Helen Schmidt wrote:

Hi,

I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described
"newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important
point. I repeat the post he

snip


eaning the whole idea
and claiming the superiority of "objective evidence." This
misunderstands so many things, the main thing being that life is not
"objective evidence versus introspection;" the two can and must be
integrated. I will postpone this discussion for now, but later I can
explain how the conclusions of so-called "objective" experiments
collapse over the shaky foundation of introspective naivety.

Helen

Aside from this looking awfuly lot like a troll, here's the actual answer:

1- some material is not available and never will be on CD
2- CD not analog is a technically superior medium in terms of *most* of
the measurable parameters - the most obvious being S/N and ergo dynamic
range.
3- listened to on Technics TT and Stanton cartridges with somewhat of an
average signal chain to follow, CD is likely to "sound better."
Therefore for the average listener or consumer, CD is the preferred
medium - witness the sales and shift to CD
4- For the sophisticated "high-end" enthusiast or even the budget "DIY"
enthusiast LP does hold some true beauty in terms of the sonic
presentation - which is usually different than what the CD provides, and
sometimes "more pleasant to listen to." You don't usually get this
result with random or run-of-the-mill gear.
5- So, yes one does need to spend some time and/or money in order to get
outstanding results from LP.

Imho, the issues of psychology, visual prejudice, or "objective
measurement" really are moot and irrelevant in their entirety to the
question of how "good" is LP or not.

For those who enjoy LP, it is better that more people than not do not
think LP is any good, that way there are more LPs around for those that
like them? :- )

_-_-bear