Winsor:
I wasn't angry, but apparently it came accross that way to you, so I apologize.
I don't think I said the badly produced LPs are an exception. There were lots
of badly produced/manufactured LPs, and I have owned quite a few. I am content
with recordings (of whatever technology) that move me, even if they are flawed.
I have a cassettes of a Met performance of Carmen, broadcast on NPR, using an
old Bogen tube receiver, a dipole antenna and a fairly inexpensive Teac deck.
It is a WONDERFUL recording because it moves me. I have CDs that I really
enjoy as well as LPs.
I enjoy some of the pictures from my C2000Z and I don't really care that it's
2MP. I believe higher res digicams do a great job, though I prefer film in
most ways, but it's not all about resolution.
And for audio I DON'T depend on what a salesperson or ad copy. I listen
carefully and make up my mind over the long term. If I'm making a big
investment I get a return/exchange period. I don't have enough money to
believe the hype.
Sometimes I'm serious, but at work a make everyone laugh and my wife married me
cuz I make her laugh.
Cheers,
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 6/17/2004 at 9:32 PM Winsor Crosby wrote:
>Sorry, Earl. You are just wrong.
>
>That kind of response is not very conducive for rational discussion, is
>it? Kind of makes you angry?
>
>My reference to mental was intended to be humorous. You even quoted my
>little smiley face next to the remark. Ah well, you are a serious guy I
>guess.
>
>Any way, I think the whole analogue/digital foofaraw is kind of silly.
>You either like what you hear or see, or not. I have a collection of
>hundreds of LPs, mostly classical, from good labels and fully a quarter
>or a third of them are the badly produced ones you say are the
>exception. There are other flaws I didn't mention like the crimped,
>untrackable edge caused by pulling the vinyl out of the mold too
>quickly, the bubbles injected at high pressure that continue to expand
>year after year so that the little click gets worse and worse. The
>roll of of the highs starting below 15KHz unless you pop for the extra
>cost audiophile recording, if it is available. And then you hear the
>tape hiss. Well, I used to when I was younger.
>
>Where I have a problem is that people cannot be satisfied with what
>they hear or see. To me a 5MP Coolpix produced a substantially better
>image than my OM4t with one of the lesser Oly zooms in a side by side I
>did. A 6MP camera with a large sensor does much better than the
>Coolpix. Yet people make pronouncements based on mathematical certainty
>that digital will not equal film until it hits 10, 12, or 15MP or
>whatever. It is just BS, in my opinion. Sort of like someone preferring
>to look at the back yard through the screen door rather than opening
>the door and actually seeing without the (grain)interference. I feel a
>little the same about stereo. Once CD equalization was worked out 3 or
>4 years after their introduction sound took a giant leap in my opinion.
>Before that judicious use of the treble knob tamed some of those overly
>bright early disks. The trouble was that people really have trouble
>hearing the differences and so they internalize what they are told by a
>clever salesman. They hang onto what they are told because hearing is
>so adaptable that the small differences in good equipment disappear
>after a few minutes except for really gross differences like big
>variations in frequency response. (I had AR 3a's too, but was happy to
>move on. It was a groundbreaker, but just a stage in the development of
>speakers and I am much happier with speakers with relatively flat
>frequency response.)
>
>So my point is enjoy what you enjoy, but allow me to enjoy what I enjoy
>and don't knock it unless it is good natured ribbing which is all I
>intended. As for SACD and DVD-A, if they were significantly better
>sounding(as opposed to technically) they would have replaced CD in the
>five years or so they have been around, as CD replaced the vinyl LP in
>a similar period.
>
>But then, as I think I said. I don't care. Tomorrow morning I am off to
>Alaska for the first time and I am excited as hell. Sorry to rant and
>run. :-)
>
>
>Winsor
>Long Beach, CA
>USA
>On Jun 17, 2004, at 6:31 PM, Earl Dunbar wrote:
>
>> Sorry Winsor, that's just wrong. Not to start a flame event, but
>> you're comparing a badly produced and/or manufactured LP to a
>> (perhaps) average (by today's standards) or excellently made CD. So
>> what? Analogue addicts (yes there is a list of such a name) admit the
>> limitations of the LP and also admit that higher rez digital formats
>> (eg, SACD) are FINALLY catching up to LPs. Not that I am an expert on
>> SACD and DVD-A, but it's taken what, 20 years or so?
>>
>> Analogue is analogue, digital is digital. Both have strengths and
>> weaknesses. To say that preference for analogue is "mental" in the
>> way I suspect you meant it, is a bit ungracious. The listening
>> experience is ALWAYS mental... an experience in the brain of the
>> physical phenomenon detected by the ear and transmitted through the
>> neural system. Similar with seeing.
>>
>> Earl
>>
>> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>>
>> On 6/17/2004 at 9:03 AM Winsor Crosby wrote:
>>
>>> I used to chalk it up to hearing as well. But when I have, even on
>>> superb equipment, pointed out the clicks, pops, cutter rumble recorded
>>> on the LP, wow from off center holes, rolled off bass not equalized by
>>> RIAA curves, a groove that is distorted a little more each time you
>>> play it, and a shallow noise floor, most "analog is better types"
>>> admit
>>> hearing them, but insist that it still sounds better. I have concluded
>>> it not hearing ability. It is mental. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Winsor
>>> Long Beach, California
>>> USA
>>> On Jun 17, 2004, at 8:48 AM, Walt Wayman wrote:
>>>
>>>> But, oh, they sound so much better. An LP played with a good
>>>> cartridge and tone arm on a proper turntable, not some piece of crap
>>>> from Circuit City or Best Buy for $200, is still today, 20 years
>>>> after
>>>> we were told we were getting "perfect sound forever," obviously, to
>>>> any but the hearing impaired, superior to a CD. And if the amp and
>>>> pre-amp give off both the aural and visual glow of tubes, so much the
>>>> better. I've got lots of CDs, but I still buy vinyl when I can find
>>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>> ==============================================
>>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|