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 Microsoft® 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 MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
