In those early days (pre-1980), many LP's were already scratched (and well undulated) when bought new. Do you remember? At that time LP's were not considered high-end stuff, most of them were manufactured like cheap consumer stuff and were sold in supermarkets and stores here and there, so it was not necessary to be drunk for getting that tick... tick... tick... tick... typical sound of the 70's I think :-)
Furthermore, I was a schoolboy then, and it was usual to lend and borrow LP's. Some friends used to handle them like any equipment most boys use to handle (i.e. little care). So all of my LP's went more or less scratched very quick. Today's LP's are likely to be better built and cared, since they're targeted to connoisseurs. Then, current prices for analog music equipment are like those for full-frame digital SLR, while proces for good quality digital music equipment are like those for midrange film compacts. Not to speak of quality of turntables, heads, amplifiers and especially speakers i could use then. The best I could afford at that time was a Micro+Shure+Rotel+Altec hi-fi set you'll probably scorn today. Okay, it was big improvement over my Superscope campact cassette player, but pure litter for today's vinyl purists. However, they still work now, long after my first CD player (Technics, bought in 1982) left me five years ago after a lightning hit my home. Generally speaking, the LP makes no more sense at all to me. However, I'm happy after knowing that Thorens is still alive. Any loss is a loss for everybody, even those who immediately appreciated CD's and don't care so much about LP's (like me). So we can expect Leica will survive this dramatic change after all (to great surprise of pragmatic folks like me), but please don't expect Pentax will survive making film cameras. The only hope for them is getting stronger in the digital arena. So be happy with your LP's, buy expensive Leicas, and let other be happy with their CD's and Pentax digicams (as soon as they'll improve a bit further). Dario ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:07 PM Subject: RE: Scratching LP's (was: Digital/Film body pricing (was: A conversation with Noritsu.)) > theres only one problem with your decision, CDs > dont just sound as good. Hardly minor. Scratching > is rare if ever unless you handle them drunk... > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dario Bonazza 2 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Scratching LP's (was: Digital/Film body pricing (was: A > conversation with Noritsu.)) > > > I bought my last LP back in 1981 or 1982. Only CD's from then to date and I > won't regret that one moment. > That's because, despite maximum care, the first time you get the tiniest > scratch, the supposed HQ LP superiority is gone forever. Not to speak of the > boring brushing and the like. > > Just my opinion, of course. Anybody's free to play with LP's, carbon > brushes, antistatic gizmos, dust & scratches at their own leisure forever. I > won't join the LP brotherhood. > > Dario Bonazza > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 8:35 PM > Subject: RE: Digital/Film body pricing (was: A conversation with Noritsu.) > > > > WRONG about LPs. When using high quality LPs played back > > on a high end phono rig (several thousand dollars), LPS > > BLOW AWAY even the best CDs. That is why all the studios > > no longer record in 16 bit digital audio and SACD and DVD-A > > have been developed and released. There is CURRENTLY a > > major revival in LP reissues because they sound BETTER > > than CDs..... > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:35 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Digital/Film body pricing (was: A conversation with Noritsu.) > > > > > > On digital cameras > > I think prices will drop some more and/or more features will be added. Or > > maybe quality will continue to improve for about the same amount of money. > > It's > > always worth waiting (if you can live without it) when we are talking > > technology. > > > > On Film > > Film will be around for a long time to come. There are too many cameras > out > > there to shut it down. People said the same thing about Polaroid cameras > and > > I > > can still get film for my SX70 Land Camera. > > The analogy to CDs and Records may not be an entirely good one. CD's are a > > vast improvement over records and tapes. Most of my records were scratched > > my > > tapes give off a hiss. I was happy to replace them. Afterall CDs are noise > > free, > > almost industructible, very inexpensive to make and buy and pretty much > last > > forever. > > Digital cameras on the other hand are not "better" than film cameras as > far > > as quality goes. They are a very expensive item (unlike a $12 CD) and they > > do > > not have an unlimited lifespan. Let's face it, buying the digital camera > is > > the > > first of many expensive choices you need to make. (Upgraded computer, > > expensive flash cards....) > > Digital camera sales will continue to grow. If they have not already > > overtaken sales of film cameras they soon will. I think film cameras will > > co-exist > > with digital for many many years to come. > > That said digital will slowly take over as the "film" of choice. > > > > A camera store owner I know says in a few years people will begin to miss > > their film cameras when they realize that all those digital images have > been > > lost > > or are stored somewhere in their computers. Although people can make > prints > > from digital, they tend not to. > > Vic > > >
