[Andrew Haley]

Scott wrote:
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.

I did allow for that preference when I wrote "And, just as vinyl has a
certain sound, film has a certain look, if you like that kind of
thing." I'm not really sure we even disagree. Vinyl has a certain
sound, and some people like it.

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.


And, 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.

I disagree, but that's getting us way off-topic, so I'm going to leave
it at that. I don't want to try the moderator's patience with a
digression into the film-vs-digital flame war. We've had quite enough
of those in the photo groups. Suffice it to say that some people like
file cameras because they like the cameras and they like the look of
film, regardless of technical issues, and there's nothing wrong with
that.

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.

Well, perhaps. You're assuming that what really matters in audio is
aesthetic preferences, and technical issues such as measurable
accuracy are of no great consequence. But not everyone agrees with
that.

Andrew.