Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Bad attitudes and Olympus Rants

Subject: [OM] Re: Bad attitudes and Olympus Rants
From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:45:00 +0000
Although I have read any number or pontifications attempting to explain why 
vinyl still sounds better than digital, this is quite likely the clearest and 
most concise I have found. Thanks, Ken. Even though I may not understand all 
the technical aspects, I just keep proving to myself on a nearly daily basis 
that my $400 AR turntable (with a few mods), $300 Rega arm (with a few mods), 
$300 Audioquest MC cartridge, and $300 Acurus phono pre-amp sound better than 
any CD setup I've ever had. I just wonder how great one of those $30,000 
'tables with a $10,000 arm, a $12,000 cartridge and a $7500 phono preamp 
sounds. Guess I'll never know. :-[

Walt

--
"Anything more than 500 yards from 
the car just isn't photogenic." -- 
Edward Weston

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
--snip--
> When digital audio was getting its start, the "scientists" and
> "engineers" took a good hard look at what the typical frequency
> response of the human ear is and determined that they could
> limit the recording medium to that point.  After all, if you
> can't hear beyond 20kHz, why bother recording beyond 20kHz? 
> This was very true for straight tones. It was also true for
> *most* studio recordings of pop and country music. Classical was
> another story, but it took more than a few years before the
> reason why Classical didn't sound right was understood.  It
> really is true that vinyl "sounds better".
> 
--snip of important parts so as not to PO the digesters--
==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz