"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:_%kJc.82948$IQ4.70366@attbi_s02...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:48:26 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"B&D" wrote in message
news:cIFIc.65610$IQ4.2692@attbi_s02...
On 7/12/04 1:04 PM, in article _wzIc.62960$%_6.26489@attbi_s01,
"Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Excuse me? Even with a Rockport Sirius III, vinyl will still be
vinyl.
That's the *real* difference.

Vinyl would be *what* then? I am not sure what you are getting at?
That it
is somehow bad? It *is* a pain in the butt to use - but a well
adjusted
turntable system works rather well.

It can never work so well as even an average CD player, because the
problem with vinyl is that the *medium* is intrinsically flawed, to a
vastly greater degree than CD.

What I have found that dollar for dollar you can get acceptable sound
performance from a CD at a much lower price point than vinyl. Vinyl,
though, if you are willing to put up with it and spend a lot more money
gives a much more satisfying result than even a comparably well
executed CD
player - but it is rather fussy and not nearly as convenient as CD's.

I find this the best balanced description of vinyl vs. cd that I have yet
read here or elsewhere.

How odd - it reads to me as totally biased...............


That's because your views are out at the extreme end of the spectrum...

Until recently I had a Linn Valhalla / Syrinx PU-2 / Accuphase AC-2 /
Modified Marcof PPA-2 setup that bested my Sony/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP
player
and Sony C222ES SACD player on identically recorded music (Beethoven 5th
Symphony; Ormandy "Verdi Requiem; Szell's Rossini Overatures, Joplin's
Cheap
Thrills, Dylan's Blonde on Blonde comparison disks).

Well, it would sure as heck sound *different*! That it 'bested' your
CD player is of course only your personal opinion.


That's the point...my setup doesn't sound "different", just better. The
"better" lies in the sense of depth and dimensionality of the soundstage and
in the microdynamics of the performance coming through (a feat that SACD and
DVD-A seems to match). In every aspect of frequency response and timbre, on
the records I compared, the sound is identical. Now granted, I have a
record system that I carefully assembled over the years to be "neutral", so
all systems do not sound like mine. But I have a "case of one" that a
record player can meet and best the CD standard as far as sound quality is
concerned.

Yet finding, cleaning, and listening to new old records that somehow
I missed buying in their day (usually for less than $2.00 each) is a fun
hobby

That is perhaps much closer to the truth of the matter. When you put
in that much time and effort, then *of course* vinyl must sound better
- or you'd have to admit that you'd been wasting your time........


Not at all. I do much less of this than I do attending concerts and
listening to music at home (probably three hours a day of intensive
listening). And a lot of that is to CD's and SACD's for the convenience.
But I don't let that bias get in the way of recognizing equal or superior
sound when I hear it.

You've missed the "party line" here on RAHE, which is that there is
absolutely no sonic difference between your 1985 Magnavox, your new NAD,
or
the Bel Canto. You are just imagining it. The technology has been
perfect
since Magnavox/Phillips went to 4x oversampling in the mid-eighties

Philips/Magnavox *started* with 4x oversampling in 1983, at the launch
of CD. It's interesting that until the supply of Philips DAC chips
dried up a few years ago, Naim still insisted on using that
decades-old technology.

Sure, and I have a wonderfully musical $1200 Phillips 880 using that
technology, from about 1987. But side by side and volume-balanced, it is
not as "transparent" as my Sony/DTI-Pro/Proceed PDP with its noise-shaped 18
bit equivalent sound. And I have heard even more transparency from later
units, such as the Arcams.


Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering