SONY Fans loyalty..

james.miller · 22 May 2006 at 22:24

JUMPURS said:
Can i just ask one question.
Why is everyone Reffering to them as SONY and not Sony??

because the sony logo is all capital letters?

JUMPURS · 22 May 2006 at 22:26

james.miller said:
because the sony logo is all capital letters?

So??
OcUK logo is in italics, they dont get reffered to as OcUK

benjo plz. · 22 May 2006 at 22:27

JUMPURS said:
So??
OcUK logo is in italics, they dont get reffered to as OcUK

Does it matter?!...

JUMPURS · 22 May 2006 at 22:28

Phnom_Penh said:
Does it matter?!...

Was merely a question, people seem to want to take the time to put the shift key down, i was only asking why

james.miller · 22 May 2006 at 22:28

JUMPURS said:
So??
OcUK logo is in italics, they dont get reffered to as OcUK

no i call the ocUK. whats your point exactly lol

DaveyD · 22 May 2006 at 22:28

ignore, i'm tired

JUMPURS · 22 May 2006 at 22:29

james.miller said:
no i call the ocUK. whats your point exactly lol

huh??

my point is above /\

edit either i am missing the sarcasm or everyone is missing the italics in the OcUK lol

benjo plz. · 22 May 2006 at 22:31

JUMPURS said:
my point is above /\

He posted the same time as you, and probably didn't see it

.

JUMPURS · 22 May 2006 at 22:32

Phnom_Penh said:
He posted the same time as you, and probably didn't see it .

i know

FrankJH · 22 May 2006 at 23:31

NokkonWud said:
Well you know more than me on the subject and from the many posts over the years I've seen you post I'm inclined to believe you.

No he just Thinks he does

Philips happily admit they had enginners flying over frequently - therefore it was not just money helping them along. Thats all I ever said. Nothing at the point at which Sony joined regarding the format had been finalised.

In fact according to lots of web pages an engineer who rarely gets credited discovered the main CD format in the 60's and early 70's but the company went bust and Sony / Philips bought engineering rights to develop the format and original inventor was never credited or payed royalties

james.miller · 22 May 2006 at 23:32

FrankJH said:
No he just Thinks he does

Philips happily admit they had enginners flying over frequently - therefore it was not just money helping them along. Thats all I ever said. Nothing at the point at which Sony joined regarding the format had been finalised.

wrong. You said sony discovered it. do i need to quote you?

In fact according to lots of web pages an engineer who rarely gets credited discovered the main CD format in the 60's and early 70's but the company went bust and Sony / Philips bought engineering rights to develop the format and original inventor was never credited or payed royalties

read the article, its all explained. ive proved every one of your points wrong so far, do you want me to continue?

The development of the technology for the CD was — as is often the case in industrial developments — a matter of trial and error. It actually all started with a failure. In 1978, Philips launched a video disc onto the market that was scanned by a laser. The plan was for the video disc player to take up a permanent place alongside the TV, which by then had penetrated almost every living room and every school. ‘Nothing could be more logical than to use all the TVs to play pre-recorded images’, it seemed. But things were to turn out differently.

In many respects, the video disc was a forerunner of the CD. The video information was recorded on the disc by means of a pattern of pits. The idea of using a laser to read this information without any contact also proved to be a durable concept. The inventors of the video disc therefore also contributed to the invention of the CD later on.

But who were they? Was it the Italian Rubbiani who, watched by a Philips researcher, demonstrated a primitive video disc at the Salone Internazionale della Tecnica in 1957? Was it the technologists at the American CBS who a few years later developed a procedure for a video disc? Or perhaps the research group at 3M who in 1964 made a video disc that was plagued by snow in the picture? The answer is yes and no. The inventions of these laboratories bear little resemblance to the video disc that Philips was to develop. Nevertheless, reports about these technologies did encourage Philips researchers to think more deeply about the video disc. Work was already being carried out on video recorders, but a lot of tape was required for a feature film.

Not hard to do a little reading, is it? all that attitude coming from somebody who rates first-gen atrac and doesnt know what lossy means.

FrankJH · 22 May 2006 at 23:41

NokkonWud said:
Betamax wasn't a failure? Are you kidding me?
Video cassette was around for well over a decade, MiniDisc was around for about 4 years (only around 2.5 of those successful).

Compare it to CD... you can still go into any leading store in the world and buy a CD. You can also buy a VHS cassette. You won't be able to buy a MiniDisc or Betamax cassette.

No I wasnt kidding you , ask anyone who has worked for a production company or broadcaster in the last 20 years and they will tell you that Betamax was used faithfully because of its high quality and reliablilty. I stated at the biginiing it never succeeded as a consumer product, but as something that you see on the news etc every day of the week ( until relatively recently) it was every minute occurance.

No I dont actually think you can walk into many Virgin / HMV or such like and buy a VHS, they are getting decidedly rare. IF you look at all of my posts I never said minidisc was as popular as a cd from a selling point of view, there are other professions like journalists or production staff, or for personal recording that ATRAC format and minidisc worked well for until mp3 was in the accendancy - i never once stated it was a success as a pre-recorded format (even though I do have a few Meatloaf and Billy Joal minidiscs originals)

james.miller · 22 May 2006 at 23:42

betamax was marketed as a consumer product and it was beaten to death by the inferior (but importantly) cheaper vhs standard. Therefor its a failure.

FrankJH · 22 May 2006 at 23:43

james.miller said:
wrong. You said sony discovered it. do i need to quote you?

read the article, its all explained. ive proved every one of your points wrong so far, do you want me to continue?

Not hard to do a little reading, is it? all that attitude coming from somebody who rates first-gen atrac and doesnt know what lossy means.

And you are proving yourself as a smart ass - so what?

When you have heard my home recordings, maybe THEN you could comment - until then you can STFU

james.miller · 22 May 2006 at 23:44

FrankJH said:
And you are proving yourself as a smart ass - so what?

When you have heard my home recordings, maybe THEN you could comment - until then you can STFU

atrac - crap. go look up what 'lossy compression' means. by the way mate, your bringing it on yourself. If you didnt throw that attitude at me you wouldnt get it back. difference is, i can prove everything i say as fact. If you dont like me using your own quote against you then dont say anything. i'll give you a tip: research first.

FrankJH said:
.....They do some of the best TV's (and monitors) , projectors, amps, and general audio gear also - so dont mock what you obviously dont know or dont care to know about. Admittedly most of their speakers arent that good anymore more's to the pity.

Check your facts the CD was a JOINT venture between Phillips and Sony

Minidisc was a failure on who's terms? Again check your facts.....

.....People who test electronic goods for a living are more likely to have a more rounded opinion I would say.......

.....If you are closed minded then thats upto you, but Sony wouldnt be around if all their equipment was the junk you suggest.

Maybe you should actually TRY a minidisc recorder , because it certainly wasnt lossy at all, it was as crystal clear for the purpose intended ( I am talking about potentially around 5 years ago when I bought it ) IT was reasonable at the time and it was one of the few options available...

extremely arrogant all round mate. assuming ive never used a minidisc recorder (wrong), that i dont know what quality sound is (wrong), that people arent checking their facts (wrong, everything ive said is from the horses mouth. hows that for checking facts). Telling me to STFU because your home recordings must absolutely be better than anything ive heard minidisc do, while your single sound quality argument PRO minidisc (which isnt lossy apparently) is that your live recordings sound good?

im sorry, but since when has a live recording pushed the boundaries of the cd format? or even the minidisc format with a terrible early-gen atrac?

FrankJH · 23 May 2006 at 10:29

james.miller said:
atrac - crap. go look up what 'lossy compression' means. by the way mate, your bringing it on yourself. If you didnt throw that attitude at me you wouldnt get it back. difference is, i can prove everything i say as fact. If you dont like me using your own quote against you then dont say anything. i'll give you a tip: research first.

extremely arrogant all round mate. assuming ive never used a minidisc recorder (wrong), that i dont know what quality sound is (wrong), that people arent checking their facts (wrong, everything ive said is from the horses mouth. hows that for checking facts). Telling me to STFU because your home recordings must absolutely be better than anything ive heard minidisc do, while your single sound quality argument PRO minidisc (which isnt lossy apparently) is that your live recordings sound good?

im sorry, but since when has a live recording pushed the boundaries of the cd format? or even the minidisc format with a terrible early-gen atrac?

I dont need to research - I have the physical proof to listen to anytime I choose. Well you seem to think that I MUST be wrong just because your experience hasnt been the same as mine - thats just BS

All I ever said was that minidisc CAN sound good, and I have some recordings to prove it - and that they were a worthwhile investment when I had to choose the equipment . Without a doubt if it was today I would have chosen otherwise but as I clearly stated in a past post it was a number of years ago
( when a cd recording walkman wasnt available, dont even know if they are now i havent checked - but they certainly werent when I looked) Also I would suggest - even though I may be wrong, but cd's I dont believe where the same length as minidisc ( only in the last few years have they become 80 minutes in length- again this is a guess but as the equipment wasnt available the medium to use it is irrrelevant)

Actually you started thowing your heavyweight attidude at me, as you always do, without listening or reading

Lie every hifi / av equipment maker Sony have decent equipment and not so decnet equipment (I never said it was ALL great in any way) and their present mp3 players are among the not so good. However there is still decent stuff out there by them

Sony KDL-V40XBR1 tv review ( couldnt link to but got 93/100) and a conclusion for their HiDef Camcorder from camcorderinfo.com ( hope this isnt competitor)

"Conclusion
If the HDR-HC1 is a sign of the future and subsequent Sony HDV consumer camcorders are made this well, Sony will be able to recapture the passion of serious video consumers which they’ve seemed to have lost in recent years. The camcorder performs excellently in normal light and very well in low light. In addition, the image is about 3x sharper, with 3x more pixels than a MiniDV signal. The video produced from the HDR-HC1 is gorgeous. It's some of the best video we've seen out of any camcorder on this market. You just can't get that much quality for that few dollars anywhere else. Nothing comes close and the HDR-HC1 even challenges Panasonic's PV-GS400 for the position of best value on the market today.

The HDR-HC1 is an example of how Sony knows how to make high-end camcorders. The DCR-VX2100 with its excellent low light performance, the HDR-FX1 which produces stunning images and is built like a rock, and even the DCR-DVD403 which is a DVD camcorder that even a camcorder nerd can love--the HDR-HC1 will join this group of higher-end Sony camcorders as a great model. Sony was smart to include a focus / zoom ring, the exposure dial, the advanced audio options as well as the ultra crisp viewfinder. Add all that to the fact that the HDR-HC1 is a high definition camcorder producing stunning images, and you have a camcorder that is one of the best on the market today, and certainly the best buy in its price range"

Just two reviews of high quality equipment by Sony that numerous people have found value for money and exceedingly top quality.

There are numerous others if you care to look.

james.miller · 23 May 2006 at 10:39

FrankJH said:
I dont need to research - I have the physical proof to listen to anytime I choose. Well you seem to think that I MUST be wrong just because your experience hasnt been the same as mine - thats just BS

All I ever said was that minidisc CAN sound good, and I have some recordings to prove it - and that they were a worthwhile investment when I had to choose the equipment . Without a doubt if it was today I would have chosen otherwise but as I clearly stated in a past post it was a number of years ago
( when a cd recording walkman wasnt available, dont even know if they are now i havent checked - but they certainly werent when I looked) Also I would suggest - even though I may be wrong, but cd's I dont believe where the same length as minidisc ( only in the last few years have they become 80 minutes in length- again this is a guess but as the equipment wasnt available the medium to use it is irrrelevant)

so how did you take those live recording? seperate mic? 100's of pounds worth of seperate mic? dont tell me you used a portable minidisk recorder to record an event and make any sort of reasonalble claim that it's anything other than a portable device recording a live event.

Actually you started thowing your heavyweight attidude at me, as you always do, without listening or reading

Wrong again. read the thread "check your facts, check your facts". who said that?

Lie every hifi / av equipment maker Sony have decent equipment and not so decnet equipment (I never said it was ALL great in any way) and their present mp3 players are among the not so good. However there is still decent stuff out there by them

never said otherwise did i? but i know the difference between a good piece of equipment and a poorly spec'd one using poor components that's over priced.

Sony KDL-V40XBR1 tv review ( couldnt link to but got 93/100) and a conclusion for their HiDef Camcorder from camcorderinfo.com ( hope this isnt competitor)

"Conclusion

//blah//

sony make good camcorders. never said otherwise did i? you're the only person who needs to read first mate. How many conclusions have you jumped to now? ive lost count. Anyway im actually bored of this. your insulting me when you didnt know your minidisc recorder was lossy. that IS common knowleged btw, and now im just repeating myself because you just wont listen. im done.

Kappa · 23 May 2006 at 10:48

FrankJH, even though you are right in that MD can sound good, it is still a Lossy format, so will never be as good as say a CD. When you are comparing them you are just using your own opinion. When it comes down the nitty gritty, minidisc IS lower quality. Its a similar argument when people say 320kbps MP3s are as good as CDs, they MIGHT sound the same, but you cant say they are just as good.

When MD came out it was great because it was recordable and the players weren't as big as CD players, but alas MP3 came and stole it all. lol I still remember my MD, i loved it!

james.miller · 23 May 2006 at 10:50

my gf still has a minidisk player and a home recorder. i never mentioned that.

Boogle · 23 May 2006 at 10:55

"We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even [if] it didn't have games," .... Source, Computer and Video Games.

That, right there, sends a clear message. That message is of a company destined to fail. Not because of its apparant arrogance, not because 5 million is a big or small number, but because of what it represents. A company, no matter how large, or small, if it doesn't rapidly adjust to changing market conditions, will fall. Happened to IBM, they had almost exactly the same attitude, they almost went out of business.

The market has changed, the fact that Sony created the modern playstation generation means nothing. Nintendo and Sega pioneered the 'general' consumer home console, yet they almost went out of business because they didn't adjust to the changing market conditions (CD for larger games, 3D for better graphics) quick enough and got usurped by Sony. Now MS have adjusted to the market conditions of multiplayer, centralised systems for point of contact with friends online, and so on.

Ironically MS almost fell into a similiar trap, they didn't believe in the Internet. Fortunately, unlike Sony, they didn't mind losing face and doing a quick U-turn, instead embracing the Internet rather than trying to bury it.