"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

Another interesting comment, as it appears to directly contradict your
earlier one :-)


What comment is that?

quote
In the case of my son, his kit (Technics/B&W) masks any differences
between CD and LP
unquote


OK, but I would suggest that if you are going to reference previous comments
you should include them in your post; I for one will not trawl backwards and
forwards trying to work out what you are referring to....


David, all that mastertape horse**** was dealt and dispensed with in here
years ago - here's a hint:

What "horse****" is that?

If you don't *know*, don't guess....

So enlighten me.


Difficult to refuse so polite and elegant a request, so here goes:

This is an 'audio' newsgroup primarily concerned with the
production/reproduction of sound for (mostly) pleasure purposes populated by
(a few) people with differing views which I believe can be mostly divided
into two main groups - the 'accurists' (for want of a better word) who
strive for a sound which is 'as close to the original recorded signal as
possible' and the 'realists' (like me) who seek a sound which is 'as close
to the original physical sound as possible' or at least their/my *idea*
thereof ? (It all becomes highly subjective by the time the recorded sound
reaches the listeners ears in his own listening environment when, for
example, no two people would agree on the exact same *volume setting* -
never mind anything else!)

Whatever. One thing the accurists have to fall back on is the 'mastertape'
and the gauged faithfulness to this (fidelity) was frequently thrown into
the arguments as the be-all and end-all of sound reproduction. The reason
for this is that it is fairly easy to *measure* deviation from the original
signal, rules can be made from various measurements and it therefore becomes
a useful weapon. Where it becomes horse**** in my book is when reference is
continually made to mastertapes that no-one has ever heard (or ever will)
and to events that weren't witnessed personally. OK?

All the realists have to counter this with is that a sound which may not
measure too well (and is therefore 'distorted') frequently sounds better
(and more *real*) - PW, the accurist's God, said summat like the objective
of good hifi' is/would be a 'straight wire with gain'; I say fine, but I'll
bend it until it sounds better! Here's an example of how it works which is
less than 24 hours old:

Yesterday, a very nice blokey came here to hear my Dynaco monos (which are
up for sacrifice in the most vicious 'hifi pogrom' yet) and he brought his
Bryston preamp, as I don't now have one. This meant I couldn't do anything
other than start from stone cold, which I did - the 'sound' was horrible
from the off and only started to get better as the Dynies warmed up, but the
guy was very curious about the SET amps I have here as he had never heard
one! So, after a brief stint when I had swapped his Bryston out and
substituted my Denon SS amp (using the pre-outs to drive the Dynacos) which
warmed the sound up straight away (distortion) and which the blokey had
preferred straight away, I put the Bez Chinese 300B SET on (also up for
sacrifice, as it is not of my own making) and instantly the guy sat back and
said 'Ah, that's better!'

The upshot is my Bezzer is now 8 miles from here, while he checks to see how
well it drives his Altec Lansing behemoth speakers (???) - yet another
'realism beats accuracy' triumph, I believe, but I'm not sure about how well
it will work on his kit...??

:-)