View Single Post
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective

On Jan 25, 4:09=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
Surely, [passion for vinyl] has some root. We can't put it all down
to luddite-ism. Interest in LP is growing - even among the young who
weren't even around in LP's heyday. I recently got a newly released
integrated amplifier from a respected hi-end source which sports
both MM and MC cartridge inputs as well as a built-in 24-bit/192 KHz
dual differential DAC and an ADC (for record out)! So why is LP
still seen as a viable alternative to CD?


I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. =A0Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables;



This looks like a case of cherry picking a few reasons held by a few
people out of the many reasons held by many people to put a slant on
other peoples' preferneces. Indeed we do not need to look for
"magical" explanations. We can find many explanations that are
strictly due to sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very good and
common reason for such a preference along with the now well documented
euphonic distortions that can lead to a more convincing sense of
spaciousness, richness and realism.


people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too.


Of course they do. They still are the best tools and allow us to take
the best pictures in their respective areas of use.


=A0And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has
a certain look, if you like that kind of thing.


This is a hasty generalization at best. The implication here seems to
be that digital imaging has surpassed film. This certainly is not the
case with motion picture film which still has greater resolution and a
superior dynamic range by two stops. In fact in tests between the new
Leica M9 digital rangefinder and the "retro-technology based" M3 and
M6 (it is after all a camera that is approaching sixty years since
it's introduction to the market) one still gets better images from the
"retro-technology." It *is* a close contest now but still....You do
get a certain look, a look you get with better resolution and superior
performance in other objectively measurable performance
perameters...if you like that kind of thing.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/0...ica-m6-part-1/
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera...4/page164.html




When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.


But it never gets "serious" in audio because we are talking aesthetic
preferences not life threatening illness. And with aesthetic
preferences subjective impressions are the rule. So your point has no
merit.