[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 8, 7:41=A0am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:42=3DA0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:18=3D3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

On Feb 4, 6:47=3D3DA0pm, bob wrote:
=3D3DA0And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25 years say=
ing,
"Look, CD really is technically better. It's poor CD mastering pl=
us
the euphonic distortions inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl so=
und
better"?

Why would that make a difference? The results are what they are
regardless of why. Better sound is better sound regardless of how y=
ou
get there. Would you avoid vinyl if it sounded better to you despit=
e
CD being "technically superior" and vinyl's only advantages were
euphonic distortions and better mastering?

I would prefer to avoid any medium which introduced unnecessary level=
s
of distortion.
this reply avoids the question and adds a red herring.
If some distortion sounds better, then the listener
should control it: DSP, equalizers, etc.
Why? Do you think I could or you could replicate the unique euphonic
distortions of my vinyl playback equipment or the inherent euphonic
colorations of vinyl that seems to draw audiophiles to that medium by
using DSP and equalizers?

Probably yes, for the vinyl part of it. =A0
There certainly are DSPs that attempt to emulate 'vinyl sound'. =A0
Same with 'tube sound'. I'm sure your
cartidge's and TT's distortions could be modelled, too.

So do you want to take up the challenge i put to Bob but was declined?
Lets see you take a commercial CD version of one of my prefered LPs
and using DSP duplicate the sound of that LP played back through my
vinyl playback equipment. If you can do that I concede the point.


One could even model your room, if need be.


One could even paint the exterior of my house afterward. Niether fact
is relevant to the subject though.