[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many
comparisons have you made of various issues of the same commercial
titles blind? I've done hundreds.

I'm not quite clear what you mean.

Sorry that my attempt to stay on subject confused you. Remeber the
subject of why it makes sense to digitize LPs? Remember the claim that
one good reason is becuase in so many cases an LP version of a given
title is sonically superior to any CD version? Sorry that my attempt to
move back to the real issue confused you.

Ah. Of course. Now I understand


No you don't. I suspect you never will.

you haven't a clue as to why some CDs will
sound different from the 'same' LP.


Good lord are you really that ****ing stupid?


It's not some magic which can't be
measured - it's because they go through different mastering processes.


OK an honest question here. Are you really so ****ing stupid that you
have missed it every time I have said as much or are you just incapable
of having an honest conversation on this subject? Really which is it?


In
the case of CD because the intention is to 'improve' on the master tape.
With LP often essential to produce a playable version.


Dude get your head out of your ass. It will help you hear better. You
really think the current state of CD mastering is about improving the
sound? You must be deaf or a complete ****ing idiot to believe that
crap. Hey I have an idea go get the new Dylan album on CD and tell us
how the mastering improved the sound on the master tape.


But if you're copying a LP to CD at home, this doesn't apply.



It's quite revealing.

Yes it is. Give it a try.

Why repeat what I said?


Where did you say "Yes it is. Give it a try?"




The crunch point comes at about 12 bits

What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you
came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself?

Ah - you didn't understand what I meant at all. And obviously haven't
conducted this sort of test.

Right. I haven't conducted tests below 16 bits.

Why not?

I answered the question just below didp****.

You seem convinced 16 bit doesn't deliver what *you* want - so
perhaps 12 might? After all, the measurable parameters of an LP are well
below 16 bit spec in every way, so perhaps this would be just what you're
looking for.


You are indeed a ****ing idiot.



Why should I when I hear differences between 16 and 24?

Right. Thank you for confirming you don't know how to conduct proper
testing.


thank you for confirming your head is in fact way up your ass.



(straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get
cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD
at 16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think.


Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices.

Not *my* choices, pal.


My bad. I forgot that some just can't think for themselves

Oh you certainly 'think'.

Yes, you might want to give it a try some day.

*Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment *


Is that how you do things? Explains a lot. No thank you. I am a big fan
of excellence.



Scott