(TV) cds vs. vinyl / probably all subjective

["Casey, Leo J" <CaseyL@VOLPE.DOT.GOV>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip P. Obbard 
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:43 AM
To: tv@obbard.com
Subject: Re: (TV) Kidding/ Artificial Shortage?

>vinyl superiority of the 1992 Television  
>recording over the cd version was just 
>thrown to be semi-humorous..

>..but I thought you were serious on this point! 
>If you think the vinyl of TELEVISION sounds better
>then you're being wowed over by the hum of your 
>turntable or the phono preamp in your receiver. 

Philip, I said "*semi*-humorous". I am kind of  
reluctant to open this can of worms (i.e., sound
of vinyl versus cd). Wasn't this discussed to 
death once or twice before on the MM list?--maybe
it was discussed off list. But since you've 
thrown down the gauntlet I'll just offer a couple
of points.

Neither my turntable nor my pre-amp has any 
hum that my ears can hear (and I often listen 
to music very loud--esp. Television/TV).

For most of us, unless you can afford a pretty 
expensive analogue/turntable/cartridge setup, 
cds will in general sound superior. In some 
cases this is because people's vinyl collections
are worn, scratched, dirty, etc. and so a $150 
cd player will avoid this and sound better than 
these records.

However, if you are meticulous, have taken care 
of your vinyl and are willing to dispense with 
conveniences and with a good chunk of money 
(which I admit most people don't want to or 
don't have it to spend), then vinyl/analogue 
(and preferably a tube amp and tube preamp 
setup) can outperform digital/cd.

Some list members are thinking, "what the 
hell do you mean by outperform?!"  I mean
that it sounds better.  But you might 
say all the engineering/audio 
measurements of specs for digital are 
clearly superior to analogue.  I say, 
[sometimes] I'm willing to 'put up 
with/listen to' the deficiencies of 
analogue in order to not have to 
subject my ears to the cold, dry, 
granular, grainy and un-natural(?).

Yes, the specs for digital are better 
but if one's ears hear things it doesn't 
like, then maybe, just maybe we're not 
measuring the right qualities.  Moreover, 
44,000 samples per second is too low a rate 
to adequately capture the majesty and 
beauty of a lot of music and its overtones
(esp. the guitars in Television). 

In the end I totally grant it's all 
subjective and probably more a matter of 
which medium (vinyl or cd) is more cost 
effective for each person.  

I know I'll get bashed hard for this post, 
but that's ok, I'm a tough guy.  Besides, 
these days I listen to mostly cds!

	Leo

ps:  Keith would you say a few words in 
defense  of vinyl Television/Verlaine.
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"