Re: (hd)cds vs. vinyl ... or digital vs. analog equipment ( again ;-) ...
From: Soleil Lapierre <lapierrs@cuug.ab.ca>
"I see no reason to insult me, Captain."
well ... it was U , who @ least ANNOYED or even insulted EV'RY vinyl "advocate" as u've written that we're all livin' in some kind of "dream world" , which was totally unnecessary & also UNJUSTIFIED for a mature discussion about the advantages & disadvantages of vinyl & cds , imho ... & the ONLY reason , why i've stepped into this - by now rather POINTLESS_!!! *sigh* :-o - discussion !!! :-o
You could try explaining it.
sure , i could ... but as the troll that u are ( sometimes ) , u'll find a more or less intelligent way to say somethin' against it , so i really DON'T see a point in continuin' this discussion with u ... UNLESS u really LISTEN to what we vinyl "advocates" have to say & to PROVE ... & THEN try to refute it with some actual ARGUMENTS ... & NOT jus' tell us your humble opinion about what U ( alone ) think is "better" then , because we all have a diff'rent opinion about what sounds "better" !!! i'm actually ONLY interested in what IS "better" ... & NOT jus' in what sounds "better" in your or my humble opinion !!! that's where we differ too , mate !!! ;-) anyway ... to get back to my grayscales example ... once & for all : digital = 0 & 1 = black & white analog = an endless array between 0 & 1 = an endless array of grayscales is that "clear" enough for u by now , mate ??? *jus'_curious*
Because you claimed it could.
i DIDN'T_!!! it's now obvious that i jus' haven't made myself "clear" enough for u to understand what i've really meant , as i've written "well ... it's jus' A_PLAIN_FACT that vinyl has a much greater frequency spectrum than a cd or - until today !!! - ANY digital medium could ever have !!! ;-)" to make it "clear" right now ... once & for all : i was talkin' about the AUDIBLE frequency spectrum of vinyl & cds , in which case vinyl INDEED has a much greater frequency spectrum ... as EV'RY sound engineer can PROVE to u WITHOUT_ANY_DOUBT_!!! *slyest_grin* ;-)))
Well, my PC has a 66MHz PCI bus, ...
[ ... ]
so if you think vinyl has a wider spectrum than any digital medium, you'll have to show that it can reproduce higher-frequency signals than a computer can output.
WHY should i ??? *puzzled_look* to remind u of the actual topic we are talkin' about here : it's actually about what u can HEAR or maybe FEEL ... & what is REAL & MOST_DEFINITELY_NOT about what is technically possible to achieve !!! that's the main mistake that cd advocates like u almost ALWAYS seem to make !!! *sigh* :-o to give u a definition of the term "analog" in general : "ANALOG" = quality , which changes continuously & CANNOT ( !!! ) bein' quantified in "DIGITAL" values !!! i really think that this definition speaks for itself now !!! *slyest_grin_u_can_imagine* ;-))) ... or to say it in other words : "ANALOG" = ORIGINAL / LIFE / SOURCE "DIGITAL" = COPY / ARTIFACT / IMITATION so HOW on earth can ANY "DIGITAL" medium EVER be "better" than ANY "ANALOG" medium then , eh ??? :-o well ... if u prefer A_CLONE or A_COPY to THE_ORIGINAL , then it can , but otherwise it simply COULDN'T_!!! PLAIN_FACTS_!!! PERIOD_!!! as i've already said in my very first postin' concernin' this tread : a cd can sound "clearer" than a vinyl record , but NEVER - in respect to the above definition of the words "analog" & "digital" !!! - "better" than it !!! fyi : "DIGITAL" values can get very close to the "ANALOG" original , but they can NEVER be exactly the same !!! PERIOD_!!! so "DIGITAL" will ALWAYS be inferior to "ANALOG" - albeit it may sound "clearer" , due to the REDUCTION of "ANALOG" noise ( or what people may recognize as "noise" then !!! ;-) - , simply because it can only get "near to PERFECTION" !!! ( a.k.a. THE - of course "ANALOG"_!!! ;-) - ORIGINAL_!!! ;-)
Ah, now you're qualifying it by saying "audible". That's different.
... but that's WHAT we are actually talkin' here about the whole time ... & NOT how it's technical possible for a digital medium to ( almost ) PERFECTLY_IMITATE_&_RECREATE an analog source / sound !!! :-o
No, I prefer superior CDs. :)
well ... what u prefer is AN_ARTIFACT , AN_IMITATION of / to THE_ORIGINAL then , which is rather sad , ihmo !!! *sigh* :-o anyway ... i'll ALWAYS prefer THE_ORIGINAL of EV'RYTHIN' that i can get hold of to AN_ARTIFACT or AN_IMITATION of it !!! ;-)
How is "clearer" not better? What do you mean by clearer anyway?
see my explanation above ... & reread the numerous other messages concernin' this tread again , if necessary !!! *sigh* :-o anyway ... as your whole opinion in this case seems to be biased & also based on ARTIFICIAL_VALUES , u'll sadly NEVER understand what i & all those other vinyl advocates mean !!! *deeply_saddened_sigh* :-o however ... many greetinx again , oh jay , who's REALLY tired of this whole thread by now & therefore has chosen NOT to reply to any further messages concernin' it , as it would jus' be a waste of my precious time then , sorry !!! :-/ ~*~ "life's too short to be ARTIFICIAL_!!!" ;-) *~\^/~*
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Oh Jay wrote:
From: Soleil Lapierre <lapierrs@cuug.ab.ca>
"I see no reason to insult me, Captain."
well ... it was U , who @ least ANNOYED or even insulted EV'RY vinyl "advocate" as u've written that we're all livin' in some kind of "dream world" , which was totally unnecessary & also UNJUSTIFIED for a mature discussion about the advantages & disadvantages of vinyl & cds , imho ... & the ONLY reason , why i've stepped into this - by now rather POINTLESS_!!! *sigh* :-o - discussion !!! :-o
Pot & kettle, friend.
You could try explaining it.
sure , i could ... but as the troll that u are ( sometimes ) , u'll find a more
I am not a troll. Trolls are those who start new threads with deliberately inflamatory remarks intended only to irritate people and/or draw attention. That's entirely different from posting your opinion on an existing topic. At least learn the definitions of your insults before using them.
or less intelligent way to say somethin' against it , so i really DON'T see a point in continuin' this discussion with u ... UNLESS u really LISTEN to what we vinyl "advocates" have to say & to PROVE ... & THEN try to refute it with some actual ARGUMENTS ... & NOT jus' tell us your humble opinion about what U ( alone ) think is "better" then , because we all have a diff'rent opinion about what sounds "better" !!!
You must have missed most of the discussion; that's exactly what's been happening.
i'm actually ONLY interested in what IS "better" ... & NOT jus' in what sounds "better" in your or my humble opinion !!! that's where we differ too , mate !!! ;-)
No, that's exactly where we're the same. You'd know that if you had read my posts.
anyway ... to get back to my grayscales example ... once & for all :
digital = 0 & 1 = black & white analog = an endless array between 0 & 1 = an endless array of grayscales
is that "clear" enough for u by now , mate ??? *jus'_curious*
Yes, I see what you were trying to say now. It was a confusing analogy because to me greyscale implies digital, as in 256 levels of intensity.
Because you claimed it could.
i DIDN'T_!!! it's now obvious that i jus' haven't made myself "clear" enough for u to understand what i've really meant , as i've written "well ... it's jus' A_PLAIN_FACT that vinyl has a much greater frequency spectrum than a cd or - until today !!! - ANY digital medium could ever have !!! ;-)"
to make it "clear" right now ... once & for all : i was talkin' about the AUDIBLE frequency spectrum of vinyl & cds ,
Okay then. As I said the first time, you need to be more careful with your claims, as with that "any".
in which case vinyl INDEED has a much greater frequency spectrum ... as EV'RY sound engineer can PROVE to u WITHOUT_ANY_DOUBT_!!! *slyest_grin* ;-)))
I have yet to see any such proof, though I don't disbelieve it's possible. Until that happens, the question will remain in the "air". ;)
so HOW on earth can ANY "DIGITAL" medium EVER be "better" than ANY "ANALOG" medium then , eh ??? :-o
Easy: By producing a more accurate reconstruction of the original sound. As has already been pointed out, it's all about bandwidth. It's easy to construct a digital system with higher bandwidth than vinyl. How easy is it to construct an analog recording system that also has high bandwidth? I don't know.
well ... if u prefer A_CLONE or A_COPY to THE_ORIGINAL , then it can , but otherwise it simply COULDN'T_!!!
If you're listening to a recording of any kind, you're not listening to the original but a clone or copy. Furthermore, analog recordings don't clone very well when you make copies of copies.
PLAIN_FACTS_!!! PERIOD_!!!
Again with the so-called "plain facts". Asserting something repeatedly doesn't make it true.
as i've already said in my very first postin' concernin' this tread : a cd can sound "clearer" than a vinyl record , but NEVER - in respect to the above definition of the words "analog" & "digital" !!! - "better" than it !!!
I say clearer is better. Why don't you define your terms? I don't know what you mean by "clearer" and "better" so I must use my own interpretation, under which you're wrong.
fyi : "DIGITAL" values can get very close to the "ANALOG" original , but they can NEVER be exactly the same !!! PERIOD_!!!
You're ignoring the fact that analog recording and playback systems also introduce distortions - deliberately in the case of tube amps that people buy for the "fuzz" effect. No analog recording can ever be exactly the same either.
No, I prefer superior CDs. :)
well ... what u prefer is AN_ARTIFACT , AN_IMITATION of / to THE_ORIGINAL then , which is rather sad , ihmo !!! *sigh* :-o
As I said before, I don't like live music. That's the only form of music that isn't an artifact or imitation. That's my taste and largely a result of being a Kraftwerk fan.
anyway ... i'll ALWAYS prefer THE_ORIGINAL of EV'RYTHIN' that i can get hold of to AN_ARTIFACT or AN_IMITATION of it !!! ;-)
You can't hold a live performance, unless you have really huge hands. :)
How is "clearer" not better? What do you mean by clearer anyway?
see my explanation above ... & reread the numerous other messages concernin' this tread again , if necessary !!! *sigh* :-o
You didn't define "clearer" above.
anyway ... as your whole opinion in this case seems to be biased &
I said as much elsewhere in the thread. Your opinion is equally biased.
also based on ARTIFICIAL_VALUES
What do you mean by that? Are you saying I'm making up opinions that I don't really believe?
oh jay , who's REALLY tired of this whole thread by now & therefore has chosen NOT to reply to any further messages concernin' it , as it would jus' be a waste of my precious time then , sorry !!! :-/
Yes, it is getting rather off-topic. I suggest we collectively either try to bring it to a close or take it off-list. -- /* Soleil */
Soleil Lapierre wrote: If you're listening to a recording of any kind, you're not listening to the original but a clone or copy. Furthermore, analog recordings don't clone very well when you make copies of copies. -------------- That's the overpowering, major point I love about digital. After running through four cassette players in the 70's and 90's, I just dust off my poor remaining deck on occasion while I head to my lovely and accurate burner tucked inside the G4. amir
participants (3)
-
Oh Jay -
Soleil Lapierre -
webmaster＠slystone.com