MD wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote:
wrote:
bob wrote:
wrote:
bob wrote:
A quick poll of objectivists: How did Scott do? I disagreed with just
about every statement he made.
better yet lets just review your original reaction.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...988ef9ec55ec17
Even better, let's look at my REAL original reaction:
The "real" original reaction was contained in my link along wih our
discussion over your misunderstandings over certain language used *an*
your later agreement with my asertions after semantic issues were
sorted out.
By which time you were deep into the semantic gamesmanship you set out
to pursue in this thread. Basically, you were trying to take objective
statements about the technical merits of the media and twist them into
statements about the quality of commercial releases, in order to have
something to argue against. Because you can't argue against the
objective statements. And I think you know it, which is why you've put
so much energy into your mischaracterizations and sophistries.
I'll make it simple: If you have a master tape that represents exactly
what the artists/producers want their recording to sound like, then
there is no question that you can make a CD that sounds closer to that
tape than any LP possibly could. That, and only that, is "the truth
about accuracy of CD v. LP."
You can't argue with that, so you change the subject, and ask whether
commerically released CDs are "accurate" to...something. And my
objectivist response to that is: How "true" a commercial release is to
something depends on what that vague "something" is, and it depends on
how well the various producers of the recording did their respective
jobs. It does not depend on the accuracy of the medium, which is
blameless.
All these words spilled, just to defend your preference for the
euphonic distortions--pardon me, the "intrinsic beauty"--of vinyl.
You have to understand the Scott is coming from the Steve Hoffman board, devoted to a man who
makes his living remastering old recordings. If remastering were only to consist of unadorned
digital transfers from old analog tapes, plus some track sequencing and indexing, guys like SH
would simply be out of a job. Instead, they often *change stuff*, while , in the case of SH,
claiming that they stay 'true to the masters'...which or course is really true only if the
transfer is 'flat' from those masters. I suspect such an attitude arises from the LP days,
when it was not possible to transfer master tapes to 33 1/3 rpm LP format with such high
accuracy while keeping the format commercially viable. IN those days it made sense to speak
of *trying* to 'stay true to the master tapes', because a sonic compromise was *inevitable*
during the transition from tape to the production format.
The history of mastering -- why it came to exist as a step in the recording chain in first
place, and what it has become in the digital age -- would make for an interesting essay.
For those of you who believe CD is better than LP I would like to know
what your analog and digital gear is.
My analog gear, when I use it, is a Shure V15typeVMR cart and a Systemdek IIX
table. My digital gear has varied lots, but currently is a Yamaha S2500
universal player for the rare disc , while most playback is of lossless
compressed files, served from hard drive via USB to my Pioneer 74txvi AVR,
using Foobar2000 as playback software.
Why - because I used to prefer CD to LP. Then I got a better cartridge
and in every case where I have the same LP/CD I like the CD. And in
every case where I have a remastered version of both I like the LP
better.
That's simply preference. You're allowed to prefer the sound that LP
form at and playback imparts to a recording, or to prefer the different
mastering on the LP vs CD...both of which factors are in play in your
example. None of it is evidece that CD is inferior to LP in any objective
sense.
The common difference is openness and crisper highs. (Having
said that I do believe that it is possible that if I had better digital
equip I could change my mind. I also believe that CDs that use better
technology than standard red book 44.1khz/16 bit might also sound better
than LP.)
Well, you're allowed to believe that too, but it's got little in the
way of objective support. AFAIK, the measurable *accuracy* of high frequency
response of CD to 20 kHz is not matched by LP playback. I doubt getting better digital
equipment will reveal this to you unless you have extremely bad gear.
I also wonder if those who like CDs better also prefer solid state over
tubes?
My preference is for less distortion rather than more, so I expect I'd
prefer SS.
--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)