AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

S888Wheel wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/20/2004 8:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: y9bLc.143763$Oq2.122370@attbi_s52

On 19 Jul 2004 22:55:26 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/19/2004 9:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: DjSKc.117270$MB3.113782@attbi_s04

On 18 Jul 2004 16:18:15 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 7/18/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:28:36 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/16/04 6:41 PM, in article , "Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

"B&D" wrote in message
news:QQkJc.92602$Oq2.45040@attbi_s52...
On 7/14/04 6:33 PM, in article ,
"Michael
McKelvy" wrote:

LP compared to
CD is objectively inferior in terms of distortion, compression,
signal
to
noise, and all other technical specs related to fidelity.

All other specs? Really? *ALL* of them?

The important ones AFAIK. The fact is still that in terms of
objective
performance CD stomps all over LP. It is higher fi.

Where I would agree with you is the POTENTIAL of CD is better than that
of
LP's - but the state of the art in mastering tends to make the CD's much
less close to hifi.

Absolute nonsense! There are numerous superbly mastered CDs on the
market, all of which *grossly* exceed the fidelity of even the very
best vinyl.

You might want to check your vinyl rig to make sure everything is working
well.

I do, regularly. It works just fine,

Then maybe you ought to consider that your biases are at work. This claim of
"gross" outperformance would seem like a red flag that something is up.

When we're talking about one medium which has a hundred times lower
distortion and ten to a hundred times lower noise than the other,
'gross' seems like quite a mild term to me..................

Oh, I thought you might actually be talking about the actual listening
experience,

....though he did write 'in terms of objective performance' back there,
implying that he *wasn't* talking about the subjective listening
experience in the exchange you quote.

an experience that is inherently riddled with distortions that
arguably look gross compared to either CD or high end LP.

There are inherent, unavoidable forms of distortion in the system
comprised of the listener, the recording, the medium, and the reproduction
devices -- the human's non-flat frequency sensitivity , for example -- and
there are forms of distortion that we can choose to add or not, based on
purely subjective preference. Let's count the LP/turntable system in the
latter category. Personally as such additional distortions go I prefer
Dolby Pro Logic II.

It was a logical thing to say to anyone who is having such trouble getting
good
sound from their high end turntable.

Not what I said at all.

"Grossly outperformed" would indicate a sign of trouble to me. especially when
CDs rarely out perform LPs on my system. But I didn't realize you were talking
measurements and not listening experience.

Perhaps you were reading prejudicially.