On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:03:50 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


The question is not about what can be done but about what is being
done.

no.

the question is which one is better, and the answer is overwhelmingly
digital.

just because a bunch of incompetent twits *can* **** things up (which
they don't normally do, it's just another diversion of yours) doesn't
mean the medium itself is bad.

What kind of gear you use to listen to music?

this isn't about me.

it's about the difference in two technologies.

why can't you accept the fact that digital surpasses vinyl, something
which can be mathematically proven?

It's about "a bunch of incompetent twits (who) *can* **** things up
_(which_they_don't_normally_do)_" ....

You think they "don't normally do". It all depends upon what you
listen to, and what you listen to it on. That's why I asked "What kind
of gear do you use to listen to music?" For some reason you don't
want to answer this question. Probably 'nuff said.

it doesn't depend on anything.

music producers or their companies don't **** things up routinely or
intentionally.

The way you are fudging I am beginning to believe that you listen to
equipment which you know can reproduce the sound only a little better
than a two tin cans on a string and is incapable of transmitting a
quality sound signal to the listener: that you can't know from your
ordinary listening experience how well any particular performance was
recorded. You say what you say as a matter of dogma which you have
read somewhere.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens