FALSE, great LP reproduction ( I'm talking $10K and up playback equipment ) sounds so much more like REAL LIVE SOUND/MUSIC than CD it isnt even close. Its LESS distortion, not more that makes it better.
JCO -----Original Message----- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 1:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. This person has an interesting website talking about this whole thing, which of course is a long stewing religious argument: http://users.bigpond.net.au/christie/comparo/part4.html No real conclusions, but s/he makes drops the hint that people probably like the sound that results from the type of distortions that LP brings, hence the "it sounds better to me" argument is what it all boils down to. frank theriault wrote: > A couple of thoughts, and then that's it for me on this most OT of > threads: > > First, I don't give a rat's ass about what engineers say, what numbers > say, what theory says. > > I listen to music. My ears decide what sounds best, not numbers or > theory. No, I'm not an engineer or a scientist, I don't know any theory > at all. But, I know what I hear. > > I have a pretty decent CD playback system. Not high end or > audiophile, > but better than most people have. It sounds pretty good. > > I had (before a CD rack fell on it and bent the tonearm - how's that > for > irony!!) a pretty good vinyl playback system. Not audiophile, but > better than most. It would always amaze me. > > There was a certain "punch" and portrayal of dynamics that I heard > from > vinyl that my CD's weren't able to reproduce. There was a much better > soundstage, better space between the instruments that I couldn't hear on > my CD's. > > Am I saying that vinyl or analogue is always better than digital? > Nope. Just that in my system, vinyl was better. It did wear faster, so > I didn't play it all that often. > > Point two: CD's are deteriorating at a much faster rate than experts > predicted. Some are unplayable, as the little pits that the laser reads > are becoming craters, and therefore unreadable. Experts don't know why, > but improper manufacturing techniques may be to blame - whatever, it's > happening regardless of whether the CD's are even played or not. > > I agree with JCO with his comment on analogue master tapes. I've got > some CD's made from old jazz masters (Rudy Van Geller rereleases) that > are quite astounding for 40 and 45 year old tapes. > > cheers, > frank > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The > pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > > > >> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: RE: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. >> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:17:04 -0400 >> >> EVER heard of better sound? I never said ANALOG tape recording is >> perfect, it isnt, neither is digtial. But the really high end analog >> recordings are much better than most digital recordings in existance. >> The number of musical master recordings made at 24/196k is still >> miniscule. Most are 16bit/48K from about 1980 to 1995. >> >> Regarding shedding, Steve Hoffman, one of the worlds >> most respected mastering engineers ( he does both >> analog LP cuttings and digital CD/DVD/SACD) claims >> that nearly every vintage analog master tape he >> has ever worked with is in EXCELLENT to LIKE NEW condtion. He claims >> that analog tape degradation is a myth. >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented > MicrosoftR SmartScreen Technology. > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU =http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines > Start enjoying all the benefits of MSNR Premium right now and get the > first two months FREE*. > >
