"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Why do some here seem to often need to be led 'by hand'
to references and information they could easily find themselves, if they
were
really interested in doing so?
Good question.
There seems to be a lot of resistance among certain people towards ideas
that have been in the well-established technical literature of audio
technology for decades.
For example, we were initially told:
"I think you'll find this group nowadays largely populated with folks
quoting
"settled science", "trusted authorities", "well-proven" etc. in support of
the conventional wisdom. But when you ask for specifics, suddenly
conventional wisdom seems more like pass-along verities than it does
science."
This was followed up with no less than 20 relevant citations from the JAES,
which is a well-known, relevant, generally-accepted independently-refereed
academic journal. These articles catalog the inherent technical problems
with vinyl, the audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops,
rumble, hiss, noise and distortion.
There is no evidence that these same people have even read the abstracts of
these articles, let alone studied the articles for themselves and understood
their contents and application.
We were then told that:
"There have been no reliable primary sources shown here to substantiate that
this is inherently what vinyl sounds like."
One wonders what could be meant by "primary sources" and "substantiate". :-(