From: batpuller007@yahoo.com   
      
   "Michael"  wrote in message   
   news:Eqydnf5OitTa0_ncRVn-vg@look.ca...   
   >   
   > "MSmith"  wrote in message   
   > news:_sqdnaohDNE_P_7cRVn-sw@sysmatrix.net...   
   > >   
   > > "Michael"  wrote in message   
   > > news:ftOdnRNi4989v_7cRVn-ug@look.ca...   
   > > > BTW, CD's are not   
   > > > exactly the Sonic Utopia either. An R-DAT @ 48khz or 24 bit MMR disc   
   > > sounds   
   > > > best.   
   > >   
   > > Vinyl is best.<   
   >   
   > Well, if you enjoy slowly destroying the quality of your recordings with   
   > each play...and the snap/crackle/pop to say nothing of the linear nature   
   of   
   > the format.......I agree vinyl is the best!!! LOL.   
   >   
   > Seriously though, Vinyl does sound superior to the compact disc - no doubt   
   > about it. However, an SACD through a tube amp is pretty darn close to   
   sonic   
   > Nirvanna in my opinion.   
   >   
   > However, to each his own and the bottom line is enjoying the music. Hell,   
   I   
   > have bootlegs that are so piss poor in sound quality, they sound like   
   audio   
   > through a telephone. Yet the *performances* are so good, you quickly   
   forget   
   > the technical inferiority and just dig the tunes. It's the music that   
   > matters - not the medium. Personally, I prefer analog 15ips Dolby 'A'   
   > recordings if I had to choose. Again, amplified with 'fire-bottles'!   
   (Tubes   
   > or as the English say...valves.)   
   >   
   > Your friend in music,   
   > Mike T.   
      
   I merely speaking of sound quality. The old 'tube vs tranistor' sonic   
   analogy is quite true. And you will have admit a cd is easier to wreck than   
   a platter.   
      
   ~M   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)