Thread: Heaven!
View Single Post
  #22   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heaven!

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.

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

Mike