I am not arguing, Stewart. You make too many assumptions and twist
things to your liking regardless of what is generally excepted to even
begin to reply without rebutting each line. It was not my intention to
"challenge your position" on MP3, so you are off the hook as far as
our debate goes. I don't agree with much of what you have said here,
but it is not worth the time to correct as you will certainly just
continue your relentless and pointless badgering.
I am content with my vinyl system and my digital system. Just to
refresh your memory, this whole exchange began with you badgering me
for no reason. I was helping the original poster who had a question.
You had done the same and it would have been well enough to have left
it there without trying to drag me into your miserable world.
If the rest of your post were worth commenting on, I would not top
post. Rather than listen to one's full expressions, you choose to
fragment them and distort them by adressing (incorrectly, but
whatever) every other sentence to make an argument out of it. Some
of us are not here to argue. Lighten up. Hey, I know; go listen to
some music and relax!
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 30 Apr 2005 18:43:33 GMT, Uptown Audio
wrote:
No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate
with
similar principals to a standard.
That's certainly one good reason.
Lp's are not cut to that standard
and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables.
You are unfamiliar with the work done in this regard by the RIAA? Of
course, you did just put your finger on the nub of the problem - if
all analogue rigs sound different, then by definition only one *at
most* can be genuinely 'high fidelity'. Occam would suggest that of
course *none* of them are.
So if
consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player.
It
may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your
decision and does not effect mine.
None so blind as those who will not see. I have seldom seen such a
ludicrous argument against CD. Of course, if you want your CDs to
sound different, that's easy enough - just record LPs from different
rigs to CD-R, then you'll retain all the 'magic' of LP, will have
plenty of variation, and will never have to damage your LPs again.
Not all analog systems nor CD playback systems sound alike. It is
still easy to find many examples of players that have differing
sound,
not to mention function and design.
Indeed yes - especially in the so-called 'high end', where many CD
players are *deliberately* broken. Heck, some of them don't even
have
a reconstruction filter, which is an *essential* part of the A/D-D/A
process.
Just so that we remember, this forum has been dedicated to the
discussion of high end audio. I don't mean to say that we all should
should find that everything gets rosier as prices increase, but
several people here are almost never coming in defense of a product
that has merit, yet is expensive.
Just so that we remember, the term 'high-end' is supposed to be
related to *performance*, not to price.
In the world of digital audio, it's *very* difficult to find any
product that is expensive and yet has merit when compared to much
cheaper products.
It is disruptive of this forum and
the persistent badgering by a few of all others who might have
another
viewpoint has created a situation that has been going on for at
least
a year and that is preventing others who have interest and questions
from participating for fear of ridicule and ostracism.
Intelligent questions tend to receive intelligent answers, mere
repetition of a blinkered viewpoint (such as youi have been doing in
this thread), gets a different response.
I am sure that
you do have valuable contributions that you could make, but it is
very
important to the group to feel free to post their questions and
beliefs without detroying the sense of community here.
I'm sure the group does so feel - after all, it's a *moderated*
forum.
I support your right to listen to and express your thoughts about
your
system to anyone, but being intentionally disruptive by repeating
the
same views, regardless of the original questions is not helpful.
Perhaps you should take your own advice. You have answered none of
the
points made, and have merely repeated your ill-considered attack on
MP3 with no justification whatever.
You certainly realize that I and others also like vinyl playback and
as
such, you should not jump at every opportunity to talk about
digital.
*You* are the one who said that "Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3
by
even the most novice of listeners", so don't complain when that LAME
argument is thrown back in your face.
I remember years ago when you had some helpful posts about analog
set-up to help others who asked. Many people still use turntables
and
have extensive Lp collections which they would like to get the most
enjoyment out of.
As noted, intelligent questions will get intelligent answers. I
maintain a vinyl rig because I too like the sound of vinyl. However,
I don't kid myself that it's a sonically transparent medium - unlike
high bit-rate MP3, which certainly can be.
Just because a form of digital compression is
available, does not make it practical for everyone to use it.
It is however practical for an extremely large number of users in
2005. Perhaps it's time for 'Uptown Audio' to move into the 21st
Century - while it still can?
Perhaps
assisting those who have questions about digital compression with
answers about digital compression and likewise assisting those who
like analog with helpful tips about Lp playback would be more
productive.
Perhaps it would be a good start if *you* were to avoid making such
patently ludicrous statements as "Vinyl is noticably superior to
MP3
by even the most novice of listeners." and "MP3 sounds terrible, no
matter what quality system it is played back on."
Anyone familiar with both top-quality vinyl and high bit-rate MP3
realises how utterly wrong both those statements are.
And yet people are expected to take advice on so-called 'high end'
audio from *you*, when they walk into your store? Hmmmmmm.
Reading the same posts by the same people everytime that
the "CD Vs Vinyl" issue comes up has become tiresome and makes this
group static.
That may well be true, but if you keep making the same
ill-considered
statements, then you must expect them to be rebutted in the same
way.
I canna' change the Laws o' Physics, cap'n.............
I know that you have also noticed fewer posts in the
last year or so and even fewer from "new faces".
"Can't we all just get along?!" ;-)
Remember what happened after Jack Nicholson said that? :-)
BTW, top-posting is sloppy, confusing, and disruptive to cogent
argument, please don't do it.
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 29 Apr 2005 18:35:34 GMT, Uptown Audio
wrote:
You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to
vinyl
as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most
novice
of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality
playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what
quality system it is played back on.
This is arrant nonsense. Once above say 192 kbits/sec, very few
people
can tell an MP3 from the original - even if that original is
vinyl.
OTOH, *everyone* can tell vinyl apart from CD or the master tape
from
which the vinyl was made - even on the best vinyl rigs.
To any rational being, it should be obvious that when all vinyl
rigs
sound diffrent from each other, none of them can be objectively
accurate. OTOH, most CD players sound the same, despite massively
different internal electronics, which is a pretty good indicator
of
transparency.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering