still sounds better than digital

[kev7d]

Another nice image.  

[Clicker]

Personally I do not  think anything should be moved as it is all relevant to the original post  and stimulated by that ...  Iain my opinion anyway ...  I  really don't think it is really off topic myself ...

[Black Pearl]

3 hours ago, FUJI said:

P.S. Mods should we move the audio part of this thread away from Dav's photographs?

Fine where it is and I think threads like this help the community spirit of TIPF as we learn of others interest and how they gel with photography.

 

Fuji you mentioned internet radio which oddly is something I used to play around with a lot but fell out of love with so I might go have another listen as the Squeezebox has access. Mostly though I just turn the Tivoli one and let it hum along in the background as I move from room to room, its something a good table radio manages to do that a full blown Hi-Fi somehow struggles with. 

[JamesT]

My hypothesis about why some people prefer vinyl (apart from "hipster snobbery" which, unfortunately, is often likely to be the case) is that although the frequencies above 22.05kHz Nyquist cutoff of CD's are not audible on their own (to normal hearing) they may be heard as a modifier. I used to do some digitization of 78's and as a test I sometimes digitized at 96kHz sampling, and I have seen evidence for signal above 22kHz even on acoustic recordings!

[ChrisLumix]

23 hours ago, JamesT said:

My hypothesis about why some people prefer vinyl (apart from "hipster snobbery" which, unfortunately, is often likely to be the case) is that although the frequencies above 22.05kHz Nyquist cutoff of CD's are not audible on their own (to normal hearing) they may be heard as a modifier. I used to do some digitization of 78's and as a test I sometimes digitized at 96kHz sampling, and I have seen evidence for signal above 22kHz even on acoustic recordings!

Well, yes. Of course. Goes without saying...