The late '80's was the dark ages when people had declared the LP "dead". Thankfully it didn't die and the technology advancement didn't stop either. Since then there is WAY MORE high quality equipment and SOFTWARE on LP and the audio world acknoweledged the inferiority of 16 bit/44 K digital CD. That is why SACD and DVD-A were developed and neither one of them sounds any better than a really good high end analog setup (at least the ones I have heard ). JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Mick Maguire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. (kind of OT now) Gonz wrote: "Now if only we could get digital microphones and digital speakers!!!" When I last bought higher end audio back in the late eighties CD's were taking off big time in the UK. At that time manufacturers were branding everything including speakers as being "digital ready", or "digital optimized", or even "for digital music". This comes back around to what William Robb (I think) was saying about how digital is a sexy marketing word, how we are all conditioned to believe it's better because it is digital. Personally I don't give a tinker's cuss what Joe Public uses, although I accept it's going to affect me in many ways. I just hope that I can get just a few years out of my new 645 (and I realize it's going to get harder and harder) before it becomes an expensive paper-weight. For some reason I cant get excited about digital - maybe it's because I have spent the past 20 years writing PC software. I do think that quite a few people are going to be upset when in 5-10 years time they find they can't read their CD/DVD image archives due to degradation of the medium / heat damage / scratches / software and hardware compatibility. At least I will have my prints and negs (for a while at least) Mick...
