Tuberoller
Divorced an Orpheus to keep his wife.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2001
- Posts
- 4,941
- Likes
- 15
I spent most of the day returning gear I borrowed and picking up and dropping off additional gear at local audio stores.At one of the stores I stayed to set-up a cartridge I loaned the shop.I had the displeasure of overhearing a young person standing behind me asking the question "why are you guys still screwin' with that vinyl ****"? The question was'nt posed to me but I felt compelled to answer(you know me).I replied, "it sounds better".His reply would formerly(about ten years ago) have forced me to kick his teeth out but I'm older and wiser now so his response of, "sure,to you old, deaf motherf*****s" elicited a chuckle instead.the owner of the shop came over to intervene and add his opinion to the mix.He said that he thinks SACD sounds better than vinyl in most cases.I quickly disagreed and the debate began.After swapping out a few tables and the only available SACD player(the Sony DVP-NS500V) no one was converted.He,the shop owner, said he still thinks SACD sounds better and Vinyl only resolves the most minute details and those can only be translated to music by the most high resolution systems.This from a man who sells many,many turntables to his customers.I think that while SACD does indeed offer the best digital resolution and detail,analog detail and resolution are more natural and sonically pleasing.I added that I think that analog,vinyl in particular,is cable of better treble extension.Our debate ended with his demanding of my definition of "better".Since we got nowhere and wasted much time doing so,I decided to bring this debate here.Please,please,don't offer opinions based on assumption.If you have heard both formats enough to offer a valid opinion, then I really want to know what you think.SACD or Analog(vinyl)?
You know where i stand.
You know where i stand.