Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site clyde.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!jona
From: jona@clyde.UUCP (Jon Allingham)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Re: Spring cleaning Preamps (actually CD vs LP)
Message-ID: <864@clyde.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-May-85 08:07:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: clyde.864
Posted: Thu May 30 08:07:32 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 02:19:02 EDT
References: <141@utflis.UUCP> <301@moncol.UUCP> <494@edison.UUCP> <142@harvard.ARPA>, <358@petrus.UUCP> <336@moncol.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany NJ
Lines: 28

> ...
> 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.

Imaging and dimensionality have less to do with the equipment than 
with the recording engineer ( assuming reasonably good equipment ).
In effect, your argument boils down to lack of experience ( on the
engineers part ) recording on a new, and much less forgiving medium
( the CD ) and not an inherent defect in CDs and CD players.

My personal opinion is that most people get used to a certain sound,
possibly also certain defects, and accept them as the real thing. Then
they complain when something new shows up claiming to be better, and
gets knocked since what is perhaps better according to technical
specifications sounds very different and is thought then to be
inferior.

What this boils down to is sound is extremely subjective.
-- 
Jon M. Allingham	(201)386-3466	AT&T Bell Laboratories-WH

"Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life down here!"