Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site moncol.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!moncol!ben
From: ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Re: Spring cleaning Preamps (actually CD vs LP)
Message-ID: <336@moncol.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-May-85 10:52:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: moncol.336
Posted: Wed May 29 10:52:39 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 09:02:03 EDT
References: <141@utflis.UUCP> <301@moncol.UUCP> <494@edison.UUCP> <142@harvard.ARPA>, <358@petrus.UUCP>
Organization: Monmouth College, West Long Branch, NJ 07764
Lines: 25

>Sorry. The best LP player may sound a little better than your average
>run-of-the-mill turntable, but it is still a far cry from even the
>cheapest CD player (assuming the CDs aren't too dirty...early cheap
>models had lousy error correction.)
>
>It's a simple, provable, measurable fact.
>
>Phil

Sorry Phil but it is these stupid sweeping generalizations that make
CD vs LP a war, rather than an intelligent discussion.  First it is
not simple, each medium has its disadvantages and advantages, and even
the experts disagree.  Second, it is neither provable nor measurable that
CD players sound better since the things being measured may not be the
most significant factors contributing to better sound.

Why don't you go to a high end salon with an open mind and listen to
some really top-notch analog equipment.  (Try a dealer that carries
Sota, Oracle or Goldmund)  Ask him to play something on Reference
Recordings or Sheffield Labs using his best equipment.  Then ask him
to play a Compact Disk on the same system.  You may still prefer the
compact disk, but if you are really honest with yourself, I am sure
you will be able to hear that the imaging and dimensionality of these
recordings has never been equalled by a CD.