AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
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,

So you are saying that a CD can be both soncially screwed up by colored
AD conversion and poor manufacturing and "sound like they are supposed
to, like the master tape and like th eengineer intended"? to me that
makes zero sense.

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.

While this is true i t has nothing to do with the apparent conflict
between your beliefs about the sound of commercial CDs and the reality
of the sound of comercial CDs.

They can still be more accurate and faithful to the
master.

Sure but that wasn't your claim.

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

Which ones were badly digitized?

None theat I know of.

Odd, you brought that up.

Whic LP's were badly analoged?

Analoged? Please explain.

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.

::sigh:: It simply isn't true most of the time. I have explianed why
and offered references to support those explinations. I guess you don't
get it or don't want to get it. Nothing I can do about that.

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.

I agree that with the needed care and hardware that it is possible
toget commercial CDs to sound very close to the original source.
Unfortunately that doesn't help the thousands and thousands of crappy
CDs that have been released. I cannot imagine how anyone with a geniune
interest in the sound quality of the music they listen to (provided
that is commercially released music) would be worried more about
abstract arguments about which media is more accurate and less about
what those commercial releases actually sound like.

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?

If it were a sanke it would have bit you until it were exhausted. As it
is, I am tired of directing yo to that proof over and over again. As I
said before, you either don't get it or don't want to. I have provided
everything you need to understand that most CDs are not transparent
copies of their original source.

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.

No there are no warnings. It takes careful investigation. Had you ever
engaged in such investigation you would realize just how wrong you are
about your assumptions.

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.

Sorry but that simply is not the case in so many commercial releases.
You don't get it? Fine, your problem not mine.

You want to discuss other issues like production values instead.

Production as in the mastering and manfacturing of CDs and LPs is not
another issue. It is a primary issue.

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.

The quality of sound does change. That is the issue you prefer to
ignore it seems.

If it were not the goal to have that accuracy to the master, then why
bother making one?

That is a ridiculous question. You make one so you can have a
commerical release.

So it stands to reason, that if you care about such things, you stick
withg CD's.

No it does not stand to reason. Please review my post where I explain
why it is far from reasonable for a consumer to pretend the "master
tape" is any kind of meaningful reference.

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.

"Alternate reality?" Do tell me how one determines the "reality" of the
sound of a "master tape?" If in carefully explaining how one determines
what a "master tape" is supposed to "sound like" you haven't figured
out what so many of the problems are in rying to make this a reference,
I don't know what else to tell you.

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.

This makes no sense without a time machine.

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?

I see you have no answer to the question. thank you. i think you know
the answer is that you cant without access to the source. Something we
don't have.

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?

Dude, I am not tlking about some future project. I am talking about the
vast majority of actual commercial releases that have already been
made.

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.

I've snipped the rest of this post because it contains nothing relevant
to the topic above just misguided beliefs held despite all the evidence
presented to the contrary of those misguided beliefs.

Scott