Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 17:30:18 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 02:06:04 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
"Gary Rosen" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs
made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact
many, better than the CD version. Go figure.
I figure you've never done a blind test. Of course, you can't really
do a blind test with CD vs. LP since there is always surface noise
to let you know it's an LP.
No, not really. With a good record and record player, the surface noise can
easily be below level of tape hiss of the master from which the 2 sources
were made.
Utter rubbish.
Utter rubbish to your utter rubbish.
No, I bow to your superior ability to produce the stuff.
Wrong as usual.
I have many 'audiophile' LPs, and master tape noise is
*always* lower than record surface noise.
Then you must be using damaged records. Otherwise this is complete
nonsense or you have a unique selection of "audiophile" LPs or, again
your LPs are just wrecked by mistracking or poor cleaning methods.
My LPs are mostly in mint condition, since I never buy used items and
I am careful in my cleaning regime.
What does that have to do with what i said? Anyone can damage their own
records no matter how carefully they do it if their methods are wrong
and mistracking will destroy a new record pretty quickly. If your
records really are mint then they cannot possibly be so damaged as you
describe them.
Plus of course you miss one very
obvious point - digital recordings.
I didn't mis that point at all. IMO most of the best sounding records
wer from analog sources. with the exception of D2Ds they all have some
tape hiss. many of them have tape hiss that far excedes the surface
noise. This is something you seem to be denying. If this is the case
something is seriously wrong with your playback. I never said the
surface noise was *always* less than the tape hiss. Try to keep up.
There's absolutely no question of
being able to hear the natural noise floor of those recordings on LP.
I wouldn't dispute that. Although these are the same recordings that
are famously devoid of quality low level information like hall ambience
and instrument decay.
Your persistent claims of physically impossible things for vinyl are
becoming tiresome.
Then stop making them up.
Indeed, the most basic
knowledge of the relevant dynamic ranges of vinyl and 15 ips analogue
tape would indicate how risible is your claim. OTOH, I have many rock
and pop records where tape noise is certainly audible.... :-(
But you can't hear tape hiss on any of your audiophile LPs? Something
is wrong there.
I can often hear tape hiss in quiet passages, and particularly if it's
faded out between tracks, but it's generally *below* the surface
noise. As you'd expect.
No, I wouldn't expect it at all. and it is hardly true that often.
Scott Wheeler