Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:10:36 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Alas, the above statement is confused by including both "inherent" and
"can". If something is inherent then it would be inescapable for that
format. Thus it would not be "can" which indicates variability depending on
the details.

I'm getting quite used to being told how to use English :-)

Something that's inherent is *an* essential attribute. It's not the
*only* attribute. Other attributes in this context include the turntable
and cartridge. I was pointing to something inherent to LP playback (I
don't pretend to know what) that can result in CD-superior sound.

Doubtless Don will correct my English. I'll just ask you to consider my
point.


No, I would just suggest you say "I like the sound of vinyl". That way
brooks no argument, and doesn't result in nonsensical terms like
"superior" being bandied around.


Ta.

Nor need it be true that "Nobody know" if you are talking about "can" since
in specific cases the reasons may be known.

Indeed - I don't know that 'nobody knows', I just think they can't prove
it. The specific case being - an LP and CD from the same master. The LP
sounds better to some people. Why?

Because it sounds different - it has no choice, that is what LPs do.
If it sounds different then of course some people will prefer it. That
is the nature of people.


Nature of people - now that does make sense, that's really tied it down! :-)

What 'natural' attribute(s) were you thinking of?

Perhaps the Donalexicon has stuttered just this once :-)

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:36:07 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Because it sounds different - it has no choice, that is what LPs do.
If it sounds different then of course some people will prefer it. That
is the nature of people.


Nature of people - now that does make sense, that's really tied it down! :-)

What 'natural' attribute(s) were you thinking of?

Perhaps the Donalexicon has stuttered just this once :-)

I was thinking about the natural attribute of having a preference. In
addition I was thinking about the natural attribute of everybody's
preference not being the same. Too complicated for you? Really?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:36:07 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Because it sounds different - it has no choice, that is what LPs do.
If it sounds different then of course some people will prefer it. That
is the nature of people.

Nature of people - now that does make sense, that's really tied it down! :-)

What 'natural' attribute(s) were you thinking of?

Perhaps the Donalexicon has stuttered just this once :-)

I was thinking about the natural attribute of having a preference. In
addition I was thinking about the natural attribute of everybody's
preference not being the same. Too complicated for you? Really?

d

Don, honestly. Do you believe that the preference stated is borne of
nature? Many do, but I wouldn't have counted you in that number.

And to answer your question - understanding why people have particular
preferences is too complicated for me. My personal belief is that
preference is largely shaped by societal structures. In other words, far
from 'natural'.

Rob

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:32:36 +0100, Rob
wrote:

I was thinking about the natural attribute of having a preference. In
addition I was thinking about the natural attribute of everybody's
preference not being the same. Too complicated for you? Really?

d

Don, honestly. Do you believe that the preference stated is borne of
nature? Many do, but I wouldn't have counted you in that number.


Not *the* preference - just preference. It is in the nature of people
that they have preferences.

And to answer your question - understanding why people have particular
preferences is too complicated for me. My personal belief is that
preference is largely shaped by societal structures. In other words, far
from 'natural'.

The shaping of those preferences and the nature of their outcomes
falls outside the ambit of my statement.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com