Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message
...
A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
In that case, I am puzzled. Digital sound is absolutely identical
regardless of what it is recorded on, whether it is solid state or not.

You think so?

I know so.


You do? Are these truly 'Words from the pink hornless squid beak of the
twisted bum-arse'???



In any case the 'recorded' state of digital music is of no real interest
to
anyone

It is clearly of interest to you, as you are making a distinction
between solid state and optical disc storage.


Or digital tape, or any other format which introduces unnecessary
electromechanical elements (ie moving parts) into the equation.


rest snipped - contained nothing interesting or new


Chezzer, I think you and I had best agree to differ. I prefer vinyl, you
don't - that's perfectly fine with me, can you live with this?

My final point is that ukra is so skewed toward 'digital thinking' by a tiny
minority (who most certainly 'doth protest too much') that 'vinyl is crap'
is generally acceptable here whilst 'CDs are crap' is not, apparently. Fine,
that's why we 'vinyl freaks' are off to another place - to allow you
'digiphiles' to get on with your biz without all the nasty vinyl
interruptions.

Got to be good news all round - no?


holds fingers of left hand in a certain way (doesn't work with the right
for some reason)

Live long and prosper, play all the CDs you want. Don't take no **** from
'vinyl freaks'......

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

99% of the music buying public use digital.

Proving what? - 99% of the public haven't 'measured' anything,

We all know that measurements are the root of all evil.

can be (and
frequently are) sold utter crap and are ruled entirely by price.

This is true of mad audiophiles, except in a different direction. They
reckon if they spend £10,000 on a CD player it *must* sound better ...

The rest of the argument is really snobbery. You're saying that you have
better or more discerning ears than everyone else, as though God gave
you some sort of unique gift.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

I know so.

You do? Are these truly 'Words from the pink hornless squid beak of the
twisted bum-arse'???

Yes.

It is clearly of interest to you, as you are making a distinction
between solid state and optical disc storage.

Or digital tape, or any other format which introduces unnecessary
electromechanical elements (ie moving parts) into the equation.

Digital reproduction is utterly independent of electromechanical
elements. If you think it can be altered by the type of moving parts in
a system, then you do not understand how digital works. If what you were
saying was correct, then - as I keep saying - modern computers and
telecommunications systems would be impossible. They are built and *do*
work because of digital's independence from the underlying medium.

rest snipped - contained nothing interesting or new

This seems to be the bit where you decide you're out of your depth and
you're not going to bother arguing anymore.

Chezzer, I think you and I had best agree to differ. I prefer vinyl, you
don't - that's perfectly fine with me, can you live with this?

I am not arguing about vinyl right now, I am trying to get you to
justify your weird preconceptions about digital.

My final point is that ukra is so skewed toward 'digital thinking' by a tiny
minority (who most certainly 'doth protest too much') that 'vinyl is crap'
is generally acceptable here whilst 'CDs are crap' is not, apparently.

For 99% of people, the above is true. You're talking like the lost tribe
of Israel or something.

Fine,
that's why we 'vinyl freaks' are off to another place - to allow you
'digiphiles' to get on with your biz without all the nasty vinyl
interruptions.

What you want really is a place where you can say "digital is crap" and
not have to argue with anyone who tries to correct your incorrect
perceptions. It truly is a religion where you can't and won't listen to
reason.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message
...
A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

99% of the music buying public use digital.

Proving what? - 99% of the public haven't 'measured' anything,

We all know that measurements are the root of all evil.


Hmmm, not even I would say that. I tend to think there's a time and place
for everything, 'measurement's included, it's just that I prefer to listen
to music - not 'measure' it......



can be (and
frequently are) sold utter crap and are ruled entirely by price.

This is true of mad audiophiles, except in a different direction. They
reckon if they spend £10,000 on a CD player it *must* sound better ...

The rest of the argument is really snobbery. You're saying that you have
better or more discerning ears than everyone else, as though God gave
you some sort of unique gift.


Well, Chesley, if you been around here long enough, you would have seen me
admit (more than once) that I'm a lousy listener and can 'get into the
groove' with just about anything after a few minutes. It's a condition
called 'vinyl ears' don'tcha know?

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message
...
A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

I know so.

You do? Are these truly 'Words from the pink hornless squid beak of the
twisted bum-arse'???

Yes.


Thought so....



It is clearly of interest to you, as you are making a distinction
between solid state and optical disc storage.

Or digital tape, or any other format which introduces unnecessary
electromechanical elements (ie moving parts) into the equation.

Digital reproduction is utterly independent of electromechanical
elements. If you think it can be altered by the type of moving parts in
a system, then you do not understand how digital works. If what you were
saying was correct, then - as I keep saying - modern computers and
telecommunications systems would be impossible. They are built and *do*
work because of digital's independence from the underlying medium.

rest snipped - contained nothing interesting or new

This seems to be the bit where you decide you're out of your depth and
you're not going to bother arguing anymore.


Possibly the former, definitely the latter.



Chezzer, I think you and I had best agree to differ. I prefer vinyl, you
don't - that's perfectly fine with me, can you live with this?

I am not arguing about vinyl right now, I am trying to get you to
justify your weird preconceptions about digital.


Weird preconceptions? Could you be more specific (but make it quick, I've
got to put my valves on to warm up and dress for dinner....)



My final point is that ukra is so skewed toward 'digital thinking' by a
tiny
minority (who most certainly 'doth protest too much') that 'vinyl is
crap'
is generally acceptable here whilst 'CDs are crap' is not, apparently.

For 99% of people, the above is true. You're talking like the lost tribe
of Israel or something.


OK, that makes me Moses then and I'm about to lead the 'True Believers' off
to Fuchal. I guess this 'last-dtch' CD vs Vinyl troll is the Usenet
equivalent of the Red Sea.....



Fine,
that's why we 'vinyl freaks' are off to another place - to allow you
'digiphiles' to get on with your biz without all the nasty vinyl
interruptions.

What you want really is a place where you can say "digital is crap" and
not have to argue with anyone who tries to correct your incorrect
perceptions.


Do you honestly think 'vinylphiles' are going to waste an opportunity to
broaden their knowledge, scope and experience of all things vinylicious just
sitting around croaking 'digital is crap' like a bunch of frogs or summat?
(Although I suppose we could use it as some sort of shibboleth.....)

My first question for the new group is:


'OK, posh low output MC carts cost more than my house - woss it all about?
Wot am I missing here?


It truly is a religion where you can't and won't listen to
reason.

Reason?

LOL!

All this jerking and you can come out with that? WTF is 'reason' - agreeing
with you (and a couple of this groups most seriously afflicted mental cases)
that 'vinyl is crap'???

OK, Winston, I give in. You're right - vinyl *is* crap, now will you take
the wires off my balls?


PS. Got any vinyl you want to get rid of then?


****ZZZZAAAAPPPP!!!!****


F*ck. Sh*t. Ouch! OK, OK, sorry! Sorreee.........


(Time for din-dins now, gotta go in. 'Bye)

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message ...

Beatles records. I flipped the switch back and forth randomly-- which
was which? Wouldn't you know it, each time he'd say, 'well that sounds
nice and rich and warm, it's the analog, right?', it would be via the
digital, and also vice versa. Nothing subtle, this was about 85-90% of
the time. Whatever he was actually hearing was 180 degrees out-of-phase,
so to speak, with his philosophy.

Evidence for both sides here. OK, the analog nut preferred the digital.
OTOH, he could hear the difference (which allegedly isn't there).

Tim

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"Chesney Christ" wrote in message
...
A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
I've no disregard for 'numbers' - they have their place, but when
people
start letting them make the final choices (over their ears) I reckon
it's
time to take the dog for a walk......

That would be 99% of the music-buying public ?

What are you saying? - 99% of the music buying public use 'meters' to
decide
on their choice of music medium?

99% of the music buying public use digital.

Proving what?

Proving that all earlier formats are legacy formats, not mainstream formats.

- 99% of the public haven't 'measured' anything, can be (and
frequently are) sold utter crap and are ruled entirely by price.

LPs were always cheaper than CDs when the two formats competed
head-to-heard. According to your logic Keith, the CD could have never
ascended over the LP. It didn't happen. The current marketplace with 99% of
all recordings on digital formats didn't happen and never will until the CD
is cheaper than the LP. As a rule, the LP is still effectively cheaper than
the CD especially given the high percentage of LPs that are sold used.

LOL!

Want an example? - DAB radio. It's crap, it offers 'a lot' (superficially)
it's got
a good signal/noise ratio etc., it's 'quick and easy' and it ain't taken
off
yet.

The comparison is illogical at this time because the CD did take off. It's
got 99+% of the market.

As soon as the prices drop to FM levels it'll go like hot cakes (like
when car manufacturers fit it as standard). Will that make it any good?

I think that DAB will compete with FM and AM based on perceived quality.
Since FM and AM as we know them now are such audibly deficient formats, it
seems like getting something that EFFECTIVELY sounds better would not be
rocket science.

In the US we're being presented with two satellite/ground based national
digital radio networks, XM and Sirius. I don't think that anybody in the US
is foolish enough to think that they will compete with existing technology
based solely on sound quality under ideal conditions.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
.. .
"Chesney Christ" wrote in message
...
A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

99% of the music buying public use digital.

Proving what? - 99% of the public haven't 'measured' anything,

We all know that measurements are the root of all evil.


Hmmm, not even I would say that. I tend to think there's a time and place
for everything, 'measurement's included, it's just that I prefer to listen
to music - not 'measure' it......

The listening argument seems to favor the CD, given that 99+ percent of all
music lovers, who as you said have never done any technical measurements,
prefer the CD.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Chesney Christ" wrote in message
...
A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

I am not arguing about vinyl right now, I am trying to get you to
justify your weird preconceptions about digital.

Weird preconceptions? Could you be more specific (but make it quick, I've
got to put my valves on to warm up and dress for dinner....)

I cannot be more specific as you will not explain why you think this
debate about solid state versus "spinning media" is of any relevance.
It's your argument, not mine.



It's not my argument, it's a well known fact that the 'whirling' process
introduces a host of potential errors into the equation all the way down to
'ganga haze' on yer 'seeing eye'. (See previous reference to 'jitter' and
build a case for yourself.)

If you are really interested, in the future (but perhaps still in my
lifetime) I see little 'solid state' coloured cubes being pushed into
devices that will scan them with 3 or 4 lasers and produce 3D, holographic
pictures and 'surround sound' (which will become totally combined in the
future - think Kylie's bum and give in gracefully...) and without a single
moving part in the whole shebang. The fact that there will be several
different types of cubes to choose from (all totally incompatible) goes
without saying, of course.....

(Jeez, they were doing it 25 years ago in Star Trek!)

Guess what? - 'Vinyl addicts' like me will still be shugging our zimmer
frames up and down the corridors to the sound of 'Leapin' With Lionel'
belting out of the record player, mono an' all......

:-)

(Kinda gives ya hope, don't it?)




'OK, posh low output MC carts cost more than my house - woss it all
about?
Wot am I missing here?

You can say that about any piece of hifi equipment. And after all, you
always say it's all about what you hear. How are you going to be
persuaded either way by a discussion on a newsgroup ?


The one thing I'm *never*, is 'persuaded' by anything I read on newsgroups -
this one or any other. Other peoples, thoughts, experiences and opinions,
however, are very useful in aiding my own researches.

My normal procedure, when buying kit, is to ask questions, Google a bit,
read reviews in the comix then go down to the shops and buy the first thing
I see (that 'speaks' to me) which is, of course, something totally different
to what I had decided upon....

:-)



All this jerking and you can come out with that? WTF is 'reason' -
agreeing
with you (and a couple of this groups most seriously afflicted mental
cases)
that 'vinyl is crap'???

"Reason" is where you explain & justify your thinking, on matters such
as this "solid state" business you brought up.


OK, done that.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:


It's not my argument, it's a well known fact that the 'whirling' process
introduces a host of potential errors into the equation all the way down
to
'ganga haze' on yer 'seeing eye'. (See previous reference to 'jitter'
and
build a case for yourself.)

For what its worth, AFAIK, the fact that it rotates has little to do
with creating jitter.


I didn't link the two. Rotating things causes problems, 'reading' things'
causes problems etc. Jitter has more to do with pits and lands. Pits and
lands have more to do with CDRs not being an 'exact' copy of the original CD
(as SN will assert)....

(No good asking me - I neither know nor care, BTW...)


The servo current needed to track the data may
have some part. But any DAC has to get a reference clock, and there is
no such thing as a perfectly monotonic clock, so SS storage still
doesn't get around the requirements for a quality DAC,


Quite, all this whirling, reading etc. and you are still only suppling a DAC
with a datastream which will have none of those problems if it is drawn from
SS storage.


left with the quality of the analog stage to deal with.


True, but not germane.....