BOC; I'd Like To, and other stuff

[Stephen Swann]

Carl E. Anderson writes:
>
> > You may not like it, but that's not
> > the same. Otherwise there'd be no point in getting CDs: it sounds
> > `better', but that just means you can hear the sound more clearly, yes?
> > I've not met anyone yet who said,"Well I think it sounds better muffled
> > and scratchy _actually_"
>
>         Gee, but isn't this why it's so trendy to be into vinyl?
>         How many times have I heard "vinyl is _warmer_"? ;)  Er,
> aren't we actually talking about the sound being _muffled_ from
> the compression that come with vinyl (and analog tape, for that matter)?
> And, usually, vinyl is scratcy too ;)
>
>         Personally, I think this is ridiculous.  If the vinyl sounds
> better than the CD, then it wasn't mastered for CD properly, or the
> engineer doesn't know how to use digital recording equipment properly.
> A digital recording _can_ be both as warm as and clearer than analog.
>
>         Now if people say they're into vinyl 'cause they like the
> nostalgia, or the cool original artwork, or floppy black discs, or
> they're favorite band _hasn't_ been mastered properly onto CD (and the
> vinyl really does sound better on their high-end stereo) ...
>         Well, all right then. ;)

Well, just to throw another wrench into the machinery, I remember
hearing a theory that the vibration of the needle introduces some kind
of higher order harmonics into the sound...?  :-)

Anyway, I'm not certain that sometimes the compression of sound and
scratchiness of the medium aren't part of the "charm" of vinyl.  I
have a copy of the Mobile Fidelity gold disk of _Thick As A Brick_,
and it just doesn't have the same feeling of authenticity as the
ancient, scratched up slab of vinyl that I used to listen to.  Go
figure.  :-)

Steve