Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Am I wasting my time here? ;o)
| Am I wasting my time here? ;o) [message #92712] |
Wed, 14 November 2007 18:52  |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I just sent this email to the lovely people at Kleer, who apparently make
IPod accessories...
....and I'm wondering why I bothered. Sometimes though, I just have to think
that the reason people get away with things is that nobody pulls them up...
------------------------------
Today I received this survey in Facebook:
"Would you pay $150 for CD quality, wireless earbuds for your iPod
(see Kleer)? Sponsored Poll"
I assume this is by you guys?
I wished to point out that CD quality, by definition, means frequency
response of 20Hz to 20KHz with a 96db signal to noise ratio, among
other things.
Last I checked anybody with decent ears, and indeed, a high percentage
of people without decent ears, are able to sit in front of a good
quality stereo and pick the sound quality difference between an FM
radio station and a CD player without too much trouble, even if the FM
radio is exceptionally good and expensive. I have listened to FM
radios valued in excess of $1000, and other older units which are
cheaper but are generally accepted by audiophiles to be of exceptional
quality. While many sound very good, none have compared to a real CD,
which in themselves are far from perfect of course.
My point being that when one considers that $10,000 of transmission
equipment and a $1000+ radio receiver are unable to achieve CD quality
then, if nothing else, the answer to the survey seems obvious. Indeed,
if you are able to produce wireless earbuds for $150 which actually
meet the spec of "CD Quality" I will personally buy every single one
that you produce for $300 each.
They will, of course, have to actually be CD quality.
They are CD quality I take it? You're not lying to us, are you?
Cheers,
Kim.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Am I wasting my time here? ;o) [message #92718 is a reply to message #92712] |
Wed, 14 November 2007 20:14  |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Oy! Wadda pita you are!
I love it. Good for you. Let us know what they say.
DC
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I just sent this email to the lovely people at Kleer, who apparently make
>IPod accessories...
>
>...and I'm wondering why I bothered. Sometimes though, I just have to think
>that the reason people get away with things is that nobody pulls them up...
>
>------------------------------
>
>Today I received this survey in Facebook:
>
>"Would you pay $150 for CD quality, wireless earbuds for your iPod
>(see Kleer)? Sponsored Poll"
>
>I assume this is by you guys?
>
>I wished to point out that CD quality, by definition, means frequency
>response of 20Hz to 20KHz with a 96db signal to noise ratio, among
>other things.
>
>Last I checked anybody with decent ears, and indeed, a high percentage
>of people without decent ears, are able to sit in front of a good
>quality stereo and pick the sound quality difference between an FM
>radio station and a CD player without too much trouble, even if the FM
>radio is exceptionally good and expensive. I have listened to FM
>radios valued in excess of $1000, and other older units which are
>cheaper but are generally accepted by audiophiles to be of exceptional
>quality. While many sound very good, none have compared to a real CD,
>which in themselves are far from perfect of course.
>
>My point being that when one considers that $10,000 of transmission
>equipment and a $1000+ radio receiver are unable to achieve CD quality
>then, if nothing else, the answer to the survey seems obvious. Indeed,
>if you are able to produce wireless earbuds for $150 which actually
>meet the spec of "CD Quality" I will personally buy every single one
>that you produce for $300 each.
>
>They will, of course, have to actually be CD quality.
>
>They are CD quality I take it? You're not lying to us, are you?
>
>Cheers,
>Kim.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Am I wasting my time here? ;o) [message #92721 is a reply to message #92718] |
Wed, 14 November 2007 21:03 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hehe. I wonder if they'll even respond actually, but it makes me feel a small
fraction better to know that the email got to their Inbox, and I expect would
have been passed to the marketing department, or a tech, or something. Suffice
to say, even if they don't respond, it will force a couple of staff members
to make admissions, even if only to each other, that the "CD quality" claim
is bollocks, which I'm sure some staff knew already...
....but at least they know the lies do get noticed.
I was annoyed afterwards when I realised that I should have told them that,
based on my stated argument, I have voted "yes" to the survey and recommended
to all my friends that they do the same, and that they spread the word to
others also. Doing that might then make them doubt their own survey results,
which in turn would have a much larger affect. Potentially they might have
to discuss in board meetings the fact that their survey results might now
be very inaccurate because the question was a lie, which in turn might lead
them to actually rethink the policy.
If they reply I might tell them that. ;o)
Sometimes I wonder if there would be any legal avenues through which an organisation
could be set up to take companies to court for making outrageous claims,
and then fund itself from the court compensation payments. The difficulty
would be that in order to fund itself off compensation, the company would
somehow need to have rights to the compensation which rightfully belongs
to the greater public. I'm sure we've all noticed however that outrageous
lies are made quite often, especially in advertising, and it seems to me
at least that the vast majority of them simply get away with it.
Anyhow, what's this group for again? ;o)
Cheers,
Kim.
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>Oy! Wadda pita you are!
>
>I love it. Good for you. Let us know what they say.
>
>DC
>
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I just sent this email to the lovely people at Kleer, who apparently make
>>IPod accessories...
>>
>>...and I'm wondering why I bothered. Sometimes though, I just have to think
>>that the reason people get away with things is that nobody pulls them up...
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Today I received this survey in Facebook:
>>
>>"Would you pay $150 for CD quality, wireless earbuds for your iPod
>>(see Kleer)? Sponsored Poll"
>>
>>I assume this is by you guys?
>>
>>I wished to point out that CD quality, by definition, means frequency
>>response of 20Hz to 20KHz with a 96db signal to noise ratio, among
>>other things.
>>
>>Last I checked anybody with decent ears, and indeed, a high percentage
>>of people without decent ears, are able to sit in front of a good
>>quality stereo and pick the sound quality difference between an FM
>>radio station and a CD player without too much trouble, even if the FM
>>radio is exceptionally good and expensive. I have listened to FM
>>radios valued in excess of $1000, and other older units which are
>>cheaper but are generally accepted by audiophiles to be of exceptional
>>quality. While many sound very good, none have compared to a real CD,
>>which in themselves are far from perfect of course.
>>
>>My point being that when one considers that $10,000 of transmission
>>equipment and a $1000+ radio receiver are unable to achieve CD quality
>>then, if nothing else, the answer to the survey seems obvious. Indeed,
>>if you are able to produce wireless earbuds for $150 which actually
>>meet the spec of "CD Quality" I will personally buy every single one
>>that you produce for $300 each.
>>
>>They will, of course, have to actually be CD quality.
>>
>>They are CD quality I take it? You're not lying to us, are you?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Kim.
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Am I wasting my time here? ;o) [message #92728 is a reply to message #92712] |
Thu, 15 November 2007 05:02 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Good one, Mate!
Kim wrote:
> I just sent this email to the lovely people at Kleer, who apparently make
> IPod accessories...
>
> ...and I'm wondering why I bothered. Sometimes though, I just have to think
> that the reason people get away with things is that nobody pulls them up...
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Today I received this survey in Facebook:
>
> "Would you pay $150 for CD quality, wireless earbuds for your iPod
> (see Kleer)? Sponsored Poll"
>
> I assume this is by you guys?
>
> I wished to point out that CD quality, by definition, means frequency
> response of 20Hz to 20KHz with a 96db signal to noise ratio, among
> other things.
>
> Last I checked anybody with decent ears, and indeed, a high percentage
> of people without decent ears, are able to sit in front of a good
> quality stereo and pick the sound quality difference between an FM
> radio station and a CD player without too much trouble, even if the FM
> radio is exceptionally good and expensive. I have listened to FM
> radios valued in excess of $1000, and other older units which are
> cheaper but are generally accepted by audiophiles to be of exceptional
> quality. While many sound very good, none have compared to a real CD,
> which in themselves are far from perfect of course.
>
> My point being that when one considers that $10,000 of transmission
> equipment and a $1000+ radio receiver are unable to achieve CD quality
> then, if nothing else, the answer to the survey seems obvious. Indeed,
> if you are able to produce wireless earbuds for $150 which actually
> meet the spec of "CD Quality" I will personally buy every single one
> that you produce for $300 each.
>
> They will, of course, have to actually be CD quality.
>
> They are CD quality I take it? You're not lying to us, are you?
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Am I wasting my time here? ;o) [message #92738 is a reply to message #92712] |
Thu, 15 November 2007 09:51 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i'm sure that somewhere in the fine print the disclaimer stated
something about "not for anyone over 22.
On 15 Nov 2007 12:52:04 +1000, "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I just sent this email to the lovely people at Kleer, who apparently make
>IPod accessories...
>
>...and I'm wondering why I bothered. Sometimes though, I just have to think
>that the reason people get away with things is that nobody pulls them up...
>
>------------------------------
>
>Today I received this survey in Facebook:
>
>"Would you pay $150 for CD quality, wireless earbuds for your iPod
>(see Kleer)? Sponsored Poll"
>
>I assume this is by you guys?
>
>I wished to point out that CD quality, by definition, means frequency
>response of 20Hz to 20KHz with a 96db signal to noise ratio, among
>other things.
>
>Last I checked anybody with decent ears, and indeed, a high percentage
>of people without decent ears, are able to sit in front of a good
>quality stereo and pick the sound quality difference between an FM
>radio station and a CD player without too much trouble, even if the FM
>radio is exceptionally good and expensive. I have listened to FM
>radios valued in excess of $1000, and other older units which are
>cheaper but are generally accepted by audiophiles to be of exceptional
>quality. While many sound very good, none have compared to a real CD,
>which in themselves are far from perfect of course.
>
>My point being that when one considers that $10,000 of transmission
>equipment and a $1000+ radio receiver are unable to achieve CD quality
>then, if nothing else, the answer to the survey seems obvious. Indeed,
>if you are able to produce wireless earbuds for $150 which actually
>meet the spec of "CD Quality" I will personally buy every single one
>that you produce for $300 each.
>
>They will, of course, have to actually be CD quality.
>
>They are CD quality I take it? You're not lying to us, are you?
>
>Cheers,
>Kim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Am I wasting my time here? ;o) [message #92750 is a reply to message #92712] |
Thu, 15 November 2007 16:59 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kim,
I admire your calling of the bullshit. One thing I hate about the
earbud is the lack of bass, especially when they don't stay in the ear very
well. This bud's not for me.
I think "CD Quality" has become just another meaningless advertising
button, like "all natural." That's what I want . . . some all-natural,
cholesterol-free, hypo-allergenic, dairy-free, sugarless, CD-quality,
organic earbuds.
S
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:473ba644$1@linux...
>
> I just sent this email to the lovely people at Kleer, who apparently make
> IPod accessories...
>
> ...and I'm wondering why I bothered. Sometimes though, I just have to
> think
> that the reason people get away with things is that nobody pulls them
> up...
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Today I received this survey in Facebook:
>
> "Would you pay $150 for CD quality, wireless earbuds for your iPod
> (see Kleer)? Sponsored Poll"
>
> I assume this is by you guys?
>
> I wished to point out that CD quality, by definition, means frequency
> response of 20Hz to 20KHz with a 96db signal to noise ratio, among
> other things.
>
> Last I checked anybody with decent ears, and indeed, a high percentage
> of people without decent ears, are able to sit in front of a good
> quality stereo and pick the sound quality difference between an FM
> radio station and a CD player without too much trouble, even if the FM
> radio is exceptionally good and expensive. I have listened to FM
> radios valued in excess of $1000, and other older units which are
> cheaper but are generally accepted by audiophiles to be of exceptional
> quality. While many sound very good, none have compared to a real CD,
> which in themselves are far from perfect of course.
>
> My point being that when one considers that $10,000 of transmission
> equipment and a $1000+ radio receiver are unable to achieve CD quality
> then, if nothing else, the answer to the survey seems obvious. Indeed,
> if you are able to produce wireless earbuds for $150 which actually
> meet the spec of "CD Quality" I will personally buy every single one
> that you produce for $300 each.
>
> They will, of course, have to actually be CD quality.
>
> They are CD quality I take it? You're not lying to us, are you?
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Am I wasting my time here? ;o) [message #92753 is a reply to message #92750] |
Thu, 15 November 2007 19:20 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeah, I love the "organic food" one.
Imagine inorganic food...
What would it be, like... fiberglass??
And sodium chloride (salt) got blurred into "sodium".
Oh yeah, put a sprinkle of SODIUM right there in yer soup...
Don't get me started.
DC
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>Kim,
>
> I admire your calling of the bullshit. One thing I hate about the
>earbud is the lack of bass, especially when they don't stay in the ear very
>well. This bud's not for me.
>
> I think "CD Quality" has become just another meaningless advertising
>button, like "all natural." That's what I want . . . some all-natural,
>cholesterol-free, hypo-allergenic, dairy-free, sugarless, CD-quality,
>organic earbuds.
>
>S
>
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:473ba644$1@linux...
>>
>> I just sent this email to the lovely people at Kleer, who apparently make
>> IPod accessories...
>>
>> ...and I'm wondering why I bothered. Sometimes though, I just have to
>> think
>> that the reason people get away with things is that nobody pulls them
>> up...
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Today I received this survey in Facebook:
>>
>> "Would you pay $150 for CD quality, wireless earbuds for your iPod
>> (see Kleer)? Sponsored Poll"
>>
>> I assume this is by you guys?
>>
>> I wished to point out that CD quality, by definition, means frequency
>> response of 20Hz to 20KHz with a 96db signal to noise ratio, among
>> other things.
>>
>> Last I checked anybody with decent ears, and indeed, a high percentage
>> of people without decent ears, are able to sit in front of a good
>> quality stereo and pick the sound quality difference between an FM
>> radio station and a CD player without too much trouble, even if the FM
>> radio is exceptionally good and expensive. I have listened to FM
>> radios valued in excess of $1000, and other older units which are
>> cheaper but are generally accepted by audiophiles to be of exceptional
>> quality. While many sound very good, none have compared to a real CD,
>> which in themselves are far from perfect of course.
>>
>> My point being that when one considers that $10,000 of transmission
>> equipment and a $1000+ radio receiver are unable to achieve CD quality
>> then, if nothing else, the answer to the survey seems obvious. Indeed,
>> if you are able to produce wireless earbuds for $150 which actually
>> meet the spec of "CD Quality" I will personally buy every single one
>> that you produce for $300 each.
>>
>> They will, of course, have to actually be CD quality.
>>
>> They are CD quality I take it? You're not lying to us, are you?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kim.
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Am I wasting my time here? ;o) [message #92756 is a reply to message #92750] |
Thu, 15 November 2007 20:42 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
To change the subject totally, I just received an email invite to Fusion
- "Melbourne's hottest new night spot".
Totally off topic I know...
Cheers,
Kim.
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>Kim,
>
> I admire your calling of the bullshit. One thing I hate about the
>earbud is the lack of bass, especially when they don't stay in the ear very
>well. This bud's not for me.
>
> I think "CD Quality" has become just another meaningless advertising
>button, like "all natural." That's what I want . . . some all-natural,
>cholesterol-free, hypo-allergenic, dairy-free, sugarless, CD-quality,
>organic earbuds.
>
>S
>
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:473ba644$1@linux...
>>
>> I just sent this email to the lovely people at Kleer, who apparently make
>> IPod accessories...
>>
>> ...and I'm wondering why I bothered. Sometimes though, I just have to
>> think
>> that the reason people get away with things is that nobody pulls them
>> up...
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Today I received this survey in Facebook:
>>
>> "Would you pay $150 for CD quality, wireless earbuds for your iPod
>> (see Kleer)? Sponsored Poll"
>>
>> I assume this is by you guys?
>>
>> I wished to point out that CD quality, by definition, means frequency
>> response of 20Hz to 20KHz with a 96db signal to noise ratio, among
>> other things.
>>
>> Last I checked anybody with decent ears, and indeed, a high percentage
>> of people without decent ears, are able to sit in front of a good
>> quality stereo and pick the sound quality difference between an FM
>> radio station and a CD player without too much trouble, even if the FM
>> radio is exceptionally good and expensive. I have listened to FM
>> radios valued in excess of $1000, and other older units which are
>> cheaper but are generally accepted by audiophiles to be of exceptional
>> quality. While many sound very good, none have compared to a real CD,
>> which in themselves are far from perfect of course.
>>
>> My point being that when one considers that $10,000 of transmission
>> equipment and a $1000+ radio receiver are unable to achieve CD quality
>> then, if nothing else, the answer to the survey seems obvious. Indeed,
>> if you are able to produce wireless earbuds for $150 which actually
>> meet the spec of "CD Quality" I will personally buy every single one
>> that you produce for $300 each.
>>
>> They will, of course, have to actually be CD quality.
>>
>> They are CD quality I take it? You're not lying to us, are you?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kim.
>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 16 14:47:40 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03248 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
