Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
As has been shown in several threads over the last couple of days there
is a need to separate vinyl discussions from the mainstream audio group.
If only to provide a place where vinylophiles can discuss their
preferences with like-minded people, where we can reduce the turbulence
caused by the digital bigots who are unable to comprehend how we can
gain so much satisfaction from a black disk of PVC.

Please count me as in favour of the creation of the new group.
(snip)
Kurt
The Hamsters - Voted the UK's best Blues-Rock band.
http://www.thehamsters.co.uk

* ... Angels can fly since they take themselves lightly.

I would like to add my support for ukrav. I'll certainly vote for it's
creation. I remain perplexed by the hostility of certain ukra subscribers to
the simple assertion that music sounds better on vinyl to many people, and
the tedious and patronising attempts made to 'prove' that vinyl users are
somehow mistaken or delusional. The creation of the new group should allow
constructive discussion of what remains a very creative and enthusiastically
supported section of the audio industry by professionals and hobbyists
alike.

John Wilkinson.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
John wrote:
The creation of the new group should allow constructive discussion of
what remains a very creative and enthusiastically supported section of
the audio industry by professionals and hobbyists alike.

I take it by 'professionals' you mean those who sell vinyl? Only a very
few cranks who work in pro audio prefer vinyl, and would probably keep
this very quiet among their peers.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:06:35 +0100, "John"
wrote:


"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
As has been shown in several threads over the last couple of days there
is a need to separate vinyl discussions from the mainstream audio group.
If only to provide a place where vinylophiles can discuss their
preferences with like-minded people, where we can reduce the turbulence
caused by the digital bigots who are unable to comprehend how we can
gain so much satisfaction from a black disk of PVC.

Please count me as in favour of the creation of the new group.
(snip)
Kurt
The Hamsters - Voted the UK's best Blues-Rock band.
http://www.thehamsters.co.uk

* ... Angels can fly since they take themselves lightly.

I would like to add my support for ukrav. I'll certainly vote for it's
creation. I remain perplexed by the hostility of certain ukra subscribers to
the simple assertion that music sounds better on vinyl to many people,

I have no problem with such assertions ... however, I do get irritated
when some of the vinyl enthusiasts mutate this statement to "music
*is* better on vinyl". Anyone can have a subjective preference;
hopefully creation of a new group that is specific to those with with
a preference for vinyl will reduce the no. of posts to uk.rec.audio
trying to claim that CD is not objectively/technically superior to
vinyl as an accurate reproduction mechanism.

and
the tedious and patronising attempts made to 'prove' that vinyl users are
somehow mistaken or delusional.

.... as opposed to the tedious and delusional attempts to 'prove' that
vinyl is somehow technically superior to CD. Its like a Morris Minor
enthusiast trying to argue that his/her preference makes the Moggie
technically superior to a BMW 7-series ;-)

Julian

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

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Julian Fowler" wrote


I would like to add my support for ukrav. I'll certainly vote for it's
creation. I remain perplexed by the hostility of certain ukra subscribers
to
the simple assertion that music sounds better on vinyl to many people,

I have no problem with such assertions ... however, I do get irritated
when some of the vinyl enthusiasts mutate this statement to "music
*is* better on vinyl".


Strange, since I prefer music on vinyl, for me, "music *is* better on
vinyl". (I'd be daft to prefer it, if it sounded worse, wouldn't I?) What
troubles me is that vinylphobes can't stand to hear that someone prefers
vinyl without being irritated while most vinylphiles I know are very happy
to hear someone prefers digital and really couldn't care less.

Best of all, I suppose, is that some people can happily 'mix and match' both
without getting bent out shape about it all. (Although, the fact I can't
doesn't bother me too much....)


Anyone can have a subjective preference;
hopefully creation of a new group that is specific to those with with
a preference for vinyl will reduce the no. of posts to uk.rec.audio
trying to claim that CD is not objectively/technically superior to
vinyl as an accurate reproduction mechanism.

and
the tedious and patronising attempts made to 'prove' that vinyl users are
somehow mistaken or delusional.


Yes indeed - removal of this very 'LP vs. digital' deadlock is one of the
reasons for proposing a separate vinyl ng.



... as opposed to the tedious and delusional attempts to 'prove' that
vinyl is somehow technically superior to CD. Its like a Morris Minor
enthusiast trying to argue that his/her preference makes the Moggie
technically superior to a BMW 7-series ;-)


Fine, except that have you really ever seen/heard a Moggie owner (or
vinylphile) make these 'technically superior' remarks? I think you will find
it is actually the longest-running strawman argument in ukra.

Vinylphiles may claim 'sonic superiority' and will certainly express a
personal preference, vinylphobes are uncomfortable with this (doesn't match
their own 'scientific' findings) and substitute the word 'technical' in
their little, er, ****** heads!

Now try this one - home-baked bread is much better than a supermarket sliced
white loaf despite the fact that the supermarket loaf will very likely
fulfil more 'perfect white bread' specifications on paper......

:-)

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:10:16 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Julian Fowler" wrote


I would like to add my support for ukrav. I'll certainly vote for it's
creation. I remain perplexed by the hostility of certain ukra subscribers
to
the simple assertion that music sounds better on vinyl to many people,

I have no problem with such assertions ... however, I do get irritated
when some of the vinyl enthusiasts mutate this statement to "music
*is* better on vinyl".


Strange, since I prefer music on vinyl, for me, "music *is* better on
vinyl". (I'd be daft to prefer it, if it sounded worse, wouldn't I?)

Yes, but you definitely fall into the "reasonable" camp, Keith - you
don't tend to claim that vinyl sounds better to you because of some
spurious technical superiority. You like it because you like it ...

What
troubles me is that vinylphobes can't stand to hear that someone prefers
vinyl without being irritated while most vinylphiles I know are very happy
to hear someone prefers digital and really couldn't care less.

Can't comment ... whilst not being a vinylphile (I do listen to vinyl,
albeit only where the music concerned is not readily available in
digital form, or I've not yet got round to purchasing it on CD) I'm
not a vinylphobe either. The "irritation" (which, to be honest, is
only minor as far as I'm concerned) is when over-zealous vinylphiles
jump from statements of preference to statements of technical
superiority.

Best of all, I suppose, is that some people can happily 'mix and match' both
without getting bent out shape about it all. (Although, the fact I can't
doesn't bother me too much....)


Anyone can have a subjective preference;
hopefully creation of a new group that is specific to those with with
a preference for vinyl will reduce the no. of posts to uk.rec.audio
trying to claim that CD is not objectively/technically superior to
vinyl as an accurate reproduction mechanism.

and
the tedious and patronising attempts made to 'prove' that vinyl users are
somehow mistaken or delusional.


Yes indeed - removal of this very 'LP vs. digital' deadlock is one of the
reasons for proposing a separate vinyl ng.


... as opposed to the tedious and delusional attempts to 'prove' that
vinyl is somehow technically superior to CD. Its like a Morris Minor
enthusiast trying to argue that his/her preference makes the Moggie
technically superior to a BMW 7-series ;-)


Fine, except that have you really ever seen/heard a Moggie owner

yes (usually in form claims that Moggies are "environmentally
friendly")

(or
vinylphile) make these 'technically superior' remarks?

yes. Maybe its the mark of a true vinylphile that he/she doesn't see
claims that vinyl has (for example) better dynamic range than CD as
being technical incorrect. Likewise the denial that the mastering
techniques necessary to create a vinyl disc involve substantial
degradation of the source material which is not necessary with CD
mastering processes.

I think you will find
it is actually the longest-running strawman argument in ukra.

Vinylphiles may claim 'sonic superiority' and will certainly express a
personal preference, vinylphobes are uncomfortable with this (doesn't match
their own 'scientific' findings) and substitute the word 'technical' in
their little, er, ****** heads!

Now try this one - home-baked bread is much better than a supermarket sliced
white loaf despite the fact that the supermarket loaf will very likely
fulfil more 'perfect white bread' specifications on paper......

.... um, since when did white bread have anything to do with accuracy
of audio reproduction? Maybe the key difference *is* that vinylphiles
have a preference for a certain sound (and the common claims in favour
of valve amplifiers in conjunction with vinyl suggest that "certain
sound" to be an inaccurate, coloured one), whereas those with a
preference for CD are seeking the best possible reproduction of music
as intended by the artists, engineers, and producers responsible for
it. If your interest is with accuracy then specifications are
important - if your interest is in a sound you like (without much
attention to the relationship between what you are hearing and what
was recorded) then I agree that specs and measurements are irrelevant
to you.

Julian


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

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Julian Fowler" wrote


Strange, since I prefer music on vinyl, for me, "music *is* better on
vinyl". (I'd be daft to prefer it, if it sounded worse, wouldn't I?)

Yes, but you definitely fall into the "reasonable" camp, Keith - you
don't tend to claim that vinyl sounds better to you because of some
spurious technical superiority. You like it because you like it ...


Thanks for that - I really have no opinion about someone else's expressed
preference for any 'non vinyl' medium. Whatever floats their boat is
perfectly fine by me! (A view I think you will find is shared by nearly all
'vinylheads'.....)

(Also not totally unaware that banging on about vinyl is only creating
'competition' for vinyl related stuff and any resultant increased demand,
while it may improve choice, can only drive prices up at the end of the
day!)



What
troubles me is that vinylphobes can't stand to hear that someone prefers
vinyl without being irritated while most vinylphiles I know are very
happy
to hear someone prefers digital and really couldn't care less.

Can't comment ... whilst not being a vinylphile (I do listen to vinyl,
albeit only where the music concerned is not readily available in
digital form, or I've not yet got round to purchasing it on CD) I'm
not a vinylphobe either. The "irritation" (which, to be honest, is
only minor as far as I'm concerned) is when over-zealous vinylphiles
jump from statements of preference to statements of technical
superiority.


Again, I can only state I'm not aware of many (if any) such statements. I
think what it is the 'vinylphobes/digiphiles' take enthusiastic remarks
about 'lifelike' 'engaging' and 'presence' (or whatever) and translate them
into 'accuracy' 'dynamic range' etc.



For the record:

ukra = 'vinyl enthusiasm' is anathema

ukrav = 'vinyl enthusiasm' is mandatory

OK?

:-)


snip

Fine, except that have you really ever seen/heard a Moggie owner

yes (usually in form claims that Moggies are "environmentally
friendly")


Which, if caring ownership of a well-tuned Moggie for, say, 30 years, means
that a square mile (or two) of rainforest hasn't been chopped down to
provide the 15 or so '2 year replacements' in that time, is a perfectly
reasonable claim, IME.



(or
vinylphile) make these 'technically superior' remarks?

yes. Maybe its the mark of a true vinylphile that he/she doesn't see
claims that vinyl has (for example) better dynamic range than CD as
being technical incorrect. Likewise the denial that the mastering
techniques necessary to create a vinyl disc involve substantial
degradation of the source material which is not necessary with CD
mastering processes.

I think you will find
it is actually the longest-running strawman argument in ukra.

Vinylphiles may claim 'sonic superiority' and will certainly express a
personal preference, vinylphobes are uncomfortable with this (doesn't
match
their own 'scientific' findings) and substitute the word 'technical' in
their little, er, ****** heads!

Now try this one - home-baked bread is much better than a supermarket
sliced
white loaf despite the fact that the supermarket loaf will very likely
fulfil more 'perfect white bread' specifications on paper......

... um, since when did white bread have anything to do with accuracy
of audio reproduction?


At about the same time as the mention of the Morris Minor.......


Maybe the key difference *is* that vinylphiles
have a preference for a certain sound (and the common claims in favour
of valve amplifiers in conjunction with vinyl suggest that "certain
sound" to be an inaccurate, coloured one), whereas those with a
preference for CD are seeking the best possible reproduction of music
as intended by the artists, engineers, and producers responsible for
it. If your interest is with accuracy then specifications are
important - if your interest is in a sound you like (without much
attention to the relationship between what you are hearing and what
was recorded) then I agree that specs and measurements are irrelevant
to you.


Your mention of valves raises a very good point. It is my contention that
'valves & vinyl' go together like cheese and pickle and combine to create an
utterly sublime sound. ('Accurate', 'distorted', 'coloured' or not - I
really couldn't give a sh*t, I simply never tire of it!) I often wonder if
vinyl would have quite so many detractors here if they had had the chance to
hear the 'full monty'.....

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:19:53 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Julian Fowler" wrote
snip

Can't comment ... whilst not being a vinylphile (I do listen to vinyl,
albeit only where the music concerned is not readily available in
digital form, or I've not yet got round to purchasing it on CD) I'm
not a vinylphobe either. The "irritation" (which, to be honest, is
only minor as far as I'm concerned) is when over-zealous vinylphiles
jump from statements of preference to statements of technical
superiority.


Again, I can only state I'm not aware of many (if any) such statements.

Sometimes I wonder whether we're reading different newsgroups :-)

I noticed that you snipped my comment about vinyl enthusiasts' denial
of the degradation involved in the mastering-for-vinyl process -- are
these also statements that you're unaware of?

I
think what it is the 'vinylphobes/digiphiles' take enthusiastic remarks
about 'lifelike' 'engaging' and 'presence' (or whatever) and translate them
into 'accuracy' 'dynamic range' etc.

Maybe you could explain to the unlightened how a recording can be
"lifelike" without being accurate.

Fine, except that have you really ever seen/heard a Moggie owner

yes (usually in form claims that Moggies are "environmentally
friendly")


Which, if caring ownership of a well-tuned Moggie for, say, 30 years, means
that a square mile (or two) of rainforest hasn't been chopped down to
provide the 15 or so '2 year replacements' in that time, is a perfectly
reasonable claim, IME.

Somehow, I'm not surprised that you'd say that ;-) How about
considerations like the % of recycleable parts in the Moggie, its
exhaust emissions, the long-term environmental damage caused by the
factory it was built in, ... Its no coincidence that countries that
have well-founded environmental policies give people substantial
subsidies to dispose of Moggies and their equivalents ...

snip

... um, since when did white bread have anything to do with accuracy
of audio reproduction?


At about the same time as the mention of the Morris Minor.......

The comparison between dominant technologies of the mid-20th century
(Morris Minor, vinyl records) and those of the early 21st century
(BMW, CD) seems valid to me.


Maybe the key difference *is* that vinylphiles
have a preference for a certain sound (and the common claims in favour
of valve amplifiers in conjunction with vinyl suggest that "certain
sound" to be an inaccurate, coloured one), whereas those with a
preference for CD are seeking the best possible reproduction of music
as intended by the artists, engineers, and producers responsible for
it. If your interest is with accuracy then specifications are
important - if your interest is in a sound you like (without much
attention to the relationship between what you are hearing and what
was recorded) then I agree that specs and measurements are irrelevant
to you.


Your mention of valves raises a very good point. It is my contention that
'valves & vinyl' go together like cheese and pickle and combine to create an
utterly sublime sound. ('Accurate', 'distorted', 'coloured' or not - I
really couldn't give a sh*t, I simply never tire of it!) I often wonder if
vinyl would have quite so many detractors here if they had had the chance to
hear the 'full monty'.....

I have ... and I'll admit that a high-end vinyl/valve system can sound
very good. On the other hand, any competent CD based system sounds at
least as good, if not better (to me).

Julian


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

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Message-ID: from Keith G
contained the following:

Strange, since I prefer music on vinyl, for me, "music *is* better on
vinyl". (I'd be daft to prefer it, if it sounded worse, wouldn't I?)

It must surely depend on what it is.

I prefer film to video, but dramas such as Casualty seem to have more
immediacy on video.

That said, any analogue copy is a degradation from the original.

--
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Message-ID: from Keith G
contained the following:

For the record:

ukra = 'vinyl enthusiasm' is anathema

ukrav = 'vinyl enthusiasm' is mandatory

How are you recording that? ;-)

--
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message
...
Message-ID: from Keith G
contained the following:

Strange, since I prefer music on vinyl, for me, "music *is* better on
vinyl". (I'd be daft to prefer it, if it sounded worse, wouldn't I?)

It must surely depend on what it is.


Why?



I prefer film to video, but dramas such as Casualty seem to have more
immediacy on video.


No idea......



That said, any analogue copy is a degradation from the original.


I've never said it wasn't - any 'copy' in this life is a degradation from
the original.......

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message
...
Message-ID: from Keith G
contained the following:

For the record:

ukra = 'vinyl enthusiasm' is anathema

ukrav = 'vinyl enthusiasm' is mandatory

How are you recording that? ;-)


Pencil and paper.....

;-)

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Hi,

In message , Geoff Berrow
writes
Message-ID: from Keith G
contained the following:

Strange, since I prefer music on vinyl, for me, "music *is* better on
vinyl". (I'd be daft to prefer it, if it sounded worse, wouldn't I?)

It must surely depend on what it is.

I prefer film to video, but dramas such as Casualty seem to have more
immediacy on video.

That said, any analogue copy is a degradation from the original.

It depends on where you draw the line as 'original'. Once the sound
waves hit a microphone, the first 'model' that's made of the original is
an analogue model, and even with the best transducers, that's degraded,
but by its nature it can't possibly be worse than the digital version
that you make from it. Any and all losses will be carried into the
digital domain.

Let's not forget that most music is modelled into an analogue form
before it gets digitised. The difference is that we have ways of
accurately storing and decoding information that's been digitised, but
the ways we have of storing and playing back the analogue models are not
so accurate. (Perfectly enjoyable in some cases though).

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message
...
Message-ID: from Keith G
contained the following:

It must surely depend on what it is.


Why?

Because if it is a digital source then there is bugger all point in
converting it to analogue.


That said, any analogue copy is a degradation from the original.


I've never said it wasn't - any 'copy' in this life is a degradation from
the original.......


Jebat. Yrg zr xabj vs gurer ner nal 'ovgf' zvffvat sebz guvf zrffntr.


Sorry, could you try sending that again?

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Message-ID: from Ronnie
McKinley contained the following:

Wrong. Let me know if there are any 'bits' missing from this message.


Yes emotion.

No telling if you're happy, sad or just ****in' about.

Wrong.

Want me to explain it to you?

--
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Julian Fowler wrote:
I noticed that you snipped my comment about vinyl enthusiasts' denial
of the degradation involved in the mastering-for-vinyl process -- are
these also statements that you're unaware of?

They've been done to death on here, but the vinyl nerds don't listen.
They have a hearing problem.

--
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 19:18:22 +0100, Ronnie McKinley
wrote:

In uk.rec.audio Geoff Berrow wrote:

Wrong. Let me know if there are any 'bits' missing from this message.

Yes emotion.

No telling if you're happy, sad or just ****in' about.

Why does there have to be an emotional content? This is usenet, not
some half-arsed dating agency.

Paul.

--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality

JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."

All Hotmail, MSN, AOL, Yahoo and Excite emails are automatically killfiltered.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John wrote:
The creation of the new group should allow constructive discussion of
what remains a very creative and enthusiastically supported section of
the audio industry by professionals and hobbyists alike.

I take it by 'professionals' you mean those who sell vinyl? Only a very
few cranks who work in pro audio prefer vinyl, and would probably keep
this very quiet among their peers.

I meant those who make the hardware, primarily. As to 'cranks', I'd be more
likely to apply that to folk with nothing more uesful or constructive to do
with their time than pointlessly trying to 'prove' that other people's
aesthetic preferences are wrongheaded...
John.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:06:35 +0100, "John"
wrote:

(snip)
and
the tedious and patronising attempts made to 'prove' that vinyl users are
somehow mistaken or delusional.

... as opposed to the tedious and delusional attempts to 'prove' that
vinyl is somehow technically superior to CD. Its like a Morris Minor
enthusiast trying to argue that his/her preference makes the Moggie
technically superior to a BMW 7-series ;-)

Julian

The analogy isn't really appropriate, unless you're irredeemably biased.
However, the real issue is what you prefer to drive. Vinyl certainly isn't a
Morris Minor to Cd's Beemer. A Caterham 7, perhaps...
John.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Message-ID: from Ronnie
McKinley contained the following:

Want me to explain it to you?


What!! how to judge your current emotional condition from type fonts on
a computer monitor? Yes please, fire away, in your own time.

Ah, see, the clue was in the word 'bits'. It was, like, a play on words.
Y'know bits as in digital bits and bits as in parts. So, easily enough
information there to know that I was being humorous. It doesn't give you
my complete emotional state I'll grant you but it's better than nothing.


--
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:34:46 +0100, Ronnie McKinley
wrote:

And boredom?

Boredom has a cure - killfilters and/or non-participation (ie do
something more interesting).

Fair enough. However, this current thread and the sub-threads are about
an emotive subject. YOU as well as I and quite a number of others have
certainly displayed some degree of emotion in some of our responses to
this and the many sub-threads.

Agreed, we have. That's not to say we do *every* time, though.

My original replay to Geoff was merely a bit of leg pulling. I'm sorry
it went over your head.

A little like Geoff's "bits" comment went over yours? I see.

In the age old format wars ie: Vinyl vs CD the
question of 'emotion' usually pops into the equation. ie: 'Vinyl
displays more emotion '- to which comes the retort OH BOLLIX!! If you
are familiar with the 'format wars' then I've no need to explain this
further. Either you get the point with my sarcastic response to Geoff
or you don't. In the end, I don't really care ... he said without any
emotion.

Hope this post didn't bore you too much :) ---- one of those.

Not at all. I enjoy educating other people, so no problem.

Paul.

--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality

JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."

All Hotmail, MSN, AOL, Yahoo and Excite emails are automatically killfiltered.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Message-ID: from Kurt Hamster
contained the following:


In one respect vinyl has one aspect that far and away exceeds CD, both
technically and subjectively.

I wonder if the digiphiles can figure out what it is?

Well my vinyl freaky friend (hi Roy) has just bought himself a wet cleaner.
It's the whole ritual thing isn't it? Than lavishing of care and pride on
the recordings, keeping them in pristine condition, handling them
(literally) with kid gloves. Much more satisfying than giving the cd a
quick wipe on your trouser leg and slapping it into the player.

--
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

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.

--
*'ome is where you 'ang your @ *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:32:06 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 21:58:43 +0100, Paul Harper used
to say...

There does not HAVE to be an emotional aspect at all - to illustrate
that point, there is no emotional content to this reply whatsoever, in
exactly the same way that there was no emotional content - real or
implied - in Geoff's original post.

Which could also be said of digital - cold with no emotion :)

Ah I see - scratches = emotion. All is clear now. Depends who's doing
the scratching and where, I suppose... :-)

Paul.

--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality

JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."

All Hotmail, MSN, AOL, Yahoo and Excite emails are automatically killfiltered.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
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.

If one prefers the sound of vinyl to CD then in that instance it is
superior.

This is the problem with people like you. You are unable to see (hear)
things through other people's eyes (ears) or even appreciate that they
have different preferences.

All the hallmarks of bigotry I'm afraid.

Not at all. The makers of vinyl records had ways of measuring their
performance. Just about everything we buy will be measured against some
standards. With a car, it might be the fuel consumption, speed
acceleration, handling, or comfort.

And in not one solitary parameter does vinyl beat CD - or even come close.

So vinyl bigots like you have to invent things that either don't exist or
you mistake for well known flaws....

Take an electric guitar, or an electric piano. Neither sounds much like
the originals. And, as such, have become instruments in their own right.
And you might prefer them to the acoustic versions. But trying to explain
why you prefer them with the same sort of explanations as those used by
vinyl freaks would be ludicrous. As is the CD vinyl comparison.

--
*Why is it called tourist season if we can't shoot at them?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 13:18:18 +0100, Ronnie McKinley
wrote:

In uk.net.news.config Ronnie McKinley
wrote:

There you go again - taking a simple statement and making an absolute
of it.


and btw Paul ... "there you go **AGAIN**?" .... would you care to
expand on your above statement, maybe with some examples of the
**AGAIN** please? Like, just out of interest, you know.

"Emotion". As well as a funny accent, you have short term memory
problems too?!

Paul.

--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality

JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."

All Hotmail, MSN, AOL, Yahoo and Excite emails are automatically killfiltered.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 12:37:15 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 07:32:35 +0100, Paul Harper used
to say...

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:32:06 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 21:58:43 +0100, Paul Harper used
to say...

There does not HAVE to be an emotional aspect at all - to illustrate
that point, there is no emotional content to this reply whatsoever, in
exactly the same way that there was no emotional content - real or
implied - in Geoff's original post.

Which could also be said of digital - cold with no emotion :)

Ah I see - scratches = emotion. All is clear now. Depends who's doing
the scratching and where, I suppose... :-)

Paul.

In a different post you mentioned about shades of grey, but here you are
making the absolute statement that scratches give the emotion. Tut tut.

It's shooting fish in a barrel, getting you going, isn't it. Ho hum...

Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality

JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."

All Hotmail, MSN, AOL, Yahoo and Excite emails are automatically killfiltered.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:55:00 +0100, Ronnie McKinley
wrote:

"Other people?" - 'mass' as in 'people' - so it's private individual
education by email you provide, and not just simply "educating" the
general "masses" on Usenet?

Wrong. You're not even trying, are you? Bring back Krusty, at least
he raises a smile from time to time...

Paul.

--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality

JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."

All Hotmail, MSN, AOL, Yahoo and Excite emails are automatically killfiltered.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"John" wrote

I would like to add my support for ukrav. I'll certainly vote for it's
creation. I remain perplexed by the hostility of certain ukra subscribers
to
the simple assertion that music sounds better on vinyl to many people, and
the tedious and patronising attempts made to 'prove' that vinyl users are
somehow mistaken or delusional. The creation of the new group should allow
constructive discussion of what remains a very creative and
enthusiastically
supported section of the audio industry by professionals and hobbyists
alike.



I think the time has come for me to say that I whole-heartedly agree with
the sentiment expressed in this post and to say that I think the recent
threads crossposted here (and the continual 'debates' in ukra) clearly
demonstrate that, at least to a noisy and relentless minority in ukra, the
whole subject of 'vinyl' is apparently as alien to 'mainstream audio' as is
the subject of 'car audio' and a similar, separate 'specialist' ng. would
therefore be of clear benefit to all.

On the clear understanding that the wording of the proposed Charter admits,
allows and encourages the discussion of *all* matters related to the subject
of 'vinyl' and not merely those of a technical nature, I will most certainly
vote for the creation of this new group (should it become necessary) and
look forward to its creation as soon as 'due process' will allow.

Keith G

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Julian Fowler wrote in
:

snip


Maybe you could explain to the unlightened how a recording can be
"lifelike" without being accurate.


I am one of the 'lucky' ones that likes CD/SS and vinyl/valves ;-).

To my ears, vinyl gives a 'fuller' and 'deeper' soundstage. Each instrument
is 'rounder', more '3d' sounding. With this sound it is easy to talk about
'warmth', 'life' and 'more musical'. I find it 'better' than CD in the same
way that a country cottage with its low beams and sloping floors can be
more desirable than a perfectly built new house, even though the cottage is
not built to the same standard.

My CD system cost me £1500 and is currently the top mid range system in
many of the comix. I very much like its accuracy, timing and soundstage. To
my ears the sound is 'flatter' with less 'life' in it than vinyl.

How about some more comparisons?

Supermarket pie V home made steak pie
Perfect packet Smash V Lumpy mash from pie and mash shop
Modern quiet automatic car V noisy old sports car
Modern gas central heating V open, coal fireplace

In most of these the modern equivelent lacks soul although technicaly
superior!

So as someone who likes both, gets a lot of pleasure from both, I can say
that vinyl is more lifelike than CD although not technicaly the same.

MrBitsy.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article . 39,
MrBitsy wrote:
Supermarket pie V home made steak pie
Perfect packet Smash V Lumpy mash from pie and mash shop
Modern quiet automatic car V noisy old sports car
Modern gas central heating V open, coal fireplace

In most of these the modern equivelent lacks soul although technicaly
superior!

That you think a supermarket pie or dried potatoe mix technically superior
to the real thing says a lot about your lack of technical understanding.

So as someone who likes both, gets a lot of pleasure from both, I can
say that vinyl is more lifelike than CD although not technicaly the
same.

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.

--
*Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:06:13 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article . 39,
MrBitsy wrote:
Supermarket pie V home made steak pie
Perfect packet Smash V Lumpy mash from pie and mash shop
Modern quiet automatic car V noisy old sports car
Modern gas central heating V open, coal fireplace

In most of these the modern equivelent lacks soul although technicaly
superior!

That you think a supermarket pie or dried potatoe mix technically superior
to the real thing says a lot about your lack of technical understanding.

So as someone who likes both, gets a lot of pleasure from both, I can
say that vinyl is more lifelike than CD although not technicaly the
same.

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.

Ooops Dave! Potatoe? Are you standing for US Vice President, or what?
.... :-)

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Dave Plowman wrote in
:

In article . 39,
MrBitsy wrote:
Supermarket pie V home made steak pie
Perfect packet Smash V Lumpy mash from pie and mash shop
Modern quiet automatic car V noisy old sports car
Modern gas central heating V open, coal fireplace

In most of these the modern equivelent lacks soul although technicaly
superior!

That you think a supermarket pie or dried potatoe mix technically
superior to the real thing says a lot about your lack of technical
understanding.

I was more getting at the preperation of the pie - techy machines,
cleanliness etc! These pies just don't taste the same as mums!


So as someone who likes both, gets a lot of pleasure from both, I can
say that vinyl is more lifelike than CD although not technicaly the
same.

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.


What do you not understand about 'I like both formats'? For me, something
gets lost in the transistion to CD that isn't lost with vinyl. In the pie
analogy above, no machine is ever going to beat the taste of my mums
steak pie - why? Technically the process is brilliant and hygene is top
notch but something is missing - quite possibly the human touch is needed
for that home taste.

Same with CD. Something gets lost in the recording and maybe vinyl can
supply that missing something - perhaps, just perhaps, having everything
just 'right' sucks some of that 'home cooking' out of the finished
product.

MrBitsy.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Julian Fowler wrote in
:

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:31:57 GMT, MrBitsy
wrote:


snip

What do you not understand about 'I like both formats'? For me,
something gets lost in the transistion to CD that isn't lost with
vinyl.

Change this to "something gets lost in the transistion to vinyl that
isn't lost with CD, but I prefer the sound of vinyl" and you have a
statement this both technically correct *and* conveys your subjective
opinion as well.

Incorrect.

I am not worried about the technical aspects of the two formats. As I
said, I listen to both formats and KNOW that something is 'missing' on
the CD. This 'missing' stuff doesn't spoil my enjoyment of the format
mind you, but there is something that is not conveyed well on CD. Not
conveyed well - thats a better phrase than missing!

I went to a level 42 concert a few weeks back. Went home and listened to
the same album on CD and vinyl. Cd was great but it didn't give me the
same thrill as seeing them live a few hours before. The vinyl copy DID
give me that feeling, it was */insert all the hated phrases here ie soul,
musicality/*.


In the pie
analogy above, no machine is ever going to beat the taste of my mums
steak pie - why? Technically the process is brilliant and hygene is
top notch but something is missing - quite possibly the human touch is
needed for that home taste.

Maybe your mum is just better at making pie :-)

Oohh she was - but don't all mums make the best pie?


Anyway, the comparison isn't between a machine-made pie and a
home-made pie, its between two different machine-made pies.

Same with CD. Something gets lost in the recording

Jeez ... this is what starts to annoy. Compared to vinyl, *nothing*
"gets lost" in the transfer to CD. A CD is a far, far more accurate
representation of the master recording than *any* vinyl. You seem to
to be grasping as pseudo-technical straws to justify your preference.
*You don't need to justify it* - you like vinyl more than CD, that's
fine.

Why does it annoy? I am not trying to justify anything - this is an audio
newsgroup and I am expressing my enjoyment of an audio format. If Keith
hadn't expressed his thoughts on vinyl then I wouldn't have heard his
system leading to my further enjoyment of music. I would like to think my
like of vinyl can be picked up by somebody else who may give the format a
try.


I happen to like Fray Bentos tinned pies, even though (compared to
something out of M&S) they're a poor approximation of a proper
home-made pie. I'm not going to start pretending, though, that
there's some magic needed to explain *why* I happen to prefer the FB
pie!


Well, follow that one through. Would you ever tell anyone else to try the
FB pie because they are so nice or would you keep your mouth shut because
there are 'technically' better pies out there ;-)

MrBitsy.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:49:18 GMT, MrBitsy
wrote:

Julian Fowler wrote in
:

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:31:57 GMT, MrBitsy
wrote:


snip

What do you not understand about 'I like both formats'? For me,
something gets lost in the transistion to CD that isn't lost with
vinyl.

Change this to "something gets lost in the transistion to vinyl that
isn't lost with CD, but I prefer the sound of vinyl" and you have a
statement this both technically correct *and* conveys your subjective
opinion as well.

Incorrect.

I am not worried about the technical aspects of the two formats. As I
said, I listen to both formats and KNOW that something is 'missing' on
the CD.

No, you don't know (obviously).

This 'missing' stuff doesn't spoil my enjoyment of the format
mind you, but there is something that is not conveyed well on CD. Not
conveyed well - thats a better phrase than missing!

What is it about you vinyl folks? First of all we had claims that
vinyl is more "lifelike", which turns out to be nothing related to
"like life". Then you claim that "something is missing" from CD
compared to vinyl, then turn this into a purely subjective statement
that something (not specified) is not conveyed well (whatever that
means) on CD.

Why can't you just say that you like the sound of vinyl more than that
of CD, without resorting to pseudo-technical gibberish such as "vinyl
is more lifelike", "there's something missing from CD" to do so!

I went to a level 42 concert a few weeks back. Went home and listened to
the same album on CD and vinyl. Cd was great but it didn't give me the
same thrill as seeing them live a few hours before. The vinyl copy DID
give me that feeling, it was */insert all the hated phrases here ie soul,
musicality/*.

Ummm ... no, I won't ... that would be too obvious ... ;-)


In the pie
analogy above, no machine is ever going to beat the taste of my mums
steak pie - why? Technically the process is brilliant and hygene is
top notch but something is missing - quite possibly the human touch is
needed for that home taste.

Maybe your mum is just better at making pie :-)

Oohh she was - but don't all mums make the best pie?


Anyway, the comparison isn't between a machine-made pie and a
home-made pie, its between two different machine-made pies.

Same with CD. Something gets lost in the recording

Jeez ... this is what starts to annoy. Compared to vinyl, *nothing*
"gets lost" in the transfer to CD. A CD is a far, far more accurate
representation of the master recording than *any* vinyl. You seem to
to be grasping as pseudo-technical straws to justify your preference.
*You don't need to justify it* - you like vinyl more than CD, that's
fine.

Why does it annoy?

Because you make statements like "Same with CD. Something gets lost in
the recording", which is just wrong!

I am not trying to justify anything - this is an audio
newsgroup and I am expressing my enjoyment of an audio format. If Keith
hadn't expressed his thoughts on vinyl then I wouldn't have heard his
system leading to my further enjoyment of music. I would like to think my
like of vinyl can be picked up by somebody else who may give the format a
try.


I happen to like Fray Bentos tinned pies, even though (compared to
something out of M&S) they're a poor approximation of a proper
home-made pie. I'm not going to start pretending, though, that
there's some magic needed to explain *why* I happen to prefer the FB
pie!


Well, follow that one through. Would you ever tell anyone else to try the
FB pie because they are so nice or would you keep your mouth shut because
there are 'technically' better pies out there ;-)

No, I'd say that I like FB pies in spite of (maybe even because of)
the fact that they bear only a passing resemblence to the homemade
pie. I certainly wouldn't try and claim that the FB pie is better
becauses its "more lifelike", or that "something gets lost" in the M&S
pie.

Julian

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

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:25:39 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


snip

Why can't you just say that you like the sound of vinyl more than that
of CD, without resorting to pseudo-technical gibberish such as "vinyl
is more lifelike", "there's something missing from CD" to do so!

Been done hundreds of times and sooner or later (normally sooner) the
'bashers' come crawling out of the woodwork to tell the 'vinyl enthusiast'
he's 'wrong' and proceed the chant the litany of 'coloured', 'distorted',
'tainted', infected' or whatever other silly little emotional descriptive
comes to into their threatened little minds.

In those cases I'd say that the 'bashers' are plain wrong. No-one can
say you are 'wrong' to prefer vinyl. However, the very reason why
these discussions are perpetuated is that pro-vinyl folks have a
tendency to associate their valid preference for vinyl with a denial
that vinyl is a technically inferior medium, compared with CD, in
terms of accurate audio reproduction (and please note the caveat).

To me, "coloured" and "distorted" are words that summarize two of the
technical characteristics of vinyl reproduction - they don't have to
be emotive words in the way that you seem to be interpret them.
Indeed, I'd hazard a guess that the reasons for your preference for
vinyl include the very facts that vinyl reproduction *is* coloured and
distorted - except that you'd probably use words like "warm" to
describe these characteristics :-)

What is it about you digital folks? Why do you feel so strongly about
another person's expressed preference, why do you resort to your own
'pseudo-technical gibberish' to trash that expressed preference?

Huh? When have I trashed anyone's *preference* for vinyl?

Why does it
*bother* you so much?

Preferences don't bother me at all. Maybe perpetuation of technically
invalid assertions does.

It's not often you see a vinylphile go out of his way
to trash digital 'music' (despite the fact that it would be very easy so to
do) other than when put on the 'defensive'. 'Two dimensional', 'thin' and
'boring' do you for a start?

Fine, these all sound like nice subjective words about your response
to CD - at least, I'm assuming that you're using these subjectively,
and not suggesting that CD reproduction is like a surface or a solid
whose third dimension is smaller than the first and second! At least
you haven't tried to claim that CD has "something missing" with
respect to vinyl :-)

The good news is that soon, hopefully, you people won't have to put up with
these unsettling claims and the vinyl contingent will have somewhere to
express their enthusiasm and appreciation without having to deal with the
ankle-biters here in ukra - which has become the domain of a very small
number of extremely immature and bigotted people who only seem to want to
play some sort of 'cigarette card' game with technical specs.

Yep, there's some of that ... but, you must admit, that there are also
a fair number of those whose pro-vinyl / anti-digital stance borders
on the religious.

AFAIAC, ukra has become a very boring place. I've seen the 'digi****'s'
feeding on newbies for far too long and I'm all jerked out with it. My
question is 'Who gets it next?'.

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

Once the 'vinyl freaks' have been seen off,
is it the 'multichannel freaks' turn? Should this group be renamed
'uk.rec.audio.2 channel.digital'?

Um ... I don't notice too many posters claiming that their
multichannel, DVD-based home cinema system is technically superior to
a dedicated CD-based stereo system!

Julian


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

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:25:39 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


snip

Why can't you just say that you like the sound of vinyl more than that
of CD, without resorting to pseudo-technical gibberish such as "vinyl
is more lifelike", "there's something missing from CD" to do so!

Been done hundreds of times and sooner or later (normally sooner) the
'bashers' come crawling out of the woodwork to tell the 'vinyl
enthusiast'
he's 'wrong' and proceed the chant the litany of 'coloured', 'distorted',
'tainted', infected' or whatever other silly little emotional descriptive
comes to into their threatened little minds.

In those cases I'd say that the 'bashers' are plain wrong. No-one can
say you are 'wrong' to prefer vinyl.


Thank you.


However, the very reason why
these discussions are perpetuated is that pro-vinyl folks have a
tendency to associate their valid preference for vinyl with a denial
that vinyl is a technically inferior medium, compared with CD, in
terms of accurate audio reproduction (and please note the caveat).


Yes, because they apply a different set of criteria to the finished product.
Digiphiles usually refer to measurements, vinylphiles tend to use 'real
world' comparisons (as I do) and use non-specific (subjective, if you
prefer) phases such as 'lifelike', engaging', involving'. What price
'accuracy' if someone prefers something which is (supposedly) quantifiably
'inaccurate'?

Perhaps it will help you understand my pov if I explain that I often find it
hard to stop putting LPs on, no matter what the hour and that I simply can't
be botherd to hear a CD all the way through unless I put it on and wander
off to do something else. A CDP with a remote control in *anybody's* hands
will demonstrate what I mean.

Put another way - LPs last 4 mins per side, CDs last for months, in my
book - they simply do *not* hold my attention.

The difficulty is that both vinylists and digtalists both seek 'the best
possible sound' toward their different ends by vastly different means. I can
only reiterate that vinylists (IME) seem to be better able to accept this
fact and are a lot less prone to hissy attacks and personal abuse than the
'vinylphobes' (until provoked)......



To me, "coloured" and "distorted" are words that summarize two of the
technical characteristics of vinyl reproduction - they don't have to
be emotive words in the way that you seem to be interpret them.
Indeed, I'd hazard a guess that the reasons for your preference for
vinyl include the very facts that vinyl reproduction *is* coloured and
distorted - except that you'd probably use words like "warm" to
describe these characteristics :-)

What is it about you digital folks? Why do you feel so strongly about
another person's expressed preference, why do you resort to your own
'pseudo-technical gibberish' to trash that expressed preference?

Huh? When have I trashed anyone's *preference* for vinyl?


You're doing it now.......


Why does it
*bother* you so much?

Preferences don't bother me at all. Maybe perpetuation of technically
invalid assertions does.


........ by applying your own criteria (right or wrong) to other people's
expressed opinions and by trying to define what criteria are 'acceptable'
and what are not, by implication.



It's not often you see a vinylphile go out of his way
to trash digital 'music' (despite the fact that it would be very easy so
to
do) other than when put on the 'defensive'. 'Two dimensional', 'thin' and
'boring' do you for a start?

Fine, these all sound like nice subjective words about your response
to CD - at least, I'm assuming that you're using these subjectively,
and not suggesting that CD reproduction is like a surface or a solid
whose third dimension is smaller than the first and second! At least
you haven't tried to claim that CD has "something missing" with
respect to vinyl :-)


Oh, but is has IMO - the thing is do I need 'your permission' to state what
I think it is? Tell you what, I'll continue your pie analogy - CDs are like
a meat pie without any gravy!

How's that? :-)



The good news is that soon, hopefully, you people won't have to put up
with
these unsettling claims and the vinyl contingent will have somewhere to
express their enthusiasm and appreciation without having to deal with the
ankle-biters here in ukra - which has become the domain of a very small
number of extremely immature and bigotted people who only seem to want to
play some sort of 'cigarette card' game with technical specs.

Yep, there's some of that ... but, you must admit, that there are also
a fair number of those whose pro-vinyl / anti-digital stance borders
on the religious.


No-one is more 'pro-vinyl' than me, I promise you. If you prefer and enjoy
your digital music then I am truly delighted for you. If you had accused
vinylphiles of being mad, given the extra work and expense involved in the
pursuit of 'vinyl nirvana', I could do no other than utterly agree with you.
Now, does that sound fervently religious or particularly 'bigotted' to you?

CDs didn't get where they are today because they are 'better', they occupy
the 'lions share' of the market because lazy old Joe Public put them there.
Within 5 years (tops) SS digital music will topple them from top slot, wait
and see.

(In fact, these posts are my breaks from re-titling and 'resampling'
approximately 100 more albums worth of unnecessarily large MP3 files.....
;-)



AFAIAC, ukra has become a very boring place. I've seen the 'digi****'s'
feeding on newbies for far too long and I'm all jerked out with it. My
question is 'Who gets it next?'.

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?



Once the 'vinyl freaks' have been seen off,
is it the 'multichannel freaks' turn? Should this group be renamed
'uk.rec.audio.2 channel.digital'?

Um ... I don't notice too many posters claiming that their
multichannel, DVD-based home cinema system is technically superior to
a dedicated CD-based stereo system!


Um...Possibly because this isn't an HT forum. The 5.1 SACD and DVD-A 'music'
boys are already starting to be accused of 'perpetuating technically invalid
assertions'.......

Tell you what Julian, drag your CDP and a few disks round to mine and we'll
have a 'shoot out' (or 'Circle Jerk' as it is known in some quarters) - I'm
fully prepared to put my needle where my mouth is.

Warning - my £350 'Disco Deck' and cheapo Ortofon cart held off and still
had a slight edge over the best (£3K) CDP I have ever heard, my new £1,350
RPM9/Shure V15 rig will blow your CDs into the weeds, I promise you. - You
will tell me that, however, I *never* make these claims, I leave it to the
'victims'! (Never failed yet! ;-)

Contact me off-group and we'll do it on the sly. I never mention it here -
one of the less regular posters here popped in last week to hear the killer
'valves & vinyl' combination. He didn't even say he liked it (already a
confirmed 'vinylist' mind) but he made it plain he would call in again
'soon' with more LPs*. (I can only assume he didn't 'hate' it too
much.....???? :-)


*Open house, me - when it comes to spinning the black stuff!

:-)

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
snip

Perhaps it will help you understand my pov if I explain that I often find
it
hard to stop putting LPs on, no matter what the hour and that I simply
can't
be botherd to hear a CD all the way through unless I put it on and wander
off to do something else. A CDP with a remote control in *anybody's* hands
will demonstrate what I mean.

ROFLMAO!

As Keith will confirm, the deck I got off him has a remote control - nice
old one with one mother of a thick cable running from the deck to the
listening position! I did actually connect this remote control for the first
few session but I never used the bloody thing. The deck will even allow
programming individual tracks - havn't used that yet either!


Put another way - LPs last 4 mins per side, CDs last for months, in my
book - they simply do *not* hold my attention.

The difficulty is that both vinylists and digtalists both seek 'the best
possible sound' toward their different ends by vastly different means. I
can
only reiterate that vinylists (IME) seem to be better able to accept this
fact and are a lot less prone to hissy attacks and personal abuse than the
'vinylphobes' (until provoked)......

Its like the digital guys are saying, 'damm, technically CD is better so
everything DOES sound better on it'.

Can one of you 'cd only' people tell me why classic cars are so popular? Why
would somebody drive around in a car that is noisy, bumpy and less fuel
efficient? They couldn't argue that technically the modern car is 'better'
but I bet they would say things like 'classic', 'wind in the hair', 'more
soul' etc. What? Cars havn't got life or a soul surely? In fact, comparing a
modern to an old car is very similar to CD/vinyl. Modern car is quiet,
smooth and air conditioned. I could argue that an older car would give more
'ambience' to the drive without suggesting the modern car was somehow
flawed!

However, we would KNOW what they are trying to get across with those
descriptions and I guess you would not argue with them!



To me, "coloured" and "distorted" are words that summarize two of the
technical characteristics of vinyl reproduction - they don't have to
be emotive words in the way that you seem to be interpret them.
Indeed, I'd hazard a guess that the reasons for your preference for
vinyl include the very facts that vinyl reproduction *is* coloured and
distorted - except that you'd probably use words like "warm" to
describe these characteristics :-)

What is it about you digital folks? Why do you feel so strongly about
another person's expressed preference, why do you resort to your own
'pseudo-technical gibberish' to trash that expressed preference?

Huh? When have I trashed anyone's *preference* for vinyl?


You're doing it now.......


Why does it
*bother* you so much?

Preferences don't bother me at all. Maybe perpetuation of technically
invalid assertions does.

I have never suggested anything technically invalid - you take my
descriptions of the music I hear as such!

Snip

CDs didn't get where they are today because they are 'better', they occupy
the 'lions share' of the market because lazy old Joe Public put them
there.
Within 5 years (tops) SS digital music will topple them from top slot,
wait
and see.


I can agree with that. I sat my sons (16 & 14) in front of my CD system for
a couple of hours and they had a great time. They both agreed the music was
'clear' and 'really good'.

The next night we sat in front of the deck for a couple of hours. First
thing was 'blimey dad - that bass is really deep'! They then started talking
about 'lifelike', 'live', 'like being there' - why?

They know nothing about the technicalities. Neither of them has been to a
live concert so what were they talking about with their descriptions? I
think they were talking about the ambience associated with wedding
receptions and the like. I know the sounds a pretty dire at wedding
receptions but my boys understood immediately about 'ambience' without any
prompting from me.

Of course, when I asked them when they were going to buy a deck they both
said they wouldn't buy one of those old things! Strange considering they
prefered the sound!

snip

Tell you what Julian, drag your CDP and a few disks round to mine and
we'll
have a 'shoot out' (or 'Circle Jerk' as it is known in some quarters) -
I'm
fully prepared to put my needle where my mouth is.


If he takes up your offer then give him some time to tune into the vinyl
sound. When I first came to your place and heard vinyl, I thought it sounded
bloody horrible LOL! Mind you, after 10 hours (bloody hell!) of listening I
had found the 'missing ingredient' I was after in my music.

Warning - my £350 'Disco Deck' and cheapo Ortofon cart held off and still
had a slight edge over the best (£3K) CDP I have ever heard, my new £1,350
RPM9/Shure V15 rig will blow your CDs into the weeds, I promise you. - You
will tell me that, however, I *never* make these claims, I leave it to the
'victims'! (Never failed yet! ;-)

Yeh, Keiths new deck certainly takes the music by the short and curlies and
tames it!


Contact me off-group and we'll do it on the sly. I never mention it here -
one of the less regular posters here popped in last week to hear the
killer
'valves & vinyl' combination. He didn't even say he liked it (already a
confirmed 'vinylist' mind) but he made it plain he would call in again
'soon' with more LPs*. (I can only assume he didn't 'hate' it too
much.....???? :-)


Blimey - the valves only go to aid the ambience of the vinyl to make it
lovely!

MrBitsy.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Tell you what Julian, drag your CDP and a few disks round to mine and
we'll
have a 'shoot out' (or 'Circle Jerk' as it is known in some quarters) -
I'm
fully prepared to put my needle where my mouth is.

Warning - my £350 'Disco Deck' and cheapo Ortofon cart held off and still
had a slight edge over the best (£3K) CDP I have ever heard, my new £1,350
RPM9/Shure V15 rig will blow your CDs into the weeds, I promise you. - You
will tell me that, however, I *never* make these claims, I leave it to the
'victims'! (Never failed yet! ;-)

Contact me off-group and we'll do it on the sly. I never mention it here -
one of the less regular posters here popped in last week to hear the
killer
'valves & vinyl' combination. He didn't even say he liked it (already a
confirmed 'vinylist' mind) but he made it plain he would call in again
'soon' with more LPs*. (I can only assume he didn't 'hate' it too
much.....???? :-)


It was an experience I hope to repeat in my own home some time in the the
not too distant future.
One which those from the 'B' ark seem to want to deny to anybody who doesn't
accept that it is inferior.



*Open house, me - when it comes to spinning the black stuff!

:-)

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"MrBitsy" wrote in message
. 240.39...
Dave Plowman wrote in
:

In article . 39,
MrBitsy wrote:
What do you not understand about 'I like both formats'? For me,
something gets lost in the transistion to CD that isn't lost with
vinyl.

No it doesn't - don't you ever read anything here? You can transcribe
an
LP to CD and I defy anyone to tell the difference. The LP is *adding*
components to the original master that don't exist in reality.


So what?

I play both formats but prefer vinyl. I am expressing my like of vinyl on
an audio newsgroup. Whats wrong with that?

Perhaps cd needs something adding to it? It is a very accurate format but
it doesn't convey the 'life and soul' of the music well at all. I think
vinyl does convey that soul very well. If that is done by 'adding' stuff
then thats fine by me. I don't care about the numbers of the format -
only the sound that enters my head.


I agree.

Even then. By the time it's travelled through those fleshy funnel things on
the side of our heads, tickled an ear drum, been converted into a signal to
be passed to our brains and finally processed by our minds, all of which are
probably unique to each individual, I very much doubt that any two people
'hear' the same thing anyway. Which is why I claimed that there are no
absolutes in a previous posting. Yes. I know that all the things people
commented on are *absolutes* but they are absolutes in an equation, I
suspect, full of variables which would mean that the end result is as
variable as the No of people listening. (Sits back and waits for criticism
and ridicule)
Call me strange, I've always thought that the medium and boxes used to bring
the sound to my ears are a means to an end. Not that I deny anybody the
right to play tents at night fantasising over tech' spec's.

I'll just try to enjoy my music as best as I can if that's alright with
everybody.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Ray Keattch wrote:
The next night we sat in front of the deck for a couple of hours. First
thing was 'blimey dad - that bass is really deep'! They then started
talking about 'lifelike', 'live', 'like being there' - why?

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.

--
*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn