[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:02:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

I don't claim any authority. My opinion is my opinion. But my opinion
is based on extensive comparisons. I base my opinion on how digital
releases sound by playing them on my system.

And on the result of those comparisons, I concur. CD rarely sounds as
good
as it could or should sound and in instances where a CD and a vinyl
release
of the same title exist, the LP usually sounds better, as I said before.


Let's remember some history. The fanbase most excited about the coming
of CD circa 1982 wasn't rock or pop or country or jazz. It was
'classical'
fans. These were the listeners championing 'high fidelity' the most
consistently over the previous decades. They were excited about a medium
that promised perfect pitch consistentcy, lack of tracking distortion and
wear, 96dB of dynamic range, flat frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz,
and immunity from 'pops and tics'.


And then they heard the early CD's, and that started the anti-CD sentiment.

And it has been classical recording which has continued to hold out
longest against the 'loudness wars' (though some recordings have
succumbed).

Yep, so?

Do classical releases typically get an LP version these days? And if so,
does it usually 'sound better'?


No, because the convenience of not having to change sides overwhelms
everything else....and the state-of-the-art has progressed substantially.
But there has been a strong movement towards SACD among classical musical
lovers. Why do you suppose that is?