On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:25:39 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


snip

Why can't you just say that you like the sound of vinyl more than that
of CD, without resorting to pseudo-technical gibberish such as "vinyl
is more lifelike", "there's something missing from CD" to do so!

Been done hundreds of times and sooner or later (normally sooner) the
'bashers' come crawling out of the woodwork to tell the 'vinyl enthusiast'
he's 'wrong' and proceed the chant the litany of 'coloured', 'distorted',
'tainted', infected' or whatever other silly little emotional descriptive
comes to into their threatened little minds.

In those cases I'd say that the 'bashers' are plain wrong. No-one can
say you are 'wrong' to prefer vinyl. However, the very reason why
these discussions are perpetuated is that pro-vinyl folks have a
tendency to associate their valid preference for vinyl with a denial
that vinyl is a technically inferior medium, compared with CD, in
terms of accurate audio reproduction (and please note the caveat).

To me, "coloured" and "distorted" are words that summarize two of the
technical characteristics of vinyl reproduction - they don't have to
be emotive words in the way that you seem to be interpret them.
Indeed, I'd hazard a guess that the reasons for your preference for
vinyl include the very facts that vinyl reproduction *is* coloured and
distorted - except that you'd probably use words like "warm" to
describe these characteristics :-)

What is it about you digital folks? Why do you feel so strongly about
another person's expressed preference, why do you resort to your own
'pseudo-technical gibberish' to trash that expressed preference?

Huh? When have I trashed anyone's *preference* for vinyl?

Why does it
*bother* you so much?

Preferences don't bother me at all. Maybe perpetuation of technically
invalid assertions does.

It's not often you see a vinylphile go out of his way
to trash digital 'music' (despite the fact that it would be very easy so to
do) other than when put on the 'defensive'. 'Two dimensional', 'thin' and
'boring' do you for a start?

Fine, these all sound like nice subjective words about your response
to CD - at least, I'm assuming that you're using these subjectively,
and not suggesting that CD reproduction is like a surface or a solid
whose third dimension is smaller than the first and second! At least
you haven't tried to claim that CD has "something missing" with
respect to vinyl :-)

The good news is that soon, hopefully, you people won't have to put up with
these unsettling claims and the vinyl contingent will have somewhere to
express their enthusiasm and appreciation without having to deal with the
ankle-biters here in ukra - which has become the domain of a very small
number of extremely immature and bigotted people who only seem to want to
play some sort of 'cigarette card' game with technical specs.

Yep, there's some of that ... but, you must admit, that there are also
a fair number of those whose pro-vinyl / anti-digital stance borders
on the religious.

AFAIAC, ukra has become a very boring place. I've seen the 'digi****'s'
feeding on newbies for far too long and I'm all jerked out with it. My
question is 'Who gets it next?'.

As I've said before, I suspect that you and I read different
newsgroups (albeit both labelled uk.rec.audio).

Once the 'vinyl freaks' have been seen off,
is it the 'multichannel freaks' turn? Should this group be renamed
'uk.rec.audio.2 channel.digital'?

Um ... I don't notice too many posters claiming that their
multichannel, DVD-based home cinema system is technically superior to
a dedicated CD-based stereo system!

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk