Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <1000017@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Oct-84 00:32:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uokvax.1000017
Posted: Thu Oct 25 00:32:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Oct-84 01:23:51 EDT
References: <3739@decwrl.UUCP>
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #R:decwrl:-373900:uokvax:1000017:37777777600:1091
Nf-From: uokvax!emjej    Oct 17 23:32:00 1984

/***** uokvax:net.audio / decwrl!lauck /  2:43 am  Sep 30, 1984 */
A fair comparison of LP and CD is now possible.  Yesterday I bought the
digitally mastered CD and the direct disk analog LP of Sheffield lab's
"West of Oz".  My wife and I listened to the CD first than began the
LP. We got as far as "Somewhere" before my wife stopped me and suggested
there was no further need for comparison.  We didn't need to go
"over the rainbow", the LP was so obviously superior. 
/* ---------- */

Saying something is "obviously superior" doesn't help. When I listen to
CDs, I tend to think them "obviously superior" to LPs; what does that
prove? Or more precisely, it proves nothing until I say *why* I think
them thus (no random grunge, pops, and clicks, with the assurance that
it will *stay* that way, as opposed to gradually destroying the medium
each time I play it; improved dynamic range; etc.).

Please tell us *in what way* you think the LP superior. If it is something
that can be reliably detected in a double blind test, then perhaps there
are grounds for discussion.

						James Jones