Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
1
A reader writes in to the Washington Post wondering why they didn’t mention the innate superiority of older vinyl in their article:
Virtually every vinyl album released before 1980 produced a pure analog music signal, i.e., the analog sound waves produced by musical instruments and human voices were captured and recorded without converting these sound waves into a chopped-up digital signal that would require further electronic reconfiguration to reproduce an analog sound wave that is audible to human ears. Digital sound processing has made it possible to store and play huge music files with compact, portable devices, but it does so at the expense of sound quality.
Typical fallacy nobody should buy. We can’t hear analog electrical signals either without “electronic reconfiguration”. Unless of course the reader advocates for wind-up gramophones, which I can’t tell without a WaPo subscription.
2 Likes
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
3
No, no wind-up gramophones mentioned. I have one in the basement, for use when Internet is down and Roon is unusable, but I’d hesitate to play anything precious on it.
I did find it amusing recently when folks who paid for MoFi records were up in arms over a revelation that a digital conversion had occurred in creating the records. Funny that no one noticed the awful digital effect prior to the news leaking.
I think thats simplifying case, which adressed the false marketing claims. I don’t think you will be able to find one article that was complaining about the sound quality?
But, i’m sure they will be popping up now that “we” are aware of the horrendous treatment of our precious music.