[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Oct 15, 8:05=A0am, Dick Pierce
wrote:
=A0 =A0The situation is becoming increasingly depressing.

Yes it is, though this is not, alas, limited to discussion of audio
topics.

Now if someone just says "I prefer the sound of vinyl" there should be
no gainsaying that. It's simply a fact that some persons do indeed
prefer the sound of vinyl. More power to them, and may they die at
ninety something, old and happy still listening to LP's.

And if they say "To me, vinyl sounds more like real music played in
real space" I have no quibble. I believe them. To them, in their
experience and opinion, vinyl sounds "more like real music played in
real space". Fine by me, live long and prosper. I have different
opinions, but why should they care about my opinions?

It's when they take the next step, the step that says "because I
prefer the sound of vinyl, therefore vinyl is better objectively" the
rationalist will step forward and say "hold on, just because you
prefer something over something else doesn't mean it is objectively
better, so where's your evidence?"

And that's where the arguments seem to start, and what they seem to me
to be all about. And, in my opinion, they could all be avoided if the
people who prefer vinyl over other media would simply keep their
opinions and express them without taking that extra step and claiming
that it is not merely a preference, but an objective fact.

I also, frankly, don't understand the objection some people have to
the suggestion that they might prefer something which is objectively
distorted to something that isn't. I mean, I would prefer to have a
self portrait of Vincent Van Gogh on my living room wall than to have
a colour photograph of him. The painting is objectively the more
distorted of the two, surely.

If you can prefer an objectively distorted work of art over an
objectively less distorted photograph, why would you object to
admitting that you prefer the more objectively distorted phonograph
record over the more objectively accurate CD?