"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...

snip (am I getting the hang of this )


A better test would be to use a higher quality recording and master it
to both LP and CD and compare.


I believe my little experiment describes the ultimate test!! There is no
higher quality source than that which I have described.
What I have is effectively a live performance that can be replicated time
and time again. Your suggestion will certainly highlight the inadequacies of
vinyl but it cannot test for High Fidelity.

Perhaps I should not have brought vinyl into the test in the first place. My
quest is the pursuit of High Fidelity.
I have clearly inadvertently fuelled the vinyl bashers/CD lovers pointless
debate. Vinyl is more than capable of clubbing itself to death and has been
doing so since its creation.

If people enjoy what they listen to then they've cracked it! That's
marvellous. No really, I'm not taking the mick. Perhaps, if I had part of my
brain removed I could join the club and be content. However, while I get
immense pleasure from listening to music (as opposed to my system), I know
that the job can be done better.

Those who's enjoyment is derived from listening to their systems are on a
different quest. Good luck to them. We simply have different agendas. My
goal is not for those who revel in sound which is 'smooth', 'warm', 'laid
back', 'up front' or 'beguiling etc. To me, they are simply describing a
coloured, inaccurate sound which has no place in my living room. What they
are not doing is describing High Fidelity. They have no interest in High
Fidelity and I have no problem with that.

Paul