Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: I get that- those technologies are old, but not obsolete posted by Ralph on April 19, 2017 at 08:55:42
The market still exists for thes things because some people like them despite being obsolete. It's not always about utility. Markets are driven by numerous forces.
no longer produced or used; out of date.
Clearly LPs and analog and the other examples you gave are produced and are used as soon as they are made. So at least as far as the dictionary is concerned, the word does not apply in this case.
'older tech' seems more apropos...
no longer in general use; fallen into disuse:
an obsolete expression.
of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date:
an obsolete battleship.
(of a linguistic form) no longer in use, especially, out of use for at least the past century.
Lot's of uses for the word
unless there is an alternate definition of which most of us were previously unaware :)
then we are talking about different things.
So the best I can make out is you have an alternative definition.
How about you define what you mean by 'obsolete'.
"no longer in general use"
"no longer produced or used"
Interesting because I see a huge difference between "no longer in **GENERAL** use. and "no longer produced or used"
Every example I gave is no longer in "general" use but still is produced or used. You don't see a big difference between those two definitions?
When you can find LPs at Target, its general use.
Keep in mind its kids, not audiophiles, the fuel LP sales.
I understand that. But it was my other examples that you claim supported your argument that I was really thinking of here. Niche markets for older technology does not point to a failure of the newer technology to deliver on the promise of improved performance. It's a non sequitur argument. There are too many examples of it not being true.
The continued production of prop planes does not prove a failure of jet planes to deliver superior performance.
The continued production of sail boats does not prove a failure of motorized ocean vessels to deliver superior performance.
The revival of polaroid cameras does not prove a failure of digital photography to deliver superior performance to that of polaroid photography.
The continued interest in equestrian sports is not proof that the automobile has failed to deliver a superior means of transportation.
regardless of any subjective opinions about the relative aesthetic merits of vinyl v. digital media your argument in and of itself fails. The vinyl revival is not proof of a failure in digital technology delivering on performance.
My company is very engaged in the local music scene, so we get a lot of contact with kids (20-30 somethings) and like myself they say the reason they buy LPs is because they sound better. Mind you, from what I can tell most of them have pretty inexpensive systems but they still say that.
That is what has led me to my initial assertion as I very much doubt this is a local phenomenon.
IME when all else is equal vinyl sounds better than digital on my system with my vinyl playback rig. But rarely is all else equal. We have few examples of recordings that were transfered both to the cutting lathe and the A/D converter off the exact same feed. I find that one has to take it on a title by title basis when looking for the best sounding versions of a given recording and often there is no definitive winner with tradeoffs ruling the day.
Are the reason why most CDs are compressed more than LPs. For this reason when cutting a project we always ask for the original files rather than those used to master the CD. There's no expectation the LP will be played in a car.
LPs also have more bandwidth in record and playback; 35khz is no worries. This helps to reduce phase shift, essential to proper soundstage reproduction.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: