Whew, that was a long reply to my tongue-in-cheek comment meant in jest!

However, I tend to think you haven't really sat and listened to good
gear fed from a digital source - eg a quality cd

Around 1971- to 76 I was a sales rep for a HiFi equip importer, and
later ran a specialist HiFi store selling all but the very costliest
gear - speakers up to around $5 or $6k and amps to a couple of grand -
plus AR etc turntables and Shure V15E etc cartridges. Top gear at that
time.

The weak link was the records that were the main source of music then -
noisy, scratchy, and the better the gear you played them on the more
their short comings became apparent. Of course since that was the best
that we could get, we thought it was pretty good.

But once people heard the same sort of good gear fed from quality cds,
there was no going back - like chalk and cheese the new medium had a
brilliance and clarity that previously we had only heard in live
performances.

But, as I thought then, and still think now, horses for courses - if you
prefer your scratchy old records and the his and rumble from the
turntable, then that is fine. If you are happy with what you use, then
that is great, and no one should denigrate your choice.

cheers

David


In article ,
Gnack Nol wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 01:43:38 +0000, David wrote:

Some cut out:

You just haven't put your ears in for the AD conversion - doesn't hurt
(much) and is cheap. Kids these days are born that way, but us oldies
have to convert - bit like when decimal currency came along

David - who converted back in '79


Sorry David you just have very low standards like the people that think cd
based audio is good quality. A-D conversion can bever reprduce a real
simple sine wave nor can it even approximate a complex multi sine wave
with any accuracy even with the best smoothing circuits.

I know the real insides of your so called AD conversion and it really
stinks since it was based on not ready for prime time theory that was
several years ahead of what the technology was actually able to deliver.
The result was a very poor sampling rates that have flat response and
lacking both transient and brilliance reproduction. In spite of all the
attempts to cover up its short comings (multiple over sampling (probably
the best way of producing muddy sound ever invented), double data rates,
etc. ) have never corrected the base 2K sampling rate that was the fastest
they could make at the time with the fastest ram and AD converters they
had. Blu-Ray is poor quality for that reason since it uses cd audio
recording as it's base instead of using a real high quality sampling rate
like the alternitive format that was not as well funded.

If Sony and Phillips had waited just two years they could have used a at
least a 4K sampling rate with triple the number of words and that could
have produced better audio but they had tied up a lot of money in the low
quality system and wanted to profit from it. If cd audio was actually so
great why did Sony have to buy up all the recording studios and kill all
vinyl production in order to sell it?

There was no real demand for cd recordings so they had to do this in order
to sell them is why.

Fact currently all real high quality recordings are now being reproduced
in vinyl once again because Cd's are poor for audio and really only fit
for data recording in spite of all the tricks that have been tried to
improve their sounds.

I was servicing those stereos in 1979 you listened to and remember the
deaf teenager syndrome caused by kids sitting on top of real 300 watt
audio systems turned up to full volume. Believe me I encountered more
than one idiot that had a 300 watt system with the speakers sitting on
either side of their desk running at or near full volume.

Poor kids never had a chance to really hear any actual quality audio since
they likely lost more than 20% of their overall hearing and most of their
hearing in the 12000-20,000 cycle range. While blasting their ears with
high power base notes and even higher powered high frequency.

I have suffered some high frequency hearing loss just because I worked
with these high power systems for years but I can sure still tell the
difference between digital audio and genuine analog. Digital looses hands
down always! I have my "system destroyer" record still it is a Phillips
recording that has sound from 15 to 20,000 cycles with a brilliance that
no cd can ever approach and no A/D converter can touch.

Gnack