Andrew Reilly wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 05:56:17PM +0100, Rainer Buchty wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
>("Vinyl just sounds.. different.. better.. but I couldn't tell you
>why.")
Jumping on this (being a long-time lurker on this list), I never
believed the above state
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 05:56:17PM +0100, Rainer Buchty wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
>
> >("Vinyl just sounds.. different.. better.. but I couldn't tell you
> >why.")
>
> Jumping on this (being a long-time lurker on this list), I never
> believed the above statement unt
OK, my previously reply sounds snide--I didn't mean it that way. It's just that
you apparently got the impression ("do you really think...") that I thought
something that no one in his right mind would think. So, I thought you should
maybe think about it more.
The Fairlight CMI sounded "good".
Please, think about it before you say something like that.
On Nov 28, 2010, at 3:10 PM, christian schneider wrote:
> do you really think the neves/api's/tridents and lexicons and emt's and tape
> and all the other outboard on these recordings would not do ANYTHING at all
> to a fairlight sound?
do you really think the neves/api's/tridents and lexicons and emt's and tape
and all the other outboard on these recordings would not do ANYTHING at all to
a fairlight sound?
c
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:33:40 -0800, Nigel Redmon wrote:
> First, realize that my point about the Art of Noise as a r
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:24:41 -0500
Stephen Sinclair wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Andy Farnell
> wrote:
> >
> > And surely that comparison, between any two
> > sources, regardless of their measurable quality, would
> > remain valid? It doesn't matter that you provide an audiophile
>
First, realize that my point about the Art of Noise as a reference was also
that it wasn't a particularly good source to show off CD's virtues either
(using hi-fi digital to record low-fi digital).
>I think it is precisely the claim made by vinyl lovers
Well, I don't know--if you say so. I admi
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:55:00 -
"Dave Hoskins" wrote:
> > Hi Nigel,
> >
> > Yes we _expect_ that. And hence my point is precisely the opposite.
> >> I don't think that's the claim by vinyl lovers
> >
> > I think it is precisely the claim made by vinyl lovers, once
> How would you compare di
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Andy Farnell
wrote:
>
> And surely that comparison, between any two
> sources, regardless of their measurable quality, would
> remain valid? It doesn't matter that you provide an audiophile
> test of orchestra and voice, it will still sound 'better'
> on vinyl if t
Hi Nigel,
Yes we _expect_ that. And hence my point is precisely the opposite.
You state the age old argument. This is exactly how I would have put it
countless times before. Sheer frustration at playing the rational
argument forces one to examine alternatives.
The fact that this discussion still
Hi Nigel,
Yes we _expect_ that. And hence my point is precisely the opposite.
You state the age old argument. This is exactly how I would have put it
countless times before. Sheer frustration at playing the rational
argument forces one to examine alternatives.
The fact that this discussion still
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Nigel Redmon wrote:
We'd expect a 16-bit digital recording (CD) of music made up of 8-bit
digital recordings (Fairlight CMI) to be faithful to the source, so
the only way vinyl could win is to somehow filter the digital audio
into sounding better, and I don't think that's
We'd expect a 16-bit digital recording (CD) of music made up of 8-bit digital
recordings (Fairlight CMI) to be faithful to the source, so the only way vinyl
could win is to somehow filter the digital audio into sounding better, and I
don't think that's the claim by vinyl lovers. A better test wo
> Not sure if Art of Noise is the best choice for that comparison,
> since all their stuff was done on the Fairlight CMI, afaik.
On the other hand, to test the claim that pressing to vinyl
somehow subjectively improves the listeners experience,
lo-fi 1980s sampling would make an excellent case.
Not sure if Art of Noise is the best choice for that comparison, since all
their stuff was done on the Fairlight CMI, afaik.
On Nov 28, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Rainer Buchty wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
>
>> ("Vinyl just sounds.. different.. better.. but I couldn't tell you
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
("Vinyl just sounds.. different.. better.. but I couldn't tell you
why.")
Jumping on this (being a long-time lurker on this list), I never
believed the above statement until I bought some LPs which I also had on
CD. Until I had my own kind of "rev
16 matches
Mail list logo
