Digitising Vinyls (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)

On 12/11/2011 09:28, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:19:32 +0000, wrote:

Ah well then that's where you'd be mistaken. I do of course understand
that quite a few people do think digital sounds better than analogue a
lot of the time. It's mildly annoying that quite a few here can't accept
that I prefer analogue.

Why are you not getting this? Nobody here has the slightest problem
with you preferring analogue to digital. It is when you go on
repeating your baseless assertion that analogue is BETTER than digital
that we get irritated. Have you truly still not understood the
difference? I'm finding this increasingly hard to believe, and am
rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are just trolling.


Er. Find one occasion when I have stated that analogue is better than
digital, other than in my opinion. I have never stated that. The
'better' comment was simply a mixture of lost context ('to me') and poor
writing.

In fact, I'd venture to suggest that a good many people wouldn't know
(or care).

Rob

No, I'm not playing, never have, and never will. As, I would imagine,
most people here, I've got more interesting and certainly more
important things to do.

It is now clear to me that you are trolling. Psychologically, you're
probably one of these people who just cannot give way in a discussion,
even when all the evidence is against you.

Instead you try and change the subject of the debate to one where it's
more difficult to prove you wrong. Hence, instead of just discussing
the pros and cons of recording techniques, you have endeavoured to
widen the discussion to include painting, the meaning of words, etc.

In another post, you accuse me of being childish, but nothing can be
more childish than being unable to accept when you're wrong.

It's time to re-enable the plonk filter.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 08:05:49 +0000, Rob wrote:

Ah you're playing now! Come on!
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 12/11/2011 10:16, David Looser wrote:
wrote

But I would like to know more about the basis of my preference.

You've just given it to us,

"I suspect there's an element of sentimentality/nostalgia. Perhaps some
degree of physiological explanation - my hearing maybe. I also enjoy the
physical media"

Apart from your hearing, which I doubt is as "special" as you'd like to
believe, you've explained it. Its all about nostalgia and a liking for the
physical object of the LP. But you've then decided that you need a more
"respectable" reason to prefer vinyl, so have persuaded yourself that vinyl
sounds "better", and ,since you now believe that, it does, to you.


Well, I don't think it's about those things alone. It's just too marked.
I think they are significant variables, though. Don't think my hearing
is in any way 'special' by the way!

Rob

On 12/11/2011 09:54, Steve Thackery wrote:
Rob wrote:

It's mildly annoying that quite a few here can't accept that I prefer
analogue.

WRONG!! Everybody accepts that you prefer analogue. The issue is your
redefinition of "better" to mean "I prefer".


Could you show me where I said that? If I said 'better' there can be say
two points of context - personal and universal. I have never believed
that my 'better' is universal.

You must have been told this at least a dozen times in this thread by
now. It's very strange that you can't get it.


Not sure why you're so obsessed by this. If somebody said to you that
one thing is better than another, would you assume that they meant that
in absolute terms? Tea and coffee. Cheddar and Brie?

Odd.

Is this a wilfull misunderstanding, I wonder?


Somewhere, maybe.

Rob

On 12/11/2011 09:57, Steve Thackery wrote:
Rob wrote:

I was only ever speaking of my own preference. Habit and social
circles I suppose.

Yes, yes, we know! But that is NOT the same as "better"!!


Even with the prefix 'I think'? Which you must surely realise was implied.

Rob

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 14:30:23 +0000, Rob wrote:

On 12/11/2011 09:57, Steve Thackery wrote:
Rob wrote:

I was only ever speaking of my own preference. Habit and social
circles I suppose.

Yes, yes, we know! But that is NOT the same as "better"!!


Even with the prefix 'I think'? Which you must surely realise was implied.

Rob

No, not even with the "I think" prefix. If you think it, you
presumably have some evidence that makes you think it. The problem
here as has now been pointed out ad nauseam is the use of words lite
"better".

d

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 14:23:05 +0000, Rob wrote:

On 12/11/2011 09:28, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:19:32 +0000, wrote:

Ah well then that's where you'd be mistaken. I do of course understand
that quite a few people do think digital sounds better than analogue a
lot of the time. It's mildly annoying that quite a few here can't accept
that I prefer analogue.

Why are you not getting this? Nobody here has the slightest problem
with you preferring analogue to digital. It is when you go on
repeating your baseless assertion that analogue is BETTER than digital
that we get irritated. Have you truly still not understood the
difference? I'm finding this increasingly hard to believe, and am
rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are just trolling.


Er. Find one occasion when I have stated that analogue is better than
digital, other than in my opinion. I have never stated that. The
'better' comment was simply a mixture of lost context ('to me') and poor
writing.

In fact, I'd venture to suggest that a good many people wouldn't know
(or care).

Rob

I'm not going to plough through this entire thread, but here are a
couple of your sentences as an example:

"I find that reality is better reconstructed with analogue systems,"

"I'm afraid I still need to know - how does that get anyone closer to
thinking that the analogue sound is, often, a better rendition of the
original performance?"

That'll have to do.

d

"Rob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 12/11/2011 10:16, David Looser wrote:

Apart from your hearing, which I doubt is as "special" as you'd like to
believe, you've explained it. Its all about nostalgia and a liking for
the
physical object of the LP. But you've then decided that you need a more
"respectable" reason to prefer vinyl, so have persuaded yourself that
vinyl
sounds "better", and ,since you now believe that, it does, to you.


Well, I don't think it's about those things alone.

We'll just have to agree to differ on that one.

It's just too marked. I think they are significant variables, though.

I don't see how you can disentangle your liking for the LP as a physical
object and as something that triggers feelings of nostalgia in you from your
preference for the sound it makes.

Don't think my hearing is in any way 'special' by the way!

Don't you? in another post you suggested you would be able to hear
unmeasurable differences.

David.

On 12/11/2011 14:25, Java Jive wrote:
No, I'm not playing, never have, and never will. As, I would imagine,
most people here, I've got more interesting and certainly more
important things to do.


So it seems :-)

It is now clear to me that you are trolling. Psychologically, you're
probably one of these people who just cannot give way in a discussion,
even when all the evidence is against you.


Evidence of what?

Instead you try and change the subject of the debate to one where it's
more difficult to prove you wrong. Hence, instead of just discussing
the pros and cons of recording techniques, you have endeavoured to
widen the discussion to include painting, the meaning of words, etc.


It's called analogy.

In another post, you accuse me of being childish, but nothing can be
more childish than being unable to accept when you're wrong.


OK.

I have very little intellectual vanity. Wrong about what? Go on . . .

It's time to re-enable the plonk filter.


Fine, of course, your prerogative.

Rob

On 12/11/2011 14:50, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 14:30:23 +0000, wrote:

On 12/11/2011 09:57, Steve Thackery wrote:
Rob wrote:

I was only ever speaking of my own preference. Habit and social
circles I suppose.

Yes, yes, we know! But that is NOT the same as "better"!!


Even with the prefix 'I think'? Which you must surely realise was implied.

Rob

No, not even with the "I think" prefix. If you think it, you
presumably have some evidence that makes you think it. The problem
here as has now been pointed out ad nauseam is the use of words lite
"better".


I suspect the problem here is the subject? If I said 'I think strawberry
jam is better than raspberry' you wouldn't take that as an absolute,
universal statement. Would you?

But if I say 'I think LP is better than CD' that's a problem? Because CD
is technologically superior? Therefore I can't think that because it's
empirically incorrect?

If that is your line of thinking then yes, there is a problem.

Rob