"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Rob" wrote in message
...
My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions",

Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath,
relax, and get over it.

And IF they did, these debates would have finished 25 years ago.
Some people still listen to wax cylinders, without needing to "prove"
they
are better than CD


I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove*
anything....

It is not the playing LPs that indicates a need to prove anything, it is
the continual ranting and raving on audio newsgroups about the technical
superiority of the LP that tells us about their state of mind.


The only people who combine the words 'technical superiority', 'LP' or
'vinyl' in a sentence *without* the 'couldn't care less' qualifier is you
mostly and occasionally a couple of other people who quite obviously feel
threatened by it all or just want to grab a little 'airtime' on a
deliberately provocative, crossposted thread...

Convenient Keith how quickly you want to forget the content of the OP that
kicked the whole thread off. It's a published article from MSN claiming
technical superiority for the LP format.

My biggest concern about playing LPs is the ongoing degradation of what
should be archival media.

Your nagging anxieties are not my nagging anxieties...

Where did I say anything about nagging anxieties, Keith? Having problem with
an overactive projection gland?

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has the
ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one over the
other.

Sure we do, within the context of audio technology.

I suspect the context is the problem.

Slippery talk.

It depends on your definition of 'technical',

Check your dictionary.

Well, you might check yours and understand that it's an ambiguous word!

More slippery talk.

Think 'context'.

More slippery talk.

and the significance of that definition when it comes to the sound. I
think.

Think again.

Just did :-)

You really didn't say anything that had any meaning, Rob. I take it that you
know you are cornered.

Keith G wrote:

The only people who combine the words 'technical superiority', 'LP' or
'vinyl' in a sentence *without* the 'couldn't care less' qualifier is
you mostly and occasionally a couple of other people who quite obviously
feel threatened by it all or just want to grab a little 'airtime' on a
deliberately provocative, crossposted thread...

Wrong, fool. I've seen MANY posts over the years from ignoramuses
claiming that LP is technically superior to CD, which "misses
something" because "it's only 1's and 0's" and other such garbage.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
Now stop bitching or I'll hijack this thread and turn it into a DAB
vs,
DAB+ debate and all you Merkins will get to hear about how Brit
radio
is
going down the *digital tubes* alongside recorded music and TV
transmissions...




Gone my dear Keith .. not going, just gone;(...


What? DAB+ isn't going to cure all ills then?

(After we've all chucked our 'ordinary' DAB receivers out, of
course...)





Dunno if it will even happen. What they ought to do is designate DAB
as
it is for lo-fi portable and mobile applications, and make the high
bitrate stuff available on satellite where the is plenty of bandwidth
available.

The BBC doesn't even transmit there at high rates, just 192 for Radio
three whereas a lot of German radio is 320 K or better!....



Hah! I have just uploaded a couple of wobblicam clips for you and there
you are!

Call me daft, but I do like a bit of 'wireless' on a Sunday Night (R2
atm - Malcolm Laycock's excellent 'Swing' programme) and ventured up the
'deep end' at one point - check this out:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/106.8MHz.wmv

And compare it with R3 (bloody speech again - as ever, but you'll get
the idea!):

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Radio3.wmv


Nowhere is safe these days, even UK radio is down the ****ter - DAB *or*
FM, from what I can see!!

Keith G wrote:

And CD lovers tend to give the impression there are no poorly recorded
CDs,

No they don't. Borderline lie, there...

On Sep 1, 9:20 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message





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

No, as I've said recently elsewhere, I'm heartily sick
of seeing the words 'valvelike' and 'analogue sound'
being applied to SS kit and digital music by silly *hip*
magazine writers.

Agreed, no reason to slander good SS kit and good
digital recordings that way.

Except to *tempt* people to buy it....??

In fact there's virtually no discussion of SS versus tubed audio gear
anyplace but a few esoteric circles. The days of comparsions between tubed
and SS passed along several decades ago, with SS winning decisively.

Here's your challenge - find a significant (3% of the market) amount of
newly-produced media, or even media produced produced in the last 30 years,
that didn't pass through at least one SS device.

But more importantly, almost all pop releases today have audio that
has been through a tube somewhere.

No, for me at least, CD did and still does everything I need from a music
carrier, and I play LPs for fun, (I have three turntables) much as I would
drive a 1930s MG, or when the musical content is more important than the
reproduced quality.


It would be more fun to build a replica of the MG with a modern
driveline and put a stereo in it.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Rob" wrote in message
...
My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic
distortions",

Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep
breath,
relax, and get over it.

And IF they did, these debates would have finished 25 years ago.
Some people still listen to wax cylinders, without needing to
"prove" they
are better than CD


I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to
*prove* anything....

It is not the playing LPs that indicates a need to prove anything,
it is the continual ranting and raving on audio newsgroups about the
technical superiority of the LP that tells us about their state of
mind.


The only people who combine the words 'technical superiority', 'LP'
or 'vinyl' in a sentence *without* the 'couldn't care less' qualifier
is you mostly and occasionally a couple of other people who quite
obviously feel threatened by it all or just want to grab a little
'airtime' on a deliberately provocative, crossposted thread...

Convenient Keith how quickly you want to forget the content of the OP
that kicked the whole thread off. It's a published article from MSN
claiming technical superiority for the LP format.


Is it ****. Apart from this tiny bit: "LPs contain close to 100-percent
of the uncompressed music information as originally recorded. CDs
contain only about half of that recorded information." it's no more than
another load of old ******** banging on about 'retro' and 'cool' -
neither of which much bothers an ordinary 'vinylista' like me, or the
dozens of others here who routinely play LPs.

I've told you several times now; I'm as fed up with this sort of thing
as you are - if nothing else, it's pushing up the price of secondhand
records...



My biggest concern about playing LPs is the ongoing degradation of
what should be archival media.

Your nagging anxieties are not my nagging anxieties...

Where did I say anything about nagging anxieties, Keith?


'biggest concern'


Having problem with
an overactive projection gland?


Me no having problem with any gland (yet)....

In article . com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:
But more importantly, almost all pop releases today have audio that
has been through a tube somewhere.

Does that account for the appalling quality? Optimod type thingie set to
kill?

--
*It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Oi oi oi, Plowie - such a *scallywag* you are!! Deliberately
distorting
the truth again while you push your
antivalve/antivinyl/antieverythingelseyoudon't like agenda!!

Not anti anything. Just have a balanced view of them. That's the
difference...


Don't talk to me about a 'balanced view', Plowie - you've got no idea. I
have here and routinely switch between or choose from:

4 valve amps and 4 SS amps.

A pair of Lowther 'horns' and a pair of IMF TLS80s side by side and both
in constant (daily) use.

Half a dozen turntables and half a dozen CD/DVD players/recorders (at
least)...

A selection of MM and MC carts...

Both SS and valve phono stages...

Both DAB and FM tuners...



They're all on he

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/myhifi/myhifi.htm


*Balanced* enough for you?




Unless you really haven't seen the recent threads I've started about
microphones, FM tuners, eBay &c. and all the other older threads
about
speakers and countless OT subjects??

You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're
going for valve mics escapes me.


I've got a number of SS mics already (also on the above link), I just
want to try a valve mic to see/hear for myself and get, dare I say it, a
'balanced view'...??