[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 9, 4:57=A0am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Feb 8, 4:32=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote:



Couldn't car less. This is not some subtle differences that amount to
counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. These are substantial
differences in content. These are cases where the CD doesn't ever turn-=
on=3D
=A0my
self-powered subwoofers, but the LP does - and at exactly the same volu=
me=3D
=A0via
my HP 400E audio VTVM. This indicates that the low frequency content of=
t=3D
he
CD is not sufficient to trigger the auto-on circuitry in the subs.

Most likely it means that the CD has no resonant hump right around
those frequencies, as records and LP playing equipment are well known
to have. =A0And the person mastering hasn't put that hump in there but
recorded flat from the masters.

Wow that is so not the most likely explination. If the sub isn't going
on nothing is present in the signal. Nothing.


I have noticed the same thing with my own vinyl records in comparison
with a CD of the same record.

That the CD doesn't even engage your sub and the LPs do? Really?



You are right, it is not subtle and I have heard it myself and in my
opinion it =A0is there. =A0But it's not an indication that the vinyl is
"better" than the CD version. =A0No one is disputing here, that I have
seen, that vinyl sounds different then CD. =A0These are, as far as I
know, merely facts, and well known ones. =A0It's when you claim that
therefore the vinyl is objectively better that you leave, in my
opinion, the land of reason, at least on that matter.

He didn't claim they were objectively better. He claimed they were
subjectively better. You know, the kind of better that atually matters
in audio.