AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

OK, now we've established that our opinions differ.

That was established long long agao. Sorry i didn't give you anything
to attack.

End of yet another
pointless exercise.

Pointless? Examining and trying to understand different POVs is
pointless? I suppose for those who believe they already know it all and
are right about everything.

What new thng did you actually learn?
There was nothing that hadn't been covered endlessly before and the
truth is still the truth, LP is technically inferior to CD, in every
aspect.

It still remains the case that CD is *vastly* more
accurate than LP in technical terms,

Let's throw a parade in honor of all those that find this important
rather than what their CDs and LPs actually sound like.

They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended. That they don' have the gobs of added noise and
distorton found on LP's is considered a benefit by most people.

and that virtually all of the
'magic' of LP can be retained by recording it to CD-R, rather proving
the point.

I don't believe in magic. Sorry to disappoint you.
I am currious to know which LPs you found to be better than their CD
counterparts. I have a hunch you can't name any.

Most likely because there are so few.

Tell you what I'll throw you a bone to chew on. LPs are superior
because they have infinite resolution since they are analog and have no
steps like digital. Now you can have fun.

What's fun about the same old misstatements and distortions.