On 22/02/2011 00:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
David wrote:
"Keith wrote

No, but I certainly think good analogue beats digital in anything
which interacts with the human senses.


Do you? what leads you to that conclusion? (apart from blind prejudice,
that is)

My guess is 'analogue' to Keith is purely vinyl. But then he's constantly
said how much better 'SET' valve amps sound than others - so perhaps those
others are classed as digital too by him? A sort of catch all expression
for uncoloured sound reproduction?

I also notice that your post contains a familiar theme of yours, that if
something is easy, popular or cheap it *cannot* be any good. Sounds
rather like snobbery to me.

Could be. Certainly in my experience high cost doesn't necessarily equate
to quality.

You silly, silly little twerp.

In article ,
hunter wrote:
Could be. Certainly in my experience high cost doesn't necessarily
equate to quality.

You silly, silly little twerp.

Very useful comment.

Perhaps you'd like some examples of where high cost doesn't equate to
quality? The 'Hi-Fi' world is full of them...

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
hunter wrote:
Could be. Certainly in my experience high cost doesn't necessarily
equate to quality.

You silly, silly little twerp.

Very useful comment.

Perhaps you'd like some examples of where high cost doesn't equate to
quality? The 'Hi-Fi' world is full of them...

--

Don't feed the troll Dave.

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote

No, but I certainly think good analogue beats digital in anything which
interacts with the human senses.


Do you? what leads you to that conclusion? (apart from blind prejudice,
that is)

I also notice that your post contains a familiar theme of yours, that if
something is easy, popular or cheap it *cannot* be any good.


No, you are *fabricating* here - try 'if it's easy, popular or cheap the
chances are there will be something to better it which probably won't be as
easy or cheap' and I'll let you off.

Do try to shake off that habit of yours - putting your words into other
people's mouths.


Sounds rather
like snobbery to me.


Possibly....

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Keith G" wrote

No, but I certainly think good analogue beats digital in anything
which interacts with the human senses.


Do you? what leads you to that conclusion? (apart from blind prejudice,
that is)

My guess is 'analogue' to Keith is purely vinyl.


Nope. Holds up for TV, radio, watches, photography, some meters &c. but I
can't ignore the 'cheap, quick and convenient' aspects of digital
photography and sound recording which are both good enough for my purposes.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
hunter wrote:
Could be. Certainly in my experience high cost doesn't necessarily
equate to quality.

You silly, silly little twerp.

Very useful comment.

Perhaps you'd like some examples of where high cost doesn't equate to
quality? The 'Hi-Fi' world is full of them...


It might help if you weren't trying to twist the words 'high quality is
usually expensive' (or similar) into what you said..??

(Or do you really think the rest of the world is unaware of the existence of
overpriced crap? ;-)

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
One day Joe Ordinaire will wake up to the fact that 'digital' has done
him no real favours - especially when it comes to music.

That comment simply says you have no grasp of the issues.


And yours that you don't see the bigger picture - i.e. past 'plentiful,
cheap crap' which has no real value or long-lasting appeal.

Don't get what you mean.


It doesn't matter.


Although it's certainly true a cheap and cheerful
music centre with a CD will knock spots off a valve Dansette...


OSAF



snip


NP. Senor Coconut And His Orchestra 'Behind The Mask' at 45rpm -
********y 'disco' music really, but *stunning* sound quality! :-)

Wonder what you're on tonight?


What do you mean?

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

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

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

Two things here.

It is difficult for our amateur church recordist to
come to terms with the fact that there are people
out there who do the job professionally (with formal
training and a lifetime of experience far greater than
his own) and that his church activities are worlds away
from "real" professional commercial recording.

Iain is impossible to convince that volunteer work is only part of what
I
do in professional audio.


So what work in 'professional audio' do you do or have you done?

Perhaps if you make it crystal clear Iain will be convinced...??


Perhaps Arny is referring to the schools' music festivals,
about which he made such a song and dance over on RAO.
It turned out that he recorded something like ten esembles an
hour - no rehearsals, no editing.

Professional? Err....
'Nuff said:-)


If Arny has experience of the *professional audio* world it shouldn't be to
hard to list it.

(Unpaid, volunteer work doesn't count.)

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

One day Joe Ordinaire will wake up to the fact that
'digital' has done him no real favours - especially
when it comes to music.

That comment simply says you have no grasp of the issues.

Totally agreed. Joe Oridinaire wants to listen to music, not obsess over the
means for doing so.

And yours that you don't see the bigger picture - i.e.
past 'plentiful, cheap crap' which has no real value or
long-lasting appeal.

The real value of any music playback system lies in the enjoyment it brings
from providing pleasureable music to listen to.

The most prized lasting value comes from the music, not the media or the
hardware for playing it back.

Digital recording made a huge difference to vinyl - for
a start. Ended the need for direct cut recordings where
the very best results were required.

Digital generally provided better sound quality that actually lasted past a
few playings.

Like in photography these days, you can 'Photoshop' any
crap into some semblance of respectability?

Kieth proves himself to be the same out-of-touch pseudo elitist we've always
known.

The real value of any photograph lies in the enjoyment it brings from
providing rewarding images to view and share.


See: "But the gain in sound quality was considered worth
the trouble. (As typical commercial Lp releases were cut
from fourth-generation analog tape copies, the
improvement in sound offered by eliminating all those
layers of tape and electronics was not illusory.)"

Good point. However especially in the later days, the degradation due to the
layers of tape and (by modern standards) mediocre electronics paled compared
to the massive trashing of music that happened in the mass distribution
step.

he

http://www.auldworks.com/AESDD/dd1.htm

The equipment list makes me smile, particularly the Altec A7. Anybody who
hears them in a residential setting understands the massive trashing of
sound that we actually accepted in those days.

You seem to think analogue means perfection.

It actually guarantees substandard reproduction. The analog parts of the
current reproduction chain are the seat of virtually all of the audible
problems.

No, but I certainly think good analogue beats digital in
anything which interacts with the human senses.

How out of it can one be?

Perhaps you don't remember
just how poor the average cassette recording was.

Indeed. I never thought that cassette could really hold a candle to the LP
at least until we had really good metal tapes and equipment that exploited
it.

No, not really - I never got into them and what I did
hear was only on a car radio/cassette or the kids' cheapo
portable cassette decks.

I did all my taping on a Revox A77 during most of the cassette era. In the
last 5 years or so I had a Sony home machine that made Dolby B metal
cassettes that I played back on a Sony WM-D3 portable when I was flying.
Then I shifted to digital, never to look back.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message

In article ,
hunter wrote:

Could be. Certainly in my experience high cost doesn't
necessarily equate to quality.

You silly, silly little twerp.

Very useful comment.

Obviously, a high end fanboy/true believer.

Perhaps you'd like some examples of where high cost
doesn't equate to quality? The 'Hi-Fi' world is full of
them...

The leader would arguably be the Sansa Clip+. It is the equivalent of a
very good stereo receiver (including analog FM) and CD player with a
built-in music library of up to 32 GB that has an entry price of less than
$30 in the US. The electronics/display package is only a little larger than
its built-in clip for attaching it to your clothing for convenient listening
and to keep it from being lost. It plays for up to 15 hours on its built in
battery and can be run from the power line to play indefinately. It plays
FLAC files so the whole issue of lossy audio files is finessed.