AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message
...
Hi Scott,

Your response hear makes me think of something.

Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is
the way it measures.

It's not an expectation, it's simply the way it is and has always been from
the very first digital recording I ever heard, classical by the way. At 56
years old I grew up listening to LP's, so it's not like I never hear them or
only had brief exposure to them. But the very fist time I ever heard a CD I
knew ho badly LP sucked.

And, yes, they agree vinyl has a specific *sound*
to it--and the words they choose to describe this sound *always* imply
something unlife-like or lower fidelity to the master tape. Meanwhile,
other people use words to describe the "sound of vinyl" which imply
*greater* fidelity to life. This simple fact has never been
acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to
repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own
words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've
described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning.

It would be unreasonable to call LP more lifelike when it is so vastly
inferior in cpaturing dynamic range and so full of noise, and speed
variations.

It would be unreasonable to call CD more lifelike when it is so vastly
inferior at conveying the musician's intentions.

But have you considered all possible ear-brain contexts? You know the
whole-person response is very complex, so how can you say that with any
certainty? What did you listen to prior to coming up with that
conclusion, and have you controlled it? Was that statement based on
"directed" or "free-floating" attention? And how many musicians have you
surveyed? How do you know what the musicians' intentions were? See, if
you only consider one extremely narrow context, out of many, many,
possible contexts, of course you may not realize that vinyl is actually
much inferior than CD's when it comes to conveying musicians'
intentions, let alone the intentions of the recording engineers.

Without considering all those contexts, you might as well say elephants
fly! It would have been equally silly.

I challenge you to show even a glimmer of understanding of what I mean
by that.

We're not really interested in understanding what you meant by that,
because obviously that was based on one single context only, and an
extremely narrow one at that.

Now, can you show a glimmer of understanding what I mean by the above
paragraph?

Mike