Well actually yes, the LP12 I used did have a top notch pickup cartridge, etc. No discernable difference in quality. Too close to call.
A. On 27/8/04 1:41 am, "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First of all a LINN LP12 is no where near > the the current state of the art and unless > you also used a top notch cartridge, tonearm, > phono stage, preamp, amp, loudspeakers, and > most of all RECORD, you will not get or hear > the superiority of vinyl. I suggest you go > listen to a top end playback vinyl playback > system TODAY and bring along your "best" CD > to listen to afterwards, if you don't hear > the dropoff in fidelity you must have sub > normal hearing. I am not kidding, it really > is not close. > > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. > > > --- Antonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Rubish, I have compared records played back on a >> LP12 and CD on a top of the >> line LINN CD player with DAC and there really was no discernable >> quality difference. When CD frist came out perhaps you could >> have argued there was a >> difference - but nowadays things are a lot better. > <snipped personal message to JCO> > > I think (hey, lookie here, he's bringing it back to > photography! <vbg>) that the sad truth is that it's > the software that in the vast majority of cases, is > the limiting factor in sound quality. Most mass > produced CD's and vinyl just sounds bad. Period. It > sounds bad on lousy equipment, it sounds bad on good > equipment. > > I also think (does anyone really care what I think? > <VBG>) that the medium (ie: film or digital sensor) > in ~most~ cases doesn't make much difference in the > quality of the final image, especially for the average > consumer. Please, all you MF and LF guys, don't jump > all over me, I merely said that for ~most~ people > (including many pros) for ~most~ applications both > media work just fine, and aren't limiting. > > So, it's really about storage, handling and > convenience, and again, for ~most~ people digital is > the way to go. > > That doesn't mean it's better. Just different. > > I prefer film for all sorts of reasons, not the least > which is that I don't have a digital capture system, > and quite frankly, I'm just comfortable with film, > having used it for about 40 years now (I think I was > around 8 or 10 when I got my first Brownie Starflash). > > For 90% (or more) of the applications right now, > quality isn't an issue, IMHO. > > Okay, now you can all jump all over me, and tell me > I'm wrong! <vbg> > > cheers, > frank > > ===== > "Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst" > ******** > "Of course it's all luck" > -- Henri Cartier-Bresson > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca >
