opaqueice;347264 Wrote: > Look - you're probably not going to believe me if I just keep saying > you're wrong :-), so all I can say is to go read some information > theory. I recommend Shannon's paper from 1948 - it's beautiful, it's > on the interwebs for free, and I think you'll learn something.
I was writing a reply to your post but deleted it again because you didn't quote me, implying that I wrote stuff like "vinyl is better" etc. which I didn't. I challenge you to quote from my post and prove the quote(s) wrong. You also skip the important part: where I try to say that the people in that listening test compared how the recordings sounded. I will try that part again: imagine this: we setup a decent mic with pre-amp. To the pre-amp we connect a 32 bit 192 kHz AD converter and it's output is stored to disk. We also connect a vinyl-cutter (with RIAA and pre-emphasis networks like they do for vinyl). Now whe get this fellow with his cello and he plays a piece that is recorded to both systems. So here we are, we have the artist, vinyl and digital. Now we start comparing, you and me sit in front of the musician and they put a good speaker next to him. The musician plays and we listen. Now someone plays the vinyl... you hear the noise as soon as the needle hits the vinyl and are utterly annoyed by the S/N ratio and you even hear a tick because the technician already scratched the vinyl. You decide it's a bad recording. Now they play the digital: you listen carefully but you don't hear the noise and it's clearly a much better S/N ratio than the vinyl. You will find the digital recording better. But hey, I'm sitting there too! Yes I hear the needle hit the vinyl and all the surface noise etc. but wait here the cello starts playing, I can hear it very clearly through the noise and my brain filters the noise away because I try to hear the cello, not the noise. I compare it to the original and state it comes darn close and it's a good recording. Now they play the digital... there's no noise but I adjust to that and concentrate on the cello. I hear a difference with the original again but I also hear a difference compared to the vinyl. It comes very close again and although I hear differences, I prefer the musician over both recordings but can't decide if the digital recording sounds better or worse than the vinyl recording. So, you listen to the noise or try to hear it's presence, but I listen to the cello. People (not me) like in that listening test that started this thread, also hear the differences and they prefer the vinyl over digital. They are not dumb, they call themselves audiophiles like us and sure they hear the noise from the vinyl, but they like the sound so much better that they live with it. Now you say that they prefer vinyl because of nostalgia; I say that it's unfair to judge them like that and why? Just because they prefer what you don't like? Does Shannon tell you that you are right? You and any hifi enthousiast will hear the difference so why make a joke of the people that have a different preference than you? I take them serieus and believe they actually like the sound better. Again, I am "digital" and thus not part of that group. Now please don't reply that you would actually listen to the cello because I know that. I just try to make you understand that people experience listening in different ways, that brains can filter out noise (we all did before the digital era) and that some prefer the sound of a vinyl recording over digital and that they are not trolling or joking or stupid or nostalgia. Well, I hope that you understand them now because I can't explain it better than this ;-) cheers, Nick. -- DeVerm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53355 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
