| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: your preference is based on artifacts *added* by vinyl. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Same applies to Jenn. Once again, an objectivist shows he cannot repeat my description of analog. Do not confuse 'cannot' with 'will not'. Of course. You willfully ignore what other people say about their experience when you don't know how to explain it. First of all, drop "vinyl" from your statement--it is all analog. That is a ludicrous statement, as it would include cassette and AM radio. I have yet to hear any serious audiphile argue that these are superior to CD. At the other extreme, I seriously doubt that you have ever heard a 30ips studio master. Another one of your opinions formed with no good evidence? I have heard it. Second, no recording matches the qualities of live music, including the initimate connection to the musician's intentions that is possible--but analog, for my ears (and apparently for Jenn's) gets closer. Choosing analogies such as "whiter than white" demonstrates that you don't understand this basic experience. No, choosing such an analogy demonstrates that you missed the point. It is my belief that your opinion is based on a 'technicolor' vision of reality, which seems to you more real than the paler colours of the real thing. Well, that would be easy to check. For example, do I think that the "real thing" has paler colors? Do I think that analog has "brighter" colors? Nope. A fact about my experience which you *must* ignore since it doesn't fit your analogy. Amateur musicians such as myself and even more so professional musicians such as Jenn are aware that music exists as a balance of qualties. Oh please, enough with the pretension! I've been a regular concert-goer for forty years, and my musical appreciation is certainly a match for many musicians. OTOH, as a long-term audiophile, my sense of the *fidelity* of a reproduced musical event is certainly more acute than that of most of the professional musicians of my acquaintance. What you fail to understand is that different people are listening to different things. It is perfectly possible that you have a highly developed sense of "fidelity," while at the same time other people have a highly developed sense of fidelity which doesn't intersect yours in many areas. I have never disputed that digital recordings have a higher sense of fidelity to you; I only point out that you refuse to accept that analog recordings have a higher sense of fidelity to others---that in fact, you always change their language into something that implies distortion rather than fidelity. In point of fact, musos are *notorious* for their poor hi-fi rigs, since they are generally listening on a different plane. The only distortion mechanisms you've ever proposed, if they were the cause of this vinyl preference, would *upset*, not *preserve* these balances. No, as mentioned ad nauseam, they are *euphonic* distortions. You have never proposed a distortion mechanism that would preserve the musician's intentions, and yet that is how I (and apparently Jenn) experience analog. You have absolutely no idea what were the intentions of the musician. Yet another declaration on your part with no evidence to support it. I've heard digital and analog recordings of halls which I attended live, and knew the musicians well, for starters. Mike |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| HDTV in heaven | Car Audio | |||
| *Thank Heaven For Arnie Kroo* | Audio Opinions | |||
Threaded Mode