On 21 Oct 2005 05:33:12 GMT, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote:
Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism
that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never
even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog.
More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that
vinyl sounds more natural. More natural than what? The original tape?
The original mic feed? The original performance?
What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP
which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP.
I hope to hear this comparison soon.
This is
pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally
transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by
vinyl. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than
white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Same applies to Jenn.
Again, I don't care why LPs overall sound more like music to me.
That's a perfectly fair point, and completely unarguable.
For
all I care, maybe it's because Lenny Bernstein wore polkadotted panties
when he made them. I only know that they do. I know what music sounds
like, and to my ears (the only ones that I listen with) LPs sound more
like that than do CDs.
That's absolutely fine. However, it remains *your* opinion, and is not
shared by others with just as much musical experience as you have.
There are no absolutes here, and I find well-made CD to be closer to
the sound of a live performance, and certainly lacking all the
irritating non-musical artifacts of typical vinyl replay which can
intrude, and suspend the suspension of disbelief, so to speak.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering