OT: ~ Dec. 2008 Roll Call/ audiophiles

[Guest guest]

I'm one of those who believes vinyl DOES sound better,

but it certainly can be inconvenient (and expensive).

It was always much more convenient to pop in a CD and let it play; now,

using an iPod makes things even easier.

 

I certainly can enjoy the music on an iPod (even playing mp3s) or on my mediocre

boombox, but I'm generally aware it might sound much better on high end gear.

 

, Gary Mattingly <gsmattingly

wrote:

>

> We could also take into consideration a lossless

> format as opposed to mp3, which is lossy. I like flac,

> free lossless audio codec, but I don't think ipod

> will play that without a hack. I just ripped an album

> and used alac, apple lossless audio codex, encoding

> but haven't tried it on my ipod yet. Don't know if that

> will work or not. Admittedly an ipod isn't really a

> high end piece of stereo equipment to begin

> with. Of course with true high end equipment

> there is a certain cost factor involved.

>

> Of course, there are those who will always say

> vinyl is better . . .

>

> Gary

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> ddog2771 <brighter

>

> Sunday, December 7, 2008 6:20:07 AM

> Re: ~ Dec. 2008 Roll Call ~

>

> I think " Music nerd " (or merely " music lover " ) would be a better term.

> " Audiophile " generally suggests someone obsessed with the accurate

reproduction of

music

> via high end stereo systems.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile

> iTunes' reduction of full fidelity music to mp3s is actually COUNTER to

audiophile

interests,

> though there has been a recent development to " cure " that problem--

> http://www.musicdirect.com/product/82178

>

> The Wadia gear mentioned would be of limited interest to most music lovers,

but seems

to

> have piqued the interest of many audiophiles (though admittedly they're a

niche market).

>

> > i wasn't kidding when i said " rabid audiophile " - i prefer that to music

> > nerd...

>

>