Doro,
Agreed on the convenience. I still invest in LPs both because of the audio
quality, and I can get good discs pretty cheaply. Some haven't been
transferred to CD.
I am about to go on an opera binge, so it will probably be CD for that. Not
much available on LP, unless you count collections of arias, etc.
A good (read: not cheapo) CD player (and SACD) and well-produced CDs can sound
non-fatiguing. But most people don't own those.
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 11/6/2003 at 12:49 AM Dorothée Rapp wrote:
>Earl Dunbar schrieb:
>
>> I posited the CD vs LP/analogue analogy over on DPreview, and got
>> ripped for it. I stand by what I said, but I'm waiting for flack her
>> now that you have thrown down the gauntlet!
>
>:)
>Any number of sound engineers (spell??) would support that. On the other
>hand, CD is just so convenient. I still have a turntable and the LPs,
>but never use them. As you're saying, to enjoy the difference, you have
>to invest a lot. And I get enough live music, I can tell you :))
>
>I heard one argument once that I found especially interesting. Even if
>people don't consciously recognize the difference between an analog or
>digital recording, they get tired listening to it much sooner.
>
>for what it's worth.
>
>Slainte
>
>:Doro
>--
>www.doro-foto.de/
>Persönlichkeiten werden nicht durch schöne Reden geformt,
>sondern durch Arbeit und eigene Leistung.
>Albert Einstein
>
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|