rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (06/04/85)
[] Tell you what, life <is> fun right now for thousands and thousands of good old common people who never had it so (musically) good before CD. And hundreds of <us> join you in your boredom, despair and disgust at the continuing dialog (if we can call it that) betweeb digiphobes (your term) and digiphiles (implied by phobes). But, tens of us still get upset when people like you make the informed sounding <but actually just <very> personal opinion> sweeping denunciations of the present state of the art. Statements like yours don't really affect the oldtimers. But they can affect the newcomers to audio and mislead them from a lot of fun "for the next five years" or so. The fact is that there is a very good case to be made that a person just getting started in audio or high-fi, especially a person on limited funds like a student, should skip vinyl technology all together and start with FM and CD. (or, possibly, as you point out) Beta or VHS Hi-Fi as with the latter you can replace cassettes as well). About the last thing they should do is either a) wait five years (they could be dead in 5 years). b) mortgage the farm for a high end turntable, arm, cleaning machine, cart- ridge, stylus, micrometer, etc., etc., I can't help wondering how you made your big evaluation of the state of the digital art. By listening in high end salons that think their future depends on retaining vinyl technology? By listening to the testimonials of other such folk in their communal publications (and advertising compendia) such as The Absolute Sound? By "hob-nobbing with your fellow wizards" as L. F. B. used to say? Bet you didn't do it by getting a known working model in your own home and using it extensively with your own system - with a variety of CD's, not just the stinkers. I for one am perfectly happy to let sleeping CD wars lie, but only if the multitudes are given the truth -which to me is that at present, only a very small and increasingly minute fraction of the audio community maintains that CD's are inferior to vinyl records at the <present> state of the art. Of course there are many inferior CD's. There are millions of inferior vinyl records too, have been for years and will continue to be despite overdue and too late efforts of the record industry to get its act together. CDs are expensive. So are good quality records (with a few exceptions like Musical Heritage Society). A student on a budget could go far on a CD player, an FM tuner and a pair of Stax phones.(Just to cite one of many possibilities resulting in state of the art sound). -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg
chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen) (06/05/85)
<306@tilt.FUN> cancelled from rn.
chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen) (06/05/85)
In article <1199@hound.UUCP> rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) writes: >[] >Tell you what, life <is> fun right now for thousands and thousands of >good old common people who never had it so (musically) good before CD. > >And hundreds of <us> join you in your boredom, despair and disgust at the >continuing dialog (if we can call it that) betweeb digiphobes (your term) and >digiphiles (implied by phobes). > >But, tens of us still get upset when people like you make the informed >sounding <but actually just <very> personal opinion> sweeping denunciations >of the present state of the art. Statements like yours don't really affect >the oldtimers. But they can affect the newcomers to audio and mislead them >from a lot of fun "for the next five years" or so. Dick, since I tried to make the point throughout my entire article (304@tilt.FUN) that listening was subjective, I assumed that when I stated, say, that people were butchering CDs in the mastering process, that readers would assume that that was my <very> personal opinion. Actually, I do think that a lot of people are screwing up mastering for digital disks but I don't think that everybody cares or can even tell. In which case, to use a cliche, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. As for the term "digiphobe", it isn't my term. I used it because the current definition of digiphobe seems to be someone who isn't totally sold on digital technology and I fall into that category. >The fact is that there is a very good case to be made that a person just >getting started in audio or high-fi, especially a person on limited funds >like a student, should skip vinyl technology all together and start with >FM and CD. (or, possibly, as you point out) Beta or VHS Hi-Fi as with the >latter you can replace cassettes as well). About the last thing they >should do is either >a) wait five years (they could be dead in 5 years). >b) mortgage the farm for a high end turntable, arm, cleaning machine, cart- > ridge, stylus, micrometer, etc., etc., Definitely true if he's happy listening to FM and a CD player, and I *definitely* agree with you on point b. There's absolutely no reason for most people to get a Linn, Oracle, or what-not, considering the price. I, for one, can think a lot of better things to do with my money. >I can't help wondering how you made your big evaluation of the state of the >digital art. By listening in high end salons that think their future >depends on retaining vinyl technology? By listening to the testimonials of >other such folk in their communal publications (and advertising compendia) >such as The Absolute Sound? By "hob-nobbing with your fellow wizards" as L. >F. B. used to say? Bet you didn't do it by getting a known working model >in your own home and using it extensively with your own system - with >a variety of CD's, not just the stinkers. This was a reasonable article up to this paragraph. Sorry, Dick, but I'm afraid I don't fit into your stereotype of the "Golden-Eared Audiophile Digiphobe". I don't subscribe to "The Absolute Sound", I've never set foot in a high-end audio salon (I call them "tweak shops") in my life, and none of my friends lay claim to being high-end audiophiles or golden-ears. The system I have now cost me around $2300 and I intend to keep it for a *long* time. You are right about one thing. I never did take a CD player home with me. I just went around to a few stores and listened to what they had available and made my conclusions based on what I heard. I did try and make sure that the CD players I heard were going through systems at least as good as mine (in one case, it was identical). I also certainly didn't listen to every CD player and I make no claim to having listened to the best (which I could never afford). On the other hand, what I listened to wasn't the worst either. I also don't claim that my conclusions are universally valid. I do claim that for me, they are valid. >I for one am perfectly happy to let sleeping CD wars lie, but only if the >multitudes are given the truth -which to me is that at present, only a very >small and increasingly minute fraction of the audio community maintains >that CD's are inferior to vinyl records at the <present> state of the art. >Of course there are many inferior CD's. There are millions of inferior >vinyl records too, have been for years and will continue to be despite >overdue and too late efforts of the record industry to get its act >together. CDs are expensive. So are good quality records (with a few >exceptions like Musical Heritage Society). A student on a budget could >go far on a CD player, an FM tuner and a pair of Stax phones.(Just to >cite one of many possibilities resulting in state of the art sound). One thing about high quality records. They are expensive. About as expensive as CDs (or a bit more). However, I know certain labels such as Mobile Fidelity, Sheffield Labs, the RCA .5 Series, American Gramaphone, etc., consistently produce records high-quality records. I'm not sure that the same situation has developed in the CD market. Also, different possibilities are better for different people. I don't own an FM tuner and I hate headphones. I just wish that the analog-bashers would realize that just because they can't hear some "problems" with digital sound doesn't mean that others can't. I also wish that the digital-bashers would realize that not everybody should care that they can hear a difference between digital and analog. I don't consider myself to be a ditigal-basher because while I claim that I can hear some problems with the current digital sound, I don't claim that these problems are so significant that they should affect everybody. On the other hand, I deeply resent it when somebody comes along and tries to tell me what I can and can not hear. Ray Chen princeton!tilt!chenr
sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) (06/05/85)
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) writes > The fact is that there is a very good case to be made that a person just > getting started in audio or high-fi, especially a person on limited funds > like a student, should skip vinyl technology all together and start with > FM and CD. (or, possibly, as you point out) Beta or VHS Hi-Fi as with the > latter you can replace cassettes as well). I can't help but agree, even though I still prefer LP's even on my less than state of the art player. Music is for enjoyment and a CD player is the easiest way to enjoy music for a large number of people. > I can't help wondering how you made your big evaluation of the state of > the digital art. By listening in high end salons that think their future > depends on retaining vinyl technology? By listening to the testimonials > of other such folk in their communal publications (and advertising > compendia) such as The Absolute Sound? By "hob-nobbing with your fellow > wizards" as L. F. B. used to say? Bet you didn't do it by getting a > known working model in your own home and using it extensively with your > own system - with a variety of CD's, not just the stinkers. Isn't this just a little bit cheap? The high end salons that I frequent are being very pragmatic about CDs. They have realized that CDs are here to stay and that they might as well sell CD players and make money. By selling CDs they can sell systems with CDs in them which will make them even more money. A local dealer loaned me a CD player to take home over a long weekend, and a pile of CDs that he thought I might like (I've been visiting him for about a year and he knows my tastes). Three days isn't a lot of time, and my listening was not in any way scientific, but I ended up deciding to stick with my LP player. I can not say that LPs are better, only that I like them better, in my listening room, on my audio system. We audiophiles never had it so good. Almost everything is better than it was 5 years ago. This will continue. Very soon every CD player will have so many features that there won't be any more to be added. The only change that can happen after that is an improvement in the sound quality. Maybe then the pro-LP folks will be happy with CDs. I enjoy these discussions as long as they stay above the name calling level. An earlier discussion about accuracy of digital recording caused me to review my signal processing and refresh my memory about the Nyquist stuff. I learned about emphasized L-R and mid frequencies on LP's. There has been a discussion about recording and miking that I've learned from. Greg Paley's notes about imaging have caused me to listen more carefully at concerts. Both sides have made their points and I've benefitted by them. -- ---------------- Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp} Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270 One Oxford Street Cambridge, MA 02138