| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 19:42:24 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 1 Jul 2005 19:51:02 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: wrote: Now, you might argue that, in *addition* to research on listener preferences, we might like to see some research on the effectiveness of audio systems at what you call "re-stimulation of...percepts." I'm not sure how much work has actually been done on that. It would not be easy work to do, at least if you want to get beyond simply asking listeners, "Which of these sounds more realistic?" Right, and without that research, any correlation of the technical parameters of audio to a certain musical experience is premature. I suggest that objectivists are very premature in claiming that a preference for analog can be "understood" as a preference for certain kinds of distortions. The whole thing is much simpler than you pretend. Not everyone shares *your* preference for vinyl, or your *opinion* that vinyl is more 'lifelike', hence there is no need to search for mysterious mechanisms in support of your personal opinion. It isn't just his personal opinion. It is a common opinion held by many audiophiles with extensive experience with high end Lp playback. A preference for CD is also a common opinion held by many audiophiles with extensive experience with high end LP playback. Common? I think not. Do you have a survey that supports your opinion? First comes the verifiable observation of an effect, *then* comes the search for a cause. The verifiable observations have been with us since the advent of CDs. No, they most certainly have not. yes they most certainly have. The majority opinion was *always* that, while CD certainly wasn't 'perfect sound forever', it was definitely a significant advance over vinyl. majority? Majority amoung what people? People who see things the same way you do? OK. The majority amoung audiophiles with experience listening to high end LP playback.? Not IME. But I'm not interested in popularity poles. Are you? Only a tiny but very vocal minority disagreed - and that has not changed. Tiny? That would aptly describe the amount of people who have actually had significant experience with high end Lp playback.So it stands to reason that a tiny number would follow that prefer LP playback, if that is really true. Seems some prefer vinyl before the rig rises to the level of high end. Now if we want to talk about real tiny numbers lets talk about the number of audiophiles that have had extensive experience with high end vinyl playback and still prefer CDs. There is you.... I know a few others actually, but really, I haven't had to abandon my fingers yet in this count. *That* is a tiny number. Go figure. It is most definitely *not* a fact that vinyl *is* more 'true to life', that is simply your personal opinion. No it isn't just his opinion. It is a common opinion amoung audiophiles that are familiar with the sound of high end vinyl playback. Unfortunately that experience is rare and unfairly dismissed by many. You're just attempting to trot out the worn-out and snobbish old "if you prefer CD, that's because you've never heard top-class LP" argument, which simply doesn't wash. No that isn't what I was doing at all. i was simply pointing out that his opinion was not unique as your post semed to infer. Try to do a better job of reading my posts please so I don't have to waste time putting out burning straw men. Lots of audiophiles with extensive experience of top-class LP playback prefer CD. So says you. That being the case, That premise comes when you prove it. there's no need to search for any mechanism which causes LP to be 'more lifelike', because it simply isn't for most listeners. So why all the posturing abou the "well known euphonic distortions?" if no search has been made then the claim you have been making all this time is, well, bogus. That might explain why you dodge every one of my calls for proof. Scott Wheeler |
Threaded Mode