I'm not sure that including DDs in the mix is comparing likes to likes, so let's take them out of contention. What then?
>From: "tom jordan" <[email protected]> >Reply-To: Antique Phonograph List <[email protected]> >To: "'Antique Phonograph List'" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Best-sounding phonographs? >Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:25:11 -0500 > > > >I agree with Peter. >Tom >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Peter Fraser >Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 9:18 PM >To: Antique Phonograph List >Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Best-sounding phonographs? > >i prefer late edison DDs to orthophonics, myself! > >On Apr 10, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Richard Rubin wrote: > > > Here's a question I've wanted to ask everyone here for a while, now: > > Working off the assumption that Victors are the best-sounding > > phonographs > > (which seems to be a general concensus -- please feel free to > > disagree, > > though), who would you say made the second-best-sounding machines? > > Since we > > need to compare likes to likes, let's limit the field to inside-horn, > > pre-orthophonic disc phonographs. What do you think? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Phono-L mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > Phono-L Archive > > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/ > > > > Support Phono-L > > http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank > >-- Peter >[email protected] > > > >_______________________________________________ >Phono-L mailing list >[email protected] > >Phono-L Archive >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/ > >Support Phono-L >http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank >_______________________________________________ >Phono-L mailing list >[email protected] > >Phono-L Archive >http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/ > >Support Phono-L >http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank
