Re: (TV) cds vs. vinyl / an objective view

[OwenGwilliam@cs.com]

In a message dated 2/1/2002 5:13:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
wesyang@yahoo.com writes:


> Vinyl, and analog recording in general, just sounds better. This is not
> faddism, snobbery, being set in old ways, clinging to anachronism. It's not
> even a matter of taste.
> 
> It's just the truth.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 

Lighten up, Francis. :-)

Personally, I'm not one who's very picky on the subject. I prefer CDs 
strictly for convenience (I can play 'em in the car, for instance), but in 
general I confess that it doesn't really matter a lot to me. If I can hear 
the music clearly, I'm good. My stereo isn't top end (although it's not junk 
either), so I may be missing something. Heck, if I really sat down and paid 
close attention, I might have the same preference you do.

Bottom line ... I don't actually care about which one is "better".

However, all that being said ... of course it's "a matter of taste". What 
else can it be? how can "sounds better" be considered "truth" or "objective"?

It most certainly can sound better to you, and it can sound better to a lot 
of people, and it can even be the common consensus, but "sounds better" is a 
preference, not "truth".

I think Tom Verlaine is a better songwriter than Barry Manilow, and I'm sure 
everyone on the list (and pretty much every rock critic) would agree. But 
it's not "truth" or "objective". It's a matter of taste.

To quote Frank Zappa ... "If it sounds GOOD to YOU, it's bitchen; and if it 
sounds BAD to YOU, it's shitty. "

       -- Owen

Owen Gwilliam
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/otg
http://shadowy.brainiac.com (The Shadowy Site On A Shadowy Web)

"Thank you for coming to the concert ... you don't call, you don't write, but 
you look good ..."
    -- Tom Waits addressing the crowd at a 1999 Vancouver concert
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"