AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
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.

Sure they can, they can be better than the Lp version due to better
dynamics and lower noise and lack of compression and still not match up
to todays SOTA. They can still be more accurate and faithful to the
master.

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

Which ones were badly digitized?

None theat I know of.
Whic LP's were badly analoged? It's a question that I can't answer and
I doubt anybody else can either unless they were there.

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. "

Whic is the truth, they sound as close to the master tape (if one was
used) than teh LP ever can.

Today, the tecnology exists so that the CD is the exact copy of the
master no matter how it was created, something that LP can never be.

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.

And the proof of this is where?

There is no warning sign on CDs telling
you whether they are transparent copies of the master tape or not.

There is no warning on LP's telling you how many times removed from the
master it is either, yet it will never be as close as a CD is.

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?

I'm responding to the title of the thread, CD is more accurate than LP
always has been and will ever be thus.

You want to discuss other issues like production values instead.

The truth is that CD is the most accurate way to playback music, it
also has lower noise and better dynamics. I can't control how they
master them any more than you can control the mastering of any LP's.
The facts don't change if there was a bad decision in how to mix the
final version, but the CD is going to be truer than the LP.

If it were not the goal to have that accuracy to the master, then why
bother making one?
So it stands to reason, that if you care about such things, you stick
withg CD's. If you want something that creates an alternate reality
from what was recorded so that it suits your idea of what things should
sound like, use whatever you like, form Lp's and different cartridges
to, EQ and sonic holography. Whatever floats your boat.

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?

Because the artist hears what he recorded exactly as it entered the
mixing board and doesn't have to wait to hear what they have to do to
make it suitable for an LP master.

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?

How would you tell that about an LP?

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.

Why wait for atest pressing, when you can hear exactly what the CD will
soundlike just by playing the master?

I've snipped the rest of this for one simple reason, to get back to the
thread title.

The Truth About accuracy of CD v LP.

The truth is that CD is the most accurate and LP is vastly worse on all
trechnical grounds, if you want to use some other criteria to judge
how musc sounds, then that's your choice. If you want most accurate,
you get CD's end of story.