Chesney Christ wrote in news:vOBVRuLFieA
:

A certain MrBitsy, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
Sure it can, depending on what you mean by 'better'. Is a medium with
a hundred times more distortion and a noise floor 20 times higher
than
a competing medium, 'better' in any meaningful sense?

I listened to the Trout Quintet on vinyl last night. I had goosbumps at
some points, and was smiling at others.

I will not get into the debate again. But the question of whether or
not
any one person had goosebumps while listening to music or not is hardly
of any relevance. I get goosebumps listening to great music on CD all
the time. Hell, even a grotty old tape recording will do it for me. The
important thing is whether or not it is a special, involving piece of
music.

I enjoyed both but in my opinion the vinyl ****ed all over the CD.

But they were two completely different works. That is hardly a basis
for
comparison.

I have been with my wife for 23 years. She is slim, and in my view,
attractive - she has no problem at all in 'raising' my interest
whenever
she wants ;-). If I were to take her to the Pinkerton modelling agency,
she would not get through the front door. Pinkerton would moan about
'cheekbone' this and 'curve' that, before politely (i'm sure) show us
the
door.

That is a daft argument. People see different things in different
people.


It isn't and its exactly why the vinyl group is required. I want to be
able to express my satisfaction in a perticulare piece of music without
have to read a debate on the use of the word 'better'. CD is better by
the numbers. Vinyl is better by the sound.

I listen to both and enjoy both but vinyl is better for me.

MrBitsy.