Audio Banter - View Single Post

**[email protected]** · October 31st 06, 05:44 PM posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:
snip

If the vinyl lovers wish to enjoy their personal choice without
disparaging remarks, all they need do is stop claiming to the world that
it is better than CD. Seems simple enough to me.

Indeed.

I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl
is better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound
produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair
believe ... :-)

It rarely stops there...

But it has on this thread. Disappointed I bet. So gosh, if you can't
get someone to say what you want so you can attack it best thing to do
is just say it yourself and then attack it.

it's usually followed by some rather technically
dubious claims about analog and digital....often phrased as a report of
hearing things that digital 'can't do'. Originally it was digital, period,
but in the past half decade or so the scripture has been amended to allow
that 'hi rez' digital might, on a good day, sound as good as vinyl, but
16/44.1, heavens no, it can't sound as good as 'the best' vinyl played on
'SOTA' gear to 'golden ears', even if it's a CD transfer of an LP. Which
brings us back to this thread.

aw, c'mon you could do better than that can't you?

For myself, I'm more interested in audio than vinyl. I think it's nice
if people can make up their own mind about vinyl by listening, using and
taking on board the technical arguments. The UK audio group tends to
provide a good blend of things I'm interested in.

I think it's nice if people understand the well-documented limitations of
'listening' as it is generally done..

"The limitations of listening." Good one. Thanks for a nother laugh.

A psychoacoustics or sensory psychology textbook shoudl have you in *stitches*,
then.

Not at all. But then maybe iIm actually understanding what I read.

Yeah if the meter readers can't corilate the numbers to the aesthetic
experience there must be something wrong with the aesthetic expeience.

Hmm...did anyone *here* say that?

Pretty much.

Don't think so.

Even you are subject to Bias stevie. You se what you want to see.

That's about as backassward as it gets. in the world of meter readers
the perception must bend to meet the expectations given to them by the
measurements.

Well, correlation of objective reality to subjective reality has its merits.
It allowed the creation of things like audio gear and recordings.

It did? I had no idea Edison was relying on that.

yet many vinylphiles seem less
interested in that than in promoting what they believe (often without basis)
are audible limitations of digital.

Maybe they are just looking for an explination for what they hear?

Oh, you mean, an objective correlate of their subjective experience? I thought that
was a nonstarter for you?

Maybe you are struggling with pronouns. When I say "they" i don't mean
"me." Pretty basic English don't you think? "I" don't worry so much
about explinations unless I think they can narrow the scope of things I
look out for when making purchases. "My" focus is on thr results not
the explanations for those results.

if that is so terrible but attacking the perceptions as wrong because
they don't fit the meter reader's formulas is completely reasonable.

What's usually wrong is not the effort, but the execution. Vinylphile 'explanations' of
digital tend to be laughable nonsense.

But you love that don't you? makes you feel better about your faith in
the almighty meter.

Scott