"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.



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.


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

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.)"

he

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



You seem to think analogue means perfection.


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


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


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.

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

"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. Sounds rather
like snobbery to me.

David.

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. 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.

--
*I believe five out of four people have trouble with fractions. *

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

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.

"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 ,
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.

"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.

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
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.


You couldn't be more wrong.

Of course some implementations of 'digital' may be way less than perfect
for commercial reasons - but that is a different ball game.

You seem to confuse pretty looking but flawed analogue devices with
performance - or more like your own personal preferences. And we all know
about those...

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *

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