In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 15 Jul 2005 20:10:41 GMT, Jenn wrote:

But again, there are many presumptions there. "A band's worth of
musicians on hand"? "Rehearse"? "Warm up"? All I am saying is that you
folks argue in favor of matched level listening down to a couple of dB,
etc to make legit listening comparisons, then you also argue about the
listening comparison of a recording of an event that probably never
actually took place live! It seems like a contradiction to me.

That's because you're missing the point. The comparison is not between
two pieces of equipment, but among the opinions of professional
musicians. Some of those claim that vinyl is more 'lifelike', others
claim that to be true of CD. Neither opinion has scientific rigour, so
they have equal (lack of) value.

Perhaps I misunderstood the post, as I'm rather distracted away from
these matters at the moment. Wasn't the point that Fagen et al
preferred the CD sound because it sounded more like the session?

Basically, one regular poster always trots out Boyk as a supporter of
vinyl, so trotting out Fagen is simply a counterbalance. Similarly,
your opinion in this regard has no more value than that of any of the
others previously quoted, or of any experienced audiophile.

I never claimed that my opinion carried more weight, but rather that I
have a certain insight into the sound of live music because I hear live
music a great deal more than do most people.