I just purchased an Esoteric DV-50s. The unit is fantastic in the sense that you can hear every detail very clearly in most recordings. Here is the thing, does it make for an enjoyable musical expereince? With this type of equipment, you can actually tell who can actually sing and who can really play. Some artist who I have really enjoyed in the past come across as, how shall I put it, not as talented. This causes almost a loss of enjoyment in the music. Which comes to my Vinyl curiousity. I dont own a single record, but I have been curious why so many have kept the LP's (and tubes for that matter) alive for so long after the digital revolution and now I am thinking it is probably has to do with LP's being more laid back and maybe even more musical. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Would someone recommend going back to Analog. I was thinking of getting a entry level player like a Scout Master.
JMC - I'm gonna need you to review all three pages of the thread, because "digitals" answers are all there. Just for starters, review the posting submitted by D_Edwards. Once you're done, then review the rest. Our postings are facts, no name calling or rhetorical fillers. Just meat and potatoes.
11-11-06: Cdwallace "Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."
For the record - to keep the statement in proper context, its unfortunate that the question couldn't be resolved with an answer, just an opinion...that is according to the analog experts. This is the intended context of the statement, and shouldn't be misconstrued in any other manor.
Sad you need to make sure your statements aren't twisted the wrong way. Even more bizarre! Cdwallace (Threads | Answers)
It's also what makes digital, digital. For you haven't come up with any proof that digital sounds better.
So again I ask....what is the point of this meaningless excersize in futility?
"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."
For the record - to keep the statement in proper context, its unfortunate that the question couldn't be resolved with an answer, just an opinion...that is according to the analog experts. This is the intended context of the statement, and shouldn't be misconstrued in any other manor.
Sad you need to make sure your statements aren't twisted the wrong way. Even more bizarre!
"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."
This statement should not be taken partially or out of context. It is a complete statement. Referencing one part without the other is even more unfortunate.
"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion"
How bizarre. It is unfortunate that folk's appreciation for music is subjective?
Clearly you want us to like digital, but sadly I don't. I sincerely apologize. I strongly suspect my preference for analogue is because I attend recitals very frequently, and since I am intimately familiar with natural music, I want my system to match said music in the most accurate way possible.
I guess had I no reference to what natural live music sounds like, I would have been a happy clam with a surround setup ... Man, I am really losing out due to the fact that familiarizing myself with real music.
"But we still don't know if Digital is actually better than Analog."
Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary.
Well since my original post it seems that a lot has changed. We now know that there seems to be this division between analog and digital. But we still don't know if Digital is actually better than Analog.
Since I am currently taking a Black and White photography class and yes I am processing and printing my film and photographs. I guess that puts me in a position to judge this debate as I also have moved on to a Digital SLR.
When printing lint is the enemy it leaves these ugly white spots on your prints. Oh I almost forgot one must be sure and clean your negative thoroughly before printing. Sound familiar. We can use what is called dodging and burning on our prints to make them look better. But remember the utmost care must be taken when handling a negitive you don't want to scratch it.
Now we have digital, now my camera shoots in 4 different digital densities, RAW, Fine JPG, Medium JPG and Low JPG. So lets see that would be CD or .WAV, FLAC or ACC, MP3 128k and MP3 32k. And lets not forget photoshop for all those touchup duties.
Ok lets see I have hard work, dedication and schooling to be able to take, process, and print film.
For digital I put in auto mode (Only because I am still learning hot to use my camera) point and shoot a little touchup with the prefered photo shop and I am done.
So which is Better Film or Digital. The conclusion I have come to is I like both.
And for those of you that are curious my film camera is a Nikon as well as my digital SLR. You can take that for what it is worth as my DX lenses are Nikor and my manual film lenses are Nikon, couldn't afford Nikor ar the time.
So I think we finaly have an answer as to wether Digital is actually better than Analog. :))
"I believe it's up to individuals to inform themselves on the merits and then make a personal value-judgement as to how much (extra?) time and money they're willing to allot to a particular pursuit. And no one else should question their decision."
Nsgarch - We are in agreement on this point. It should also be noted the in order to make the best overall decision, one should be willing to examine both sides of the "fence." If your decision is analog, then great. However, if you decision is analog because: 1)digital is not the audiophile way, 2) I can't completely comprehend digital as I can analog, or 3) a bunch of audio guys said I should do analog because they don't care for digital; then there is something wrong.
Its all about making the best, educated decision based on the full scope of things, not just one side. This requires one to look past the warm glow, welcoming rhetoric or lack of understanding. This further requires one to investigate the pros and cons of all aspects of both sides. Without this, its just follow the lead or Simon says.
You Know as I do that the word record is slang for Phonograph Recording. A recording is a moment in time frozen to be recreated and enjoyed by the listener in their own environment at their own convienence repeatadly as they will. 78's ep's, 45's, and 33 & 1/3 recordings or another slang term Albums are concieved to represent that moment in time.
Now Digital recording has been established long enough to expose its own warts and wonders much like any other studio instrument ie Microphones, producers, and the mastering process. And this information can be stored digitally or as analog information and then pressed as vinyl or compact disc with any amount of processing in the chain along the way.
A purists point of view can be kept ambient and use only period instruments from the age of enlightenment, next tubed electronics with ribbon microphones is another choice, maybe ala Walter Carlos and Robert Moog with synthesized generated waveforms. We even can thank Lou Reed for Metal Machine Music in BInaural Sound (I can't believe thats been reissued!)
Whether it has been a wire recording of Memphis Minnie, a cassette of Reverend Gary Davis or an eight track of Derek and the Dominoes; the thing is it is a collection of recordings of a performance that can Never no Never be repoduced to the same effect as sitting in the last row of the Fillmore East. Having the train rumble underneath your feet at a Stravinsky concert at Carnigie Hall, seeing Lou Reed sing with his back to the audience while he recorded Rock and Roll Animal at the Academy of Music, or hearing horns that where not there upstairs at Max's at a Big Star concert while Alex Chilton sings Bang a Gong and the sound slaps off the wall and hits you on the back of the head. Now close your eyes and think about being at the Lennox Lounge and sitting across from Lady Day as she waited to go up and sing with the Prez while he stepped into that last riff of Perdido and tell me if you care if its digital or analog or MemoreX or a wire recording that scratches like a hundred a day Jones.
Listening to Earth Wind and Fire Gratitude Live Columbia Original Vinyl
Nsgarch, FWIW we are in total agreement. Beyond a certain level of reproduction I for one, and I'm confident there are many others, just don't want to be obsessing about audio minutia...I want to be really listening to and hearing the music. Its fun to fiddle with audio, but its not so fun when it gets in the way of music appreciation.
Often we DO trade convenience/practicality/profit (newer technologies) for certain "qualities" available only with older methods. This is true in all areas of human endeavor.
I believe it's up to individuals to inform themselves on the merits and then make a personal value-judgement as to how much (extra?) time and money they're willing to allot to a particular pursuit. And no one else should question their decision.
We see examples everywhere of persons who are absolutely obsessive about obtaining the utmost in quality in a particular field, while exhibiting total lack of taste, interest, knowledge, or care in many other areas of their lives -- even if they could afford something "better."
If a person's answer to the question "Is it worth it to you?" is "No" then leave 'em be -- they're doing other things that you're not interested in ;--) .
It is a crime tring to compare digital and analogue!
Go and look up the word "ANALOGUE". You'll get the anwser instantly. Digital is a mere mathematical formula that resembles the original recording. If a turntable is set up propperly and you have decent records it is the most satisfying experience of ones audio-life! I once also was very sceptical and stubborn.
There is nothing wrong with tubes - it is the output-transformer that is the trouble. But there is tube-amps out there that is absolutely 'perfect' in every way.
I never said that all new approaches are better than the old. In fact, I never said which approach was better. I certainly never said film is worse than digital camera.
Actually, I was just trying to say that a new approach versus an old approach brings change, which often becomes a highly emotive subject. Judging by your comment,
DaVinci or Picasso? Frost or Hemmingway? Pamela Anderson or Ashley Judd, Analog or Digital? Tubes vs Solid State? The questions are very similar. After being in this hobby for over a decade, I have learned mostly that musical presentation is different for everyone. I appreciate that some people on this forum are very well educated and give the formulas for great music but I have come to the conclusion that if I can sit through a whole song and my foot is going with the beat, it is a good system. I dont care if it's a B&K $500 set up or a Wilson Alexander $100,000 set-up.
"go speak to a professional musician and ask him whether they prefer vacuum tube or transistor guitar amps ..."
Guitar players CREATE sound with tubes amplifiers not REPRODUCE sound, fitness to purpose....everything is a nail to you isn't it?
"think digital camera are superior to film cameras."
for about 99% of us there is no substitute, and once again you're looking for style points and like many old photographers they cannot make the switch to the new technology, and some of the things you perceive as limitations of the camera are actually weaknesses in other areas of the developing process. If you would learn to research stuff Paully everything wouldn't be a mystery.
BTW, never seen a LCD Rolex "
Thus they've never been the most accurate watches for keeping time. Style points are not part of the equation but as my slightly upgraded turbo charged Subaru out handles and out runs the best best carberated car refferred to above, one has to wonder when i'm smooching the trophy girl who really has the better car?
If you want style points and esoteric glory Analog is waaaay better than digital in that area. If you're interested in the music and rproducing it with a high degree of accuracy, the line is not so clear.
Clearly you carry some resentment to folks who listen to vinyl LPs. I can only surmise your resentment extends to everybody that do not embrace your obviously-flawed theories on sound reproduction, which incidently, is probably the majority of posters on this board.
Which begs the question, why frequent an analogue forum? I cannot for a second think you actually believe we take your theories seriously. Nobody can be that naive ...
VHS versus DVD. Carburetors versus electronic controlled fuel injection. Film versus digital camera Letter versus an email Mechanical spring wristwatch versus LCD (not worth repeating more of this BS)
I thought you were a cut above messrs. Edwards and Wallace ... well, not the first time I was wrong. Yep, a letter being inferior to a email is definitive proof analogue is inferior to digital. I mean, it is not that I am the type imbecile and actualy listen to both mediums and decide which I prefer. Rather I look at letters ...
BTW, never seen a LCD Rolex ... and you sound somewhat uninformed if you think digital camera are superior to film cameras. Go speak to a professional photographer (youre obviously quite ignorant). And while your eat it, go speak to a professional musician and ask him whether they prefer vacuum tube or transistor guitar amps ...
Oh yeah, for security purposes letters are superior to email. Email is not secure and may legally be read by any third party ... letters are protected by law. Just go ask Foley how risky email is.
In general, the proposition that "digital is better than analog" or viceversa remains undecidable.
Exactly, both are great but unfortunately one still has a future ahead of it whilst the other has its best days behind it. No doubt the analog part of digital, as we know it, will be replaced eventually too....something that sends impulses directly to nerves in the brain perhaps...no more speakers...who knows?
Very little point in arguing about it, as there is little chance that we go backward 30 years, anyway.
Such an emotive subject. An old versus a new approach.
I catch myself sometimes saying to the kids, "Well, in my day, things were much better..." but things do move on, and the kids just roll their eyes...
VHS versus DVD. Carburetors versus electronic controlled fuel injection. Film versus digital camera Letter versus an email Mechanical spring wristwatch versus LCD A fax versus an electronic file. Natural fabrics versus man made Horse versus motor car Balloon versus aeroplane Organic food versus industrial production Pen and ink versus ballpoint pen Newspaper versus internet news Coal versus Oil FM Radio versus MTV Slide rule versus Calculator Stone versus concrete Candle versus lightbulb Carbon fibre composites versus wood sports gear Leather Ski boots versus plastic Shadorne (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)
Such an emotive subject. An old versus a new approach.
I catch myself sometimes saying to the kids, "Well, in my day, things were much better..." but things do move on, and the kids just roll their eyes...
VHS versus DVD. Carburetors versus electronic controlled fuel injection. Film versus digital camera Letter versus an email Mechanical spring wristwatch versus LCD A fax versus an electronic file. Natural fabrics versus man made Horse versus motor car Balloon versus aeroplane Organic food versus industrial production Pen and ink versus ballpoint pen Newspaper versus internet news Coal versus Oil FM Radio versus MTV Slide rule versus Calculator Stone versus concrete Candle versus lightbulb Carbon fibre composites versus wood sports gear Leather Ski boots versus plastic
Organic? Does that mean that analog recordings are supposed to be bio-degradable?
3D optical storage = surround sound? Not really. . . it only means that by storing data in 3 dimensions we may in principle achieve higher data density. . . how the higher data density is used remains undefined by the storage medium.
Monna Lisa painted by Picasso? What a fanciful notion. . . last I checked the author was one Leonardo Da Vinci, who lived in Italy some several centuries before Pablo Picasso was even born in Spain.
In general, the proposition that "digital is better than analog" or viceversa remains undecidable.
Cdwallace, what exactly is the point of your ramblings? I see the 'Cd' in your moniker, so it seems you are a digital fan. Are you simply trying to convince yourself that you made the correct choices? If it's that simple, you win. Digital is your preference, enjoy it.
I, and thousands others, prefer the sound of vinyl. It's no contest on many occasions. You're welcome to enjoy your digital, but OTOH, you cannot prove that digital sounds better either. So what is the point of this futile excercise?
I am somewhat perturbed as to why folks such Edwards and Wallace continue posting on the analogue forum.
Obviously they really like their own opinions (that is quite evident) and I dont think there is anything wrong with liking your own opinion. But surely they cannot be so naive to think that others on this forum place quite the same value on their opinions as they do?
Sorry, didn't mean to get carried away. I find analog to be more organic and rich. Digital gets rather analytical. Sure it has more detail but less warmth. I was born in the 50's , so I have been listening to analog longer then digital. And i still listen to analog more. Didn't buy a CD player untill the mid 90's. Always had a turn table.
"made the brilliant observation that the sonic qualities of tube amps out-pace SS amps at a given price, until you get up into the megabuck range"
This statement is again subjective. When tube amps are tested and compared to the test results of solid state, do the tube results reveal they outpase SS amps? After all, IMO one of the few non-subjective standards to audio is testing. I can say you're wrong, and the next say we're both right. What standard can be applyed to both theories to validate some sort of factual result?
"It simply takes a lot of money before SS catches up to tubes. My guess why (and it's only a guess) is that folks have been working with tubes longer"
Which raises another question...why do all recordings have the same tonal reproductive charactoristics, even when switching tube amps? This can be proved by the battery of testing manufactors do to thier product prior to release to the public. In order to validate a manufactors claim of superiourity, they have to prove the claims via testing. Correct? This is where the subjectivity is ultimately reduced to a minimum.
"And I think the situation between analog and digital playback is similar. If you spend megabucks on digital, (Wadia, EMM, CDS, Esoteric, Aural Symphonics optics, etc) the analog/digital debate becomes moot again (assuming decent LP/CD software for each.) HOWEVER, if you spend less than megabucks for BOTH your analog and your digital gear, the analog is going to sound better than the digital for the same reason that modestly priced tube gear sounds better than modestly priced SS gear: Analog has been developed and refined for over 85 years vs. digital for barely 30. So of course a MODEST analog rig will smoke a MODESET digital rig. What the hell would you expect!"
This entire statement is again subjective. I've heard a tube based system, Dali Helicon 700, Cayin tube amp and preamp, play a CD from the Bob James Trio, and only 1 of the 12 or 13 tracks remotely close to the intended composer and producers recording. Even a Jolida tube CD player, amp and preamp setup with MBL 101 Hybirds have a very difficult time with this. And the list doesn't stop there.
Care to tackle this explaination?
Bad equipment? Each time it was explained that this is how it was supposed to sound! Come again??! Sad part about it is every other recording sounded just about the same. These are recordings I have listened to countless times, via a number of studio grade headphones and SS systems, and the quality of the reproduction sounded similar but different ie better accuracy, larger soundstage, deaper soundstage, more detail and such, depending on the quality of the setup. I'm sorry but megabucks is an excuse why analog development hasn't progressed any further than what it has. 80+ years is a long time, but nothing has changed in the last 40, and I'm being generous.
"What the hell would you expect!"
I expect the best from both a technological and perfomance stand. This requires fact and proven theories which in turn leaves no room for subjectivity. Analog, truth be told, has yet to accomplish this.
"And though I own great examples of both technologies, and enjoy them equally, I know in my heart that analog has pretty much reached the peak of its development, while digital has only begun to be explored"
One of the few non-subjective statement I have heard so far. This is why I love digital more than analog, because digital can only get better from here. Analog, in all its glory, can not advance but so much further...it at all! Even you said this yourself! And your did you reach this conclusion...factual assessment of both technologies and thier progress until this point in time. Fact!
"just to offer a single "for instance": what will happen to digital audio reproduction when 3-D optical storage becomes available? Think about it."
Digital will advance even further...the very structural foundation of 3-D optimal will no doubt be digital. In fact 3 dimensional was in development since the 60's and 70's and is advancing even as we speak. Its called surround sound. But thats another conveluted discussion in itself!
Let me point this out, in case you haven't noticed, but your entire post did not answer the originally posted question.
"to me the 'better' or 'best' are improper to use toward art.....'prefer', 'more satisfying', 'more life-like to my ears', 'more involving'."
"i could care less about any subjective reasons"
This is where things take a turn for the grey area, because that mindset, anything goes. This is why audio is in the state of disarray its in today.
"Music is art"
Mike, music is art, very true! Music reproduction is not!! If I were fortunate enough to purchase the Mona Lisa, get this painting home, hang it on my wall and decide I don't think her smile is big enough...do I pull out the water color kit and make the smile bigger? Of course not! I'm not Picasso. He is the artist, not me. So why then would I classify the manipulation of the Mona Lisa as art? Now lets apply this to audio. If the intended recording artist purposely put in a little extra highs or edge in the recording, or kept everything smooth and melo, then why would I want to manipulate the intended recording to suite my taste. The extra highs are removed, manipulating the intended purpose of the highs, or the smoothness is imphasized, this manipulating the recording to be overly melo. Now...lets apply this to the topic at hand. Analog more times than not will manipulate the recording to fall or work within its perameters, or those set by the consumer not the artist. This is true because you can swop out parts to better suite your taste.
"my wife tells me they are better for me for some objective reasons."
Your wife is a wise woman. It wouldn't hurt to figure out those objective reasons either.
"the reasons i had sworn off getting involved in this subject again is that the whole need to find objective justifications why i like something gets in the way of the enjoyment and confuses what is important. why simply does not matter....TO ME."
Mike... the thread question was not posed directly to you, nor was it intended to be answered based on your feelings at the moment. Its not about you, its about whether digital is actually better than analog. In order to validate statements, be it for or against, you need some sort of reasoning behind your resolution. This is where subjectivity is dismissed.
"digital is a market driven product...and every new digital advance is market driven. the obvious ease of production and use of digital media and the economic force it causes are responsible for who buys what. performance audio issues drive vinyl.....and the maket for performance 2-channel audio is small (but feisty)."
Mike, I'm sorry but I will have to disagree again. Consumers don't buy CDs or vinyl for that matter because of market, ease of production or economics. They buy CD's because they want to or enjoy the artist they purchased. That being said, they want to hear what the artist has to offer on the CD, as the artist intended. Digital preserves that intent, without manipulation.
Besides Zeal - If I were to say "Zeal..he's a joke" or "Digital sucks because you're too clueless to understand it" or "You show exactly why you made the comment you did everytime you speak" then I'm in the wrong because I have not contributed to the discussion topic.
The number of recordings that use no compression is incredibly small, like .001%. Compression is a signal to noise reality that must be addressed and not ignored. Compression is a good thing if you like vinyl.
Compression is a pop music/commercial issue. Most of the music I buy is essentially unnaffected by the "radio track" mentality. Peter Gabriel "So" is a perfect example of "Radio Edit" versus "Album edit"....Big Time and Sledgehammer mixed for Radio, the rest of the album is simply excellent and natural.
Video Killed the Radio Star, technology cannot replace talent as many of today's "pop" producers are asked to do. Now singers have to look good first, before they even get a chance to sing.
The reverse from the 40's and 50's where there was more talent than technology and no MTV metality that lumped your looks in as "talent".
Shadorne - I say quality recording is dying because that is what the "powers that be" want. And ultimately the consumer doesn't care - and so it goes. We are both saying the same thing.
Agreed. We definitely agree.
The problem is not the dying of the "art"; skilled people who know what they are doing. Indeed, as you say, the "powers that be" demand what they "think" sells.
Do consumers even realize that this loudness escalation has been going on in the music industry since the 50's..."powers that be" deciding that loud and compressed sells better?
....let's not shoot the messenger (the recording/mastering engineers who are just doing their job and giving clients what they want)
...perhaps the decline in CD sales is parly a reflection of poor quality "hot" music.....after all why bother buying a CD if it so heavily compressed/awful sounding and only suitable for an iPod, Car or PC system....might as well download a lossy mp3 as it is cheaper, more convenient and the quality is often just as good compared to an awful compressed CD.
Shadorne - I say quality recording is dying because that is what the "powers that be" want. And ultimately the consumer doesn't care - and so it goes. We are both saying the same thing.
recording/mastering engineers are often complaining about the demands of clients/producers to produce "loud" (=compressed) CD's
Compressed music is my pet peeve. I simply cannot listen to any music if it has been compressed. Sadly, most of the rock and roll/pop genre is compressed. Damn shame I think.
The art of making an excellent recording seems to be dying. But the mainstream doesn't care - heck, they don't even notice with their poor quality playback systems.
If you check pro audio forums you will see that recording/mastering engineers are often complaining about the demands of clients/producers to produce "loud" (=compressed) CD's.
The recording art and technology is not dying (although with all the available tricks in pro tools today there is a growing tendency to over-engineer things). The problem is that artists and producers are demanding loud in your face recordings, stuff that grabs attention but is easily tiresome to the ears! To me that is the problem.
Bob Katz has a web page that explains all the issues.
Brian - I agree with you. After my short-lived foray with analog, I have decided that I am better off simply finding good recordings to get an improvement in sound quality. I have come to the conclusion that many recording engineers don't have good hearing - and they just don't care. Getting something out fast is the main goal in our capitalistic world and I would say they are pressured to do just that (for the most part). Quantity is worth more than quality. Just look at iPods. I would much prefer hearing excellent quality music in the evening than mediocre quality music all day. But I suppose I am part of the minority. The art of making an excellent recording seems to be dying. But the mainstream doesn't care - heck, they don't even notice with their poor quality playback systems.
Having read and enjoyed this thread so far I feel that it must be said that only well recorded discs either vinyl or polycarbonate sound good and all badly recorded discs sound bad.The people in the recording studio have a far greater effect on how a recording sounds than the method of play back.Copys transferred from the other format rarely are improvements,although I have a few lp,s transferred from digital master tapes that are stunning.I have over 2000 lp albums and mostly listen to less than 100 on a regular basis.I have maybe 300 cd,s and only 10-15 are as good as my better lp,s.Before owning my georgemark dac I only used the cd player to warm up the system before listening now there is a choice.George Bischoff sent me a home cut demo disc with the dac that is fantastic and the equal of any record I own but I am having great difficulty finding cd,s in my musical taste even close in performance,lets not shoot each others formats down, we as a consumer group need to put pressure on the recording studios to clean up their acts.We will never have live music from machines but the closest to live is always recorded faithfully at source.
Detlof - Yes indeed, that is how I tweak my pair of 32/36 DGAV Webers in my BWM Bavaria 3.0. I have even done that for 6 sets of 45 DCOE Webers on a Lamborghini LP400S, among others. It is the easiest and best way I have found to do it.
Arthur, you forgot to mention that the good old Weber twins were given the final touch by listening. In those times of yore, the tweakers were musical, not mere mechanics and if you had three, or even six in a row that took quite a time. But oh, what wonderful sound..... (no, Marsha, Weber didn't make tts)
but nevertheless progress (if you can call it that) is relentless.
More like change, isn't it, in this particular case. Or, if we wish to use the word as a verb, we may say: "as time progresses" certain processes become simpler OR more convenient (or both) with the advent and development of digital media formats". For example, recording and mastering...
there is nothing quite like the sound of air rushing down the venturi pipes when you accelerate. Fuel injection sounds so mechanical and precise, regimented and digital.
LOL. Nostalgia... the gasoline smell of a flooded engine on a cold day....the old floor the accelerator trick to get the 'ol baby to fire up (especially when flooded)....not to mention cleaning spark plugs and warming them up on the kitchen stove (that always worked for me).....and, of course, the manual choke control ....the richness of it all! Cars had indvidual character and temperament back in those days, and they responded to your care!
In comparison digital audio certainly lacks character. Boringly consistent perhaps. Where is the fun?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
