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.....

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
...
You, like other
enlightened individuals, are perfectly justified in ignoring the
opinions of gibbering baboons."

Thank you, I will.

MrT.

In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"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.

No, the point of my post (which you cut) is very clear: It would also
be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying something would
actually read the posts of those individuals. Your posts to me and the
bogus thing you accuse me of are perfect cases making my point.

You are entitled to it of
course, but how many times do we need to be told you have one?
Who really cares?

Here's a question for you: In, say, the past year, other than around
three brief posts about a specific LP that I found, how many times have
I offered an opinion about LPs other than in response to someone else,
mainly Arny?

You admit you don't care about other opinions either,

Incorrect.

so surely that is the
end of the argument?

MrT.

"Jenn" wrote in message

om...
Of course, but my point stands.

You don't have a point though, only an opinion.

No, the point of my post (which you cut)

No I didn't.

is very clear:

In your mind maybe. Still have no idea what it is.

It would also
be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying something would
actually read the posts of those individuals. Your posts to me and the
bogus thing you accuse me of are perfect cases making my point.

Which is?

You are entitled to it of
course, but how many times do we need to be told you have one?
Who really cares?

Here's a question for you: In, say, the past year, other than around
three brief posts about a specific LP that I found, how many times have
I offered an opinion about LPs other than in response to someone else,
mainly Arny?

No idea, why would I know or care?

You admit you don't care about other opinions either,

Incorrect.

What part of "And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either." is
incorrect?

MrT.

In article ,
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
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, .

To me the real killer point is if you take any decent source - analogue or
digital - and copy to digital in the CD format and to vinyl, there were be
a *very* noticeable difference between that master and the vinyl but not
between it and the digital copy. Of course *some* will prefer the vinyl
sound. But then come up with all sorts of bull**** as to why.

--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off*

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

On 30 Aug, 21:10, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns wrote:

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.

Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".

I certainly agree. I personally like them both.

so do i, but i like one even better than the other.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The recording is made up of noughts and ones. Noughts naturally are
nothing so only the ones count. Therefore 50% of the total.


An LP has two sides, a CD only one. 50% difference.

--
Adrian C

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
To me the real killer point is if you take any decent source - analogue or
digital - and copy to digital in the CD format and to vinyl, there were be
a *very* noticeable difference between that master and the vinyl but not
between it and the digital copy. Of course *some* will prefer the vinyl
sound. But then come up with all sorts of bull**** as to why.

Yep it's been happening for 25 years and no sign of stopping.

My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions", but can't
possibly accept the fact that they may PREFER something not actually as
technically accurate. They then have to come up with stupid explanations
plausible to themselves, and once they have convinced themselves, feel the
need to be evangelical and convert the rest of the world, just like most
religions :-)

MrT.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
ups.com...
Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".
I certainly agree. I personally like them both.
so do i, but i like one even better than the other.

Me too, I just like one *FAR* better than the other :-)
(and am especially happy that it's not ALL we have any more)

MrT.

In article . com, Bret
Ludwig scribeth thus


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.


Inovonics

Who are they?, AFAIK they make broadcast processor equipment do they or
did they make recording equipment?..
--
Tony Sayer