"Jenn" wrote ...
dizzy wrote:
Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant vinyl-lovers
would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems as though every half-wit
out there thinks they have sufficient knowledge of digital audio to
make bold statements about it's supposed limitations.

It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying
something would actually read the posts of those individuals.

There's no lack of outrageous and ignorant claims made by
vinyl-fanatics.

In article ,
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote ...
dizzy wrote:
Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant vinyl-lovers
would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems as though every half-wit
out there thinks they have sufficient knowledge of digital audio to
make bold statements about it's supposed limitations.

It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying
something would actually read the posts of those individuals.

There's no lack of outrageous and ignorant claims made by
vinyl-fanatics.

Of course, but my point stands.

On Aug 30, 6:00 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
The Ampex units are total overkill for domestic use. I'd take a Revox A700
over an Ampex any day. For speed stability, that direct drive Pabst capstan
motor combined with the electronic servo tensioning, was just unbeatable.
And the electronics were modern and quiet. Plus, unlike the Ampex, the whole
package doesn't take up an entire room.

What's better about a Revox than an AG440 or a 351? Besides, aren't
the Studer versions of the Revox generally easier to use and more
desireable?

The new head and other part suppliers are geared up to supply Ampex
parts, morso than anything else.

Plus, 351 transports can be had for free sometimes, and you can build
your own electronics or use the aftermarket Inovonics units.

Bret:

It becomes increasingly clear from your general driveling and trolling
that you haven't even the faintest actual knowledge or direct
experience of anything audio beyond one (1) Dynaco ST-70 that scared
you as a child, and maybe you observed an Ampex product somewhere,
somehow. You do have a talent for juxtaposing random tidbits culled
from hours of web-wanderings (apparently mostly while intoxicated)
passed off as experienced opinion, but vanishingly little more. You
really need to get some sort of life or you will wind up like Jute...
a superannuated, stroked out never-was posing as as some sort of Audio
Avatar. Oops... you are there already. Sorry.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com:80/archi...29/338888.aspx
It would be a different world if journalists who pretend to be technical
experts by dispensing technical advice had useful amounts of basic audio
engineering training.

But such rags are only designed to sell advertising to uneducated suckers.
What really annoys me is when I see similar howlers in technical trade
magazines, and I have unfortunately.

MrT.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Says it all and I will not add to this thread again other than to say,
having been cornered into the position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in
UKRA in the recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few* should
not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio topic' - no-one ever
said it was *compulsory*....

But vinyl has NOT been banned. You are still welcome to buy it and listen to
it. What more do you need???
Others are just sick of hearing the same stupid arguments for 25 years!


MrT.

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.

So true. One simply has to decide if the music or the cover art is more
important to them, and buy whatever suits their needs.

MrT.

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
CDs contain only about half of that recorded information.

LOL, I wonder how he came up with "half." Arny, you should email him and
ask
for the exact formula he used to determine that. :-)

Firstly the quote is "about half", and my guess is he simply believes vinyl
has a possible frequency response to ~40kHz rather than 22 kHz, and doesn't
understand in the slightest the concepts of information theory.
Then he simply ignore the flatness of the response, the bass problems, noise
problems, distortion problems, speed problems and every other bloody problem
associated with vinyl, .

People here seem to forget the most important thing though, such writers are
*PAID* to write such crap for the audio rags.
The people here waste their time endlessly for free.

Who is really smarter then :-)

MrT.

On Aug 30, 6:53 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote ...

dizzy wrote:
Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant vinyl-lovers
would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems as though every half-wit
out there thinks they have sufficient knowledge of digital audio to
make bold statements about it's supposed limitations.

It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying
something would actually read the posts of those individuals.

There's no lack of outrageous and ignorant claims made by
vinyl-fanatics.

Oh, fer krissakes... get a grip.

Opinion is just that. And this world would be a terribly dull place if
opinion and "claims" were required to be factually accurate at all
times and in all places. Where failure sets in is when one feels that
one's own "claims" are the only valid facts, and that one's own
opinions are inherently and naturally so much better than another's
that that same 'other' is to shrivel up, give up, and kowtow to such
obviously superior claims.

With respect, what inneffable hogwash.

If you are secure in your opinions and claims, enjoy them. Allow
others to be the same. Arguing them with the expectation of foisting
"yours" on "theirs" is a fool's game, one that Arny and Bret live
for.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

"Jenn" wrote in message
news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
There's no lack of outrageous and ignorant claims made by
vinyl-fanatics.

Of course, but my point stands.

You don't have a point though, only an opinion. You are entitled to it of
course, but how many times do we need to be told you have one?
Who really cares?
You admit you don't care about other opinions either, so surely that is the
end of the argument?

MrT.

Mr.**** said:

You admit you don't care about other opinions either, so surely that is the
end of the argument?

You misspoke again, ****. The corrected version reads "You, like other
enlightened individuals, are perfectly justified in ignoring the
opinions of gibbering baboons."

If the shoe fits.....




..