jones" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Matt Casey wrote:
    >>> Vinyl records are back as a format. Stores carry them. Record players
    >>> are back.....?
    >>> Will vinyl records become the dominant format again and replace CDs
    >>> and MP3s? I thought technology was going forward, not backward. It
    >>> seems that people want to return to older technologies.

    >>
    >>People still enjoy driving a Model T or A Ford, but I
    >>wouldn't expect one on the dealer lot for sale.
    >>

    > The local Chevy dealer has a first year Suburban sitting on the
    >pedestal, out in front of his lot in Carlsbad. It is for sale.
    >
    > Car lots DO sell used cars. Even old ones. Get a clue, or get relegated
    >as yet another Usenet retard.
    Richard Cranium, May 16, 2009
    #6
  7. On Fri, 15 May 2009 18:44:44 -0700, Tarkus
    <> wrote:

    >Matt Casey wrote:
    >> Vinyl records are back as a format. Stores carry them. Record players
    >> are back.....?
    >> Will vinyl records become the dominant format again and replace CDs
    >> and MP3s?

    >
    >No.
    >
    >What I really love is the vinyl cult who constantly preach about how
    >much warmer and natural the sound is than digital, and then rip their
    >LPs and proudly upload them to torrent sites, as if it's something special.
    >
    >When they rip them, they're converting them to digital, but not using a
    >multi million dollar studio and the original source material that the CD
    >producers use.
    >
    >So instead of that "warm, natural" sound, you're getting snap, crackle
    >and pop on digital from an inferior source.



    Reminds me of the illegitimate Rice Krispy that had snap, crackle, but
    no pop. Darn - that must date me!
    Richard Cranium, May 16, 2009
    #7
  8. Matt Casey

    Tarkus Guest

    The Mighty TB wrote:
    > "Tarkus" wrote:
    >
    >> What I really love is the vinyl cult who constantly preach about how
    >> much warmer and natural the sound is than digital, and then rip their
    >> LPs and proudly upload them to torrent sites, as if it's something
    >> special.
    >>
    >> When they rip them, they're converting them to digital, but not using
    >> a multi million dollar studio and the original source material that
    >> the CD producers use.
    >>
    >> So instead of that "warm, natural" sound, you're getting snap, crackle
    >> and pop on digital from an inferior source.

    >
    > To be fair, some studio albums produced in the past few years ( and even
    > a few "classic" albums remastered recently) have horrible sounding,
    > maxed out mixes for cd where you have massive clipping while the vinyl
    > counterpart sounds much better with no clipping. I agree with you it's
    > silly to use typical consumer hardware/software to re-encode a vinyl
    > album for digital format but there *are* some cases where a vinyl record
    > album *does* sound significantly superior to the cd counterpart.


    That all may be true, but I was just pointing out the hypocrisy that I
    find so amusing.
    Tarkus, May 16, 2009
    #8
  9. On Fri, 15 May 2009 18:44:44 -0700, Tarkus <>
    wrote:

    >Matt Casey wrote:
    >> Vinyl records are back as a format. Stores carry them. Record players
    >> are back.....?
    >> Will vinyl records become the dominant format again and replace CDs
    >> and MP3s?

    >
    >No.
    >
    >What I really love is the vinyl cult who constantly preach about how
    >much warmer and natural the sound is than digital, and then rip their
    >LPs and proudly upload them to torrent sites, as if it's something special.


    With current sample rates and lossless compression, I would be willing
    to bet that their original contention, which was made at the advent of
    the lowly CD and its pathetic sample rate, no longer exists.

    Modern "remastered" classics sound better (some). Modern amplifiers
    push electrons into your speakers better than back then.

    So they are wrong. So are the dopes that claim tube amps are better.
    >
    >When they rip them, they're converting them to digital, but not using a
    >multi million dollar studio and the original source material that the CD
    >producers use.


    Trust me, some of the source masters are analog tape, so you may not
    want every nuance contained therein. Some processing has to be
    performed. It just doesn't have to take place in the form of the final
    product delivery format. Albums are old hat. Period.

    >So instead of that "warm, natural" sound, you're getting snap, crackle
    >and pop on digital from an inferior source.


    Any anomalous inclusions on a disc's data stream are also on the master
    source that it was made from.

    Had they not been acting so blind, even back then, they would have noted
    that even the original DDD type discs put their claims to bed, and the
    DDA album pressing compared to the DDD CD proved it... even way back
    then.

    On an album like "The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway", the album sounded
    better on some tracks, but the CDs sound better on most. There are a
    couple tracks where the source master tape his was included on what was
    supposed to be a soft passage.

    But you old analog (i.e. albums, and tube amps) guys have to get past
    this stupid false claim of "better sounding" audio. The final transducers
    (your speakers) are ALL analog, so what drives them shouldn't matter.

    You guys need to give it up.
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt, May 16, 2009
    #9
  10. On Sat, 16 May 2009 02:51:37 GMT, (Richard The
    Illiterate Retard Cranium) wrote:

    > a plain older vehicle (the
    >Suburban)



    The statement was "a first year suburban", you retard.

    It is not surprising that you do not know what that is.
    Archimedes' Lever, May 16, 2009
    #10
  11. On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:53:33 -0700, "The Mighty TB"
    <> wrote:

    >"Tarkus" wrote:
    >
    >> What I really love is the vinyl cult who constantly preach about how much
    >> warmer and natural the sound is than digital, and then rip their LPs and
    >> proudly upload them to torrent sites, as if it's something special.
    >>
    >> When they rip them, they're converting them to digital, but not using a
    >> multi million dollar studio and the original source material that the CD
    >> producers use.
    >>
    >> So instead of that "warm, natural" sound, you're getting snap, crackle and
    >> pop on digital from an inferior source.

    >
    >To be fair, some studio albums produced in the past few years ( and even a
    >few "classic" albums remastered recently) have horrible sounding, maxed out
    >mixes for cd where you have massive clipping while the vinyl counterpart
    >sounds much better with no clipping. I agree with you it's silly to use
    >typical consumer hardware/software to re-encode a vinyl album for digital
    >format but there *are* some cases where a vinyl record album *does* sound
    >significantly superior to the cd counterpart.
    >
    >T.B.



    First intelligent, contributory post I think I have ever seen you make.
    Congratulations.
    Archimedes' Lever, May 16, 2009
    #11
  12. Matt Casey

    BlueBuyYoo Guest

    Mark Jones wrote:
    > Matt Casey wrote:
    >> On May 15, 8:05 pm, "The Mighty TB" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>> "Archimedes' Lever" farted:
    >>>
    >>>>> Matt Casey wrote:
    >>>>>> Vinyl records are back as a format. Stores carry them. Record
    >>>>>> players are back.....?
    >>>>>> Will vinyl records become the dominant format again and replace
    >>>>>> CDs and MP3s? I thought technology was going forward, not
    >>>>>> backward. It seems that people want to return to older
    >>>>>> technologies.
    >>>>> People still enjoy driving a Model T or A Ford, but I
    >>>>> wouldn't expect one on the dealer lot for sale.
    >>>> The local Chevy dealer has a first year Suburban sitting on the
    >>>> pedestal, out in front of his lot in Carlsbad. It is for sale.
    >>>> Car lots DO sell used cars. Even old ones. Get a clue, or get
    >>>> relegated as yet another Usenet retard.
    >>> Like good ol' Archtard here.

    >> Will vinyl records replace CDs? I listen to audiobooks on CD and I
    >> don't want to switch to vinyl. How much of the market will vinyl
    >> records capture?

    >
    > Not enough to worry about. I would guess very low single digits
    > percentage wise.


    Minimal. Niche at best.

    Most folk today have already sacrificed sound quality for convenience.
    MP3 is already taking over from CDs and the comparison in sound quality
    is pretty dramatic. Mini stereo systems and MP3 players have dumbed
    down the sound quality accepted by the masses.
    BlueBuyYoo, May 16, 2009
    #12
  13. Matt Casey

    MadManMoon Guest

    On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:36:01 -0500, "Mark Jones" <>
    wrote:

    >Archimedes' Lever went in my filter awhile back as a person
    >confirmed to not have anything useful to say. He is even
    >dim whitted enough to compare the sale of a Suburban to a
    >Model T Ford.


    The Suburban is an over 40 year old model. A few more years and it too
    qualifies as an antique.

    What it proved, idiot, is that car dealers DO put old classic cars on
    their lots for sale.

    You have to be a total retard to have missed the point of the remark.
    MadManMoon, May 17, 2009
    #13
  14. Matt Casey

    BlueBuyYoo Guest

    MadManMoon wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:36:01 -0500, "Mark Jones" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Archimedes' Lever went in my filter awhile back as a person
    >> confirmed to not have anything useful to say. He is even
    >> dim whitted enough to compare the sale of a Suburban to a
    >> Model T Ford.

    >
    > The Suburban is an over 40 year old model. A few more years and it too
    > qualifies as an antique.


    Actually, you are wrong once again. You really should check your facts
    before spouting off your "superior" intelligence. The Suburban has been
    around since 1935. That would make the model over 60 years old and that
    would qualify it as an antique now.
    BlueBuyYoo, May 17, 2009
    #14
  15. On Sat, 16 May 2009 23:57:00 -0400, BlueBuyYoo <>
    wrote:

    >MadManMoon wrote:
    >> On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:36:01 -0500, "Mark Jones" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Archimedes' Lever went in my filter awhile back as a person
    >>> confirmed to not have anything useful to say. He is even
    >>> dim whitted enough to compare the sale of a Suburban to a
    >>> Model T Ford.

    >>
    >> The Suburban is an over 40 year old model. A few more years and it too
    >> qualifies as an antique.

    >
    >Actually, you are wrong once again.


    No, I am not.

    > You really should check your facts
    >before spouting off your "superior" intelligence.


    My remark is factual.

    > The Suburban has been
    >around since 1935.



    My remark that it has been around for more than 40 years remains valid.
    Can you really be that retarded? 60 years IS "more than 40 years". You
    need remedial math.

    > That would make the model over 60 years old and that
    >would qualify it as an antique now.


    OK. It is an antique now. That make my point about car dealers and
    older cars even MORE valid, you retarded little twit.
    Archimedes' Lever, May 17, 2009
    #15
  16. Matt Casey

    BlueBuyYoo Guest

    Archimedes' Lever wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 May 2009 23:57:00 -0400, BlueBuyYoo <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> MadManMoon wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:36:01 -0500, "Mark Jones" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Archimedes' Lever went in my filter awhile back as a person
    >>>> confirmed to not have anything useful to say. He is even
    >>>> dim whitted enough to compare the sale of a Suburban to a
    >>>> Model T Ford.
    >>> The Suburban is an over 40 year old model. A few more years and it too
    >>> qualifies as an antique.

    >> Actually, you are wrong once again.

    >
    > No, I am not.
    >
    >> You really should check your facts
    >> before spouting off your "superior" intelligence.

    >
    > My remark is factual.
    >
    >> The Suburban has been
    >> around since 1935.

    >
    >
    > My remark that it has been around for more than 40 years remains valid.
    > Can you really be that retarded? 60 years IS "more than 40 years". You
    > need remedial math.
    >
    >> That would make the model over 60 years old and that
    >> would qualify it as an antique now.

    >
    > OK. It is an antique now. That make my point about car dealers and
    > older cars even MORE valid, you retarded little twit.


    Dance, Archie! Dance!
    BlueBuyYoo, May 17, 2009
    #16
  17. On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:28:07 -0500, "Mark Jones" <>
    wrote:

    >BlueBuyYoo wrote:
    >> MadManMoon wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:36:01 -0500, "Mark Jones"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Archimedes' Lever went in my filter awhile back as a person
    >>>> confirmed to not have anything useful to say. He is even
    >>>> dim whitted enough to compare the sale of a Suburban to a
    >>>> Model T Ford.
    >>>
    >>> The Suburban is an over 40 year old model. A few more years and it
    >>> too qualifies as an antique.

    >>
    >> Actually, you are wrong once again. You really should check your
    >> facts before spouting off your "superior" intelligence. The Suburban
    >> has been around since 1935. That would make the model over 60 years
    >> old and that would qualify it as an antique now.

    >
    >Although there may never be complete agreement, the general
    >consensus among the average collector and among state DMVs
    >is that a car becomes an antique at 25 years of age.
    >
    >This has been true in every state where I have lived. My first
    >car would be 40 years old if I still had it. It was probably
    >crushed long ago.
    >

    The term "antique" never had a varied definition to my knowledge, and
    that definition was traditionally 50 years to my personal recall across
    several states.

    Apparently, the world does not concede as such:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antique
    Archimedes' Lever, May 17, 2009
    #17
  18. On Sun, 17 May 2009 13:13:23 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
    <> wrote:

    <<<<<Snip>>>>>
    >
    > Apparently, the world does not concede as such:
    >

    Even more apparent:

    YOU are a lying moron!

    Bwuahahahahahahahahahaha!
    Richard Cranium, May 17, 2009
    #18
  19. Matt Casey

    Richard C. Guest

    "BlueBuyYoo" <> wrote in message
    news:gup6il$kjv$-september.org...
    : Archimedes' Lever wrote:
    : > On Sat, 16 May 2009 23:57:00 -0400, BlueBuyYoo <>
    : > wrote:
    : >
    : >> MadManMoon wrote:
    : >>> On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:36:01 -0500, "Mark Jones"
    <>
    : >>> wrote:
    : >>>
    : >>>> Archimedes' Lever went in my filter awhile back as a person
    : >>>> confirmed to not have anything useful to say. He is even
    : >>>> dim whitted enough to compare the sale of a Suburban to a
    : >>>> Model T Ford.
    : >>> The Suburban is an over 40 year old model. A few more years and it
    too
    : >>> qualifies as an antique.
    : >> Actually, you are wrong once again.
    : >
    : > No, I am not.
    : >
    : >> You really should check your facts
    : >> before spouting off your "superior" intelligence.
    : >
    : > My remark is factual.
    : >
    : >> The Suburban has been
    : >> around since 1935.
    : >
    : >
    : > My remark that it has been around for more than 40 years remains
    valid.
    : > Can you really be that retarded? 60 years IS "more than 40 years". You
    : > need remedial math.
    : >
    : >> That would make the model over 60 years old and that
    : >> would qualify it as an antique now.
    : >
    : > OK. It is an antique now. That make my point about car dealers and
    : > older cars even MORE valid, you retarded little twit.
    :
    : Dance, Archie! Dance!

    =======================
    With him, it is more like twitching!
    Richard C., May 17, 2009
    #19
  20. Matt Casey

    BlueBuyYoo Guest

    Archimedes' Lever wrote:
    > On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:28:07 -0500, "Mark Jones" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> BlueBuyYoo wrote:
    >>> MadManMoon wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:36:01 -0500, "Mark Jones"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Archimedes' Lever went in my filter awhile back as a person
    >>>>> confirmed to not have anything useful to say. He is even
    >>>>> dim whitted enough to compare the sale of a Suburban to a
    >>>>> Model T Ford.
    >>>> The Suburban is an over 40 year old model. A few more years and it
    >>>> too qualifies as an antique.
    >>> Actually, you are wrong once again. You really should check your
    >>> facts before spouting off your "superior" intelligence. The Suburban
    >>> has been around since 1935. That would make the model over 60 years
    >>> old and that would qualify it as an antique now.

    >> Although there may never be complete agreement, the general
    >> consensus among the average collector and among state DMVs
    >> is that a car becomes an antique at 25 years of age.
    >>
    >> This has been true in every state where I have lived. My first
    >> car would be 40 years old if I still had it. It was probably
    >> crushed long ago.
    >>

    > The term "antique" never had a varied definition to my knowledge, and
    > that definition was traditionally 50 years to my personal recall across
    > several states.
    >
    > Apparently, the world does not concede as such:
    >
    > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antique


    The term antique is pretty subjective and can depend on when a product
    was introduced to the public. In terms of computers, I don't there
    would be much of an argument saying that the Apple I & II, IBM PC,
    Sinclair Z80, TRS... are antiques. Using the 100 years span on cars
    doesn't really work either.
    BlueBuyYoo, May 17, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Wayne
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    708
    Wayne
    Mar 2, 2004
  2. eddiec
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    909
    Zenner
    May 20, 2004
  3. c.reifert

    Actually, a wav question instead of mp3 question

    c.reifert, Dec 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    842
    °Mike°
    Dec 3, 2004
  4. Jørgen Gilberg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,019
  5. SPD
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,136
    Jørgen Gilberg
    Aug 13, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page