Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Ray Keattch" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Ray Keattch wrote:
If their description of the bass 'being really deep' on your record
player, but not on your CD, one is faulty - forget any nuances. If
it
happens on all nominally the same recordings.

Neither the CD or deck are flawed.

Given your hate of anything technical, how would you know?

So where do you want to go with this one?

Speaks to state of mind.

Would it help if I invited you to
my place to satisfy you my system isn't flawed? Quite simple really. The
CD
sounds good and the deck sounds good. It takes a while to tune in to a
different format.

Mr Plowman, your being a tit for the sake of trolling.

You're obviously perceptually deaf to the coloration, noise and distortion
that is inherent in LP playback.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Ray Keattch wrote:
Neither the CD or deck are flawed.

Given your hate of anything technical, how would you know?

So where do you want to go with this one? Would it help if I invited you
to my place to satisfy you my system isn't flawed? Quite simple really.
The CD sounds good and the deck sounds good. It takes a while to tune in
to a different format.

Mr Plowman, your being a tit for the sake of trolling.

I'd suggest you train your ears - or those of your children - how to
recognise and describe sound artifacts. If the bass *really* does sound
substantially different between an LP and a CD, then it could easily be
measured, and the reason found out as to why. But I'd guess at a
pickup/arm resonance. Which any caring vinyl enthusiast would try to fix.

But like I said you don't understand - or want to understand - such things.

As for trolling, I'm not the one originating all these threads on a vinyl
only group, and would welcome it if only to get shot of those who can't
admit to its flaws. From those who appreciate old technology, and wish to
get the very best of it, I personally love to read things. 'Cause I'm
interested in this as well, but not blind to its flaws.

--
*Work is for people who don't know how to fish.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Tim Anderson wrote:
You're probably using a poor sound card - they're not all the same.

Not using a sound card; this is a DAT recording.

Well, not all DATs sound the same - some domestic types had poor analogue
sections.

And I'd ask just how carefully you matched levels etc when doing the
comparison? This can make a vast difference to the perceived sound quality.

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:36:37 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .

As I've said before, I suspect that you and I read different
newsgroups (albeit both labelled uk.rec.audio).


Kinda looks like it! Mine's full of mile-long 'vinyl is crap' threads -
what's yours got?

I realize now that I get a somewhat skewed view of this group simply
because of those that I've kill-filed -- not because of their pro- or
anti-vinyl stances, but because they're foul-mouthed idiots ... no
prizes for guessing for who I might mean :-)

Maybe the 100s of posts I never see really are fill of "vinyl is crap"
messages!

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Dave Plowman wrote in message ...
In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
They've been done to death on here, but the vinyl nerds don't listen.
They have a hearing problem.

No mate, you have a problem with what we like to hear.

For the umpteenth time I don't. But do have a problem with all the crap
talked about how superior it is. Because it isn't by any measure.

Except the measure of human hearing.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

wrote in message
om
Dave Plowman wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
They've been done to death on here, but the vinyl nerds don't
listen. They have a hearing problem.

No mate, you have a problem with what we like to hear.

For the umpteenth time I don't. But do have a problem with all the
crap talked about how superior it is. Because it isn't by any
measure.

Except the measure of human hearing.

Wrong. Many humans such as myself hear the rather obvious imperfections in
vinyl.

I think you really mean "Except by the measure of my perceptions."

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message


On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:52:18 -0400, Arny Krueger used
to say...

You're obviously perceptually deaf to the coloration, noise and
distortion that is inherent in LP playback.

If he were "perceptually deaf" he wouldn't be able to hear and
recognise the difference now would he?

Wrong since his evauations aren't bias-controlled.

His posts have shown that he can do both.

Wrong.

Very weak Arny, even for you.

Simply not true. You may be ignorant and blinkered enough to be fooled Kurt,
but not all of us are. Make that about 99.5% of us...

Enjoy your tiny noisy minority, Kurt. I hope that when you get your own
ghetto I mean group, we'll be rid of your posturing, horrendous forays into
misquoting, misunderstandings of simple English, and misplaced priorities.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message


On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:22:53 -0400, Arny Krueger used
to say...

More likely the problem is that he didn't do a time-synched,
level-matched, bias controlled test.

Is that your equivalent of Om Mani Padmi Um?

No because its intent is to stimulate thought, not eliminate it.

But thanks for sharing the explanation for your blinkered posts, Kurt. You
are trying not to think! Explains lots!

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Tim Anderson wrote:

Well, not all DATs sound the same - some domestic types had poor analogue
sections.

And I'd ask just how carefully you matched levels etc when doing the
comparison? This can make a vast difference to the perceived sound quality.

Testing is difficult, agreed. That makes it even more dangerous IMO to
pronouce confidently that such-and-such a thing (like copying vinyl
to CD) makes no audible difference. IME it does make a difference.

Tim

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Ray Keattch" wrote in message ...

If it were more lifelike than CD then it would be able to imitate live
sounds better. This it certainly can't, in any test you care to try
where
direct comparison, rather than your poor hearing memory, is involved.

Whatever you do, make sure you give enough time for your ears to 'de-tune'
from one format, before listening to the other.

Both the CD and vinyl will sound pretty dire when you swap!

However, vinyl vs CD is not the issue here. The claim is that "in any test you
care to try", CD sounds more like the live original.

I'd love to try this test, especially as I've experienced vinyl creating a better
illusion of a live sound than CDs. However, as far as I know the test is
impossible. I have to hear a live sound, have it recorded and pressed to
vinyl and also made into a CD. Then I have to remember the live sound
while doing the experiment; or repeat the live sound if it is repeatable.

Thus, "in any test you care to try" is deceptive - I care to try the test, but
I cannot.

Tim