On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:56:12 +0100, "Rob"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

There's an easy test for this. Transfer - using the best possible
equipment - an LP to CD. Ask the golden eared boys to tell which is which
in a blind test. They won't be able to. And I'll put serious money up for
a bet if someone wants to try. But they'll have to equal it.

I think a lot of people will tell the difference. IME acoustic instruments
and voice sound noticeably different. As to whether one is better than the
other, I don't think there's any answer to that. I'm not that concerned
about proving this to you, so hold on to your money Dave :-).

Do the same in reverse. Much more difficult, of course. But it can be
done. Anyone with quarter decent hearing will tell the difference.

Rob, I'm not sure if you caught what Dave was actually saying here. He
was talking about transcribing an LP to CD-R, and then comparing the
CD-R to the original LP. IME, most people can't tell the difference,
and even those who can, admit that

a) The difference is very small

b) The result sounds much more like vinyl than it does like CD.

Basically, CD is an almost-transparent medium, while vinyl definitely
isn't. Which you *prefer* is an entirely different matter, but this
idiot o'Connell on the Yahoo reel to reel grooup is simply spouting
the usual vinylphile bull****. Because *he* prefers his high-end vinyl
rig (assuming it actually exists, which is dubious), then he claims
that means that vinyl is de facto superior to CD.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
snip

Basically, CD is an almost-transparent medium, while vinyl definitely
isn't. Which you *prefer* is an entirely different matter, but this
idiot o'Connell on the Yahoo reel to reel grooup is simply spouting
the usual vinylphile bull****. Because *he* prefers his high-end vinyl
rig (assuming it actually exists, which is dubious), then he claims
that means that vinyl is de facto superior to CD.

I see you took the trouble to look at the group. JCO is a royal pain
in the neck isn't he?

Ian

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:16:44 +0100, ruffrecords
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
snip

Basically, CD is an almost-transparent medium, while vinyl definitely
isn't. Which you *prefer* is an entirely different matter, but this
idiot o'Connell on the Yahoo reel to reel grooup is simply spouting
the usual vinylphile bull****. Because *he* prefers his high-end vinyl
rig (assuming it actually exists, which is dubious), then he claims
that means that vinyl is de facto superior to CD.

I see you took the trouble to look at the group. JCO is a royal pain
in the neck isn't he?

Not any more - he's been thrown off the group.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:16:44 +0100, ruffrecords
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
snip

Basically, CD is an almost-transparent medium, while vinyl definitely
isn't. Which you *prefer* is an entirely different matter, but this
idiot o'Connell on the Yahoo reel to reel grooup is simply spouting
the usual vinylphile bull****. Because *he* prefers his high-end vinyl
rig (assuming it actually exists, which is dubious), then he claims
that means that vinyl is de facto superior to CD.

I see you took the trouble to look at the group. JCO is a royal pain
in the neck isn't he?


Not any more - he's been thrown off the group.

That's funny because I have not been getting any group messages for a
while. Maybe they threw me off too - but surely someone would have
told me?

Ian

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:56:12 +0100, "Rob"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

There's an easy test for this. Transfer - using the best possible
equipment - an LP to CD. Ask the golden eared boys to tell which is
which
in a blind test. They won't be able to. And I'll put serious money up
for
a bet if someone wants to try. But they'll have to equal it.

I think a lot of people will tell the difference. IME acoustic instruments
and voice sound noticeably different. As to whether one is better than the
other, I don't think there's any answer to that. I'm not that concerned
about proving this to you, so hold on to your money Dave :-).

Do the same in reverse. Much more difficult, of course. But it can be
done. Anyone with quarter decent hearing will tell the difference.

Rob, I'm not sure if you caught what Dave was actually saying here. He
was talking about transcribing an LP to CD-R, and then comparing the
CD-R to the original LP. IME, most people can't tell the difference,
and even those who can, admit that

a) The difference is very small

b) The result sounds much more like vinyl than it does like CD.

I agree - done it many times. There is a difference that I would describe as
'layering' - the perspective of the instruments changes, their 'depth' -
what I understand soundstage to mean in the reviews. But it's not huge and I
couldn't always pick it out - very small, as you say.

Basically, CD is an almost-transparent medium, while vinyl definitely
isn't. Which you *prefer* is an entirely different matter, but this
idiot o'Connell on the Yahoo reel to reel grooup is simply spouting
the usual vinylphile bull****. Because *he* prefers his high-end vinyl
rig (assuming it actually exists, which is dubious), then he claims
that means that vinyl is de facto superior to CD.

Which, as you say, it is not.

Rob
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering