Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
No - I emphasise the fact that it can't compare to CD in like for like
terms. Ie, the very finest vinyl will not be as good as the very
finest CD.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. but it is hardly
definitive. Nor is it shared by many very experienced listeners.

Usually for the wrong reasons as you're about to state...


For the wrong reasons? Please do explain how such experienced listeners
as Doug Sax, James Boyk, Steve Hoffman, Keith Johnson etc prefer LP to
CD at their best for the "wrong" reasons.




That some CDs are poorly made in whatever way is neither here nor
there. As, of course, were many vinyl records.

Now that just sounds like you don't really care about sound quality
when it comes to listening to music. The fact that many musically
significant titles have never been released on a decent sounding CD
matters greatly.

See what I mean?

No.


How can the quality of the CD system be influenced by the
fact that certain performances haven't been released on it?


That wasn't what I said. Tyr to pay attention. Or do you just don't
understand the idea of CDs that aren't even decent sounding?

Or didn't you
understand the 'like for like' part?

Indeed I did. You are the one arbitrarily trying to combine two
seperate issues. Not me. CD and LP at their best is not the same as CDs
and LPs of the same commercial titles. But anybody who cares about
sound quality when listening to music will be concerned with both and
more often concerned with the one issue you try to disregard. That is
why I say it would appear you really aren't all that concerned about
sound quality when listening to music.



And seem to want the world to join you.

I personally couldn't care less and simply respond to the extravagant
claims made on here for vinyl - including by some who should know
better. ;-)

Indeed, you and your likeminded pals seem to be making many such claims
just so you have something to argue against.

I'll say this only once more. Take the finest master of any type of music
you want. Transfer to CD and LP directly with no alteration other than to
make sure the maximum level for either isn't exceeded. Now compare the two
to the master using properly controlled testing conditions.

I have. The LP sounded better. By the way the guy that engineered that
recording did the same and drew the same conclusion. He was there to
listen to the original sound and the mic feed. What about you? You ever
engineer a recording then compare the commercial CD and LP both made
with no tweaking to determine which format better represents the
original sound?



There will be a distinct difference between the master and the LP, and
this will be shown up by the results. There will be a definite pattern to
the answers given which will identify each.
Now do the same with the CD. You'll get totally random answers.

Wrong. But I am speaking in reference to actual comparisons. You are
just talking the talk.




That some prefer the distortion that LP adds is neither here nor there.


Wrong again. iT is significant.



Everyone is entitled to their view. But when that distortion gets
described in all sorts of flowery language by the vinyl evangelists,
expect the real world to bite back...


What makes you think you represent the real world? I expect
objectivists who worship measurements over the listening experience to
bite back. When their arguments are scrutinized it turns out they are
just biting themselves in the ass.Kind of like what you are doing now.


Scott

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


You never miss a chance to emphasise how bad you think
vinyl is. And seem to want the world to join you.

Does that work for you?

It works for me.

It describes what actually happened starting about 25 years ago.

Arny, may I ask you a question?
Are you happy with ythe quality of CD production?
and are you happy with the compression and exaggerated smiley
EQ from which so many CDs suffer?

Iain