🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Mar17.024048.9588@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>,
gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) writes:
> news@haddock.ima.isc.com (overhead) writes:

> If you've got a $10k system (my dad does), then records sound better than
> CD's.  Problem is you have to have a $10k system, wash your records w/
> a special record vacuum machine, coat your stylus w/ stuff before each
> record, Then you eliminate the pops & clicks and get depth & imaging that
> CD's don't yet have (because the DAC's aren't yet good enough.)  I used
> to doubt the truth of this, but listening to several Audiophiles systems
> has converted me!
[...]
> 
> --Glenn

I've had this argument with people.  The depth and imaging stuff you
are talking about comes from reproducing accurately the phase information
in the recording.  I believe you when you say that (expensive) record 
players image better than most CD players, but I would claim that it is 
because DAC's on most CD players probably aren't very carefull about 
preserving phase.  (This of course would only be noticeable with few
recordings anyway.)  However, having heard both, I would 
claim that a $10k record player does not sound better than a $10k CD 
player.

thant