- #101 [celestion], 23-02-10 23:30
- #102 [myml], 23-02-10 23:36以上黑膠唱片我是1976年購買,CD是1986年購買,
我有超過200張CD是1990以前購買,此刻全部沒有任何損傷 - #103 [myml], 23-02-10 23:40reply #101
你這個藏頭露尾之徒答不到問題就躲藏起來嗎? -
- #104 [myml], 23-02-10 23:44reply#101
你真是笑死人 - #105 [fotheringay], 23-02-11 00:31First of all it ain't matter who this EMI這個傢伙, he didn't conduct the research but Nimbus.
I know Nimbus is a very prestigious recording /record label in the history of UK sound engineering industry. They invented the Ambisonics recording technique which to many was years ahead of the idea of SACD. The idea is to give you essentially the attempt to reproduce sound as if it were being performed live.
Nimbus was famous for pressing high quality records for Decca and other labels. Their pressing on Ago, Decca , A&M and others are always sought after.
Furthermore, you had said it yourself "早期的製造CD事業技術可能不太成熟,至有一些不良產品出現", do you imply there are issue and reliability with CD's? What's the difference between LP's then? Some of my records are Shellac records from the 20's and with much care and the right needle they can still provide decent sound.
Let's be real you can't compare different technologies with the same standard. This is not scientific and not with the right platform. Would you say it's fair to compare the performance of a Ford Model T to a recent Mustang ?
I wouldn't even compare a first pressing from the 60's to a reissue from the 70's!!! They should be treated as two very different products.
Many had suggested that you started the thread with the wrong assumption and agenda in the first place. I am not speaking for other people here but my statements are not actually directly arguing your title but rather a trying to present a different perspective.
Moreover, you are trying not to prove yourself right but to prove other people wrong. Again, itself is fundamentally a fault with regards to your thread. - #106 [DC273], 23-02-11 01:36精神兄有乜好拗吖、教色佢哋啦
- #107 [DC273], 23-02-11 01:38世界有嘢唔會點老化喎、咁大个仔刀未听過
- #108 [myml], 23-02-11 04:04reply #105
你以上的所謂論點我在互聯網看過無數次,一般的黑膠唱片支持者,特別是一些買賣二手黑膠唱片的小販都是這麼辯解,
當他們無言以對的時候,總會說黑膠唱片跟CD是不同產物,不能比較等等等等.. 為何這樣?皆因科技就是科技,
在常理下那有舊科技比新科技優勝?
這個貼子的重點是沒有人說聽黑膠唱片就是傻瓜, 貼子是聽黑膠唱片是傻瓜嗎? 這個是一個問號,是一個問題討論,
閣下中國語言不佳可能了解出現問題,這亦難怪..
我在YouTube看過你以數個名稱開設數個的頻道, 看到閣下的擺設, 是不可能以黑膠唱片和CD進行比較,
因此關於黑膠唱片好聲音還是CD好聲音,你的言論是沒有說服力的,
至於其他問題,你的所有論點都站不住腳, 還有,你沒有去比較又怎會知道誰優誰劣?你有去作過相同比較嗎?
最後修改時間: 2023-02-11 04:15:20 - #109 [myml], 23-02-11 04:31再一次, 不知道黑膠唱片是失真產物,不知道黑膠唱片相比CD的差距,聆聽黑膠唱片不是傻瓜。
但是如果明知道黑膠唱片是失真產物,明知黑膠唱片相比CD的差距,依然選擇使用大量金錢去聆聽黑膠唱片,是傻瓜嗎?我的回答是, 當然是傻瓜。。 - #110 [fotheringay], 23-02-11 06:50So, the core of your argument is on value, nominal judgment rather than if it is about desirability, technical difference, personal choice of format and to some degree ignorance from age groups.
Perhaps you set a more rigorous title something like " 聽expensive and old黑膠唱片是傻瓜嗎? "
If your answer is still YES. My answer to you is still a NO. - #111 [myml], 23-02-11 07:26reply#110
1) 從你的言論及影片,相信你只是一名人云亦云的音響發燒友貨色,
因為你根本沒有作出過黑膠唱碟與CD對比就出來發表意見,
你個人認為黑膠唱碟比CD優勝是沒有問題,但不要在公共場所發佈這些言論,
如要發佈,請拿出堅實資料。。
2) (Perhaps you set a more rigorous title something like " 聽expensive and old黑膠唱片是傻瓜嗎? "
If your answer is still YES. My answer to you is still a NO.)
以上這個問題是由閣下的口中出來,沒有人這麼說,是你自說自話
最後修改時間: 2023-02-11 07:28:40 - #112 [myml], 23-02-11 07:31我在這裡拿出的資料比你多,這裡的網友是看到的
- #113 [fotheringay], 23-02-11 08:10First and foremost I am no such 音響發燒友. 人云亦云? 貨色?? I am sorry that's not typical old Hong Kongers dialogue, right? Not sure what do you mean. Then again, I am no longer being seen as old Hongkonger either.
You didn't really read my previous messages, I don't compare all the different formats trying to find their merits or faults. If the music with them is what I enjoy I will have them in my cheap stereo system.
In fact I listen to youtube music a lot these days as there are many non-commercial releases that so rare and special.
"閣下的口中出來,沒有人這麼說,是你自說自話" Of course they are my words, my thought and what's wrong with them being constructed for discussion? This is not a definitive conclusion, but rather a proposal.
Your資料. What 資料? A chipped record you bought many years ago? Your own collection of CD's?
What I presented to you was research material from the industry. You still yet to bring out your findings to support your claim that the spokesman from EMI and the research from Nimbus were false. May I remind you that your claim could constitute a defamation lawsuit.
Nonetheless, I have come to conclusion that this "argument" will continue forever even CD's may be made obsolete. I wish you good luck and my contribution to this thread is now closed. - #114 [myml], 23-02-11 11:03reply#113
我看見閣下在網上有測試音響器材,因此稱你為音響發燒友,人云亦云的意思是指你沒有對比就下結論,
在公共場所討論要有真憑實據,不能總是拿自己的感覺出來強加別人身上,閣下在這貼子偷換概念,
把(聽黑膠唱片是傻瓜嗎?) 討論問題轉變成 (聽黑膠唱片就是傻瓜)令人反感的問題,
加上你故意將(LP失真問題)轉變成(LP老化問題),這個就是重點了。要你拿出資料就是要你拿出證據證明LP不會失真,
LP不會老化,或者CD失真,CD很容易老化,就是這麼簡單。
你的所謂EMI研究資料,可否提供出來,
最後修改時間: 2023-02-11 11:04:24 - #115 [myml], 23-02-11 11:27reply#113
你提出的CD壽命只有8至10年的資料可否提供出來?? - #116 [myml], 23-02-11 13:07reply #113
還有,我不是要你拿出這個網站資料,是要閣下拿出CD只有8至10年壽命的理據或EMI發言人的名字,
我此刻就拿出你相同網站的資料,這個作者名叫 ( Michele Youket ) 是美國國會保護圖書館的專家, 你可以解釋她怎麼說嗎?
我使用中文回應你,就是希望其他網友也看得明白
https://www.vice.com/en/article/mg9pdv/the-hidden-phenomenon-that-could-ruin-your-old-discs
最後修改時間: 2023-02-11 13:10:11 - #117 [myml], 23-02-14 07:54為何閣下不再回言?希望閣下不要再發放虛假資料出來,
因為這會誤導消費者,謝謝.. - #118 [widepanel], 23-02-17 12:34此題材其實談來沒大意義.
玩得 HIFI 主要是個人喜好和聽感先入為主
LP 物理上是針行一次便磨蝕音溝一次沒錯.
CD 物理上是每過一秒透明層氧化和金屬反射層愈老化沒錯.
大家爭論什麼碟才可以聽幾十年, 到時大家耳朵可聽范圍早已經大幅下降亦沒錯.
如果只談物理最後大家無癮. 不如珍惜呢D時間玩自己鍾意嘅野開心最好 - #119 [celestion], 23-02-17 13:08118, widepanel c hing
絕對正確, 聽黑膠唱片和CD是個人愛好, 無分彼此. - #120 [八達通], 23-02-17 21:29如果計傻
我應該係最傻果個
黑膠中文廿幾蚊,英文三,四十蚊,我走去買cd(美版百幾,日版2佰幾)
貪佢收藏及播放都方便
依家黑膠中英3佰幾至5佰幾,英文百幾至2佰幾,本地版cd百幾,sa百幾至两佰幾,我又買黑膠多
因cd死得太多,甘耐既野未必買得返,再再再版又吾係果㨾野
黑膠吾好話隻碟,個盤over40年都吾死都播得 - 下一頁 (6 of 7)
- 返回 ...
傻人講傻話