| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Spread of costs..
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
From: "Michael McKelvy" and cassettes could (after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain outperformed both. My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me. Technical tests support what you think you hear, S888wheel. The dynamic range of vinyl is pretty pathetic, but its still better than say, type 2 cassette tape. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin 2004 00:13 wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin 2004 23:23 wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message Paul Dormer wrote: I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this example as it's my most used source. [CD : AMP : SPEAKERS] 1 : 6 : 12 Speakers ------ 17% Pwr Amp ------- 17% PreAmp -------- 18% CD ------------- 17% Subw ----------- 15% Pwr Conditioner ------ 8% Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for. I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math? Dormer requested a ratio. A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts & nuts in way. Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator. JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be finished. No big deal. You should stop to walk on the "cordes"... You should try to make sense. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
S888Wheel a écrit :
From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin 2004 00:13 wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin 2004 23:23 wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message Paul Dormer wrote: I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this example as it's my most used source. [CD : AMP : SPEAKERS] 1 : 6 : 12 Speakers ------ 17% Pwr Amp ------- 17% PreAmp -------- 18% CD ------------- 17% Subw ----------- 15% Pwr Conditioner ------ 8% Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for. I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math? Dormer requested a ratio. A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts & nuts in way. Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator. JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be finished. No big deal. You should stop to walk on the "cordes"... You should try to make sense. Do you know what is a corde ? ;-) |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/21/2004 11:57 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin 2004 00:13 wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin 2004 23:23 wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message Paul Dormer wrote: I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this example as it's my most used source. [CD : AMP : SPEAKERS] 1 : 6 : 12 Speakers ------ 17% Pwr Amp ------- 17% PreAmp -------- 18% CD ------------- 17% Subw ----------- 15% Pwr Conditioner ------ 8% Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for. I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math? Dormer requested a ratio. A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts & nuts in way. Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator. JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be finished. No big deal. You should stop to walk on the "cordes"... You should try to make sense. Do you know what is a corde ? ;-) Yes. Do you know what a dancing monkey is? |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
S888Wheel a écrit :
From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 11:57 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin 2004 00:13 wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin 2004 23:23 wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message Paul Dormer wrote: I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this example as it's my most used source. [CD : AMP : SPEAKERS] 1 : 6 : 12 Speakers ------ 17% Pwr Amp ------- 17% PreAmp -------- 18% CD ------------- 17% Subw ----------- 15% Pwr Conditioner ------ 8% Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for. I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math? Dormer requested a ratio. A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts & nuts in way. Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator. JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be finished. No big deal. You should stop to walk on the "cordes"... You should try to make sense. Do you know what is a corde ? ;-) Yes. Do you know what a dancing monkey is? Yes a guy like you who his begging for his ration of insults. Satisfied Part-Number ? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/22/2004 10:49 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 11:57 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin 2004 00:13 wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin 2004 23:23 wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message Paul Dormer wrote: I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this example as it's my most used source. [CD : AMP : SPEAKERS] 1 : 6 : 12 Speakers ------ 17% Pwr Amp ------- 17% PreAmp -------- 18% CD ------------- 17% Subw ----------- 15% Pwr Conditioner ------ 8% Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for. I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math? Dormer requested a ratio. A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts & nuts in way. Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator. JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be finished. No big deal. You should stop to walk on the "cordes"... You should try to make sense. Do you know what is a corde ? ;-) Yes. Do you know what a dancing monkey is? Yes a guy like you who his begging for his ration of insults. Satisfied Part-Number ? The monkey does a little Kroodance when the button is pushed. Yes, I am amused. we all have our guilty pleasures. I found some change in the sofa, is your house for sale? |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Good LP playback doesn't come cheap. It appears to be "priceless". No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP playbeack equipment. But it is worth the money to those who are interested in better sound. Not at all. No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in hearing thier favorite music at it's sonic best. If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl! Wrong. Just about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago. Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who turned to CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people who turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback. Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end vinyl is a contradiction in terms. Yeah but it is a subjective call. No, it's objective reality. Less noise, wider FR, and bigger dynamic range make it objectively better. The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription exists. If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would simply be wrong. In your opinion. I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less expensive but CD clearly sound better. They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those cassette brief cases people used to have in the car? No, still have one. When radio stations started playing CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs. Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio in their cars. I don't think it mattered. Then you'd be wrong. It was clearly obvious. Even with the compression. When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device. They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They didn't take over the market until they became portable and available for cars. LP had been around for a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette. So? So people knew what they sounded like. While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette, It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many cassettes with you. They are also more durable. Yet another selling point. and cassettes could (after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain outperformed both. My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me. Get them checked, they are obviously failing. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/22/2004 12:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Good LP playback doesn't come cheap. It appears to be "priceless". No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP playbeack equipment. But it is worth the money to those who are interested in better sound. Not at all. No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in hearing thier favorite music at it's sonic best. If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl! Wrong. Just about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago. Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who turned to CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people who turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback. Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end vinyl is a contradiction in terms. Yeah but it is a subjective call. No, it's objective reality. Less noise, wider FR, and bigger dynamic range make it objectively better. That doesn't change the fact that when comparing CDs and LPs of the same recording the preference is a subjective call. The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription exists. If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would simply be wrong. In your opinion. Yes. But my opinion is based on listening comparisons of numerous titles with a legitimate high end LP playback system. It is a much better informed opinion than most. I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less expensive but CD clearly sound better. They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those cassette brief cases people used to have in the car? No, still have one. Then you should know they are far more inconvenient than many CD carrying cases. When radio stations started playing CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs. Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio in their cars. I don't think it mattered. Then you'd be wrong. It was clearly obvious. Even with the compression. Prove that it was clearly obvious to the masses. That was your claim. When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device. They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They didn't take over the market until they became portable and available for cars. LP had been around for a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette. So? So people knew what they sounded like. Wrong. Most people knew what a crappy direct drive turntable with a less than optimally aligned MM cartridge sounded like. Very few people have ever been exposed to high end LP playback. There is a world of difference. While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette, It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many cassettes with you. They are also more durable. Yet another selling point. Yes. A selling point that had nothing to do with sound quality. That was my point. and cassettes could (after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain outperformed both. My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me. Get them checked, they are obviously failing They have been checked. If you care to make a wager we can always compare hearing acuity. Name your price. I will bet any number you name my hearing is objectively better than yours. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 12:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Good LP playback doesn't come cheap. It appears to be "priceless". No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP playbeack equipment. But it is worth the money to those who are interested in better sound. Not at all. No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in hearing thier favorite music at it's sonic best. If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl! Wrong. Just about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago. Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who turned to CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people who turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback. Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end vinyl is a contradiction in terms. Yeah but it is a subjective call. No, it's objective reality. Less noise, wider FR, and bigger dynamic range make it objectively better. That doesn't change the fact that when comparing CDs and LPs of the same recording the preference is a subjective call. The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription exists. If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would simply be wrong. In your opinion. Yes. But my opinion is based on listening comparisons of numerous titles with a legitimate high end LP playback system. It is a much better informed opinion than most. I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less expensive but CD clearly sound better. They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those cassette brief cases people used to have in the car? No, still have one. Then you should know they are far more inconvenient than many CD carrying cases. When radio stations started playing CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs. Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio in their cars. I don't think it mattered. Then you'd be wrong. It was clearly obvious. Even with the compression. Prove that it was clearly obvious to the masses. That was your claim. When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device. They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They didn't take over the market until they became portable and available for cars. LP had been around for a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette. So? So people knew what they sounded like. Wrong. Most people knew what a crappy direct drive turntable with a less than optimally aligned MM cartridge sounded like. Very few people have ever been exposed to high end LP playback. There is a world of difference. While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette, It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many cassettes with you. They are also more durable. Yet another selling point. Yes. A selling point that had nothing to do with sound quality. That was my point. and cassettes could (after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain outperformed both. My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me. Get them checked, they are obviously failing They have been checked. If you care to make a wager we can always compare hearing acuity. Name your price. I will bet any number you name my hearing is objectively better than yours. Then it must be some other part that's failing. You mentioned compression, which do you think is more compressed, LP or CD? Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/22/2004 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 12:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Good LP playback doesn't come cheap. It appears to be "priceless". No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP playbeack equipment. But it is worth the money to those who are interested in better sound. Not at all. No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in hearing thier favorite music at it's sonic best. If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl! Wrong. Just about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago. Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who turned to CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people who turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback. Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end vinyl is a contradiction in terms. Yeah but it is a subjective call. No, it's objective reality. Less noise, wider FR, and bigger dynamic range make it objectively better. That doesn't change the fact that when comparing CDs and LPs of the same recording the preference is a subjective call. No response? Figured out I am right? The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription exists. If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would simply be wrong. In your opinion. Yes. But my opinion is based on listening comparisons of numerous titles with a legitimate high end LP playback system. It is a much better informed opinion than most. I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less expensive but CD clearly sound better. They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those cassette brief cases people used to have in the car? No, still have one. Then you should know they are far more inconvenient than many CD carrying cases. When radio stations started playing CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs. Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio in their cars. I don't think it mattered. Then you'd be wrong. It was clearly obvious. Even with the compression. Prove that it was clearly obvious to the masses. That was your claim. No support for your claim noted. When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device. They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They didn't take over the market until they became portable and available for cars. LP had been around for a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette. So? So people knew what they sounded like. Wrong. Most people knew what a crappy direct drive turntable with a less than optimally aligned MM cartridge sounded like. Very few people have ever been exposed to high end LP playback. There is a world of difference. While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette, It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many cassettes with you. They are also more durable. Yet another selling point. Yes. A selling point that had nothing to do with sound quality. That was my point. and cassettes could (after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain outperformed both. My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me. Get them checked, they are obviously failing They have been checked. If you care to make a wager we can always compare hearing acuity. Name your price. I will bet any number you name my hearing is objectively better than yours. Then it must be some other part that's failing. Nope. You mentioned compression, which do you think is more compressed, LP or CD? Well that depends on the title doesn't it? Or do you believe that all CDs of any given recording are less compressed than any LP counterpart? Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. My ears are the final arbitrator for me. Are they not for you? Do you prefer measurements over actual listening? Do you choose something that sounds inferior becuase of the measurements of the medium? |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 12:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Good LP playback doesn't come cheap. It appears to be "priceless". No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP playbeack equipment. But it is worth the money to those who are interested in better sound. Not at all. No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in hearing thier favorite music at it's sonic best. If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl! Wrong. Just about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago. Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who turned to CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people who turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback. Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end vinyl is a contradiction in terms. Yeah but it is a subjective call. No, it's objective reality. Less noise, wider FR, and bigger dynamic range make it objectively better. That doesn't change the fact that when comparing CDs and LPs of the same recording the preference is a subjective call. Which is why I was specific on the reasons why CD is superior. A preference can't be wrong. Stating that your preference is better is wrong when the by objective criteria, your preference is for lower quality reprodcution. The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription exists. If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would simply be wrong. In your opinion. Yes. But my opinion is based on listening comparisons of numerous titles with a legitimate high end LP playback system. It is a much better informed opinion than most. Most of what? Many of the people here have spent long hours listening to live and recorded music on a variety of systems. The hobby is Hi-Fi. If you want to hear what was intended to be heard on the recording you listen to it on a CD. You don't take a carefully crafted recording and proceed to induce wow, flutter, speed variations, limit the fr equency response, compress and decompress, allow microphonic feedback and the host of other problems that LP's are subject to and declare them superior. You like them, fine. Objectively they are a lesser quality item. I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less expensive but CD clearly sound better. They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those cassette brief cases people used to have in the car? No, still have one. Then you should know they are far more inconvenient than many CD carrying cases. But that's not why people replaced their music library with CD's. When radio stations started playing CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs. Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio in their cars. I don't think it mattered. Then you'd be wrong. It was clearly obvious. Even with the compression. Prove that it was clearly obvious to the masses. That was your claim. Alright, I'll recant that and state it this way: I could hear with ears that are nothing special, I therefore assume that most people could hear the same improvement. When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device. They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They didn't take over the market until they became portable and available for cars. LP had been around for a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette. So? So people knew what they sounded like. Wrong. Most people knew what a crappy direct drive turntable with a less than optimally aligned MM cartridge sounded like. Direct drive is superior to a ****ing ruber band. Very few people have ever been exposed to high end LP playback. There is a world of difference. All the tedium of a cheap record player at much higher cost and inferior reproduction compared to a $100.00 CD player. Whoopdedo. While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette, It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many cassettes with you. They are also more durable. Yet another selling point. Yes. A selling point that had nothing to do with sound quality. That was my point. But the sound IS better. and cassettes could (after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain outperformed both. My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me. Get them checked, they are obviously failing They have been checked. If you care to make a wager we can always compare hearing acuity. Name your price. I will bet any number you name my hearing is objectively better than yours. Then it must be some other part that's failing. Nope. You mentioned compression, which do you think is more compressed, LP or CD? Well that depends on the title doesn't it? Not usually. Or do you believe that all CDs of any given recording are less compressed than any LP counterpart? Whatever compression might be applied to a cd recording is nothing by comparison, in general to an LP. Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. My ears are the final arbitrator for me. Are they not for you? Do you prefer measurements over actual listening? Do you choose something that sounds inferior becuase of the measurements of the medium? I like to think I can hear the objectively superior performance of a CD recording with my ears. I didn't need anything else the first time I heard one to know that it was light years away from anything available on LP. That there are clunker recordings on CD is a fact but it doesn't change the fact that a recoding done by a competent engineer will be superior on CD. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
Subject: Spread of costs..
From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 10:04 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 12:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Good LP playback doesn't come cheap. It appears to be "priceless". No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP playbeack equipment. But it is worth the money to those who are interested in better sound. Not at all. No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in hearing thier favorite music at it's sonic best. If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl! Wrong. Just about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago. Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who turned to CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people who turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback. Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end vinyl is a contradiction in terms. Yeah but it is a subjective call. No, it's objective reality. Less noise, wider FR, and bigger dynamic range make it objectively better. That doesn't change the fact that when comparing CDs and LPs of the same recording the preference is a subjective call. Which is why I was specific on the reasons why CD is superior. Doesn't matter. A preference can't be wrong. Stating that your preference is better is wrong when the by objective criteria, your preference is for lower quality reprodcution. Wrong. The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription exists. If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would simply be wrong. In your opinion. Yes. But my opinion is based on listening comparisons of numerous titles with a legitimate high end LP playback system. It is a much better informed opinion than most. Most of what? Opinions on LP vs CD playback. Duh. Many of the people here have spent long hours listening to live and recorded music on a variety of systems. That's nice. Most people who have had substantial experience comparing CD and LP playback of the same titles using a legitimate high end LP rig prefer the vinyl. The hobby is Hi-Fi. If you want to hear what was intended to be heard on the recording you listen to it on a CD. Bull****. There are some cases where a particlular CD is better than any LP version of a given title that exists on both formats. IME they are few and far between. You don't take a carefully crafted recording and proceed to induce wow, flutter, speed variations, limit the fr equency response, compress and decompress, allow microphonic feedback and the host of other problems that LP's are subject to and declare them superior. Of course not you take the time and effort to reduce those problems to near or below the threshold of audibility then listen. If the LP is superior than the CD (it usually is) then you declare it superior. You like them, fine. Objectively they are a lesser quality item. No. I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less expensive but CD clearly sound better. They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those cassette brief cases people used to have in the car? No, still have one. Then you should know they are far more inconvenient than many CD carrying cases. But that's not why people replaced their music library with CD's. When radio stations started playing CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs. Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio in their cars. I don't think it mattered. Then you'd be wrong. It was clearly obvious. Even with the compression. Prove that it was clearly obvious to the masses. That was your claim. Alright, I'll recant that and state it this way: I could hear with ears that are nothing special, I therefore assume that most people could hear the same improvement. When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device. They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They didn't take over the market until they became portable and available for cars. LP had been around for a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette. So? So people knew what they sounded like. Wrong. Most people knew what a crappy direct drive turntable with a less than optimally aligned MM cartridge sounded like. Direct drive is superior to a ****ing ruber band. Very few people have ever been exposed to high end LP playback. There is a world of difference. All the tedium of a cheap record player at much higher cost and inferior reproduction compared to a $100.00 CD player. Whoopdedo. Wrong again. While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette, It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many cassettes with you. They are also more durable. Yet another selling point. Yes. A selling point that had nothing to do with sound quality. That was my point. But the sound IS better. and cassettes could (after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain outperformed both. My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me. Get them checked, they are obviously failing They have been checked. If you care to make a wager we can always compare hearing acuity. Name your price. I will bet any number you name my hearing is objectively better than yours. Then it must be some other part that's failing. Nope. You mentioned compression, which do you think is more compressed, LP or CD? Well that depends on the title doesn't it? Not usually. Wrong again. Or do you believe that all CDs of any given recording are less compressed than any LP counterpart? Whatever compression might be applied to a cd recording is nothing by comparison, in general to an LP. Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. My ears are the final arbitrator for me. Are they not for you? Do you prefer measurements over actual listening? Do you choose something that sounds inferior becuase of the measurements of the medium? I like to think I can hear the objectively superior performance of a CD recording with my ears. I didn't need anything else the first time I heard one to know that it was light years away from anything available on LP. That there are clunker recordings on CD is a fact but it doesn't change the fact that a recoding done by a competent engineer will be superior on CD. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
Michael McKelvy a écrit :
Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. Michael, S888Wheel statement cannot be disassembled until you can afford yourself his turntable with his arm with his cartridge with his listening room with his... drinking his beer. His challenge isn't Hifi or music... He is only challenging you, RAO and RAHE contributors to buy the same equipment than him. S888Wheel is like a peacock instead of exhibiting his plumes he exhibits his audio system. Since the "awesome day" (lol) he has witnesses of his system reality. It is *VERY* important to have witnesses if like him you love to speak about your audio system. Note that if you try to criticize his behaviour you are accused of "class envy". He has built a kind of bunker around him and his audio system. Normal this is his reason of life. ;-) |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
S888Wheel a écrit :
From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/22/2004 11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Michael McKelvy a écrit : Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. Michael, S888Wheel statement cannot be disassembled until you can afford yourself his turntable with his arm with his cartridge with his listening room with his... drinking his beer. Lionel and his class envy. Sad S888Wheel and his programed answers, too funny. His challenge isn't Hifi or music... He is only challenging you, RAO and RAHE contributors to buy the same equipment than him. Lionel and his stupidity. Sad. I just repeat what you use to write day after day. S888Wheel is like a peacock instead of exhibiting his plumes he exhibits his audio system. Class envy again. Pathetic. Your desires don't fit reality ? Yes you are pathetic. Since the "awesome day" (lol) he has witnesses of his system reality. It is *VERY* important to have witnesses if like him you love to speak about your audio system. Amazing how Lionel can get so wound up about his poverty. You could always get off your ass and away from your computer and take a stab at earing more money instead of whinning about others earning more money. Poverty. In your mounth this sound like an insult. I am not poor and not envious, this is why you enrage. Note that if you try to criticize his behaviour you are accused of "class envy". Calling a spade a spade. You are grotesque now. He has built a kind of bunker around him and his audio system. Normal this is his reason of life. ;-) Now you are just fantasizing. Was this your defense mechanism against the terror of your father's late night visits? ;-) The above is S888Wheel ultimate argument, his powerful weapon... What a loser ! |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| How many months? | Audio Opinions | |||
| Oh, brother. Here we go again... | Audio Opinions | |||
| John Mellencamp Attacks President Bush In Open Letter | Audio Opinions | |||
| O.T. Grocery clerks strike | Audio Opinions | |||
Hybrid Mode
