bob wrote:
wrote:
Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
. It is my impression that
1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
the signal used to make them.
No. They are audibly transparent transfers of the "master tapes" (by
which I mean, the very last stage of processing) used to make
them--assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence.
OK. i meant the same thing by signal. but if you wish to refer to the
master tape that is fine. so you agree with that statement so long as
we refer to the master tape itslef rather than the signal. Fine with
me.
2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
manugfacturing of those CDs.
OK, assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence.
Which begs the question how many commercial CDs are out there that
suffer from
" manufacturing screw-ups or other incompetence?" So what say you on
this question? Common problem, rare problem not a problem?
3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
master.
No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the
artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here.
Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the
artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant
entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions
as to how their releases will sound.
The
"artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a
recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like.
They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings.
So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that
sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this
context.
If it
doesn't,
If what doesn't? The CD the LP?
then they screwed up.
Who screwed up?
So intentions aside would you agree with the first part of #3
Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate
sounding
version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig.
4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
original sound of a live recording.
LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . .
the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here.
My bad. I sould have said *the* original sound of *the* live event
that was recorded.
"There are
an infinite number of "sounds of a live recording."
I'm not going to nit pick hyperbole.
5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
No. They are simply preferences.
I know that preferences are preferences. The question I ask is do you
believe those preferences are more commonly the result of biases rather
than actual sound?
Thank you for your response.