-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Koggit,
So legally, an analog-to-digital copy is not an exact copy, whereas a digital-to-digital copy is, theoretically, and exact copy. I'm curious to know how this has played out in the courts, or if it has been heard as an argument at all.
It's not the copying per se that has gotten end users into legal trouble, but the sharing and distribution of these files. As I understand it, transferring an LP to MP3 or uncompressed PCM for your own personal use is not illegal under the fair use clause. But, taking that MP3 file and sharing it with millions of other downloaders on a peer-to-peer network is what the RIAA and MPAA have been cracking down on. I have hundreds of MP3 files on my computer, and nearly all of it is legal because they were ripped from CDs that I already own.
Doesn't matter if it's analog-to-digital or digital-to-digital, so long as the material is copyrighted, it's still illegal to distribute that material. Even in the analog days, it was technically illegal for you to make tapes of your LPs or CDs for friends. But, the technology of that time limited people to duplicating these items one at a time, and in real time, so there wasn't all that much incentive to enforce those laws. Plus, the RIAA had negotiated a blanket royalty payment from the cassette tape manufacturers, so anytime somebody bought a blank tape, the record companies were getting a cut. Situation with downloading is very different because the technology now allows users to share thousands of files and download those files in a matter of seconds, which is why these laws that have been on the books for decades are now getting enforced.
In general, you need permission from the copyright holder anytime a copyrighted song gets broadcast, distributed, or performed in a commercial venue that charges admission. Just last week ASCAP and BMI cracked down on some local nightclubs that were playing jukebox songs without paying the annual licensing fee. This is why you'll sometimes see an ASCAP or BMI sticker near the entrance of a restaurant or nightclub -- because they've paid the fee that allows them to play copyrighted songs in a venue that charges cover.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
the RIAA had negotiated a blanket royalty payment from the cassette tape manufacturers, so anytime somebody bought a blank tape, the record companies were getting a cut.
But that fee is also applied to blank CD sales. More importantly, many CD's specifically prevent you from copying them with software and it also says this on the sleeve. It specifically says that copying the disk is a federal offense. So something still does not compute.
The other problem with this is that if a person can show that they have some copy of it (cassette, cd, vinyl, 8-track, whatever), then they have a right to have it in the mp3 format. But then why can't this same person download a free copy if they have it in another format?
I have a ton of mp3's and ogg files as well and if I didn't rip them myself, then they were downloaded, but they most certainly were files that I have on vinyl or cassette somewhere in the garage. I would bet that's the case with most people who downloaded gigabytes during the height of Napster.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
But that fee is also applied to blank CD sales. More importantly, many CD's specifically prevent you from copying them with software and it also says this on the sleeve. It specifically says that copying the disk is a federal offense. So something still does not compute.
I don't remember whether or not that blanket royalty applied to blank CD media. I just know that the original royalties were negotiated in the aftermath of the Betamax case, which legalized the use of recording devices.
I know that the DCMA law made it illegal to circumvent a digital encryption protocol like the CSS copy protection used with DVDs, but I'm not so sure how it would apply to CDs because a lot of those copy protected CDs simply make the disc unplayable on a CD-ROM drive (and there's also Sony's ill fated digital rights management scheme, which would have allowed for CD owners to rip the songs onto their own computer, but prevent those files from getting duplicated). Nothing in place that would prevent duplication of that CD using an analog output.
Like I said, there is a fair use clause in the court cases that deal with this subject, and my understanding of it is that you can make copies for your own personal use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
The other problem with this is that if a person can show that they have some copy of it (cassette, cd, vinyl, 8-track, whatever), then they have a right to have it in the mp3 format. But then why can't this same person download a free copy if they have it in another format?
I have a ton of mp3's and ogg files as well and if I didn't rip them myself, then they were downloaded, but they most certainly were files that I have on vinyl or cassette somewhere in the garage. I would bet that's the case with most people who downloaded gigabytes during the height of Napster.
I'll admit that the "illegal" downloads on my computer are mostly songs that I already own on LP or cassette. But, I don't think it matters whether you already own that title on a different format -- it's still illegal to distribute and share those files. It would not be illegal for you to make MP3s from your LPs or cassettes for your own personal use.
But contrastly, I would bet that only a small fraction of those Napster, Kazaa, Grokster, etc. users already own the music that they are downloading. I remember the big siren call to those networks was the promise of all the "free" music you could download. The majority of people using those peer-to-peer networks during Napster's heyday were under-30, and college aged (at that time, college students had much greater access to high speed networks than the rest of the population). I doubt that many of them had been collecting music long enough to have purchased a large number of LPs or cassettes.
-
It's about the basic freedom of ownership
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
I'll admit that the "illegal" downloads on my computer are mostly songs that I already own on LP or cassette. But, I don't think it matters whether you already own that title on a different format -- it's still illegal to distribute and share those files.
Therein lies the legal language, however. Downloading is not the same as distributing or sharing. While I know that many downloading programs ecouraged the sharing of files, this was not absolutely necessary and could be turned off. If the RIAA were to try and demonstrate this with audit logs, for example, I'd ask them with what authority they gathered those logs. Personally, if I got nailed for downloading, I'd haul all my records and cassetttes to the courtroom and show them that with the exception of a few files, I was in possession of the stuff on my computer.
I'm not trying to say that fighting this would be practical, but if the EFF or another organization with deep enough pockets could drag this out in court, then I think it would be a very hard case for the RIAA to win.
From what I've read and what I've seen the RIAA is strictly looking to duplicate revenue from past sales. If they had their way, we'd already be "renting" any and all music each time we listened to it. Nothing would be "owned" anymore, much like software already is. Imagine having your credit card debitted everytime you cued up your favorite LedZep album. Or what if you were charged extra for just looking at the album cover on your player?
A record collection could well become and insurance policy against whatever they try to pry from the consumers in the future. While this may not be most people's motivation to keep their record collections, there is something to be said for "holding the disk in one's hands." I already felt a sense of withdrawal when this disk shrunk to just 5" as CD's became the standard - the artwork shrunk to postcard proportions and the lyrics to unreadable size, all this while the cost went up! Now with downloadable music, what is left to hold in one's hands? I'd be willing to bet that for kids as well as those of us re-discovering vinyl, there's a newfound feeling of ownership that will play an increasingly important role in the future. And yes, they will try to take it awy from us so that they can sell it to us again at a higher price. It seems to be the only way they know hoe to make money anymore.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
Therein lies the legal language, however. Downloading is not the same as distributing or sharing. While I know that many downloading programs ecouraged the sharing of files, this was not absolutely necessary and could be turned off. If the RIAA were to try and demonstrate this with audit logs, for example, I'd ask them with what authority they gathered those logs. Personally, if I got nailed for downloading, I'd haul all my records and cassetttes to the courtroom and show them that with the exception of a few files, I was in possession of the stuff on my computer.
That's why Napster was so easy to take down once the RIAA won their court case -- because all of the downloading activity was coordinated through a centralized server and all that the RIAA had to demonstrate was that Napster's business model was built around copyright infringement. The decentralized peer-to-peer programs like Kazaa were able to partly stand up to legal scrutiny because there was no single entity that directed traffic to all of the download sites.
This led to the RIAA going after the end users, since they could not go after a single entity that was enabling the downloading activity. It doesn't really matter if all of the files on your computer were ripped from CDs that you own, the RIAA has been busting the end users for sharing the files, and the fines imposed were based on the number of files that they were sharing online. I'm sure they would love to bust the downloaders as well, but it's simply easier identify people who share their music directories online.
Similar to Napster, BitTorrent sites can get shut down quickly because BT requires a hosted tracker file and the RIAA and MPAA simply target the website operators that host those files. The recent crackdowns on BitTorrent users have focused on people sharing large numbers of files online, and since it assembles files together by communicating "one-to-many" you can't turn the file sharing function off with BitTorrent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
I'm not trying to say that fighting this would be practical, but if the EFF or another organization with deep enough pockets could drag this out in court, then I think it would be a very hard case for the RIAA to win.
Doubt that the EFF can have a total victory in this case because of laws that were passed after the Betamax case, such as the DMCA. These laws have placed new restrictions on fair use, particularly as it pertains to digital formats. Doubtful that the current Supreme Court would be motiviated to overturn those laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
From what I've read and what I've seen the RIAA is strictly looking to duplicate revenue from past sales. If they had their way, we'd already be "renting" any and all music each time we listened to it. Nothing would be "owned" anymore, much like software already is. Imagine having your credit card debitted everytime you cued up your favorite LedZep album. Or what if you were charged extra for just looking at the album cover on your player?
That's how they wanted it (and still want it), but the courts would not force the restrictions on playback devices that the industry wanted since fair use does guarantee the consumer certain use rights to the discs and tapes that they purchase.
I think that to a large degree, music is already shifting in that "rental" direction with services like Napster 2.0 and Rhapsody that charge a monthly fee for unlimited music downloading (that stops working when you cancel your service). I doubt that the debit pay-per-play model that you described will ever come to pass for music -- I mean, how much can the record labels charge for each play when iTunes charges a buck per download or Rhapsody goes for $15 a month for unlimited play and the files can be transferred to a subscription-enabled MP3 player?
So long as the industry can still make money from selling CDs, they'll keep doing it (despite the growth of iTunes downloads and subscription services, the record companies can still make more money selling entire CDs rather than downloads of individual songs). But, with all of these new digital rights management formats on the horizon, I think that downloading will become much more prominent as a revenue source for the industry. From what I've been reading, the goal is to make downloads secure and transferrable from one device to another, but still copy protected so that people can't share completely open digital files on peer-to-peer networks. I haven't read anything about going pay-per-play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
A record collection could well become and insurance policy against whatever they try to pry from the consumers in the future. While this may not be most people's motivation to keep their record collections, there is something to be said for "holding the disk in one's hands." I already felt a sense of withdrawal when this disk shrunk to just 5" as CD's became the standard - the artwork shrunk to postcard proportions and the lyrics to unreadable size, all this while the cost went up! Now with downloadable music, what is left to hold in one's hands? I'd be willing to bet that for kids as well as those of us re-discovering vinyl, there's a newfound feeling of ownership that will play an increasingly important role in the future. And yes, they will try to take it awy from us so that they can sell it to us again at a higher price. It seems to be the only way they know hoe to make money anymore.
While you and I are coming at this from a collector's mindset, I'm not so sure how applicable this would be for much of the rest of the population. Like I said earlier, the music industry is shifting towards mobility in a big way. Apple's revenue from the iPod alone was more than twice as much as the entire home audio component industry. That's just too big a dynamic to ignore, and the record companies are trying to figure out which distribution model will maximize their revenue. Based on what I've seen, teens are much more about carrying their music collection with them than about pride of ownership with a disc library at home.
Also, I don't think that the repurchasing angle is all that big a deal. The majority of music sales in any given year will come from new releases, so it's not like people will have previously owned these albums in LP or cassette format. Thinking back to the 80s, when people were dumping their LP and cassette collections in droves in favor of CDs, it's not like they were forced to do so -- they were repopulating their collections with CDs for the purported benefits that the CD format offered. The music industry is no longer in that transitional phase, and that's a big reason for their current financial problems (the introduction of the CD format was a financial boon to the recording industry because of people repurchasing their collections; but the industry should have been aware that the CD cash cow was only a short-term infusion that would end once the CD took over as the standard format).
And for all the talk of these peer-to-peer networks introducing people to new and diverse music, data from either Napster or Kazaa a few years ago found that the search patterns very closely tracked with whatever was current on the charts. A lot more people downloading those "free" Britney Spears songs than digital copies of Led Zeppelin material that might already be sitting in their LP collections.
-
OK. I think it's unanamous. Vinyl is preferred more by geeks with tons of free time on their hands and nothing more to do but to chat on "AudioReview.Com." lol.
No. Just kidding.
I don't know what it is but I prefer Vinyl too.
-
music just sounds better on vinyl to me, maybe I am naive....but it just sounds better, especially older music (Zeppelin, Moody Blues, Floyd, Jethro Tull) all sound better more than the new music, which sounds almost the same on all formats
just me though.
Listen to Meet Me Halfway by The Moody Blues : http://www.napster.com/player/tracks/12718229
-
music sounds warmer on vinyl, i like vinyl records more than cd's and alot more than some crappy 128mbps mp3's (they generally suck). but the normal group of teens like cd's more than vinyl records i guess (half my class was laughing at me cuz i prefer lp's) once, when they understand that it's the only medium that lasted from the beginning to the end of music, then, i think they start listen to vinyl records. cassette tapes, then cd's now dvd's, blu-ray,hd-dvd kinda all failed because they won't be there anymore any time soon and they just keep on making music on vinyl.
-
Snap,crackle and pop,gota love it.
-
Just for the record, I have been trying for some time to match my digital sources to the sound of my vinyl. As a matter of fact, my friends & I have a running bet on whether any digital source will ever sound as good. For some reason the TT still seems to have higher resolution than any 2-channel digital source we've tried. True, there are pops & crackles, but aside from that, it still sounds crisper, airyer, and more dynamic, no matter what components they bring over (DACs, preamps, fancy cables, etc.). Of course most of the cd players are in the under $2K range, so a higher-priced player may do it, but considering that the TT was $899, that's still impressive.
-
you can't make something sound more analogue than a vinyl record, (with analogue i mean unlimited, warmer) you simply can't since the recording of a digital medium (cd, dvd,...) is limited by the quality of the medium: cd= 16bit 44.100khz, dvd= 24bit 96khz,... and with a vinyl record u are only limited by how good you record it, which is uncompressed and so on and so forth,... and by that way, always better than a compressed sound on a digital medium.
-
You are mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by basite
you can't make something sound more analogue than a vinyl record, (with analogue i mean unlimited, warmer) you simply can't since the recording of a digital medium (cd, dvd,...) is limited by the quality of the medium: cd= 16bit 44.100khz, dvd= 24bit 96khz,... and with a vinyl record u are only limited by how good you record it, which is uncompressed and so on and so forth,... and by that way, always better than a compressed sound on a digital medium.
Vinyl has some very serious limitations, and not just the fact that it's recorded on a varible quality medium. The most obvious limitation S/N will never approach that of digital sources. Even with the best TT rigs this will never get below 70dB, while many good digital players will bang, or surpass the 100dB mark, especially with the higher sampling rates of HDCD, DVD-Audio, and SACD.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by basite
you can't make something sound more analogue than a vinyl record, (with analogue i mean unlimited, warmer) you simply can't since the recording of a digital medium (cd, dvd,...) is limited by the quality of the medium: cd= 16bit 44.100khz, dvd= 24bit 96khz,... and with a vinyl record u are only limited by how good you record it, which is uncompressed and so on and so forth,... and by that way, always better than a compressed sound on a digital medium.
As Geoffcin pointed out, vinyl has limitations with the dynamic range. While it might be theoretically possible to bump the S/N ratio above 80 db, mastering engineers are not going to cut that much information into a vinyl record simply because it would mistrack the majority of the turntables out there. All vinyl records are EQ'd and most of them have some form of compression applied. Vinyl can subjectively sound very good and better than a lot of digital transfers. But, I've never heard anybody claim that it can be completely transparent to the master source, whereas high res digital can be a bit-for-bit transcription of a digital master.
And I don't about "always better than a compressed sound on a digital medium" since vinyl can wear down, have huge variations in audio quality from copy to copy, and suffer from bad mastering jobs. Personally, I'd rather listen to a 128k MP3 than an LP with inner groove distortion.
-
And thats what completes the picture of you, at least for me. You are standard in everyway. Standard off the shelf equipment, off the shelf speakers, off the shelf setup. Absolutly nothing shows your dedication to music. Only some little talk about formats and silly surround things. I will find the article from clearaudio that measures and calculates the higher resolution and bandwith from vinyl. You just want it all on the easy path. Pop in the dic, press a button and then 10 little silicon processors do the rest and you can sit back and have 6 ordenary boxes make some noise for you. You never enjoy the quality reproduction on serious music devices. Just Standard. No love for music and no honoring of the devices and electronics which play back music the best way sonically.
-Flo
PS: And down with copying and ripping CD'S! Down with MP3 and lossless formats. Go out and buy the Record in a store and not iTunes. Get involved with music and stop all this silly downloading, ripping, converting and stealing of music.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian
And thats what completes the picture of you, at least for me. You are standard in everyway. Standard off the shelf equipment, off the shelf speakers, off the shelf setup. Absolutly nothing shows your dedication to music. Only some little talk about formats and silly surround things. I will find the article from clearaudio that measures and calculates the higher resolution and bandwith from vinyl. You just want it all on the easy path. Pop in the dic, press a button and then 10 little silicon processors do the rest and you can sit back and have 6 ordenary boxes make some noise for you. You never enjoy the quality reproduction on serious music devices. Just Standard. No love for music and no honoring of the devices and electronics which play back music the best way sonically.
-Flo
PS: And down with copying and ripping CD'S! Down with MP3 and lossless formats. Go out and buy the Record in a store and not iTunes. Get involved with music and stop all this silly downloading, ripping, converting and stealing of music.
I presume that you're addressing Geoffcin, since you claim to never read my posts?
http://forums.audioreview.com/showth...t=18126&page=4
Otherwise this latest rant is so laughably off-base, fraught with false statements and presumptions, and just childish/moronic in general, I don't even know where to begin! :lol:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
I presume that you're addressing Geoffcin, since you claim to never read my posts?
http://forums.audioreview.com/showth...t=18126&page=4
Otherwise this latest rant is so laughably off-base, fraught with false statements and presumptions, and just childish/moronic in general, I don't even know where to begin! :lol:
I bet your someone who laughes at his own jokes.
-
Actually ALL records do
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
All vinyl records are EQ'd and most of them have some form of compression applied. Vinyl can subjectively sound very good and better than a lot of digital transfers. But, I've never heard anybody claim that it can be completely transparent to the master source, whereas high res digital can be a bit-for-bit transcription of a digital master.
And I don't about "always better than a compressed sound on a digital medium" since vinyl can wear down, have huge variations in audio quality from copy to copy, and suffer from bad mastering jobs. Personally, I'd rather listen to a 128k MP3 than an LP with inner groove distortion.
Without the RIAA compression vinyl records would be incapable of producing a full range sound.
I really don't know what's got Florian in such a huff, nobody has said that vinyl can't sound good, only that it has some serious limitation.
-
Quote:
As Geoffcin pointed out, vinyl has limitations with the dynamic range.
I can take this comment from you (Geof) since you have a system that can show the difference. But i cant take this from Wooch. This is another thing i just dont like, same as his storys about Planars or Stereo etc... I simply cannot read his posts without getting upset. Because, this statement pretty much claims that the CD mendium is way above the Vinyl which it is absolutly not acoustically. Maybe Technological, but most CD's suck compared to Vinyl. But most (like Wooch) will never know that because they dont have the equipment good enough to judge and entire format.
-Flo
-
It's not because of the equpment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian
Maybe Technological, but most CD's suck compared to Vinyl.
-Flo
It's because of the choices made by the record companies when they produce them. In a recent thread there was some telling evidence givin that CD's, for the most part, have been mastered compressed and driven to the recording limits SPECFICALLY to produce the loudest volume. Also, the Eq curves used on most cd's are a blend of car/boombox. This is only changing now as more and more people rip to portable, so we can expect the Eq's to be moved toward pod phones, but NOT toward home stereo.
Vinyl has, and ALWAYS was mastered for use on a home stereo. Hence, it makes sense that it sounds GOOD on a home stereo. Small companies like Telarc, Mapleshade, and Chesky make some OUTSTANDING CD's that have been mastered & produced specifically for sound quality. When played through ANY decent home stereo they sound supurb.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
It's because of the choices made by the record companies when they produce them. In a recent thread there was some telling evidence givin that CD's, for the most part, have been mastered compressed and driven to the recording limits SPECFICALLY to produce the loudest volume. Also, the Eq curves used on most cd's are a blend of car/boombox. This is only changing now as more and more people rip to portable, so we can expect the Eq's to be moved toward pod phones, but NOT toward home stereo.
Vinyl has, and ALWAYS was mastered for use on a home stereo. Hence, it makes sense that it sounds GOOD on a home stereo. Small companies like Telarc, Mapleshade, and Chesky make some OUTSTANDING CD's that have been mastered & produced specifically for sound quality. When played through ANY decent home stereo they sound supurb.
Yes, i collect wonderfull CD's too. MA Recordings makes incredible ones, same as Deutsche Grammophon and others. My old LZ records rock much better then the EMI release on CD! :-)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian
I bet your someone who laughes at his own jokes.
And you seem to enjoy talking to yourself, since you can't possibly be responding to me if you actually ignore my posts like you say you do! :D
And if your original rant was actually meant for me and not Geoffcin, then how would you know anything about me and the music I listen to, if you don't ever read any of my posts?
The funny part is that you never even addressed any of the points that Geoffcin and I brought up. Just another laughably idiotic rant that's long on personal attacks, smears, and distortions, and woefully short on substance and factual truth.
Are you saying that LPs are not EQ'd? Are you saying that the LPs are mastered without dynamic range compression? Are you saying that LPs sound the same from copy to copy? Are you saying that you like the sound of inner groove distortion, which back in my vinyl buying days affected about one out of every 20 LPs that I purchased?
Answer me please! I could use another good laugh! :ciappa:
-
It's not at the extremes that it sounds better...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
Vinyl has some very serious limitations, and not just the fact that it's recorded on a varible quality medium. The most obvious limitation S/N will never approach that of digital sources. Even with the best TT rigs this will never get below 70dB, while many good digital players will bang, or surpass the 100dB mark, especially with the higher sampling rates of HDCD, DVD-Audio, and SACD.
I agree that the numbers don't bear it out. CD's, and especially stereo DVD-A/SACDs should sound better, but they don't on all the gear that we have tried so far. The only conclusion I've come up with is that my ears are not able to discern the higher s/n and frequency specs that digital formats are capable of. Maybe what I'm hearing is strictly within the middle/average range. But I can say that in that range, an LP sounds better. It has better seperation between the instruments, clearer soundstage, more depth, tighter bass, and for lack of a better term, more air.
I'm not saying that CD players don't sound great. I have a current setup that I am very pleased with, but if I compare the exact same recording on vinyl, it just sounds better to my ears. Last weekend I played a selection of rock, classical, and jazz that I have on both formats and the difference is easy to make out. Over the past few months I've asked my friends to bring over their players and any other components they wanted to try. While some of the combinations sounded better than my CD setup, they still were edged out by the turntable. Now, of course there are still the issues of tedious needle setup, record cleaning, vibrations, and the snaps & pops, but the sound is still better on vinyl, if you ignore those issues. I can't explain it any better than that.
-
Nightflier, I agree with you completely. From the very first CD player I bought to the worked Marantz and separate DAC I use now, vinyl simply sounds better. The better your gear the easier it is to hear the differences. I too have A B'd the same selections on vinyl and CD. The vinyl always sounds better. 12" singles really blow CD's out of the water. I have put on vinyl after playing CD's and my guests have asked if I was now playing a CD because it sounded better. All women visitors who have shown any interest in recorded sound prefer vinyl over CD including SACD and DVD-A. According to them SACD and DVD-A are better than CD but vinyl is better still.:cool:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
Without the RIAA compression vinyl records would be incapable of producing a full range sound.
I thought that some records were made without having to compress the master feed, but the RIAA equalization curve is definitely applied to all vinyl pressings. For all the claims of vinyl being pure and unprocessed, the equalization that's applied at the mastering stage and during playback seems to be a point that often gets lost. And while more dynamic range CAN get cut into a typical vinyl record, the reality is that mastering engineers have to make sure that their records are capable of tracking without a high compliance setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
I really don't know what's got Florian in such a huff, nobody has said that vinyl can't sound good, only that it has some serious limitation.
Glad to see that somebody is actually reading a post and addressing it substantively, rather than fishing for selective misinterpretations and reacting accordingly. I love my vinyl, but that doesn't mean that all of my LPs sound better than their digital equivalents. For every LP in my collection that trounces the CD version, I can just as easily find an LP that sounds worse than the CD.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian
I can take this comment from you (Geof) since you have a system that can show the difference. But i cant take this from Wooch. This is another thing i just dont like, same as his storys about Planars or Stereo etc... I simply cannot read his posts without getting upset. Because, this statement pretty much claims that the CD mendium is way above the Vinyl which it is absolutly not acoustically. Maybe Technological, but most CD's suck compared to Vinyl. But most (like Wooch) will never know that because they dont have the equipment good enough to judge and entire format.
-Flo
But, why would you get upset when you don't even read my posts? :lol:
Of course, you're lying about that, and whatever claim I presumably make that "the CD mendium is way above the Vinyl" Where do I say that? Yet another time to put up or shut up. Then again, lies coming from you are about as predictable as the sunrise and sunset.
|