Xref: utzoo sci.electronics:10708 comp.graphics:10476 comp.std.internat:633 rec.video:11190 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sgi!shinobu!odin!horus.esd.sgi.com!thant From: thant@horus.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) Newsgroups: sci.electronics,comp.graphics,comp.std.internat,rec.video Subject: Re: RE: Overhead's LP comments (was:I don't need HDTV!) Message-ID: <5415@odin.SGI.COM> Date: 19 Mar 90 17:19:04 GMT References: <8Zx8Ip200ioEMMrHEF@andrew.cmu.edu> <132618@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <2694@sactoh0.UUCP> <1990Mar13.023805.24765@athena.mit.edu> <1990Mar15.090214.9871@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> <530@bilver.UUCP> <16197@haddo Sender: news@odin.SGI.COM Reply-To: thant@horus.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) Organization: Silicon Graphics, Entry Systems Division Lines: 26 In article <1990Mar17.024048.9588@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>, gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) writes: > news@haddock.ima.isc.com (overhead) writes: > If you've got a $10k system (my dad does), then records sound better than > CD's. Problem is you have to have a $10k system, wash your records w/ > a special record vacuum machine, coat your stylus w/ stuff before each > record, Then you eliminate the pops & clicks and get depth & imaging that > CD's don't yet have (because the DAC's aren't yet good enough.) I used > to doubt the truth of this, but listening to several Audiophiles systems > has converted me! [...] > > --Glenn I've had this argument with people. The depth and imaging stuff you are talking about comes from reproducing accurately the phase information in the recording. I believe you when you say that (expensive) record players image better than most CD players, but I would claim that it is because DAC's on most CD players probably aren't very carefull about preserving phase. (This of course would only be noticeable with few recordings anyway.) However, having heard both, I would claim that a $10k record player does not sound better than a $10k CD player. thant