Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 02:06:04 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:

"Gary Rosen" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...


But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs
made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact
many, better than the CD version. Go figure.

I figure you've never done a blind test. Of course, you can't really
do a blind test with CD vs. LP since there is always surface noise
to let you know it's an LP.

No, not really. With a good record and record player, the surface
noise can
easily be below level of tape hiss of the master from which the 2
sources
were made.

Utter rubbish.


Utter rubbish to your utter rubbish.


I have many 'audiophile' LPs, and master tape noise is
*always* lower than record surface noise.


Then you must be using damaged records. Otherwise this is complete
nonsense or you have a unique selection of "audiophile" LPs or, again
your LPs are just wrecked by mistracking or poor cleaning methods.

Are you claiming that an LP being played in any place other than a
clean room can possibly be 100% free of dust and particles?


No. Are you suggesting that this is the only way to maintain a high
level of integrity of the condition of LPs?



And
shouldn't audiophiles, with their superior discernment and perception,
be able to hear that being tracked by the stylus?



If the record is clean before it hits the turntable the answer is
basically no.












Scott Wheeler