-
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic
Yesterday I was in Borders buying some books. The "kid" behind the counter was looking up a book about Jackie Kennedy Onasis in his computer terminal for my sister. He had never heard of her. Or Jack Benny. Or Kim Novak. Or Jane Mansfield. The JFK era was to him the way the Civil War was to me when I was in school, ancient history. He had never seen a vinyl phonograph record, or a turntable in his life, only heard about them. He mentioned that he read that some audiophiles think they sound better than compact discs. He was neither stupid nor uneducated. He was a 19 year old computer geek type who is studying for a degree in computer engineering. I felt very old.
I hear reel to reel is on the comeback. :D
-
Not that Vinyl is dead, that music listening may be dead...
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic
Yesterday I was in Borders buying some books. The "kid" behind the counter was looking up a book about Jackie Kennedy Onasis in his computer terminal for my sister. He had never heard of her. Or Jack Benny. Or Kim Novak. Or Jane Mansfield. The JFK era was to him the way the Civil War was to me when I was in school, ancient history. He had never seen a vinyl phonograph record, or a turntable in his life, only heard about them. He mentioned that he read that some audiophiles think they sound better than compact discs. He was neither stupid nor uneducated. He was a 19 year old computer geek type who is studying for a degree in computer engineering. I felt very old.
I think that this is an example of how "geek culture" has really come to over take how current generations and future music listening generations are appreciating music.
Its not about you being or feeling old. Its about how kids nowadays with iPods and iTunes, Sony Connect, ATRAC this, MP3 that, AFLAC this, OooG that and whatever to listen to music.
Its also incredibly hard to think the kid hasn't seen a record, either at a second hadn store or at least in PICTURES. He may be BS-ing you to MAKE you feel old and "unhip" in the corporate sense of the word...
And an educated kid that doesn't know about records at least, MAY BE uneducated in a way.
But this is not his fault completely, he's still responsible to EDUCATING himself on things. But also on companies like Apple and a few of the big record companies that promote the computer way of listening of music.
I think is the worst way to appreciate and enjoy serious music listening. Its the lazy way and distracting way. Some people get into the fascination of the computer rather than the music.
Much like computers and software, computer companies taking over the production of music. It makes the people making the music trip to much on the latest "Macs" or the latest "Protools".
-
That kid is living a sheltered life
Has he never gone clubbing? What does he think DJ's mix with? Sure some use CDs, but no club worth their weight in alcohol would do w/o turntables.
-
Cut the mythology, RGA!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
You don't get more dynamic range with cd - what you get is cd manufacturers who changed the definition of dynamic range to suit a marketing campaign. CD's have Quantizing noise "an artifact of the analog to digital coversion process. If all were perfect that noise would be down where the last binary digit is. The noise figure would then be expressed by the formula:
20 log(2b-1) where b is the number of system bits. Most modern systems use 16 bits (but throw one bit away on the parity check), and so:
20 log(215 - 1) = 90.3db
Now a dynamic range over 90db is nough to make a recording engineer drool, but don't drool yet. That figure relates to the peak-to-peak value of the audio signal, rather than the usual root mean square voltage value. To convert you subtract the following from the noise value:
20 log (2 X Square root of 2) = 9.03db.
As you'll notice our dynamic range is now down to 81db. And you can't record at that level because the digital "ceiling" is far harder and more awful than that of analogdisc or tape. It would be a good idea to knock 8db off that figure. Total usable dynamic range : 73db even under ideal conditions. This isn't earth-shaking. A good analog recorder (12.5cm stereo, 76cm/sec) can boast dynamic range of some 74dB. Add dolby or dbx and ther's no comparison. Incidentally, all these figures refer to unweighted noise readings, treating noises of all frequencies equally. Weighting curves are often used by both sides to make the specs look prettier." (Paul Bergman).
Paul Bergman clearly didn't know what he was talking about. My advice is not to get your technical information from that rag, UHF.
Aside from all the other crap, he has evidently not heard of dither. With a little dither, CD players can have good linearity down to below -110 dB, which should be impossible, according to Bergman. If you had read some good reviews, you'd know that. Look at the low level linearity measurements for different players. Here's a link to a review of an old Radio Shack portable CD player in Stereophile in 1994. Check out the low level linearity graph in Figure 5, which shows its linearity was pretty good even a -100 dB (and this player is nothing special).
http://stereophile.com/digitalsource...0/index12.html
Others have reasonable linearity down to below -110 dB, as with this SimAudio product (Stereophile doesn't seem to review many reasonably priced CDPs!):
http://stereophile.com/digitalsource...io/index4.html
So much for the myth that CDs don't have more dynamic range than analog tapes!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat D
Paul Bergman clearly didn't know what he was talking about. My advice is not to get your technical information from that rag, UHF.
Aside from all the other crap, he has evidently not heard of dither. With a little dither, CD players can have good linearity down to below -110 dB, which should be impossible, according to Bergman. If you had read some good reviews, you'd know that. Look at the low level linearity measurements for different players. Here's a link to a review of an old Radio Shack portable CD player in Stereophile in 1994. Check out the low level linearity graph in Figure 5, which shows its linearity was pretty good even a -100 dB (and this player is nothing special).
http://stereophile.com/digitalsource...0/index12.html
Others have reasonable linearity down to below -110 dB, as with this SimAudio product (Stereophile doesn't seem to review many reasonably priced CDPs!):
http://stereophile.com/digitalsource...io/index4.html
So much for the myth that CDs don't have more dynamic range than analog tapes!!
Thank you for this. Anyone who says that CD does not have a greater dynamic range than vinyl, is either dreaming, delusional, or totally uneducated in digital audio.
-
[QUOTE=rb122]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mash
The thing about CD's is that they lack INVOLVEMENT !
Yes, the CD's lack of musical involvement is one of my complaints. For all the technical measurements that show CD's superiority, it just doesn't happen when the music hits the speakers.
Some CD lack involvement, not all of them. Some CD sound wonderful, others are terrible. Some LP sound wonderful, others sound awful. These comparisons should be done on a case by case basis, not as a format as a whole.
-
Paul bergman writes on that as well -- get the book.
This guy is using a pretyt low grade turntable in the Rega P3 and still gets pretty decent results. It would be nice if he used a listenable turntable arm and cart -- but I guess we all have budgets.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...CDformats2.php
Also is there a reason to be dredging up uear old threads -- my last post here was in 2004? Do you have to go this far back just to "try" and be righht about something? Get a life people -- who really cares -- if you value music over gear then some stuff is only available on vinyl and regardless to whether something si 2db more of something or less if you want to hear the album you need to have both formats.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Paul bergman writes on that as well -- get the book.
This guy is using a pretyt low grade turntable in the Rega P3 and still gets pretty decent results. It would be nice if he used a listenable turntable arm and cart -- but I guess we all have budgets.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...CDformats2.php
Also is there a reason to be dredging up uear old threads -- my last post here was in 2004? Do you have to go this far back just to "try" and be righht about something? Get a life people -- who really cares -- if you value music over gear then some stuff is only available on vinyl and regardless to whether something si 2db more of something or less if you want to hear the album you need to have both formats.
I think its rather easy to stack analog up to the lowest end of digital audio, but how does it stand up again DVD-A or SACD. Both of them have noise floors that LP cannot even come close to. Both have dynamic range far in excess to LP, and both have frequency extension much greater than LP. Even with SACD relatively high noise floor above 20
khz(a result of using noise shaping) it still exceeds LP by a fairly wide margin.
It looks like when the CD exceeded the performance of LP he minimized it, and where LP could compare, he emphasized that. That is not what I would call objective. The bottom line is this, if you took a recording that was prepared directly for CD using good recording and mastering equipment, and high quality D/A stages, the LP simply could not keep up with CD. I would seriously question the quality of his sources.
-
A quick shot and away!
Specs are nice but all that matters in the end is the sound. On the basis of sound, in general, I prefer the sound of analog vinyl.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by risabet
Specs are nice but all that matters in the end is the sound. On the basis of sound, in general, I prefer the sound of analog vinyl.
So why compare if emotion is going to be the standard instead of science? I also wonder if two channel vinyl lovers have heard enough multichannel hi rez audio to make a real comparison, or are they bound emotionally to the vinyl disc. I suspect the latter is the case most of the time, and no matter how good multichannel digital audio gets, they will hold on their discs. .
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
So why compare if emotion is going to be the standard instead of science? I also wonder if two channel vinyl lovers have heard enough multichannel hi rez audio to make a real comparison, or are they bound emotionally to the vinyl disc. I suspect the latter is the case most of the time, and no matter how good multichannel digital audio gets, they will hold on their discs. .
Good question! Better to simply enjoy what you love than worry about comparisons.
This two channel vinyl lover has not heard enough multichannel high rez audio but much of what he's heard so far is very good. I can't compare at this point because I haven't heard enough. It's a little spotty but then again, so was the LP. Some were good, some not so good.
Yes, I will hold onto my LP's. Quite honestly, it is my fervent hope that sometime in the future I hold onto them because of either nostalgia or their value on the secondary market, not because their sound is superior. I think those days are coming and, in fact, they may already be here waiting for me to make the leap into multichannel.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Paul bergman writes on that as well -- get the book.
This guy is using a pretyt low grade turntable in the Rega P3 and still gets pretty decent results. It would be nice if he used a listenable turntable arm and cart -- but I guess we all have budgets.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...CDformats2.php
Also is there a reason to be dredging up uear old threads -- my last post here was in 2004? Do you have to go this far back just to "try" and be righht about something? Get a life people -- who really cares -- if you value music over gear then some stuff is only available on vinyl and regardless to whether something si 2db more of something or less if you want to hear the album you need to have both formats.
Is this a dig against my TT? Well, it is quiet, has low wow and flutter (inaudible to me), a very fine tone arm, and Rega has an excellent reputation. So does my Grace F9E cartridge. Just ask Hifitommy.
Now, about the reply: blame the software for the site, as when I looked at the browse list for the threads, the thread came up bold as having a new reply and your old post came up as the last! So I read it and replied. I didn't notice the date, not something I usually look for.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
Good question! Better to simply enjoy what you love than worry about comparisons.
This is smart, especially since any comparison made between the two HAS to be done on a scientific basis, not just emotion
Quote:
This two channel vinyl lover has not heard enough multichannel high rez audio but much of what he's heard so far is very good. I can't compare at this point because I haven't heard enough. It's a little spotty but then again, so was the LP. Some were good, some not so good.
I have a VERY strong suspicion that this is true for most two channel folks. However I feel that many two channel folks have such a strong emotional tie to their collections, that even considering digital is too much for them. I think because of this tie, they would rather critisize digital, rather than actually listening to it(I mean very good examples of it) and coming to a NON emotional conclusion. I have heard analog recording, and digital ones that have moved me. It has always been on a recording by recording basis, not format wide. I am of the opinion that two channel folks love the distortions the format creates, rather than loving the format itself. A good SACD recording has all the benefits of both formats wrap up in one. It sounds pretty close to very quiet analog, without all of the drawbacks of both digital and analog.
Quote:
Yes, I will hold onto my LP's. Quite honestly, it is my fervent hope that sometime in the future I hold onto them because of either nostalgia or their value on the secondary market, not because their sound is superior. I think those days are coming and, in fact, they may already be here waiting for me to make the leap into multichannel.
This is the most rational statement from a two channel guy I have ever read on this forum. Genius!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
A good SACD recording has all the benefits of both formats wrap up in one. It sounds pretty close to very quiet analog, without all of the drawbacks of both digital and analog.
!
I do own and play SACD's - just not of the multichannel variety. Reason? Only two speakers! I have already made plans to move into multichannel but have to wait until finances permit. I've heard enough to believe that when it's done properly, it's outstanding. I agree that SACD is phenomenal. HF's sound much more natural and not rolled off like they do on vinyl. They have the smoothness of vinyl and the extension of RBCD. Hard not to like 'em! I think most people thought that eventually digital would be done right and therefore overtake vinyl.
As for being "rational", while I appreciate your comment, I must point out to folks such as Pat D and FLZapped that Sir Terrence was commenting on a single post of mine, not describing me as rational overall. :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat D
Is this a dig against my TT? Well, it is quiet, has low wow and flutter (inaudible to me), a very fine tone arm, and Rega has an excellent reputation. So does my Grace F9E cartridge. Just ask Hifitommy.
Now, about the reply: blame the software for the site, as when I looked at the browse list for the threads, the thread came up bold as having a new reply and your old post came up as the last! So I read it and replied. I didn't notice the date, not something I usually look for.
Well why would I make a dig at your turntable since I do not pay a helluva lot of attention to other people's system -- you don;t have it listed in your sig line and that's usually as far as I go.
And incidentally my NAD is a Rega turntable and even LOWER than the P3. Good for the money yes -- great tables they ain't.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I think its rather easy to stack analog up to the lowest end of digital audio, but how does it stand up again DVD-A or SACD. Both of them have noise floors that LP cannot even come close to. Both have dynamic range far in excess to LP, and both have frequency extension much greater than LP. Even with SACD relatively high noise floor above 20
khz(a result of using noise shaping) it still exceeds LP by a fairly wide margin.
It looks like when the CD exceeded the performance of LP he minimized it, and where LP could compare, he emphasized that. That is not what I would call objective. The bottom line is this, if you took a recording that was prepared directly for CD using good recording and mastering equipment, and high quality D/A stages, the LP simply could not keep up with CD. I would seriously question the quality of his sources.
Well I would question his turntable as a source with Rega -- I have one btw but it happens to have a differnet name on the badge but it's a middle of the road turntable maker in the big scheme of things. The article is comparing CD to LP and it makes no excuses for it.
You want to bring in DVD-A and SACD that is something else but then enters the discussion on what you can ACTUALLY hear. I have not been convinced by a single SACD disc I've heard and I have yet to hear DVD-A because no one here has one set-up. The big two chains in my Province carry at best 50 titles (and this is a very very generous number. I'll wait till they can convince me it sounds good. After listening to some digital amplifiers that have been hyped to the hilt I am suspicious of another plot to remove people from their cash to have something cool.
UHF covers the issues such as dithering but I can't type up the entire chapter. I think ti is balanced as they are not totally for ONE of the two. If it's about the music you need both -- if it's about the gear then do whatever you want. And if it's about the argument then you'll have people who will stroke your ego -- see PatD. I could really care less -- Turntables have such a high pain the ass factor that I don't blame anyone who buiys a 300 disc mega changer (I did) and I enjoy it too. OTOH turntables can be fun tweakery for those so inclined. And if some misguided, in your eyes, indivuals enjoy listening to vinyl more becuase they subjectively hear more bass smoother treble and more dynamics then oh my the skies are going to fall...NOT.
I have both a DAC and turntable upgrade in my future...and if SACD ever shows me it sounds right then I will be in line for one of those -- but so far the music offerred isn't compelling me to make the leap. I'd probably have to buy a revceiver to run the surround and that alone would destroy "for me" any gain int he source.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Well I would question his turntable as a source with Rega -- I have one btw but it happens to have a differnet name on the badge but it's a middle of the road turntable maker in the big scheme of things. The article is comparing CD to LP and it makes no excuses for it.
As I have said earlier, it is easy to compare LP to CD, it would be much more difficult to compare good DVD-A amd SACD to LP, especially SACD.
Quote:
You want to bring in DVD-A and SACD that is something else but then enters the discussion on what you can ACTUALLY hear.
I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to high frequency extension? That would be irelevant, its what you can hear right in the primary frequencies we can hear in that I am referring to. SACD has all of the clarity, low noise of digital, but the feel and sound of analog.
Quote:
I have not been convinced by a single SACD disc I've heard and I have yet to hear DVD-A because no one here has one set-up. The big two chains in my Province carry at best 50 titles (and this is a very very generous number. I'll wait till they can convince me it sounds good.
I am not sure that most vinyl lover can be convinced. I don't think you guys really want to be. Your emotional tie to that vinyl disc may tough to overcome. There is too much good SACD out there for you not to have been convinced.
Quote:
UHF covers the issues such as dithering but I can't type up the entire chapter. I think ti is balanced as they are not totally for ONE of the two.
Dither is not necesary with SACD, and I think that is why it tends to sound better to me than DVD-A. Dither is a band aid, and IMO it tends to cloud and de-focus the sound. In many cases its not necessary at all, the noise from the microphones, and mixer ought to be random enough to eliminate the need for dither. Tony Faulkner advocates not using dither during downconversions and his work sounds excellent.
Quote:
If it's about the music you need both -- if it's about the gear then do whatever you want. And if it's about the argument then you'll have people who will stroke your ego -- see PatD. I could really care less -- Turntables have such a high pain the ass factor that I don't blame anyone who buiys a 300 disc mega changer (I did) and I enjoy it too. OTOH turntables can be fun tweakery for those so inclined. And if some misguided, in your eyes, indivuals enjoy listening to vinyl more becuase they subjectively hear more bass smoother treble and more dynamics then oh my the skies are going to fall...NOT.
Actually I don't think they are misguided at all. What I think is that they are so attached to the format/disc, that it keeps them from making any subjective opinion period.
Turntables are a pain in the ass, so is maintaining vinyl.
Different strokes for different folks!
Quote:
I have both a DAC and turntable upgrade in my future...and if SACD ever shows me it sounds right then I will be in line for one of those -- but so far the music offerred isn't compelling me to make the leap. I'd probably have to buy a revceiver to run the surround and that alone would destroy "for me" any gain int he source.
Can't understand why in the heck you would invest in another DAC, but to each his own. If you think receiver will destroy any improvement SACD would make, then I am sorry that you are not well informed. SACD bypasses all the receivers internal DAC's, bass and treble controls, delay, and any other circuitry in the chain. As pure as you can get, so how can it destroy any gain in the source? Please enlighten me.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
So why compare if emotion is going to be the standard instead of science? I also wonder if two channel vinyl lovers have heard enough multichannel hi rez audio to make a real comparison, or are they bound emotionally to the vinyl disc. I suspect the latter is the case most of the time, and no matter how good multichannel digital audio gets, they will hold on their discs. .
I haven't heard enough multi to make a valid comparison in my own system. What I have heard, at good dealers through good systems is that both SACD and DVD-Audio are both "better" sounding (more like analog) than RBCD. The emotion you refer to is towards the music IMO, not towards the delivery system. I'd love to ditch the big 12" albums, record cleanig machine, freakin' expensive cartridges, fussy TT's, etc, for a simple little disc. Emotional atttachment to vinyl indeed!
-
I grew up on CD and have no attachment to retaining vinyl - they're big take up too much space and are a pain -- but they sound better on good systems -- which rules out most systems I've heard. I have owned the top end Pioneer Elite Receiver and I own a basic one still - bypassing the DAC of the revceiver isn't the only problem with receiver's sound -- unless you worship the DBT Gods in which case all amps sound perfect.
Thanks there are a vast number of people who came and saw and heard SACD -- I heard the big Demo done by the brass at sony on a complete Martin Logan Bryston system with acoustic treatments decked out to the nines -- the store was CLOSED fot the event. It was neat -- didn;t sound remotely like a live event -- sorry but instruments at the symphony simply DO NOT sound like that from the rear. It may be cool and fascinating and one may even like it -- but IMO it's another gimmick -- and the person who started this thread who argues with me all the time on this AGREES. SACD is a sorry excuse for a surround medium more channels done badly isn't better than two done well no matter how you wish to slice it. But it makes no never mind to me -- if you like it better that is great and if most people like it better that is great -- after all for years they;ve been putting those Hall, Rock, Church, Dance DSp modes on receivers and so people must like listening to the Beatles in Church mode and Beethoven in Dance mode...give the people what they want. iPods and church DSP in a big colourful box with a remote that can control your cofee maker.
I make no judjements because I've bought into this stuff myself -- but I recognize it for what it is -- gimmicky toys not BETTER advances to music reproduction just because Sony says so. After all CD is perfect sound forever.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I grew up on CD and have no attachment to retaining vinyl - they're big take up too much space and are a pain -- but they sound better on good systems -- which rules out most systems I've heard. I have owned the top end Pioneer Elite Receiver and I own a basic one still - bypassing the DAC of the revceiver isn't the only problem with receiver's sound -- unless you worship the DBT Gods in which case all amps sound perfect.
Oh brother, here's RGA on yet another one-size-fits all soapbox ready-fire-aim tirade.
Vinyl is one of those classic cases where you cannot speak to the medium without knowing something about the individual recordings. Are you saying that "they sound better on good systems" ALWAYS? Given the extreme variation that exists between recordings and even between individual pressings, I can point to plenty of examples where the vinyl sounds like crap and the best turntable rig in the world won't save it. And just as easily, I can point to examples of vinyl that sound better than every digital version that's come along.
Who gives a crap about that Pioneer Elite receiver you owned? That thing was a Pro Logic unit, with no DD or DTS decoding, no discrete 5.1 sources, and primitive bass management at best. And that Marantz that you currently use still had only two-speakers hooked up to it the last time I checked (and didn't you buy that thing basically to serve as a headphone amp?). Yeah, that makes you a multichannel expert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Thanks there are a vast number of people who came and saw and heard SACD -- I heard the big Demo done by the brass at sony on a complete Martin Logan Bryston system with acoustic treatments decked out to the nines -- the store was CLOSED fot the event. It was neat -- didn;t sound remotely like a live event -- sorry but instruments at the symphony simply DO NOT sound like that from the rear.
And what location were you sitting in during this demo, how were the speakers arranged (in the ITU reference arrangement or some position designed to diffuse the surround effect with movies?), and were those speakers used in the demo all identical? Doesn't matter who's setting the thing up, you need to know for yourself whether the multichannel setup was done properly. Judging by this and your past posts, you still haven't figured that out yet.
And I was at a symphony hall just a few weeks ago, and the music didn't sound like the whole thing was limited to the front soundstage either. You go into a live venue, you experience sound in three-dimensions -- behind you, and all around you. No two-channel system I've ever heard can adequately mimic that kind of experience.
And with whatever recording you hear, the perspective will vary depending on whether the engineer wants to put you onto the stage with the conductor, in the middle of the symphony hall, or whatever location is desired on the recording. Chesky's 2/4/6 disc of Swing Live is recorded from the perspective of a seat in the middle of small jazz club in NYC. As good as the two-channel mix is on that disc, the multichannel version conveys the tightness of that space and the crowd perspective in a way that the two-channel version is simply incapable of.
I just got the 5.1 DVD-A of Telarc's 1999 re-recording of the 1812 Overture and the liner notes specifically indicate that the recording perspective of that recording is with the orchestra at an arc in front of you (much like the conductor's position at the podium). Given that you've never conducted a symphony orchestra, you wouldn't know squat about what the live event is supposed to sound like from that location.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
It may be cool and fascinating and one may even like it -- but IMO it's another gimmick -- and the person who started this thread who argues with me all the time on this AGREES. SACD is a sorry excuse for a surround medium more channels done badly isn't better than two done well no matter how you wish to slice it.
SACD's a "sorry excuse for a surround medium"? So, I guess that makes it even sorrier as a two-channel carrier, right? And if SACD's a "sorry excuse" what does that make the CD? Are you attacking multichannel or are you attacking the medium or are you just firing in all directions without a clue as to what you're aiming at?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
But it makes no never mind to me -- if you like it better that is great and if most people like it better that is great -- after all for years they;ve been putting those Hall, Rock, Church, Dance DSp modes on receivers and so people must like listening to the Beatles in Church mode and Beethoven in Dance mode...give the people what they want. iPods and church DSP in a big colourful box with a remote that can control your cofee maker.
Another false argument. Discrete 5.1 done properly is NOTHING like the gimmicky DSP modes that you're alluding to. If you think that 5.1 is no better than DSP modes, then you frankly have no clue what you're talking about. And why don't you tell us about the last 5.1 setup that you've actually done yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I make no judjements because I've bought into this stuff myself -- but I recognize it for what it is -- gimmicky toys not BETTER advances to music reproduction just because Sony says so. After all CD is perfect sound forever.
This whole post is all about "judjgements" and your adherence to two-channel, and willingness to distort the merits of multichannel to suit that preference.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Well why would I make a dig at your turntable since I do not pay a helluva lot of attention to other people's system -- you don;t have it listed in your sig line and that's usually as far as I go.
And incidentally my NAD is a Rega turntable and even LOWER than the P3. Good for the money yes -- great tables they ain't.
How would you know?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Oh brother, here's RGA on yet another one-size-fits all soapbox ready-fire-aim tirade.
Vinyl is one of those classic cases where you cannot speak to the medium without knowing something about the individual recordings. Are you saying that "they sound better on good systems" ALWAYS?
I stopped reading your post here -- I'm tired of the straw man. We have discussed this in the past and you know very well that isn't what i said or for that matter even imply.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat D
How would you know?
Well NAD doesn't hide the fact that they contract through REGA. And the other point is that I've heard the P3 with their arm and their top cart. Soundhounds is the Biggest Rega Dealer in North America. They're not bad -- good for the money -- but they carry a lot better.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I stopped reading your post here -- I'm tired of the straw man. We have discussed this in the past and you know very well that isn't what i said or for that matter even imply.
Hardly a strawman at all. Your views on vinyl have shifted more than the San Andreas fault, so how's anyone to know what your current stance is?
If you don't like your posts on SACD and multichannel called out for the gross distortions and exaggerations that they contain, then I suppose it was wise for you to stop reading. Too bad, now it'll be just a matter of time before more erroneous posts on this topic pop up.
|