Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:
snip
If the vinyl lovers wish to enjoy their personal choice without
disparaging remarks, all they need do is stop claiming to the world
that it is better than CD. Seems simple enough to me.
Indeed.

I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl
is better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound
produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair
believe ... :-)

The slightest prod produces plenty of 'statements' about why they prefer
vinyl, though - and all of them iffy. Retort with the know issues of vinyl
and you're some form of deaf nutcase. I doubt anyone has any issues about
what people prefer - but certainly can have with the reasons they give if
false.


OK. I'm with you to a point. However, perhaps you would agree that some
digital advocates will tend toward 'it's x bits so it must be better'.
This is an attempt to force closure on the the experience of listening
with positivist data. It cuts out, for example, the effect of dynamic
harmonics and the notion that listening is more than an aural experience.

There is also a group within the uk.rec structure dedicated to vinyl,
but the vinyl nuts don't post there preferring to try and spread their
gospel wide.

Are you two 'CD nuts'?

Which two?


You and Mr.T

Do you advocate CDs with envangelical zeal?

Decent digital recording, yes. As anyone who has had any true experience
of analogue types will. Unless for a special effect.


I think I'm with you on that, although i did get some superb results
from a Revox a while back. Altogether too much like hard work comapared
to digital recording though.

Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:
snip
If the vinyl lovers wish to enjoy their personal choice without
disparaging remarks, all they need do is stop claiming to the world that
it is better than CD. Seems simple enough to me.
Indeed.
I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl is
better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound
produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair
believe ... :-)

There is also a group within the uk.rec structure dedicated to
vinyl, but the vinyl nuts don't post there preferring to try and spread
their gospel wide.
Are you two 'CD nuts'? Do you advocate CDs with envangelical zeal? A bit
of empiricism and positivism is not unknown in the faith-belief world too
;-)

Why?

For myself, I'm more interested in audio than vinyl. I think it's nice if
people can make up their own mind about vinyl by listening, using and
taking on board the technical arguments. The UK audio group tends to
provide a good blend of things I'm interested in.

Even they don't apparently understand.

Understand what - that 'CD is better than vinyl'?

They hate
any home truths
Like what? Do you mean the 'fact' that CD is better than vinyl?

about their pet but constantly invite such responses.
Calm down, it's only a preference :-)



Not to the Denial Boyz - anything that threatens their CD bigotry is a
blasphemy....

Right now there are dozens of posts harping on about CDs and making all
sorts of superiority claims for them and later on, by some miracle, it will
all be twisted round that the vinylists *said it*....

WTF is it that's got 'em running so damn scared?


I suspect they've run out of fingers, thumbs and toes :-)

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Mr.T wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl
is better than CD'.

Try Google, there are thousands of them.


I just tried your suggestion (vinyl better CD). Clearly I haven't been
through all 6m but the first few pages seem to be pointing to something
like a more enjoyable, realistic sound. Not unequivocal.


The arrogance of the digital bigots disallows the possibility that anyone
who thinks vinyl is/can sound more realistic than the *flatness* of CD could
be right....

'Stereo' means solid - using two channels to create an illusion of
'solidity', space and depth is an aural illusion that is *far better*
achieved by vinyl, IME. I can prove this to myself any time I can be arsed
to dig out a corresonding CD to certain LPs I've got.

Whether or not CD has a lower noise floor or greater dynamic range is of no
consequence to me - it simply does *not* sound better to me....

(Anybody don't like to hear that, then tough ****....)



And you are in the best position to comment. But might your technical
certainties twist your listening experience? Because you know that CD must
be better, do your prophecies self-fulfill?


I used to think the CD bigots bashed vinyl out of jealousy, having got rid
of their vinyl (like so many did), but so many of them claim to still own
many LPs - presumably for the opposite purpose of digging out the occasional
LP just to prove they still don't like 'em...???



I don't think anyone who prefers vinyl would argue that, for example,
dynamic range and S/N of CD is potential better (although I prefer
different). There is no proof, BTW, that CD is better than vinyl in
absolute terms.


Damn right.



Indeed. False claims are a different matter, though.


What 'false claims'....???

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl
is better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound
produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair
believe ... :-)

Just look at this from our resident ayatollah - Mr G... From: Keith G

Subject: Vinyl to CD on a PC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:10
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of
*realism*.....


Mmm. I think you misunderstand. That statement doesn't say anything close
to 'vinyl is better than CD' in absolute terms. Perhaps you do understand,
but you can find a better example?



Plowie's problem is he thinks he owns this group and has a right to veto
what is posted - I've got news for him....

(Or not, asitappens!! :-))

wrote in message
oups.com...

Mr.T wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
I don't give a **** who you were replying to, but if you want a private
conversation with that puffed up, self-important little twerp Plowie,
I'll
make it easy for you - you can join him in my ****ter...

**splash**

Now, what's the betting either or even both these clowns continue to
reply
to my posts...??

I see, you are the only one with the right to post as much crap as you
choose.

Obviously not. Just look at the loads of crap you have posted. Has
anyone stopped you? Your rights to post crap are protected.



Oh, **** me - not another one!

I already can see Plowie's still dogging my footsteps - how thick can these
ole boys be? You tell 'em they're binned and they *still* reply to your
posts!!??

What are they so fekkin' *scared of* they just can't ignore what I post or,
better yet, bin me in return?

YHFL....!!

:-)

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl
is better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound
produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair
believe ... :-)

Just look at this from our resident ayatollah - Mr G...

From: Keith G
Subject: Vinyl to CD on a PC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:10
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of
*realism*.....


Mmm. I think you misunderstand. That statement doesn't say anything
close to 'vinyl is better than CD' in absolute terms. Perhaps you do
understand, but you can find a better example?

Contrary to what some may believe, measurements to me are just a useful
tool to analyse why and where. At the end of the day, though, with
acoustic music - or speech - I want realism. Which vinyl simply can't come
close to in comparison to good digital.

--
*Eat well, stay fit, die anyway

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Rob" wrote


I don't think anyone who prefers vinyl would argue that, for example,
dynamic range and S/N of CD is potential better (although I prefer
different). There is no proof, BTW, that CD is better than vinyl in
absolute terms.


As you have met him Rob, I would add that Shiny Nigel had a collection of
about 1,500 CDs when I first met him (and probably still has) - he was given
a ProJect Perspective turntable a while back (that can happen when you're in
the trade, apparently) and started grabbing LPs (I gave him a couple of
carrier bag's worth - Diana Ross, Supertramp, The Human League &c.)

Last time we spoke on the subject he told he *never* plays CDs any more....

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Decent digital recording, yes. As anyone who has had any true
experience of analogue types will. Unless for a special effect.

I think I'm with you on that, although i did get some superb results
from a Revox a while back. Altogether too much like hard work comapared
to digital recording though.

Here at home I can record/playback 15/16, 1 7/8 3 3/4 7 1/2, 15 and 30ips
on 1/4" tape - 1/4, 1/2 or full track, 1,2 or 4 tracks. All with or
without Dolby, A, B or SR. DBX, too. Plus cassette, Elcassette, 4 and
8-track cartridge, NAB cartridge.

All great in their day - or had various advantages over each other. But
made obsolescent very soon after digital arrived.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rob wrote:
I don't think anyone who prefers vinyl would argue that, for example,
dynamic range and S/N of CD is potential better (although I prefer
different).

You may prefer different, but what's wrong with just plain old 'better'?
Unless, of course, you actually enjoy surface noise.

There is no proof, BTW, that CD is better than vinyl in
absolute terms.

Anyone who produced an amplifier with distortion anywhere near that
inherent with vinyl would be laughed out of court. Although some here seem
to be getting close with their SET fetish). So why put up with it as a
source?

--
*If you can't see my mirrors, I'm doing my hair*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Keith G wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote


I don't think anyone who prefers vinyl would argue that, for example,
dynamic range and S/N of CD is potential better (although I prefer
different). There is no proof, BTW, that CD is better than vinyl in
absolute terms.


As you have met him Rob, I would add that Shiny Nigel had a collection of
about 1,500 CDs when I first met him (and probably still has) - he was given
a ProJect Perspective turntable a while back (that can happen when you're in
the trade, apparently) and started grabbing LPs (I gave him a couple of
carrier bag's worth - Diana Ross, Supertramp, The Human League &c.)

Last time we spoke on the subject he told he *never* plays CDs any more....



Good ole Nige - hope he's OK btw.

A couple of months ago a friend expressed an interest in a turntable I
wanted rid of for a friend of his. It was crushed in the post, but still
worked OK. He's a real down the line number cruncher, just knocked out a
first class degree in databases/computer science, and over the 15 years
I've known him always managed a friendly 'tut' at my vinyl playing - in
fact he gave me his LP collection as obsolete on the condition I put
some of his faves/unobtainables on CD. Job done.

I took the TT round to his house, and we plugged it in to check it
worked, nothing more. I thought it sounded fine. He's not a hifi nut,
but has a half decent amp/speakers (Technics/KEF). He, on the other
hand, shifted about quite uneasily. He didn't say anything to me on the
day, but over the next few weeks started to ask me about 'his' LPs - how
were they doing, that type of thing.

I can't say that he was converted (back to) vinyl as such. All I do know
is that he's kept the turntable :-)

Rob