192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:


Wot? Googling?

:-)


Here ... just for you :)

http://www.glenbourne-antiques.fsnet.co.uk/audio.mp3



No comment.


... one of those nasty mp3PROs .... shhhhh, don't tell the Yank :)



Wot Yank? (There's more of them in here than us Brits.....)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:


"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in message
.. .
In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:


Wot? Googling?

:-)


Here ... just for you :)

http://www.glenbourne-antiques.fsnet.co.uk/audio.mp3



No comment.



At least it was a vinyl rip :)


He was in the soundtrack of a flic we watched the other night (again!) and
I'm buggered if I can remember what it was......

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote


Here ... just for you :)

http://www.glenbourne-antiques.fsnet.co.uk/audio.mp3



No comment.



At least it was a vinyl rip :)


He was in the soundtrack of a flic we watched the other night (again!)
and
I'm buggered if I can remember what it was......



Which, the flic or the track?


Either - and it was only a few nights ago!



anyways :)

http://www.glenbourne-antiques.fsnet.co.uk/audio2.mp3


... Note the, er, similarity....... :-)


Too what? - You'll get me shot, I'm supposed to be watching another flic
atm!

Go and look at the 'new Technics' on the Bubble's ACA website
http://aca.gr/ - it was mine!!! (See other post, if it shows up!)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote

btw - I've now checked out quite a few (until I lost interest) of
that big long list of (jazz) names you posted earlier. Seems a lot
of those guys were either just band members or session guys. Many
are listed as appearing on, or working with, but not actually having
produced any records (recordings) in their own right, just moving
from band to band. So you may well be hard pressed in finding any
solo work on LP, CD or whatever - erm, 78s may be a better bet ;)


Yes, absolutely right - these names came from the '504 Label' records I
have, where the same people crop up in various different bands. I listed
them as an 'homage' as most of them must have been in their 70s, some 30
years ago, when the records were cut. (Work it out for yourself......)

The bands themselves have the following names:

Wendell Eugene's New Orleans Band
Teddy Riley's New Orleans Band
Michael White's New Orleans Band
Kid Sheik's Storeyville Ramblers
Lionel Ferbos And His Creole Serenaders
Chester Zardis And His Hot 5
Jack Willis And His New Orleans Band
Sheik And Sadie
Chief John Brunious And His Mahogany Hall Stompers
Basin Street Six

The discs were recorded from the 50s through to the 80s, mostly in the
Ultrasonic Studio, New Orleans and all these bands played regularly at
places like the Preservation Hall as well as clubs and bars, particularly in
Bourbon Street, New Orleans (I gather, from the sleeve notes). As you are
well aware, 90% of all Jazz players (including the most famous names) did
session work and 'mixed and matched' in various bands. I wouldn't expect to
find (or, perhaps, want) solo work from any of them in particular - as much
as, say, Jeanette Kimball (herself born in 1908) adds to the mix with her
piano work in Wendell Eugene's outfit, more than one or two solo pieces from
her would soon have you reaching for a shotgun.....!!!

:-)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.audio Ronnie McKinley wrote:

In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:

and two choons:


Beedle Um Bum recorded on 9th April 1929 by the Cotton Pickers:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...eedleumbum.mp3 (3 Mb)

and West Indies Blues recorded on 1st September 1978 by Wendell Eugene's
New
Orleans Band:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...ndiesblues.mp3 (2 Mb)

Note the, er, similarity....... :-)


Yes very nice. So the second one was the Mono? ;)


They were both mono, but what I was alluding to was that, apart from the
different workings of the same tune 50 years apart, it seemed obvious to me
that neither of the vocalists had bothered to put their teeth in!! (Mebbe
the music's annoted thusly!)

:-)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:27:34 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in message
.. .
In uk.rec.audio Ronnie McKinley wrote:

In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:

and two choons:


Beedle Um Bum recorded on 9th April 1929 by the Cotton Pickers:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...eedleumbum.mp3 (3 Mb)

and West Indies Blues recorded on 1st September 1978 by Wendell Eugene's
New
Orleans Band:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...ndiesblues.mp3 (2 Mb)

Note the, er, similarity....... :-)


Yes very nice. So the second one was the Mono? ;)


They were both mono, but what I was alluding to was that, apart from the
different workings of the same tune 50 years apart, it seemed obvious to me
that neither of the vocalists had bothered to put their teeth in!! (Mebbe
the music's annoted thusly!)

:-)


Keith - that strange little skipped beat almost exactly half way
through the first one - is that intentional or a groove jump that you
have cleaned up?

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Don Pearce"


Keith - that strange little skipped beat almost exactly half way
through the first one - is that intentional or a groove jump that you
have cleaned up?


Presuming you mean Beedle Um Bum (I never did see the post myself) I have
had a good listen to both the WAV I recorded (and the MP3 I created from it)
and can't hear a skipped beat myself (that don't mean there ain't one
tho'.....:-).

There's a good deal of distortion but, WTF, the recording was 1929, it was
last track Side 1, there probably *was* a clump of crap on the needle (the
Shure V15 is quite prone to 'ferble distortion' as it's only trailing at
about 1.1 gm....), it was getting late and the recording I made was a hasty
grab with NO cleaning up whatsoever (I almost never bother anyway, I *like*
those little vinyl noises, especially on the old stuff - makes it
'real'.....!! :-))

If you can give me a tighter timing for it, I'll expand the waveform greatly
and post a screen shot of that section later on, if you are interested.

I might also post another track later on as I think the recording quality is
*excellent* for the time it was done and the Cotton Pickers track I posted
was nowhere near the best on the album! (It just had the whackiest name!)

(You can't listen to this disc and keep your feet still.........)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:38:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce"


Keith - that strange little skipped beat almost exactly half way
through the first one - is that intentional or a groove jump that you
have cleaned up?


Presuming you mean Beedle Um Bum (I never did see the post myself) I have
had a good listen to both the WAV I recorded (and the MP3 I created from it)
and can't hear a skipped beat myself (that don't mean there ain't one
tho'.....:-).

There's a good deal of distortion but, WTF, the recording was 1929, it was
last track Side 1, there probably *was* a clump of crap on the needle (the
Shure V15 is quite prone to 'ferble distortion' as it's only trailing at
about 1.1 gm....), it was getting late and the recording I made was a hasty
grab with NO cleaning up whatsoever (I almost never bother anyway, I *like*
those little vinyl noises, especially on the old stuff - makes it
'real'.....!! :-))

If you can give me a tighter timing for it, I'll expand the waveform greatly
and post a screen shot of that section later on, if you are interested.

I might also post another track later on as I think the recording quality is
*excellent* for the time it was done and the Cotton Pickers track I posted
was nowhere near the best on the album! (It just had the whackiest name!)

(You can't listen to this disc and keep your feet still.........)



OK - it's gone. It was there in the same place twice when I listened
to it streamed, but now I've downloaded it into Cooledit the rhythm
stays perfect.

And why have I never come across this track before? What album is it
on?

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote

OK - it's gone. It was there in the same place twice when I listened
to it streamed, but now I've downloaded it into Cooledit the rhythm
stays perfect.

And why have I never come across this track before? What album is it
on?



Don, I ain't here - I'm gone.

It's McKinney's Cotton Pickers - see
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...ow/pickers.jpg (ignore the little
change to the titling - that wuz just a bit of fun with Ronnie) See Ronnie's
preceding posts for more details. (Let me know if you want an Audio CDR to
'evaluate'..... ;-)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote

Here's one I looked up ...

------------------------
Shiek and Sadie
Artist George Kid Sheik Colar
Album Title Shiek and Sadie
Date of Release Aug 1, 1985
Genre Jazz
Styles New Orleans Jazz
Label 504

REVIEW: The only reason to acquire this small-label LP is for the
inflexible but appealing rhythmic piano of Sadie Goodson Cola, who
was 84 at the time. The rhythm section (71-year-old bassist Frank
Fields and 81-year-old drummer Milford Dolliole) is not bad either.
The problem is that trumpeter Kid Shiek Cola, who was 76, sounds
106. His playing is constantly faltering, with plenty of wrong
notes; his three vocals (particularly "My Dreams Are Getting All the
Time") are closer to croaking than to singing; he should not have
been recorded at this late date. Fortunately, Sadie Goodson has the
lion's share of the solo space and two features with the trio ("You
Can Depend On Me" and "Don't Get Around Much Anymore"), and her
occasional vocals are tolerable. This release (whose motto, "Real
New Orleans Jazz," should have been "Real Old New Orleans Jazz") is
definitely for specialized tastes.



Heh heh! Told you, didn't I? :-)

OK, I've got this one - I'll post "My Dreams Are Getting Better All The
Time" later on and mebbe "You Can Depend On Me" and "Don't Get Around Much
Anymore" if I think they better demonstrate the above critique. (Gotta go
out now.....)

These ole boyz (and girlz) might not win American Idol, but they'll damn
soon get you shugging round the room!

(I don't play 'em all the time , but I bloody love 'em! :-)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:21:44 +0000, Ronnie McKinley
wrote:

In uk.rec.audio Don Pearce wrote:



And why have I never come across this track before? What album is it
on?


Don, it's usually credited to Thomas Dorsey.

Modern Copy at Amazon £11.99

1928-1929 McKinney's Cotton Pickers
Audio CD (19 November, 1996)
Label: Classics
ASIN: B000001NL1

1. Four or Five Times
2. Put It There (Shag Nasty)
3. Crying and Sighing
4. Milenberg Joys
5. Cherry
6. Stop Kidding (Neckbones and Sauerkraut)
7. Nobody's Sweetheart
8. Some Sweet Day
9. Shim-Me-Sha-Wabble
10. Paducah
11. Stardust
12. Birmingham Breakdown
13. Four or Five Times
14. It's Tight Like That
15. There's a Rainbow 'Round My Shoulder
16. It's a Precious Little Thing Called Love
17. Save It, Pretty Mama
18. I've Found a New Baby
19. Will You, Won't You Be My Baby?
20. Beedle Um Bum
21. Do Something
22. Selling That Stuff

I'm on me way!

Ta

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:29:59 +0000, Ronnie McKinley
wrote:

In uk.rec.audio Ronnie McKinley wrote:

In uk.rec.audio Don Pearce wrote:



And why have I never come across this track before? What album is it
on?


Don, it's usually credited to Thomas Dorsey.

Modern Copy at Amazon £11.99

1928-1929 McKinney's Cotton Pickers
Audio CD (19 November, 1996)
Label: Classics
ASIN: B000001NL1



Forget that one, Don

Try ...

Mckinney's Cotton Pickers 1928-1931
Audio CD (4 April, 1998)

Number of Discs:1
Label: Unknown Label
ASIN: B000009NIH
Catalogue Number: CD53220


This one £5.99 ... with a S/H copy £4.99

. Four or five times
2. Milenberg boys
3. Cherry
4. Stop kidding (Neckbones and saurkraut)
5. Nobody's sweetheart
6. Some sweet day
7. Shimme sha wabble
8. It's tight like that
9. It's a precious little thing called love
10. Save it pretty mama
11. I've found a new baby
12. Beedle um bum
13. Plain dirt
14. Gee baby ain't I good to you
15. I'd love it
16. Way I feel today
17. Miss Hannah
18. Peggy
19. Wherever there's a will baby
20. Zonky
21. Baby won't you please come home
22. Cotton picker's scat
23. Rocky road
24. You're driving me crazy
25. Do you believe in love at first sight

Better yet!

Ta again

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote

Here's one I looked up ...

------------------------
Shiek and Sadie
Artist George Kid Sheik Colar
Album Title Shiek and Sadie
Date of Release Aug 1, 1985
Genre Jazz
Styles New Orleans Jazz
Label 504

REVIEW: The only reason to acquire this small-label LP is for the
inflexible but appealing rhythmic piano of Sadie Goodson Cola, who
was 84 at the time. The rhythm section (71-year-old bassist Frank
Fields and 81-year-old drummer Milford Dolliole) is not bad either.
The problem is that trumpeter Kid Shiek Cola, who was 76, sounds
106. His playing is constantly faltering, with plenty of wrong
notes; his three vocals (particularly "My Dreams Are Getting All the
Time") are closer to croaking than to singing; he should not have
been recorded at this late date. Fortunately, Sadie Goodson has the
lion's share of the solo space and two features with the trio ("You
Can Depend On Me" and "Don't Get Around Much Anymore"), and her
occasional vocals are tolerable. This release (whose motto, "Real
New Orleans Jazz," should have been "Real Old New Orleans Jazz") is
definitely for specialized tastes.



Heh heh! Told you, didn't I? :-)

OK, I've got this one - I'll post "My Dreams Are Getting Better All The
Time" later on and mebbe "You Can Depend On Me" and "Don't Get Around Much
Anymore" if I think they better demonstrate the above critique. (Gotta go
out now.....)



OK, I obviously didn't get your reply where you metaphorically leap about in
a paroxysm of enthusiasm, uncontrollably squirting body fluids from every
orifice, so just go to my 'Show N Tell' page

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keith_g/show/show.htm

where you will find the three tracks mentioned in the 'review' above plus a
couple of others that I think are well worth a listen. Also a couple of very
moody pix of the front and rear covers to show you what these lovely old
jiffers look like. (Read the back cover, if you can, and see what they got
up to in the 'lean times'!!)

Definitely not to everybody's taste, but I like 'em (in moderation) and
would love to be able to play this sort of stuff myself *NOW* - never mind
when I'm in my 80s!

(Just like you lot, we've just had the Pope, Joanna Lumley, GWB and Michael
Portillo to dinner, but we ****ed 'em off early because we want to watch
'Dark Water' and munch snacks now..... ;-)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"vibrations" wrote in message
om...
vinyl still offers the best sound in a club environment, in terms of
impact and depth.

Not just in clubs and not to mention texture, tone, detail, depth and
imaging.......

Agreed, it's best not to mention those things and vinyl in the same breath!

i've seen mp3 dudes drop sets after vinyl ones, and
seen the atmosphere vanish and people leave the floor.

Sure, there a lot more things going on than just the vinyl Vs digital
source.

You can flog Joe Public any old crap but you can't make him listen to
it.......

Agreed, many prefer new crap.

mp3 sounds a little thin for big club tracks - just because something
has the same SPL doesn't mean it has the same 'bounce'

True, nothing like the bounce from a tone arm when the turntable is knocked!

TonyP.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

I agree, the acoustics of a club change dramaticlly when there are 200+
people jumping, screaming, talking, dancing, stripping, and everything else
that goes on. I have a few tracks that sound like crap when the room is
empty, but when I play them at night I can only hear the difference in my
headphones, no one on the floor notices.

Clean music and a good system are always helpful but useless if you dont
work the crowd. None of them are audiophiles, they wont care if your version
of milkshake is 128kbps or CD, as long as they can dance to it.


"citronzx" wrote in message
k.net...

"Alex Rodriguez" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

You all must go to pretty fancy clubs where everyone is quiet and the
music
is played softly enough that you can even understand what the singer is
singing. The acoustics in most clubs combined with the ambient noise
makes
for such a poor listening experience to begin with that I doubt anyone
would
notice the difference between an MP3 and a CD. You might notice a loss
of
bass with some tracks though.

You must go to clubs that have crappy gear. Loud distortion sounds like
loud distortion. You can hear it, just louder. Most of the clubs I
have
been to have sound systems that play clean and loud. So unless you are
really drunk, you can hear the lousy sound.
-------------
Alex


That was pretty much my point, the music's always sounds crappy in a
packed
club. I'm talking about a place where everyone is talking and many are
dancing. Even it the sound system sounds terrific with the place empty,
the
guests will not be able to tell over the ambient noise in a full club.
You
can feel the bass, so you can dance, and you can make out words (if any)
if
you already know the music but that's it. I'm talking about dance music
like: Top 20, R&B, Techno, and maybe some 80's. No one goes to a club for
the quality of the reproduction of the music, you just have to be able to
dance to it.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"sk8erteck" wrote in message
...

Clean music and a good system are always helpful but useless if you dont
work the crowd. None of them are audiophiles, they wont care if your
version
of milkshake is 128kbps or CD, as long as they can dance to it.


You said a mouthful.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

Every MP3 I have is 128kbps. No one even the DJs that come to my shows don't
know the difference. If you EQ it right and setup the computer right no one
will notice the difference at all.
Besides most of the professional drinkers are so drunk by 9PM that they
wouldn't notice if their seat was on fire let alone a minor musical
fluctuation.

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote in message
news:szDXb.314480$xy6.1537924@attbi_s02...
"sk8erteck" wrote in message
...

Clean music and a good system are always helpful but useless if you dont
work the crowd. None of them are audiophiles, they wont care if your
version
of milkshake is 128kbps or CD, as long as they can dance to it.


You said a mouthful.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

Dutch wrote:
Every MP3 I have is 128kbps. No one even the DJs that come to my
shows don't know the difference. If you EQ it right and setup the
computer right no one will notice the difference at all.
Besides most of the professional drinkers are so drunk by 9PM that
they wouldn't notice if their seat was on fire let alone a minor
musical fluctuation.

You must have a crap sound system. And EQ cannot fix anything.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

sk8erteck wrote:
I agree, the acoustics of a club change dramaticlly when there are
200+ people jumping, screaming, talking, dancing, stripping, and
everything else that goes on. I have a few tracks that sound like
crap when the room is empty, but when I play them at night I can only
hear the difference in my headphones, no one on the floor notices.

Clean music and a good system are always helpful but useless if you
dont work the crowd. None of them are audiophiles, they wont care if
your version of milkshake is 128kbps or CD, as long as they can dance
to it.


With the copious upper-mid/lo-hi crud of mp3s, your patrons may develop
ear-fatigue after 30 minutes or so.

geoff

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

Dutch wrote:
Every MP3 I have is 128kbps. No one even the DJs that come to my
shows don't know the difference.

All deaf.


geoff

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

Not all of my songs are mp3's (most arent) but the few I have sound the same
under the conditions of the club. My point was that none of the patrons are
audiophiles and really don't care if there is a slight change in the sound.

Sorry I am still new to newsgroups and I thought this would get put under
the thread for this and not top posted.


"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
sk8erteck wrote:
I agree, the acoustics of a club change dramaticlly when there are
200+ people jumping, screaming, talking, dancing, stripping, and
everything else that goes on. I have a few tracks that sound like
crap when the room is empty, but when I play them at night I can only
hear the difference in my headphones, no one on the floor notices.

Clean music and a good system are always helpful but useless if you
dont work the crowd. None of them are audiophiles, they wont care if
your version of milkshake is 128kbps or CD, as long as they can dance
to it.


With the copious upper-mid/lo-hi crud of mp3s, your patrons may develop
ear-fatigue after 30 minutes or so.

geoff






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote

Anyways .....
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keith_g/show/show.htm

Interesting Keith. In a novel sort of way. My jazz isn't as purist
as this stuff :) ... more your Diana Krall - Oscar Peterson - Ben
Webster - Sonny Rollins - John Coltrane (but not necessarily
by Coltrane himself) sort of thing.


OK, it's the 'smooth end' of the spectrum somewhat, but I also (dare I say
it?) 'dig' it too.....



But maybe one, or two, modern CD copies for the music collection
wouldn't go amiss.

What more can I say? ;)


Unfortunately, I think the Sheik and Sadie album is possibly the weakest in
the 8 or 9 '504' albums that I've got.

Apart from the fairly obvious 'Anno Domini Effects' on the performers, I
think it also it suffers from being 'played for the mic' - remembering that
although the music almost goes right back to the 20s, the album was actually
cut on 1st August, 1985. - I'd take a bet they still went down very well in
the pubs and clubs they were playing in at that time.

One point I would like to make that I'd also take a bet that not one of
those names on that long list got rich from playing Jazz. If you read/could
read the sleeve notes you would see that these people did stuff like bagging
coffee beans, repairing tellies and plastering to put a crust on the table.
They played Jazz because they wanted to/couldn't help themselves! (I wish I
had lived less than a bus-ride from that stuff in those days!)

I do like 20s jazz (and so do many sur le Continong - Belleville Rendevous?)
and much prefer it to some of the 'lift music' that is getting called 'Jazz'
today. I also prefer the older stuff to be recorded at live performances for
the ambience and 'feel'. Lionel Hampton's brilliant ****ing about wouldn't
be quite the same (or perhaps wouldn't have happenned?) without the audience
appreciation and the venues themselves are almost as interesting as the
music.

(It is also interesting that the modern stuff seems to sound much better
without 'ambience'....???)

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

Patrons of a nightclub with a huge sound system generally develop ear
fatigue within minutes of entering -- unless you're talking about a
quiet jazz club...

With the copious upper-mid/lo-hi crud of mp3s, your patrons may develop
ear-fatigue after 30 minutes or so.

--
~
http://www.dilvie.com/

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

Keith G wrote:
"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:36:52 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


Vinyl recorded as WAVs is a different ballgame entirely - they are very
'listenable' in their own right and knock the **** out of the equivalent
CDs.

I'll give you 30,000,000,000 UKP if you can substatiate that argument.




OK, my mate 'Shiny Nigel' (known to at least 2 other regular posters here)
says so.

My numbered Swiss Bank Account is 00001234 - I will expect funds to be in
place by close of business Monday next....


You had better pay Keith the money as it can be true. I am lucky that I
can get pleasure out of both formats (I play both formats daily). Keith
demonstrated the vinyl to MP3 to me and the result was very nice
compared to the original CD.

In fact, to raise the stakes a bit, he took one of my CD's and recorded
it to MP3 and then played it back through his valve system - goddam
thing sounded better than the original!

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"MrBitsy" wrote in message


In fact, to raise the stakes a bit, he took one of my CD's and
recorded it to MP3 and then played it back through his valve system -
goddam thing sounded better than the original!

Begging the question as to whether you would have been able to hear a
difference with the valve masking removed.

192kbps MP3s on a big sound system?
 

"MrBitsy" wrote


You had better pay Keith the money as it can be true. I am lucky that I
can get pleasure out of both formats (I play both formats daily). Keith
demonstrated the vinyl to MP3 to me and the result was very nice
compared to the original CD.

In fact, to raise the stakes a bit, he took one of my CD's and recorded
it to MP3 and then played it back through his valve system - goddam
thing sounded better than the original!



Yep, I much prefer a vinyl-rip CDR to the original CD of the 'same' music!!