Although I have read any number or pontifications attempting to explain why
vinyl still sounds better than digital, this is quite likely the clearest and
most concise I have found. Thanks, Ken. Even though I may not understand all
the technical aspects, I just keep proving to myself on a nearly daily basis
that my $400 AR turntable (with a few mods), $300 Rega arm (with a few mods),
$300 Audioquest MC cartridge, and $300 Acurus phono pre-amp sound better than
any CD setup I've ever had. I just wonder how great one of those $30,000
'tables with a $10,000 arm, a $12,000 cartridge and a $7500 phono preamp
sounds. Guess I'll never know. :-[
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
--snip--
> When digital audio was getting its start, the "scientists" and
> "engineers" took a good hard look at what the typical frequency
> response of the human ear is and determined that they could
> limit the recording medium to that point. After all, if you
> can't hear beyond 20kHz, why bother recording beyond 20kHz?
> This was very true for straight tones. It was also true for
> *most* studio recordings of pop and country music. Classical was
> another story, but it took more than a few years before the
> reason why Classical didn't sound right was understood. It
> really is true that vinyl "sounds better".
>
--snip of important parts so as not to PO the digesters--
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|