In telegraph style:

1 Simplicity
2 Greater durability and convenience than vinyl (LPs)
3 Market incentive to produce high-quality, properly documented recordings/transfers
4 No dependence on internet streaming services (such as YouTube and Spotify)
Last but not least:
5 The visual aspect and sentimental reasons including
-being reminded of my favorite recordings whenever I look at my CD collection
-the knowledge that I can listen to them whenever I want, without commercial interruptions, and without risk that they will be somehow 'deleted' for copyright-related reasons or without explanation
--
Roland van Gaalen

On 31 Jan 2024 Roland van Gaalen wrote:

> 1 Simplicity
> 2 Greater durability and convenience than vinyl (LPs)
> 3 Market incentive to produce high-quality, properly documented
> recordings/transfers
> 4 No dependence on internet streaming services
> 5 The visual aspect and sentimental reasons including
> -being reminded of my favorite recordings whenever I look at my CD
> collection
> -the knowledge that I can listen to them whenever I want, without
> commercial interruptions, and without risk that they will be somehow
> 'deleted' for copyright-related reasons or without explanation

Agreed.

6. Older releases available for next to nothing in thrift shops, at garage
sales, etc.

Chris

In what cave and in what century do you lilve ?!?!?

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 6:34:30 AM UTC-8, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> In telegraph style:
>
> 1 Simplicity

Thousands CDs can be stored on a single 20 TB drive
that takes the same space as 6 CDs. Everything can
be found instantly. No CD player required to listen.

You call that "SIMPLICITY" ?!? I call it "INEFFICIENCY"
and "IMBECILITY".

> 2 Greater durability and convenience than vinyl (LPs)

CD durability doesn't even come close to ceramic
tablets -- they last for thousands of years.

> 3 Market incentive to produce high-quality, properly
> documented recordings/transfers.

There is no longer any " "market" "incentive" " to produce
music and video recordings on physical media. May one
respectfully ask where do you buy your gas?

> 4 No dependence on internet streaming services (such
> as YouTube and Spotify)

The contents can be saved on local storage. There is no
dependence on internet streaming except for the initial
download. I just downloaded all of Martha Argerich's
performances/recordings from YT overnight.

> Last but not least:
> 5 The visual aspect and sentimental reasons including
> -being reminded of my favorite recordings whenever I
> look at my CD collection

Does your CD collection look back at you?

> -the knowledge that I can listen to them whenever I want,

What an absurdity! I carry 1 TB worth of music recordings
on my smartphone and I listen to them whenever I want,

> without commercial interruptions,

without commercial interruptions,

> and without risk that they will be somehow 'deleted'
> for copyright-related reasons or without explanation

and without risk that they will be somehow 'deleted'
for copyright-related reasons or without explanation

Do you really believe the non-sense you wrote? If so
you should run to the nearest ER and have your brain
examined by a proctologist.

Your idiotic theory also ignores the availability via
streaming media of thousands of live performances
that never make/made it to physical commercial
CDs.

Cheers!

In article <f9b93a33-401c-4395-b94a-fa838b588f88n@googlegroups.com>,
Roland van Gaalen <rolandvangaalen@gmail.com> wrote:
>3 Market incentive to produce high-quality, properly documented
>recordings/transfers

This one seems particularly tenuous at this point....

And it's also worth distinguishing between streaming & downloading.
The former might involve the whims of the companies -- although I
do find it worthwhile for checking out many items before deciding
to commit more time/money... -- but the latter gives you the media
wherever you want to store it, versus on a series of plastic discs.
At that point, "convenience" is more a matter of habit.

Anyway, enjoy what you enjoy, of course.... But as more material
isn't released on CD, do consider the streaming v. download
distinction....

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 11:58:35 AM UTC-8, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <f9b93a33-401c-4395...@googlegroups.com>,
> Roland van Gaalen <rolandv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >3 Market incentive to produce high-quality, properly documented
> >recordings/transfers
> This one seems particularly tenuous at this point....
>
> And it's also worth distinguishing between streaming & downloading.
> The former might involve the whims of the companies -- although I
> do find it worthwhile for checking out many items before deciding
> to commit more time/money... -- but the latter gives you the media
> wherever you want to store it, versus on a series of plastic discs.
> At that point, "convenience" is more a matter of habit.
>
> Anyway, enjoy what you enjoy, of course.... But as more material
> isn't released on CD, do consider the streaming v. download
> distinction....

The "streaming" vs. "downloading" "distinction" is
completely meaningless. Unless one is technically
incompetent any content being streamed can also
be saved to local storage. There is no shortage of
software tools to do this.

Cheers

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 11:22:11 AM UTC-8, Chris J. wrote:
>
> 6. Older releases available for next to nothing in
> thrift shops, at garage sales, etc.

Non-sense. Far more "older releases" are available
for free on YouTube than were ever available on CD
or LP, including live or radio performances that were
never released on commercial physical media.

Cheers

Dan Koren wrote :
> In what cave and in what century do you lilve ?!?!?
> [...]

Here are some more things I like, even though they may be anachronistic in some respect, to some extent:

1 paper editions of books, newspapers, magazines
2 my drip filter coffee machine (Melitta Single 5)
3 the KaDeWe department store in Berlin (especially the 'Feinschmeckeretage', my #1 favorite restaurant)
4 walking
5 the Hewlett-Packard financial calculator HP 12C
--
Roland van Gaalen

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 3:16:15 PM UTC-6, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> Dan Koren wrote :
> > In what cave and in what century do you lilve ?!?!?
> > [...]
>
> Here are some more things I like, even though they may be anachronistic in some respect, to some extent:
>
> 1 paper editions of books, newspapers, magazines
> 2 my drip filter coffee machine (Melitta Single 5)
> 3 the KaDeWe department store in Berlin (especially the 'Feinschmeckeretage', my #1 favorite restaurant)
> 4 walking
> 5 the Hewlett-Packard financial calculator HP 12C
> --
> Roland van Gaalen

Hey Dan,

Do you converse in person with the Neanderthal manners with which you peddle your tripe here? If you do so, I imagine you must spend most of your time in hospitals, recovering from getting the living shit beat out of your "look, ma, I learned manners on the internet" brain. You're really a marvel.. Who gives a flying crap about what YOU think of Roland's sentiments? Like you're some kind of freaking authority to lord over your minions, who are finally "set straight" by your adolescent and completely irrelevant rantings. Roland doesn't need YOUR puny thoughts on what is "wrong" with his likes and dislikes on how to enjoy music and collect.

Not that I thought you would ever post anything useful regarding this, but if YOU think listening to music on "land of the lowlifes" Youtube, wow.....all I can say is you must have a really smelly sounding hi-fi setup, if you can deal with THAT. Oh, I know, you say it's actually hi-rez audio that you get from a 192 kbps audio stream. Dream on. But I really could care less.....enjoy your lousy quality pirated crap. But if think you've got it all figured out, think again. I hope you enjoy your "collection" when your 20TB HD goes belly up. Then again, if it's all mp3s from YT, it's worthless anyhow.

You could have just said that you prefer downloads, streaming and having your collection on hard drives. That's called voicing your opinion, and it's our right here. What is not our right, except in your puny little world you've invented, where you are lord of us all, is to act like a complete f@#cki%g a@@h#$e. Oh, it's free speech here, oh, I can say whatever I want, it's my right. WRONG, you only get to do THAT if you wear the crown of complete Di#$#$ad, which you long since earned, along with the complete lack of respect that such behavior has consigned you to. The good news, is that in a few weeks, a vast majority of us will not ever have to read your garbage ever again. Oh, I hear you say, I'll go to a private discussion group. HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA.......good luck which THAT, chappie!

Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 18:23:50 -0800, Nelson Curdle wrote:

> Not that I thought you would ever post anything useful regarding this, but if YOU think listening to music on "land of the lowlifes" Youtube, wow.....all I can say is you must have a really smelly sounding hi-fi setup, if you can deal with THAT. Oh, I know, you say it's actually hi-rez audio that you get from a 192 kbps audio stream. Dream on. But I really could care less.....enjoy your lousy quality pirated crap. But if think you've got it all figured out, think again. I hope you enjoy your "collection" when your 20TB HD goes belly up. Then again, if it's all mp3s from YT, it's worthless anyhow.

Dan actually insists that youtube is actually lossless
and hi-rez. He said youtube includes the full quality of
files uploaded and he somehow bypasses youtube
compression so he gets all the bits that are on the
original CD.

What stockholder Dan can't stand is criticism of Alphabet
(youtube, google, etc.,) and so to praise something that
google doesn't produce, such as CDs or paper books, is
taken as a personal attack on the magnificent
personalities of Larry Page and Sergey Brin and,
therefore, himself.

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 6:00:36 PM UTC-6, Pluted Pup wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 18:23:50 -0800, Nelson Curdle wrote:
>
> > Not that I thought you would ever post anything useful regarding this, but if YOU think listening to music on "land of the lowlifes" Youtube, wow......all I can say is you must have a really smelly sounding hi-fi setup, if you can deal with THAT. Oh, I know, you say it's actually hi-rez audio that you get from a 192 kbps audio stream. Dream on. But I really could care less.....enjoy your lousy quality pirated crap. But if think you've got it all figured out, think again. I hope you enjoy your "collection" when your 20TB HD goes belly up. Then again, if it's all mp3s from YT, it's worthless anyhow.
> Dan actually insists that youtube is actually lossless
> and hi-rez. He said youtube includes the full quality of
> files uploaded and he somehow bypasses youtube
> compression so he gets all the bits that are on the
> original CD.
>
> What stockholder Dan can't stand is criticism of Alphabet
> (youtube, google, etc.,) and so to praise something that
> google doesn't produce, such as CDs or paper books, is
> taken as a personal attack on the magnificent
> personalities of Larry Page and Sergey Brin and,
> therefore, himself.

Take it to him. He's here enjoying himself and you're offering reports to others about what you see as his failings. Who cares? Volume (loudness and quantity) does not mean he's correct. And I, for one, just don't feel injured by a guy with an opinion. Debate the topic - or don't. I can read Dan's character just fine.