Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 00:44:33 GMT, wrote:

Chung wrote:
Dennis Moore wrote:
http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl_two.html

Part way down the page is the info you are asking about.

http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html

The attempted explanation of what CD sound is on that page is wrong. The
writer clearly does not know anything about digital audio. His
description of the vinyl sound is also laughable (e.g. "no information
is lost"). It's amazing how vinylphiles keep getting basic stuff wrong,
even now.


Hey it goes both ways. Digifiles keep getting basic stuff wrong too.
even here on RAHE.

Such as?


Have you been reading the thread? here is one example form NYOB on this
thread just two days ago.
"They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended."


Can you find any examples of digiphiles 'getting it wrong',
or is this just more smoke and mirrors?


One of my favorites. you getting it wrong. of course you will argue
that you are right. That just makes the whole thing even more
ridiculous.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...54c5e58adc8c84
I don't know about the ratios but if you want a list of things Stewart

said that are factually wrong just in this thread.
1."The reconstruction filter ensures that the output is a smooth curve,

following the original bandwidth-limited input signal *exactly*, not
approximately." Fact is it can never be "exact."


But then there are the digiphiles that i suspect you think are getting
it wrong. forgot about them? I don't know any "vinylphiles' painting
their LPs green. There are didgphiles buying some very expensive gear
like belt drive tubed CD players. Do you think those digphiles are
"getting it right?"


Scott