> > > > Sounds like the argument I remember about why monaural is better than > > stereo, why vinyl LPs are better than CDs, or how about this, > why mechanical > > cameras are better than electronic. > > Hmm. I'm not really interested in this argument re: > IS--personally IS doesn't > interest me in fast lenses except for the big teles, and I don't > feel any need > for it in my 28-70L, but that doesn't mean others can't have > valid reasons to > find it useful. However, mono is often better than stereo in some > instances, for > example in almost any recording of popular music made before > about 1968, when > engineers and producers finally began to brake away from the hard > left/hard > right separation of instruments and voices (and some performers, > such as the > Beatles, put a lot more effort in their mono mixes than the stereo mixes), > although a firm date is impossible to set because many late mono > issues were > simply the two-channel mix "folded" into mono. But seek out > original-issue LPs > by the Beatles, Stones, Cream, Jefferson Airplane, Hendrix, and > many others > including a great many jazz musicians and you'll find the mono > versions command > a higher price than do the stereo except in cases where the > stereo version has a > notable scarcity value--and this is primarily because mono often sounds > significantly better than early stereo. Of course, stereo done > well is usually > superior to mono--the implementation is as important (or more so) than the > technology. > > And on a quality playback system most LPs in good > condition--especially early > pressings--will sound better than their CD equivalents. I have a > $700 CD player > and it's not even competitive with my turntable/arm/cartridge > setup. Forget > about the technology--listen to the *sound.* > > Now if digital music delivery had been properly implemented > instead of being > rushed to market in a premature state things might be different, > and by all > accounts SACD gives a glimpse of what might be possible with > digital, but 16/44 > "Red Book" CD is a sonic and musical disaster. > > :-) > > fcc >
Hi fcc, I'm with you completely here. CD's COULD have been so much more initially if they had simply done a bit more work before sending it out to the marketplace. But GREED took over and here we are 20 years later with only OK sounding high-end CD playback no matter how much you spend on a player and D/A converter. IMO digital cameras are going very much the same way don't even have a standard to adhere to in trying to define image and color fidelity. Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
