Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
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.
Once again, an objectivist shows he cannot repeat my description of
analog.
Do not confuse 'cannot' with 'will not'.
Of course. You willfully ignore what other people say about their
experience when you don't know how to explain it.
First of all, drop "vinyl" from your statement--it is all
analog.
That is a ludicrous statement, as it would include cassette and AM
radio. I have yet to hear any serious audiphile argue that these are
superior to CD. At the other extreme, I seriously doubt that you have
ever heard a 30ips studio master.
Another one of your opinions formed with no good evidence? I have heard
it.
Second, no recording matches the qualities of live music,
including the initimate connection to the musician's intentions that is
possible--but analog, for my ears (and apparently for Jenn's) gets
closer. Choosing analogies such as "whiter than white" demonstrates
that you don't understand this basic experience.
No, choosing such an analogy demonstrates that you missed the point.
It is my belief that your opinion is based on a 'technicolor' vision
of reality, which seems to you more real than the paler colours of the
real thing.
Well, that would be easy to check. For example, do I think that the
"real thing" has paler colors? Do I think that analog has "brighter"
colors? Nope. A fact about my experience which you *must* ignore since
it doesn't fit your analogy.
Amateur musicians such as myself and even more so professional
musicians such as Jenn are aware that music exists as a balance of
qualties.
Oh please, enough with the pretension! I've been a regular
concert-goer for forty years, and my musical appreciation is certainly
a match for many musicians. OTOH, as a long-term audiophile, my sense
of the *fidelity* of a reproduced musical event is certainly more
acute than that of most of the professional musicians of my
acquaintance.
What you fail to understand is that different people are listening to
different things. It is perfectly possible that you have a highly
developed sense of "fidelity," while at the same time other people have
a highly developed sense of fidelity which doesn't intersect yours in
many areas. I have never disputed that digital recordings have a higher
sense of fidelity to you; I only point out that you refuse to accept
that analog recordings have a higher sense of fidelity to others---that
in fact, you always change their language into something that implies
distortion rather than fidelity.
In point of fact, musos are *notorious* for their poor
hi-fi rigs, since they are generally listening on a different plane.
The only distortion mechanisms you've ever proposed, if they
were the cause of this vinyl preference, would *upset*, not *preserve*
these balances.
No, as mentioned ad nauseam, they are *euphonic* distortions.
You have never proposed a distortion mechanism that
would preserve the musician's intentions, and yet that is how I (and
apparently Jenn) experience analog.
You have absolutely no idea what were the intentions of the musician.
Yet another declaration on your part with no evidence to support it.
I've heard digital and analog recordings of halls which I attended
live, and knew the musicians well, for starters.
Mike