Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Another old guy digital rant

Subject: [OM] Re: Another old guy digital rant
From: "Earl Dunbar" <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 23:23:24 -0400
Winsor:

I wasn't angry, but apparently it came accross that way to you, so I apologize.

I don't think I said the badly produced LPs are an exception.  There were lots 
of badly produced/manufactured LPs, and I have owned quite a few.  I am content 
with recordings (of whatever technology) that move me, even if they are flawed. 
 I have a cassettes of a Met performance of Carmen, broadcast on NPR, using an 
old Bogen tube receiver, a dipole antenna and a fairly inexpensive Teac deck.  
It is a WONDERFUL recording because it moves me.  I have CDs that I really 
enjoy as well as LPs.

I enjoy some of the pictures from my C2000Z and I don't really care that it's 
2MP.  I believe higher res digicams do a great job, though I  prefer film in 
most ways, but it's not all about resolution.

And for audio I DON'T depend on what a salesperson or ad copy.  I listen 
carefully and make up my mind over the long term.  If I'm making a big 
investment I get a return/exchange period.  I don't have enough money to 
believe the hype.

Sometimes I'm serious, but at work a make everyone laugh and my wife married me 
cuz I make her laugh.

Cheers,

Earl

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 6/17/2004 at 9:32 PM Winsor Crosby wrote:

>Sorry, Earl. You are just wrong.
>
>That kind of response is not very conducive for rational discussion, is 
>it? Kind of makes you angry?
>
>My reference to mental was intended to be humorous. You even quoted my 
>little smiley face next to the remark. Ah well, you are a serious guy I 
>guess.
>
>Any way, I think the whole analogue/digital foofaraw is kind of silly. 
>You either like what you hear or see, or not. I have a collection of 
>hundreds of LPs, mostly classical, from good labels and fully a quarter 
>or a third of them are the badly produced ones you say are the 
>exception. There are other flaws I didn't mention like the crimped, 
>untrackable edge caused by pulling the vinyl out of the mold too 
>quickly, the bubbles injected at high pressure that continue to expand 
>year after year so that the little click gets worse and worse.  The 
>roll of of the highs starting below 15KHz unless you pop for the extra 
>cost audiophile recording, if it is available. And then you hear the 
>tape hiss. Well, I used to when I was younger.
>
>Where I have a problem is that people cannot be satisfied with what 
>they hear or see. To me a 5MP Coolpix produced a substantially better 
>image than my OM4t with one of the lesser Oly zooms in a side by side I 
>did. A 6MP camera with a large sensor does much better than the 
>Coolpix. Yet people make pronouncements based on mathematical certainty 
>that digital will not equal film until it hits 10, 12, or 15MP or 
>whatever. It is just BS, in my opinion. Sort of like someone preferring 
>to look at the back yard through the screen door rather than opening 
>the door and actually seeing without the (grain)interference. I feel a 
>little the same about stereo.  Once CD equalization was worked out 3 or 
>4 years after their introduction sound took a giant leap in my opinion. 
>Before that judicious use of the treble knob tamed some of those overly 
>bright early disks. The trouble was that people really have trouble 
>hearing the differences and so they internalize what they are told by a 
>clever salesman. They hang onto what they are told because hearing is 
>so adaptable that the small differences in good equipment disappear 
>after a few minutes except for really gross differences like big 
>variations in frequency response. (I had AR 3a's too, but was happy to 
>move on. It was a groundbreaker, but just a stage in the development of 
>speakers and I am much happier with speakers with relatively flat 
>frequency response.)
>
>So my point is enjoy what you enjoy, but allow me to enjoy what I enjoy 
>and don't knock it unless it is good natured ribbing which is all I 
>intended. As for SACD and DVD-A, if they were significantly better 
>sounding(as opposed to technically) they would have replaced CD in the 
>five years or so they have been around, as CD replaced the vinyl LP in 
>a similar period.
>
>But then, as I think I said. I don't care. Tomorrow morning I am off to 
>Alaska for the first time and I am excited as hell. Sorry to rant and 
>run. :-)
>
>
>Winsor
>Long Beach, CA
>USA
>On Jun 17, 2004, at 6:31 PM, Earl Dunbar wrote:
>
>> Sorry Winsor, that's just wrong.  Not to start a flame event, but 
>> you're comparing a badly produced and/or manufactured LP to a 
>> (perhaps) average (by today's standards) or excellently made CD.  So 
>> what?  Analogue addicts (yes there is a list of such a name) admit the 
>> limitations of the LP and also admit that higher rez digital formats 
>> (eg, SACD) are FINALLY catching up to LPs.  Not that I am an expert on 
>> SACD and DVD-A, but it's taken what, 20 years or so?
>>
>> Analogue is analogue, digital is digital.  Both have strengths and 
>> weaknesses.  To say that preference for analogue is "mental" in the 
>> way I suspect you meant it, is a bit ungracious.  The listening 
>> experience is ALWAYS mental... an experience in the brain of the 
>> physical phenomenon detected by the ear and transmitted through the 
>> neural system.  Similar with seeing.
>>
>> Earl
>>
>> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
>>
>> On 6/17/2004 at 9:03 AM Winsor Crosby wrote:
>>
>>> I used to chalk it up to hearing as well. But when I have, even on
>>> superb equipment, pointed out the clicks, pops, cutter rumble recorded
>>> on the LP, wow from off center holes, rolled off bass not equalized by
>>> RIAA curves, a groove that is distorted a little more each time you
>>> play it, and a shallow noise floor, most "analog is better types" 
>>> admit
>>> hearing them, but insist that it still sounds better. I have concluded
>>> it not hearing ability. It is mental. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Winsor
>>> Long Beach, California
>>> USA
>>> On Jun 17, 2004, at 8:48 AM, Walt Wayman wrote:
>>>
>>>>  But, oh, they sound so much better.  An LP played with a good
>>>> cartridge and tone arm on a proper turntable, not some piece of crap
>>>> from Circuit City or Best Buy for $200, is still today, 20 years 
>>>> after
>>>> we were told we were getting "perfect sound forever," obviously, to
>>>> any but the hearing impaired, superior to a CD.  And if the amp and
>>>> pre-amp give off both the aural and visual glow of tubes, so much the
>>>> better.  I've got lots of CDs, but I still buy vinyl when I can find
>>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>> ==============================================
>>> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================




==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

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