wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
In article ,
wrote:







OK, now we've established that our opinions differ.


That was established long long agao. Sorry i didn't give you anything
to attack.


End of yet another
pointless exercise.


Pointless? Examining and trying to understand different POVs is
pointless? I suppose for those who believe they already know it all and
are right about everything.


What new thng did you actually learn?


That in moments of noncombativeness, some objectivists actually were
aware fo the real world shortcomings of so many commercial CDs
including failings in the digitization an manufacturing of them.

That was not news AFAICT, it is the same as so many badly produced LP's.


Others, such as yourself hava a completely unrealistic idealized
impression of CDs no matter how bad any number of them sound and some,
like yourself are willing to accept such bad sound under the mistaken
belief that because it is CD it is always more "accurate" to the master
tape and more true to the intentions of the people who made the
recording.

So then YOU are the one collecting the Million Dollars for being able to
read minds?

If you think I am unaware that there are bad sounding CD's, you are
mistaken.
If you think that I don't know that it is possible for the production and
mix of an album to get away from the artist' intentions you ar again
mistaken.




The reasoning behind that belief is fataly flawed on so many
levels. 1. The presumption that the transfer was transparent

When done by nominally competent people it is.

2. The
presumption that the right choices were made in picking and playing
"the" master tape

That's different for LP's how?

3 The presumption that the mastering engineer did a
good job

See above.

4. The presumption that the chosen master tape best represents
the artists' intentions despite the fact that LP test pressings were so
often the final arbitrator of artist intentions.5. The presumtion that
using a master tape as a reference is meaningful given the fact that
one cannot use a master tape as a reference without also using a
playback system as part of that reference thereby setting up playback
as a reference for playback.

But if one does, one will get the exact playback that one wouldget from the
master tape that was used. Something that can NEVER happen with an LP.


6. The ignored fact that you have no
access to that original master or to the actual sound that the artists
used to judge their work given that they all listened to playback
systems you cannot access. Sorry, but I find your idea of master tapes
as a reference to be very unreasonable, very arbitrary, and very
impractical. I find the notion that we should accept commercial CDs as
definitive versions of any given recording because they are "supposed'
to be more accurate a very poorly reasoned premise for anyone genuinely
interested in the aestheic experience of listenng to music.


I can't control what the recording comapny does in the CD mix any more than
you can for the LP mix. What I can be sure of is that I am getting an exact
copy of whatever they finally used, something that is IMPOSSIBLE for LP.


There was nothing that hadn't been covered endlessly before and the
truth is still the truth, LP is technically inferior to CD, in every
aspect.


It appears you missed much of the discussion.

Mind reading again?



It still remains the case that CD is *vastly* more
accurate than LP in technical terms,


Let's throw a parade in honor of all those that find this important
rather than what their CDs and LPs actually sound like.

They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended.


You definitely missed most of the discussion. maybe if you wont listen
to me you will listen to some of the pros that actually compare the
master tapes to th final products be they CD or LP.
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/iviews/vangelder.htm
"AAJ: Please discuss your approach to the new Rudy Van Gelder Edition
Blue Notes in terms of working with the stereo and mono tapes and
deciding which format to use for the new master.


snip a bunch of stuff that isn't any differnt for CD or LP.

You get what teh record company gives you in any case.

There are some crappy sounding CD's. This has never been in dispute.
I'd rather listen to a crappy soundig CD, than almost any kind of LP.
When the CD is done properly, there is absolutely no LP ever made or that
can ever BE made that can out perform it.

You engaged in a lot of hair splitting aobut some of the higher quality LP's
that are or were made, but which were not representative of the general
quality of what was most widely avaliable.

I'm pleased that you find LP's to meet you musical needs, but to deny that
in general CD kicks the crap out of the LP format is to deny reality.

There will probably never be a record company that provides the customer
with a perfect mix every single time they produce an album, but there was no
such thing for LP's either.

It all depends on the individuals in charge of production, a fact that is
the same for either format.

Since the chances of getting a perfect recording in either format are and
were never a sure thing, I am going to stay with theone that offers the
bonus of absolutely dead quiet playback and that doesn't need to be cleaned
each time it is played. I'm going to stick with it because there has never
been a better format and there is no more accurate one. You can't get
better dynamics, you can't get better bass, you can't get anywhere near the
quality of a good recording on CD with LP, plus the expense of purchasing a
playback rig that would in your view do justice to LP's is IMO cost
prohibitive.

The bottom line is that it has always been a ctrapshoot as to how well
recorded and mixed any recording is going to be, but one of them offers the
possibilty of getting it far more exactly than the other. It ain't LP.