wrote:
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 wasn't? Then why did you say this about comercial CDs just in your
previous post?
"They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended. " Please tell me how this claim doesn't
blanketly deny the fact that many CDs were sonically screwed up by the
A/D conversion or the manufacturing or the mastering or any combination
of these problems or even other real world documented causes. It
*can't* be both.



it is the same as so many badly produced LP's.


Which ones were badly digitized?




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?


No I base it on your words. Let me remind you of them.This is what you
said about commercial CDs
"They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended. "



If you think I am unaware that there are bad sounding CD's, you are
mistaken.


I am not mistaken since I never made any such claim.


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.


Again I can not be mistaken since I have never made any such claim.






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.


That is a ridiculous, selfserving, conveniently vague, claim. The
*fact* is many, most are not. There is no warning sign on CDs telling
you whether they are transparent copies of the master tape or not. You
don't know which are and are not. Now if you can come up with a list
stating which commercial Cds are and which are not.... Otherwise your
claim doesn't mean anything in the real world. It also doesn't jive
with this ridiculous claim of yours.
"They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended." Are you suggesting that *all* Cds were
"nominally competently" made?




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

That's different for LP's how?

With original issues that should be selfevident. the masters that were
used were specifically chosen or made by the people making the
recording for the purpose of mastering the LP. But asking about LPs
makes the assumption that CDs are more accurate to the artists'
intentions how?



3 The presumption that the mastering engineer did a
good job

See above.


Tell me this. How would *you* know which suffered more from bad
mastering between any given LP and CD?




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.


Noooooooo. Simply not true.


Something that can NEVER happen with an LP.


Did you really mean to say this? That it will never happen with LP that
one will never get what the artist intended you to get even when the
decision of what that was was based on an artist approval from the er
um the LP testpressing? Think about it.





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.


Nothing I said above has anything to do with any mix.


What I can be sure of is that I am getting an exact
copy of whatever they finally used,


You are simply worng. Did you not understand what wa written about
actual A/D converters coloring the sound of the Mercuries? Did you not
understand anything I gave you to read at all? You can't be sure at all
that you are getting any such thing as an exact copy of what was used.
You can go on believing it despite all that I showed you on the
subject. But you would be plainly wrong to do so.


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?


Noooooo. just reading your post and your continued claims about CDs.
"They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like
the engineer intended."
And the new one...
" What I can be sure of is that I am getting an exact
copy of whatever they finally used,"
i have given you a great deal of citations of real world pros refuting
your claims. You either didn't read it or didn't understand it or
didn't believe it and don't want to talk about it. But no mind reading
was involved.





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.

IOW ignore a plethera of facts that refute your eroneous claim about CD
accuracy.



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


Thanks for that tid bit of information. I had no idea....




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.


That is clear and given the exceelent sound one can get from so many
LPs this speaks volumes about your biases.



When the CD is done properly, there is absolutely no LP ever made or that
can ever BE made that can out perform it.

Even if that were true how does that affect the existance of the vast
bosy of real world Cds most of which were not made with anything near
the care that the Mercury reisues were made with?




You engaged in a lot of hair splitting aobut some of the higher quality LP's
that are or were made,


Cittions please.


but which were not representative of the general
quality of what was most widely avaliable.


never said they were. What is your point?




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.


Sorry but you are not the arbitrator of reality. It seems to me that by
some of your claims about CDs you are actually very much out of touch
with it on this subject.
" What I can be sure of is that I am getting an exact copy of whatever
they finally used,"
This quote illustrates that fact. There are so many more too.



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.


This is not about any mix.




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,


Why are you going on about "perfect recordings" now?


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.


Fine. I have no problem with people liking Cds for these reasons. I
like their convenience too.


I'm going to stick with it because there has never
been a better format and there is no more accurate one.


You are free to put the cart before the horse and prefer Cds to LPs
based on what they are on paper regardless of how awful so many of them
actually sound. Your loss.

You can't get
better dynamics,

That depends on the title.


you can't get better bass, you can't get anywhere near the
quality of a good recording on CD with LP,


That is simply completely wrong. You can and most of the time will if
you know what you are doing.


plus the expense of purchasing a
playback rig that would in your view do justice to LP's is IMO cost
prohibitive.

For some. And this is an issue. It's not a problem I face luckily.




The bottom line is that it has always been a ctrapshoot as to how well
recorded and mixed any recording is going to be,


Not a crap shoot nor a relevant point. This has never been about the
quality of the original productions but what you get of them from
either format in the real world.


but one of them offers the
possibilty of getting it far more exactly than the other. It ain't LP.


I disagree but what is the point. You still haven't hown any signs of
understanding the real world issues I pointed out.


Scott