OT: Musical Devices

[MattB]

[email protected] wrote:
> "Ride-A-Lot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>x1134x wrote:
>>
>>>Still-baffled @ why you need 4GB?
>>
>>I have an e-music catalog of 14,000 song titles and growing. I can easily
>>fill the 4GB drive with riding tunes. Then I can create different
>>playlists for each day. I wouldn't have to listen to the same song again
>>for a month.
>>
>>
>>>But yeah, other than shying away from any APPLE ****, I do think these
>>>things are the coolest things since sliced bread. Those and P2P file
>>>sharing. I used to dump 50-100 bucks a month on used cds @ the record
>>>store, but now I can't even remember the last CD I actually BOUGHT.
>>>And now with these flash players, the player doesn't have to be as big
>>>as a cd to go with you to play the tunes. You may also look into the
>>>noise cancelling headphones they WORK! They are awesomely better than
>>>standard headphones. . . .
>>
>>Did I mention I consult for the RIAA? Just kidding, but you shouldn;t go
>>around screaming you didn't pay for the music. Musicians work hard to
>>create that work. I know the record industry gouges and the artists make
>>nothing from a CD, but without it they couldn't support a tour (where they
>>make their money). This is why I like iTunes. I can get the titles I
>>want without having to buy the nine other sucky tunes on the CD.
>>
>>I have the second generation Bose NC headset and Seindheiser's folding NC
>>headset. I think both are equally great, but the seindheiser is much more
>>portable. On the bike I use the buds, because I need to hear what's
>>around me.
>>
>>--
>>o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
>>www.schnauzers.ws
>
>
> My choice would be the Sony HD5 MP3 player. You get a choice of 20 or 30Gb
> models (go for 30Gb - good value for money!), capacity for up to 13.000
> songs using Sony's Atrac+ compression (20Gb version), it's truly compact,
> beats all the competition hands down for battery life with 40 hours, and it
> has a disc protection system whereby if you drop it the hard disc shuts off
> before it hits the floor!
>

ATRAC is all full of DRM (Digital Rights Management) and is a pain to
deal with. It sounds fine, but so does a reasonably encoded MP3 and with
MP3 you have no restrictions. There are way to convert from ATRAC to
MP3, but that will reduce quality and is an extra step. Sony has
conceded somewhat and have announced they will natively support MP3 but
I don't know if they are shipping the new units yet or not. Just like
Minidisc, it's cool hardware that has been crippled by stupid,
intentional limitations to please the record company side of Sony.

> If you do go for it do some web research on the headphones though because
> the stock ones are not great, there are a few forums where recommendations
> have been made. Also, here in Europe the bureaucrats have forced Sony to put
> a volume limiter on the machine. I'm not sure whether that applies to models
> sold in the US. But there is an easy fix for it that you do using the
> service menus in the machine. Good deals come up on eBay fairly regularly.
>

Yes, the Sony-supplied 'phones are particularly bad from what I've heard
and experienced in my Minidisc days. I found that one of the best values
in replacement 'phones are ironically Sony as well. The Fontopia
MDR-EX71 (or 51, or 72, or whatever number they are putting on them now).

The volume limitation in Europe applied to all portable audio players
(iPods, Creative, iRiver, Sony, and everyone else). With Creative
players, you can download a North American firmware and re-flash your
player so you can blow your eardrums out all you like.

Matt

 

[Dave W]

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:z9nVe.13926$Cc5.9195@lakeread06...
>
> "x1134x" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The thing that gets MY goat is: How come when i was a freshman in
>> highschool I bought a laptop pc for 1400 bucks, Pentium one, 133MHz.
>> 16MB ram. I thought it was awesome. Now it's not worth 10 dollars.
>> last year I bought a p4 3.2GHz Hyperthreading, 512MB of 533Mhz ram for
>> 350 on ebay. Now how can the technology get THAT much better AND that
>> much CHEAPER, yet a '69 corvette with a 427 sold off the showroom floor
>> in '69 for 3500, now you can't get a vette for less than 50,000. Same
>> thing is true for trucks etc. Why such a difference between the two
>> products? One gets way better and way cheaper, the other gets a little
>> better, yet costs WAY more. Something tells me it has more to do with
>> LABOR UNIONS or the lack thereof rather than anything else.
>>
>
> Not at all. It's the raw cost of materials and scale of economy. We do a
> lot more computers now than we did back then, and cars are made up of a
> lot of **** (3000 lbs), whereas computers have 5-7 pounds of actual
> material. You're also comparing about 10 years versus 40 years... factor
> in lots and lots and lots of inflation. And don't worry about your labor
> union conspiracy theory....
>
> --
> Phil, Squid-in-Training
>

Na, it is unions. There was a time when they were a good thing, but that
time has passed...

 

[small change]

In article <[email protected]>, Ride-A-Lot says...
>
>x1134x wrote:
>> Still-baffled @ why you need 4GB?
>
>I have an e-music catalog of 14,000 song titles and growing. I can
>easily fill the 4GB drive with riding tunes. Then I can create
>different playlists for each day. I wouldn't have to listen to the same
>song again for a month.
>
>>
>> But yeah, other than shying away from any APPLE ****, I do think these
>> things are the coolest things since sliced bread. Those and P2P file
>> sharing. I used to dump 50-100 bucks a month on used cds @ the record
>> store, but now I can't even remember the last CD I actually BOUGHT.
>> And now with these flash players, the player doesn't have to be as big
>> as a cd to go with you to play the tunes. You may also look into the
>> noise cancelling headphones they WORK! They are awesomely better than
>> standard headphones. . . .
>
>Did I mention I consult for the RIAA? Just kidding, but you shouldn;t
>go around screaming you didn't pay for the music. Musicians work hard
>to create that work. I know the record industry gouges and the artists
>make nothing from a CD, but without it they couldn't support a tour
>(where they make their money). This is why I like iTunes. I can get
>the titles I want without having to buy the nine other sucky tunes on
>the CD.

they aren't going to make any money off me. Concert ticket prices are
ridiculous.

penny

 

[x1134x]

A computer in '69 took up rooms and rooms of space, operated at snails
speeds. And it cost tens of thousands. AND it used massive amounts of
electricity. If inflation meant ANYTHING, the computers nowadays
should cost hundreds of thousands.

Of those 5-7 pounds of materials, some of the materials, like silicon,
has to be refined untill it is 100 percent pure, since it's only
possible to get 99.9999 percent pure, that .0001 percent WILL make a
bad chip, and they have to find it. Then they have to GROW a crystal
out of it, with the correct amount of "impurities" in the shape of
billions of functional transistors. These "impurities" come from
PURIFIED germanium or arsenic. These are space age materials made in
clean rooms, and are NOT cheap to produce. (VERY labor intensive). So
of the 5-7 lbs the costly part of producing a computer weighs less than
tenth of a pound.

Another factor I didn't mention is LAW. Requiring better safety
standards and economy standards surely adds to the development cost of
a car, wheras a computer designer only upgrades because they can and it
makes them more competitive not because they HAVE to.

But all things considered the reasons things cost what they do it to
support the LIFESTYLE of the seller. If the materials cost "x", and
the labor costs "y", (shipping, advertising, testing is all labor), and
the profit is designated as "p" then the product must at least cost x +
y + p = price. The market pretty much sets the cost of "x". you can
shop around for cheaper materials, but eventually "x" is set for you.
You can try to minimize the cost of "y" by hiring cheaper labor,
automation (costlier in short run but cheaper in long run), or by
trying to bypass LAW by hiring part-time workers and not providing
benefits. At last the only adjustable figure is "p" This is totally
set by what the seller thinks he could reasonably expect to get, and by
what the seller expects the product to profit him.

Now we can see that with Plastic parts instead of metal, hubcaps
instead of real rims, etc the corporations are trying to reduce their
materials cost "x". And with their 0% financing, Employee pricing for
everyone, employee pricing PLUS, etc that the companies have done quite
a bit to reduce their profit "p" to get the product to sell. In the
commercials we see automated frame welders doing all the welding. They
are trying to reduce their labor costs "y". But some of that "y" is
FIXED because of their labor unions - and the lifestyles THEY expect to
live on their employers REGARDLESS of whether the product sells well or
not. AND some peoples LIFESTYLES that are still being supported even
after they stop working for the company or producing ANYTHING
productive for they company (pensions). THAT is why the price of
they're product is still in the stratosphere comparitively: 3500 to
50,000 is 93 percent inflation. over 36 years this is 2.6 percent per
year. I think this outruns general "inflation"

Now with computers MOST of the cost is labor. Like you hear people say
"computers are just sand" and yes that's the basic raw material of the
EXPENSIVE part to produce, but the expense is all in LABOR not
materials. With the lack of UNIONIZATION, the labor "y" is much more
elastic to the changes in the economy, and can allow a manufacturer to
be more profitable and minimize "loss years". And without mandated
pensions, the company can at its discretion award pensions to those
persons who really contributed to pushing the company forward and
deserve it, and not be strapped paying pensions to those who showed up,
did the minimal amount required and pulled a paycheck.

Now even if in '69 a computer cost 10,000 (it was more expensive than
that, 100,000 would be a better figure.), 10,000 to 350 is 96.5 percent
DEFLATION or roughly 2.7 percent per year. If they squeezed that much
out of the cost each year, they did in in labor, by automating the
labor intensive process of creating microchips, probably at the expense
of their employees, who did not all threaten to walk off if a portion
of the business was automated.

Lastly all people who think exporting jobs to third-world countries is
a bad thing, they need to research the invention of the cotton gin.
This invention put thousands of americans out of a job instantly. They
thought the economy would take a nose dive, however it continued to
flourish, because all the people displaced by the gin were able to get
trained/educated to perform more technical jobs, jobs that had
previously gone unfilled. We cannot afford as a country to provide the
lifestyle americans expect from jobs that produce products that we
expect to get cheaper. Automation or reduced labor cost is the only
way for things to get cheaper. One way to make cheaper goods, say
gloves, is to pay a foreigner less than minimum wage here in america to
make them. It's a win/win situation where we americans enjoy cheap
gloves, and chinese man makes twice what he used to make making stuff
for the chinese. The american glovemaker, displaced by this move
simply needs to educate himself to obtain one of the jobs available
right now going unfilled that would support his desired lifestyle. We
don't have a job export problem in this country we have an education
problem. Go look through the employment ads. You are more than likely
underqualified for MOST of the well paying jobs. And by qualified it
usually means education. There are jobs available for the vast
majority of americans that would pay enought to support a nice
middle-to middle-upperclass LIFESTYLE, but the vast majority of
unemployed and newly displaced are too uneducated to fill them. THe
education problem didn't happen after the cotton gin, because the newly
emerging technologies were still simple to understand and people could
be brought up to speed quickly, nowadays you need to go to college for
5+ years to get to the education level of BEGINNING to work for some of
these companies.

 

[x1134x]

CDs are TOO EXPENSIVE to buy @ walmart, you may have noticed I bought
my CDs USED at a used record store.

And please feel free to list the 25 exceptions to the 1992 claim.
Other than Disturbed or System of a Down i can't think of any bands
formed after '92 that i like, and even most of the bands from before
then that i liked, (metallica, megadeth, black sabbath, page/plant)
have made crappy stuff since then. Not to mention that horrible period
of GRUNGE that we had to be subjected to, then follow that up with
another BOY BAND fad! The last part of the 90's musically SUCKED.

And again, if I was by no means going to buy the CD, downloading a song
cost the record company NOTHING.

 

[x1134x]

Even if it turns the hard drive off, you may avoid WRITING an error
upon impact, but you still may lose ALL of your data. Hard discs are
NOT impervious to shock. Shock is VERY bad for hard drives because
they are magnetic storage. Flash memory is much more impervious to
shock

 

[CB]

Nice rant......

........ go read "THE WORLD IS FLAT" by Thomas Friedman.

The future is pretty much laid out there.

Now.....back to the trail

 

[MattB]

small change wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Ride-A-Lot says...
>
>>x1134x wrote:
>>
>>>Still-baffled @ why you need 4GB?
>>
>>I have an e-music catalog of 14,000 song titles and growing. I can
>>easily fill the 4GB drive with riding tunes. Then I can create
>>different playlists for each day. I wouldn't have to listen to the same
>>song again for a month.
>>
>>
>>>But yeah, other than shying away from any APPLE ****, I do think these
>>>things are the coolest things since sliced bread. Those and P2P file
>>>sharing. I used to dump 50-100 bucks a month on used cds @ the record
>>>store, but now I can't even remember the last CD I actually BOUGHT.
>>>And now with these flash players, the player doesn't have to be as big
>>>as a cd to go with you to play the tunes. You may also look into the
>>>noise cancelling headphones they WORK! They are awesomely better than
>>>standard headphones. . . .
>>
>>Did I mention I consult for the RIAA? Just kidding, but you shouldn;t
>>go around screaming you didn't pay for the music. Musicians work hard
>>to create that work. I know the record industry gouges and the artists
>>make nothing from a CD, but without it they couldn't support a tour
>>(where they make their money). This is why I like iTunes. I can get
>>the titles I want without having to buy the nine other sucky tunes on
>>the CD.
>
>
> they aren't going to make any money off me. Concert ticket prices are
> ridiculous.
>
> penny
>

I see a lot of bands that aren't usually more than $20, and many are
free or under $10. There's a lot of great musicians out there who aren't
tied to big record companies and they can charge what ever they think is
fair. They just make a living traveling around and practicing their
craft. If it's a good show I'll usually buy their CDs at the show for
$10 or $12 too.
I think this is more how music should be: a little raw and more of a
grass roots thing than big corporate business. Once a band I like starts
booking stadiums, I'll stop seeing them. Being around that many people
freaks me out anyway.

Matt (saw Phish, Widespread Panic, and Blues Traveler in gymnasiums for
$10 a few times back in the day)

 

[Craig Brossman]

MattB wrote:
> Matt (saw Phish, Widespread Panic, and Blues Traveler in gymnasiums for
> $10 a few times back in the day)

My top 10 concerts include WSP at Red Rocks (but what isn't great there)
and Blues Traveler at Telluride Blues and Brews.
And speaking of B&B you wouldn't happen to be going would you Matt? I'm
guessing not since you have the little one, but I would highly recommend it!

--
Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado

Owner/Operator of the Pekingnese Ranch.

 

[MattB]

Craig Brossman wrote:
> MattB wrote:
>
>> Matt (saw Phish, Widespread Panic, and Blues Traveler in gymnasiums
>> for $10 a few times back in the day)
>
>
> My top 10 concerts include WSP at Red Rocks (but what isn't great there)
> and Blues Traveler at Telluride Blues and Brews.
> And speaking of B&B you wouldn't happen to be going would you Matt? I'm
> guessing not since you have the little one, but I would highly recommend
> it!
>

I could go for free if I tape it, but I have scheduling conflicts. Know
any audio archivists? I have a job for them.

Matt

 

[BB]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:06:33 -0600, MattB wrote:
>
> Matt (saw Phish, Widespread Panic, and Blues Traveler in gymnasiums for
> $10 a few times back in the day)

In the past year I've seen the Killers and Athlete (who was in the UK top
10 most of this year) for $10.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

x1134x wrote:
> A computer

<snip>

I lost you right there... what exactly did you say in all those words?

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[x1134x]

READ IT. Lazy ass. You might LEARN something. Or is that what you
were afraid of?

 

[p e t e f a g e r l i n]

Westie wrote:

> Downloading copyrighted music from the internet is great. I have no
> problem with why people enjoy doing it. Trouble is that it DOES impact
> on the income that artists receive. Sure, YOU may never have bought the
> album or paid for that song under normal circumstances - but SOMEONE
> would have.

In many cases downloading copyrighted music over
the internet, for free, is perfectly legal.

As it is perfectly legal to record music from a
radio for your persoanl use.

 

[x1134x]

>You paid to play, fine. That's your choice. You didn't spend the time,
>effort and money to produce an album _for sale_. Completely different
>situation. You effectively played/produced music with the intention of
>giving it away free. But it was your choice.
>If someone had secretly recorded the gig and then started selling cheap
>CDs of your songs on the internet without giving you a cut or a choice
>in the matter, would you have been annoyed? Why? Who actually lost
>money in that situation?

Points taken, however a small correction:

We DID spend the time effort an money to produce an album and did NOT
recoup the investment. If someone did as you say, yeah we probably
would have been annoyed but at the ramen-noodle eating stage of being
in a band any publicity is good publicity so we probably wouldn't have
done anything about it. An NO one would have lost money, our CD didn't
sell well to to people who LIKED to come to our shows. . . . I would
have to defer you to a DISCRETIONARY INCOME thread elsewhere on the
usenet, which is another LARGE reason CD sales are in decline. People
have to buy toilet paper, gas, food etc, THEN they can afford other
non-nessecities.