TOS wrote: i know, let's argue about it, shall we? that would be grand!
damn skippy
radarman wrote: [img]california/nevada%20pool[/img]
ukimalefu wrote:DukeofNuke wrote: so much warmer!
And it still doesn't sound better because it's physically impossible for vinyl to match the frequency range and signal to noise ratio of digital.
But it's ok if you prefer it.
StaticAge wrote: Put it this way, the way your ear hears sound and the way vinyl plays back sound is more in the same phenomenal ballpark than digital. Vinyl is the only lossless analog recording just about anybody can grab. It has its limitations at the extremes, but in the early days of CDs, they started off on the wrong foot too, cymbals and high end was tinny and thin. Vinyl offers a very rich midtone if the grooves are wide enough. On paper, digital wins every category, but it just doesn't always come out that way. I don't think either is really "better" than the other, they both have strengths and weaknesses. But I also like the quirkiness of vinyl, with its noise levels and hiss and pop and occasional warble, it's collectibility, limited runs, colors, etc, the way the format divides the album into sides that you have to physically go over to the player to flip over. It's got character. Never felt like any digital file had anything close to that, vinyl is the only format I feel is worth paying money for. But, more often than not, admittedly, I'm listening to the free downloaded files that came with the record on my iPod.
TOS wrote: dammit, there goes my tip![]()
ukimalefu wrote:radarman wrote: [img]california/nevada%20pool[/img]
That's cool, but IMHO, California should be on the left, you know, like on a map. And if you take the picture from the other side of the pool, the text should be inverted.
TOS wrote:![]()