From: "Casey, Leo J" <CaseyL@VOLPE.DOT.GOV>
Reply-To: tv@obbard.com
To: tv@obbard.com
Subject: (TV) cds vs. vinyl / probably all subjective
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:58:09 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip P. Obbard
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:43 AM
To: tv@obbard.com
Subject: Re: (TV) Kidding/ Artificial Shortage?
>vinyl superiority of the 1992 Television
>recording over the cd version was just
>thrown to be semi-humorous..
>..but I thought you were serious on this point!
>If you think the vinyl of TELEVISION sounds better
>then you're being wowed over by the hum of your
>turntable or the phono preamp in your receiver.
Philip, I said "*semi*-humorous". I am kind of
reluctant to open this can of worms (i.e., sound
of vinyl versus cd). Wasn't this discussed to
death once or twice before on the MM list?--maybe
it was discussed off list. But since you've
thrown down the gauntlet I'll just offer a couple
of points.
Neither my turntable nor my pre-amp has any
hum that my ears can hear (and I often listen
to music very loud--esp. Television/TV).
For most of us, unless you can afford a pretty
expensive analogue/turntable/cartridge setup,
cds will in general sound superior. In some
cases this is because people's vinyl collections
are worn, scratched, dirty, etc. and so a $150
cd player will avoid this and sound better than
these records.
However, if you are meticulous, have taken care
of your vinyl and are willing to dispense with
conveniences and with a good chunk of money
(which I admit most people don't want to or
don't have it to spend), then vinyl/analogue
(and preferably a tube amp and tube preamp
setup) can outperform digital/cd.
Some list members are thinking, "what the
hell do you mean by outperform?!" I mean
that it sounds better. But you might
say all the engineering/audio
measurements of specs for digital are
clearly superior to analogue. I say,
[sometimes] I'm willing to 'put up
with/listen to' the deficiencies of
analogue in order to not have to
subject my ears to the cold, dry,
granular, grainy and un-natural(?).
Yes, the specs for digital are better
but if one's ears hear things it doesn't
like, then maybe, just maybe we're not
measuring the right qualities. Moreover,
44,000 samples per second is too low a rate
to adequately capture the majesty and
beauty of a lot of music and its overtones
(esp. the guitars in Television).
In the end I totally grant it's all
subjective and probably more a matter of
which medium (vinyl or cd) is more cost
effective for each person.
I know I'll get bashed hard for this post,
but that's ok, I'm a tough guy. Besides,
these days I listen to mostly cds!
Leo
ps: Keith would you say a few words in
defense of vinyl Television/Verlaine.
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"