jaypfunk wrote:
anybody that thinks a piece of plastic being hit by a laser beam sounds better than a needle touching a vinyl record needs to have a dull knife circumcision by a drunk Michael J Fox!
This point really needs to be addressed. We're comparing the transfer of sound waves as represented by minute cuts in plastic through the frictional vibrations of a diamond stylus, a process which could never fully accurately reproduce the original sound being recorded and not only that, in a medium that degrades from the instant it is created and introduces a variety of artifacts that have nothing to do with the original sound even when in pristine condition, with the transfer of sound waves in a way closer to fully accurate than any human could distinguish via a process that has no impact on the sound whatever.
Surely the aim ultimately is to be able to reproduce the original performance as accurately as possible? You're in denial if you think vinyl does that better than the latest digital possibilities.
With all due respect to "some" of your other contributions on this forum, vinyl is a matter of taste. You obviously like what the vinyl listening process adds to the original sound. I don't. The problem with digital recording is not the process itself, it's what a lot of people add to it. When I record my own live music, I use digital, I process with digital and play back from a digital result. In the process I fuck around with it as little as possible unless there is some digital effect or sound that I actually want to have as a part of the mix. The original recording and final replaying part have little or no impact on that. It's more about the quality of the microphones being used and the acoustics of the space I'm recording in and so on.
And, while we're on the point of accuracy, if you and I were in a room together along with a drunk Michael J Fox and he attempted to give me the circumcision you described then it would end up getting done to you.