IV, Music, Headphones, iPods, etc.

[John Carvill]

>> I meant this stuff from Herman Hesse's novel:

>I know you did, that's why my following response is:

>	"Listen to those basses stride. . ."

Right, I didn't make that connection. I plead disconbobulation due to
the jarringly flippant nature of your preceding comments!
Especially.....

>>>> We know Pynchon loves Rock 'n' Roll, yes?
>>>
>>> Maybe?
>>>
>>Eh? You're joking, yes? Maybe.

>Not really. Inherent Vice is shot throughout with ambivalence towards
>Rock 'n Roll.

Say wha? What about the Slow Learner intro, Rock 'n' Roll will never die?

>> But, if you have *really* crappy gear, then you can still get
>> great sound from an LP.

>No. Sorry, but I don't buy into that whole "a child's Fisher-Price
record player sounds better than a Wadia" diatribe. Sometimes bad is
bad.


Ah, I didn't say really crappy children's gear. I just meant, say, an
old system which wasn't very high-end when new, etc. So please (Mr
Postman) don't ascribe any diatribe to me.

> You can get amazing sound from a CD.

Well, but it's amazing sound of a certain sort. There are always bits
missing. Too many bits, say some; not enough to matter, say others.
Well, the proof is in the pudding, say I.

One thing for sure: when you are listening to a CD, even a really good
one like, say, the Stereo remaster of the White Album, there is always
the lingering feeling - however imaginary or real - that you'd enjoy
the vinyl more. The converse is not true: one doesn't suspect, whilst
listening to Sgt. Pepper in mono on original UK vinyl, that you'd be
better off with the new remastered mono CD.


>You can get amazing sound for the first fifteen minutes of an LP—good
news for Beatles fans as their records mostly run somewhere near 35
minutes each for the most part.. After that the resolution of an LP is
more like a typical "high-end" CD player

No, sorry, I don't subscribe to that whole 'vinyl degenerates'
diatribe! Ok, I know what you mean, but I reckon you are exaggerating
the extent of that degredation. The quality may alter as you move
towards the centre of the disc, but the nature of the medium remains.

> Digital has the potential to sound better than
analog.

That is up for debate, and is being endlessly debated. It isn't
directly relevant to what I said, though: I said that vinyl sounds
better than CDs. It's possible (probable) that the Beatles' catalogue,
for example, will one day be issued on a digital format which allows
for a higher bit rate, thereby making it superior to CD, while still
digital. Sorta the equivalent of those full-size sensor, 24 megapixel
digital SLRs - the resolution is creeping close to equalling film, but
the nature of the medium will always be, um, inherently different.

I accept that I may be allowing my prejudices to enter into it
(although I don't think I am), but the digital nature of CD seems, to
me, to strip out a lot of the qualities which makes music enjoyable in
the first place.

We can take a guess at what Pynchon's preference might be...