[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:20:01 GMT, Chronic Philharmonic
wrote:


"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:37:49 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:
In rec.audio.tech DarkSide of Nightmix
wrote:
"Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
the first place..."

Business Week: http://atu.ca/6aecf

'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.


IMNSHO 'warm sound' = muffled high frequencies. It's amazing when
audiophiles
can find cables so incredibly mediocre that they have difficulty handling
frequencies about 5khz and give that lovely warm sound as one would expect
from a worn out record being played with a worn out stylus. Such
progress,
and usually for only $100/ft! But, of course, we all know that equalizers
are bad so it's off to the cable shop to find filters.

A worn out record being played with a worn out stylus never sounded warm to
me. It sounds noisy, fuzzy and distorted. Reducing frequencies above about
5kHz might provide some relief from that, but it isn't high fidelity. As far
as that goes, "warm" isn't a term I would associate with high fidelity
either. Accuracy, perhaps.

Since recording a live event (or generating the illusion of a live event in
the studio) is an art form, high fidelity is a complex concept. IMHO, the
most neutral medium and reproduction equipment would be the best way to
reproduce the original sound. Vinyl, and most analog storage technology is
measurably and objectively nowhere near as neutral as modern digital
technology. Flame on...

No argument here, but I didn't have a $10K phono investment to rationalize
when
CD's first came out. Mine's $10K! It has to sound better than a $300 CD
player! That muffled sound has to be better... Let's give it a name...
warm!

Or another name: "It sounds more like typical acoustic music to ______
(insert name)."