[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 28-02-2017 02:16, Trevor wrote:

On 28/02/2017 1:01 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 27-02-2017 10:34, Trevor wrote:
On 27/02/2017 3:25 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
Very often nowadays "digital" unspecificed is lossy encoded digital
and then the vinyl LP does come out on top.

Rubbish, I have well over 1,000 pristine vinyl records, but a well
recorded digital file properly encoded at maximum VBR or 320kbs fixed
rate will beat most, if not all of them. Most by a *long* way!
Why anyone would continue to equate MP3 with 128kbs (or less) files
these days is beyond me. But then the whole debate is irrelevant now
when storing uncompressed files or ALAC/FLAC files is cheaper and takes
less physical space than 64kbs MP3 did only a few years ago!
And ***FAR*** less cost and size than vinyl records!!!!!!!!!

Trevor, my experience is that you're almost always right. But what comes
out of a FM transmitter nowadays appears to be encoded at less than 320
kbits.

Sadly NO argument there Peter! And most digital broadcasts as bad or
worse. :-(
However I wouldn't use that as a frame of reference for anything myself!

Agreed, but that however is the "digital" that people compare old analog
with. I'm almost done transcribing my new old Kajaran Carmen (RCA red
seaL ser 5600) that sounds so enticing because of a skilled hand
tweaking a good tone control to make the treble "just charming" and on a
second listen no way near how a real ensemble sounds. Sure to be better
than even the most excellent natural digital recording ... O;-)

Trevor.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen