"Joe Sensor" wrote in message
...
Joe Kesselman wrote:

Well, sure. It made their station stand out from the rest of the dial...
until the rest did it too...

I just don't get this. When searching the dial, do you stop at songs you
like or do you listen for the loudist song and choose that one?

Who ever came up with this logic?



Marketing dudes, and for the most part they are right. Sadly.

geoff

In article writes:

I just don't get this. When searching the dial, do you stop at songs you
like or do you listen for the loudist song and choose that one?

Who ever came up with this logic?

Some wealthy consultants, probably former program directors. People do
(or at least did) tend to stop and at least give a listen to a loud
station. This was in the days of the continuous (analog) tuning knob
so it was easier to tune in a loud station. With today's digital
tuners, it probalby doesn't matter as much as it did. When I push the
"Scan" button on my car radio, if I hear something that I like, I have
to take my eyes off the road to figure out how to stop it before it
goes on to the next station. And if I'm too late and I tell it to scan
backward, sometimes it'll miss the station I wanted to listen to.

I want a radio that works like a RADIO!

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article .invalid lid writes:

It would be much better if it were all distributed uncompressed but with
a compression option built into the players.

There are several problems with this.

- There would be a considerable difference in how it sounds depending
on the player.

Well, yes. - It would sound good on a player without the compression
and bad (which many people seem to like) on a player with the
compression.

That's not what I meant. I meant that not all compressors are the
same. It's likely to sound different on two different players, each
with their own compression engaged. Players sound different because of
other things too, from the power supply to the transport, and all the
components in between, but difference between compressors could be far
greater.

But if the CD producer is ruining it by compressing it to hell, we would
be better off by stopping him and having the opportunity to buy a decent
player so as to hear it properly.

But they'd still strive to make it loud on every player. That's the
way the business works. Until you can convince the general public that
they don't need every disk they buy to be at the same maximum-loud
level, then you won't convince the producers and artists.

So there would be three types of player:

1) No switch - permanent compression

2) No switch - no compression

3) Switchable (but more expensive).

Sounds like a good marketing opportunity for someone there ...and still
the discerning user would have a no-compression option which he/she
doesn't have at the moment.

Any time you give the average consumer a choice of technical options,
the device usually fails in the market. Either that or all the options
get incorporated into all of the devices.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On 11 Jun 2005 20:28:31 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

I want a radio that works like a RADIO!

Communist!!!

Chris Hornbeck

Back when clearchannel meant a type of station and not a company name,
larger rms levels indeed meant larger signal to power consumption ratio
for the antenna, which in turn meant a larger reach for the
signal...and therefore a bigger demographic and all that implies to the
bottom line.

Eventually the FCC made a few rules regarding intermodulation
distortion...and the stations started using multiband compressors.

Then FM was born...and all the engineering reasons for using these
tools in the first place were ignored in favor of their continued
use...as to why, nobody can really tell you anything beyond what
they've been told or read in the advertisements.

The trend that started with AM ages ago and led to the eventual
acceptance of Jazz as a valid form of music (AM clearchannel stations'
cross continent reach at night) continues today in formats where it has
no place/reason for existence.

As a mastering engineer...I can tell you truthfully that there are an
extraordinarily small number of ME's whose goal is to "make it loud".
It is not the ME's "fault"...we're simply doing what is all too often
requested from us. Most of us explain the drawbacks and despise the
task but our pleas go unheeded. The only chance this trend has of
reversing itself is if the artists, labels, and producers start
understanding that louder/est most often does NOT mean
better/best...and reclaim for themselves the craft of audio production.
Too many today approach the creation of recorded music without the
proper understanding, background, and education required by the
engineers of yore that were so deserving of the title "engineer".

-Chris

vinyl believer wrote:
.... 16/44 does a pretty good job

Like I said .....16/44 digital isn't a great medium.

Saying so doesn't make it so/

Great sound mediums don't do "a pretty good job" ....

Irrelevent/

Vinyl sounds nice.

Tic, tic. tic, pop, pop, pop, rumble, rumble, rumble.

24/96 digital sounds great.

It sounds no different than 16/44/

Jay Kadis wrote:
In article
.com,
"vinyl believer" wrote:

[snip]

Another reason I've gone vinyl. CDs sound cruddy already
and when you
master them like mowed lawn it's adding insult to injury.


If so much as ONE CD sounds good, you're proven wrong
about the
44.1/16 medium.

I have at least one CD that sounds good.

Most people do.

vinyl believer wrote:
24/96 digital sounds great.

Arny Kruerar wrote:
It sounds no different than 16/44/

Very sorry that you can't hear the difference Arny.

Go argue with Paul Stamler. Tell him he's full of it for this
statement..........

" 24-bit digital, to my ears, is better sounding. I don't give a damn
what the numbers say, I hear the difference. Since the numbers prove I
can't, according to sampling theory, I'm going on the assumption that
the problem is in the hardware implementation, not the theory. I
certainly heard things sound a lot better when Itried out a Benchmark
D-to-A, but one of the things I heard with that machine's better
resolution was that things still sounded poorer when they got reduced
to 16 bits. I also hear a difference between 44.1 and 88.2 or 96
kHz.........

Paul Stamler - May 31, 2004 - 2:40 am

"vinyl believer" wrote in message ...

I like vinly, don't care for 16/44 digital and I've made my case why as
to why...... Jump in anytime, if you have something relevant to say.



How many years have you been recording ?

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

"Joe Sensor" wrote in message ...
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:


Sheesh... How do you figure that one? The first time in history that
we could effectively use over 96dB of dynamic range with NO noise.

Effectively? In the meantime modern recordings use about 3.

But when things used to get 'soft', like in the -40 and below range, we
no longer had to worry about listening to the ocean roar in the background.
I thought that was pretty effective in creating real air and space in music.

I don't think the dynamic range of the media is really an issue.

From a consumer standpoint, probably not too much of one.

DM

How many years have you been recording ?

Too long. About 30 professionally....... Will there be a test later?

Hey what's the big filppin' deal that I don't care for 16/44 digital
recording and prefrer vinyl..... I've stated my reasons and others have
come to the same conclusion.

You guys sound seriously offended. I hope I haven't affected the stock
price.

VB

Maybe someday a disc will contain both a "hard" and a "normal"-mastered
versions of a given album. The way movie DVD's have different options.

I use Ricki Lee's first record, from CD, and Beck's "Odelay" to show people
what I mean when I am explaining that portion of what to expect when their
work in mastered. It's a pretty shocking demo.

I find I like some of the music those dang kids (hey, I just turned 40!) are
playing to these days, but the way is SOUNDS is physically irritating. I
have avoided adding "Mastering!" to my studio's shingle partly because it
would make me ill to do that to music, especially if I'd recorded and mixed
it! OTOH it makes me ill what some "Mastering Engineers" have done to my
work.

-jeff

in article , Geoff Wood at wrote
on 6/10/05 4:04 PM:


"vinyl believer" wrote in message
oups.com...
Geoff Wood Wrote

"But the problem is the mastering, not the medium. "

Well it's both actually. 16/44 digital isn't a great medium, but
flatline mastering is obviously a serious problem for any medium.

Flat line mastering is not a problem for the CD medium. The medium and
digital part of a CD player could not care less what the data or level is.
Some inferior CD players may have problems with audio levels resulting from
data levels approaching full scale.

Just like some cartridges/arms/turntables have more problems tracking high
levels or bass (but waaaaay moreso !)

But are artists and engineers really doing anything about this
stupidity that is ruining their work?

Some are trying, but the battle is with the artists who 'need' to be as
loud/undynamic as everybody else.

geoff

"vinyl believer" wrote in message ...

I quite suprised that you guys can't hear this. Paul Stamler has stated
that he clear can hear a difference between high quality digital and
16/44.

That's not a comparison to vinyl.

"vinyl believer" wrote in message ups.com...

How many years have you been recording ?

Too long. About 30 professionally....... Will there be a test later?

No test. I was just wondering if you had any experience to back up your
assertions... as in knew the difference from some aspect other than as
a consumer. FWIW, we've been doing this about the same length of
time.

Hey what's the big filppin' deal that I don't care for 16/44 digital
recording and prefrer vinyl.....

It's really no big deal, but I figured you would have lived through 18 years
or so of these dicussions already, and would understand that digital
storage mediums give you back what you put into them, less the noise
floor factor.

As a consumer, I was pretty much anti-CD when they first hit the market.
I used to tell prople that they may as well own both the vinyl *and* the CD,
because they were usually quite different. I did not like CDs in the very
beginning, even though I was lucky enough to be one of the first kids in
my neighborhood to be recording and mixing on digital machines.

There was learning curve that a lot of engineers didn't grasp very quickly.
Once I conquered that curve, I was ecstatic about working in a 'silent'
world with more unencumbered dynamic range than I'd ever used before.
Plus, by then, some really outstanding recordings were being made and
released in the all digital realm.

To me... surface noise and the other anomalies of typical vinyl playback
systems are a throwback to recording on analogue tape; and although
there are a couple of things I miss about it, I don't relish going back there
when I have the choice of the digital medium.

I've stated my reasons and others have
come to the same conclusion.

Not really. I've re-read the entire thread and the only thing you said
when entering the thread was, "isn't a great medium", "sounds cruddy",
"sounds like ****". What did you expect in response to such a fine
commentary?

Recently you said, "Unatrual highs, weak mid range, lack of dimension
from low sample and bit rate", when defending Paul's comparison of
two digital formats. That's an understandable assessment of the
comparison he made... although after 18 years of working 16/44 I
find that *can* be superior to vinyl, IMHO.

In your own words... "vinyl sounds more natrual than 16/44 though it
lacks the dynamic range and freq response." Those things are both
very important to me and are the basis for my having second thoughts
about either your assessment or your experience. Can you blame me?

I hope I haven't affected the stock price.

Of what... McDonalds? ;-)


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

"vinyl believer" wrote:

Very sorry that you can't hear the difference Arny.

Go argue with Paul Stamler. Tell him he's full of it for this
statement..........

" 24-bit digital, to my ears, is better sounding. I don't give a damn
what the numbers say, I hear the difference. Since the numbers prove I
can't, according to sampling theory, I'm going on the assumption that
the problem is in the hardware implementation, not the theory. I
certainly heard things sound a lot better when Itried out a Benchmark
D-to-A, but one of the things I heard with that machine's better
resolution was that things still sounded poorer when they got reduced
to 16 bits. I also hear a difference between 44.1 and 88.2 or 96
kHz.........

Paul Stamler - May 31, 2004 - 2:40 am



Then Paul has either better ears or more active imagination than do I.
In my comparisons between 44.1 vs. 96K sampling, if there was any
difference at all, it was so small as to be completely insignificant.
Moving a mic an inch would make a much bigger difference.

24 bit *seems* (to me) to offer a teeny tiny advantage when producing
multitrack mixes. I may be imagining that, but it makes me feel like
I'm doing something good. For straight, direct-to-2 recordings (i.e. no
processing or mixing) if there's a difference between 16 and 24 bit,
it's so small that it would be swamped by the comparatively overwhelming
cacophony of breathing.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

vinyl believer wrote:
vinyl believer wrote:
24/96 digital sounds great.

Arny Kruerar wrote:
It sounds no different than 16/44/

Very sorry that you can't hear the difference Arny.

Am I the only one having difficulty with this logic? :
(1) 24/96 is better than 16/44
(2) Therefore vinyl is better than 16/44

Leaving aside the questionable validity of assertion 1 for distribution
media (recording and processing is a different matter), the differences
between 16/44 and 24/96 are at frequencies and noise levels way out of
vinyl's range.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article .invalid
lid writes:

It would be much better if it were all distributed uncompressed but with
a compression option built into the players.

There are several problems with this.

- There would be a considerable difference in how it sounds depending
on the player.

Well, yes. - It would sound good on a player without the compression
and bad (which many people seem to like) on a player with the
compression.

That's not what I meant. I meant that not all compressors are the
same. It's likely to sound different on two different players, each
with their own compression engaged. Players sound different because of
other things too, from the power supply to the transport, and all the
components in between, but difference between compressors could be far
greater.

I doubt if a person who would use the compression would notice the
subtle differences - and if they did, the manufacturers could make it a
selling point.



But if the CD producer is ruining it by compressing it to hell, we would
be better off by stopping him and having the opportunity to buy a decent
player so as to hear it properly.

But they'd still strive to make it loud on every player. That's the
way the business works. Until you can convince the general public that
they don't need every disk they buy to be at the same maximum-loud
level, then you won't convince the producers and artists.

This, I'm afraid, is the nub of the matter and you are perfectly right
where pop music is concerned. However, we need to distinguish between
compression applied for artistic purposes - where it is part of the
music - and compression applied because of the playback conditions.

The former will be fixed in the recording, the latter needs to be
optional so that it can be applied at the point of use ...and only if
it is needed.

If there is too much compression on a recording, vote with your cheque
book and don't buy it. If you really feel strongly, write and tell the
record company the reasons why you didn't buy it.

This is where record reviewers could help too.



--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

vinyl believer wrote:
vinyl believer wrote:
24/96 digital sounds great.

Arny Kruerar wrote:
It sounds no different than 16/44/

Very sorry that you can't hear the difference Arny.

It comes with being human. You should try it sometime,
vinyl.

Go argue with Paul Stamler. Tell him he's full of it for
this
statement..........

" 24-bit digital, to my ears, is better sounding. I don't
give a damn
what the numbers say, I hear the difference. Since the
numbers prove I
can't, according to sampling theory, I'm going on the
assumption that
the problem is in the hardware implementation, not the
theory. I
certainly heard things sound a lot better when Itried out
a Benchmark
D-to-A, but one of the things I heard with that machine's
better
resolution was that things still sounded poorer when they
got reduced
to 16 bits. I also hear a difference between 44.1 and 88.2
or 96
kHz.........

Been there, done that.

vinyl believer wrote:
Hey what's the big filppin' deal that I don't care for 16/44 digital
recording and prefrer vinyl..... I've stated my reasons and others have
come to the same conclusion.

You guys sound seriously offended. I hope I haven't affected the stock
price.

I think the part people took issue with was not where you said that
you liked vinyl but was instead the part where you said, "So we
switched to a format (16/44 CDs) that was degraged from the start".

You haven't given any plausible reason why it's "degraded" other than
subjective things you claim to hear, but you've stated it like it's an
incontrovertible fact that it's degraded.

- Logan

"anahata" wrote in message...

Am I the only one having difficulty with this logic? :
(1) 24/96 is better than 16/44
(2) Therefore vinyl is better than 16/44

No... you're not.

DM

On 11 Jun 2005 17:40:37 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

You're just not getting the full effect of the big loud parts. Turn it
up! Support the fight against RAP-spewing SUVs.

trouble is, with car noise at what? 60 dB, hearling the loudes arts of
a symphony at 80+ dB with the quietest parts just above the noise
floor puts you into ear damaging range.

Maybe I should wire my extra RNC into my car.

"anahata" wrote in message...
Am I the only one having difficulty with this logic? :
(1) 24/96 is better than 16/44
(2) Therefore vinyl is better than 16/44

David Morgan \(MAMS\) Wrote back.

No... you're not.

DM


Wells those aren't my words, but yes I can make that work for you....
Let me make (excuse me) "state" my case one last time in detail.


To my ears 16/44 digital recording sounds unnatural. Midrange is
especially weak, highs are brittle, and the entire spectrum lacks
dimension and depth. I find 16/44 a bit fatiging to listen too. The
lower sample and bit rate are not adequete for accurate sound
reproduction IMO and I hear the problems.

24/96 digital recording sounds much more accurate and natural (to my
ears) than 16/44. The midrange is Much smoother and fuller, highs more
natural and less brittle. The difference is less noticable in the lows
but I can hear more definition and detail. (listen to bass strings,
kick drum heads or timpani carefully)........The big difference is
clearly more dimension, depth and openess in the sound. CDs sound 'in
your face' compared with 24/96 digial.

While vinyl can't compete in freq. range and S/N-dynmaic range, it
sounds much more natrual in the mids and highs and has more depth and
dimension than CDs and is a more enjoyable and less fatiging listening
experience (to my ears)...... (S/N is over-rated anyway since there is
usually some background noise in our enviroment that raises the noise
floor) ......... And though people often rave about the lows on vinyl,
low frequencies are a actually a problem and are not accurtae. Nice
lower midrange is what they are actually hearing and responding too.
(around 200 hz.) ...... Vinyl also certainly has serious problems with
pysical wear. A major draw back that no one misses.

Under very good listening conditions, and within the bounds of fair
comparison, I actually find vinyl to be closer sounding to 24/96
digital than 16/44 CDs in many aspects

So -

A: I prefer high end digital over CDs.
B: I prfer Vinyl over CDs
= Vinyl and 24/96 digial sound better than CDs. (to my ears only)

VB

Thanks for a thoughful reply David. I've always enjoyed your posts and
listening to your experiecne and knowledge.

I and I love your "Say Hello to My Little Friend" photo.....
http://www.m-a-m-s.com/mamsID.htm ...... I'm sure you've been tempeted
to don that outfit again with tough clients.

VB

"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message
...
(Though I must admit, I really am tempted to to something equally ugly
to make a set of CDs specifically for listening to in my car, which is a
noisy econobox.)
If it's pop music, don't bother; they're preconditioned for that very
environment!

Pppppllllleeeeeaaaaasssssseeeeee take this stuff below to a new thread,
preferably not in rec.audio.pro. Try rec.audio.opinion


"vinyl believer" wrote in message
oups.com...
"anahata" wrote in message...
Am I the only one having difficulty with this logic? :
(1) 24/96 is better than 16/44
(2) Therefore vinyl is better than 16/44

David Morgan \(MAMS\) Wrote back.

No... you're not.

DM


Wells those aren't my words, but yes I can make that work for you....
Let me make (excuse me) "state" my case one last time in detail.


To my ears 16/44 digital recording sounds unnatural. Midrange is
especially weak, highs are brittle, and the entire spectrum lacks
dimension and depth. I find 16/44 a bit fatiging to listen too. The
lower sample and bit rate are not adequete for accurate sound
reproduction IMO and I hear the problems.

24/96 digital recording sounds much more accurate and natural (to my
ears) than 16/44. The midrange is Much smoother and fuller, highs more
natural and less brittle. The difference is less noticable in the lows
but I can hear more definition and detail. (listen to bass strings,
kick drum heads or timpani carefully)........The big difference is
clearly more dimension, depth and openess in the sound. CDs sound 'in
your face' compared with 24/96 digial.

While vinyl can't compete in freq. range and S/N-dynmaic range, it
sounds much more natrual in the mids and highs and has more depth and
dimension than CDs and is a more enjoyable and less fatiging listening
experience (to my ears)...... (S/N is over-rated anyway since there is
usually some background noise in our enviroment that raises the noise
floor) ......... And though people often rave about the lows on vinyl,
low frequencies are a actually a problem and are not accurtae. Nice
lower midrange is what they are actually hearing and responding too.
(around 200 hz.) ...... Vinyl also certainly has serious problems with
pysical wear. A major draw back that no one misses.

Under very good listening conditions, and within the bounds of fair
comparison, I actually find vinyl to be closer sounding to 24/96
digital than 16/44 CDs in many aspects

So -

A: I prefer high end digital over CDs.
B: I prfer Vinyl over CDs
= Vinyl and 24/96 digial sound better than CDs. (to my ears only)

VB

vinyl believer wrote:

To my ears 16/44 digital recording sounds unnatural.

Then you have the same problem monitoring out of your
console, if you even have one.

Midrange is
especially weak, highs are brittle, and the entire
spectrum lacks
dimension and depth.

Then your monitoring system's midrange is especially weak,
highs are brittle, and its entire spectrum lacks dimension
and depth.

I find 16/44 a bit fatiging to listen too.

I find your whining about imagninary faults to be a bit
fatiguing to read.

The lower sample and bit rate are not adequete for
accurate sound
reproduction IMO and I hear the problems.


A problem induced by way to much time spent reading
audiofool publications and listening to other audiofools.


24/96 digital recording sounds much more accurate and
natural (to my
ears) than 16/44.

Actually it sounds identically the same as 16/44, which says
that there's something wrong with your ears. Actually not
your ears, but your brain - its been incorrectly programmed
by prevsiously mentioned audiofool trash.

The midrange is Much smoother and fuller, highs more
natural and less brittle.

It's really all the same. Nobody has ever been known to
actually hear a difference in proper listening test, that is
one based on just listening as opposed to seeing and
activating a wealth of audiofool prejudices.

The difference is less noticable in the lows
but I can hear more definition and detail. (listen to bass
strings,
kick drum heads or timpani carefully)........The big
difference is
clearly more dimension, depth and openess in the sound.
CDs sound 'in
your face' compared with 24/96 digial.

Am I reading paraphrases of Stereophile, The Absolute Sound,
or what?

While vinyl can't compete in freq. range and S/N-dynmaic
range, it
sounds much more natrual in the mids and highs and has
more depth and
dimension than CDs and is a more enjoyable and less
fatiging listening
experience (to my ears)......

Interesting pitch which can be paraphrased as follows:
Because vinyl sounds bad, it sounds better. If you can say
that with a straight face, you should be a candidate for
Mayor of the City of Detroit.

(S/N is over-rated anyway since there is
usually some background noise in our enviroment that
raises the noise
floor)

Yeah, but one does not find many live venues with the kind
of gritty-nasty noise floor you find on most LPs.
Furthermore, the noise floor of most LPs is quite a bit
higher than most venues that people record in, which is one
reason why 99.%+ of the world dumped vinyl about 20 or more
years ago.

......... And though people often rave about the lows on
vinyl,

Say what? Lows on vinyl? Come on - there can't be *any*
*real* lows on vinyl according to the laws of physics. Vinyl
is played with tone arms and tone arms are just a mechanical
high pass filter.

low frequencies are a actually a problem and are not
accurtae.

Not only that, they aren't accurate either.

Nice lower midrange is what they are actually hearing and
responding too.
(around 200 hz.) ...... Vinyl also certainly has serious
problems with
pysical wear. A major draw back that no one misses.

So we're back to vinyl sounds better because it sounds so
bad? GMAB!

Under very good listening conditions, and within the
bounds of fair
comparison, I actually find vinyl to be closer sounding to
24/96
digital than 16/44 CDs in many aspects

Actually, its quite clear that you prefer your music with a
liberal dose of unnatural noises and distortions mixed in.

No accounting for tastes, especially a lack of them.

So -

A: I prefer high end digital over CDs.

A triumph of marketing over reason.

B: I prfer Vinyl over CDs

But what do you prefer?

= Vinyl and 24/96 digial sound better than CDs. (to my
ears only)

So vinyl believer if you are the only one, why keep posting
this bilge?

Is it the negative attention that you crave?

Isn't there a dominatrix somewhere with your name on her
whip?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Willie K. Yee, MD wrote:

Maybe I should wire my extra RNC into my car.

Not a bad idea.
One of the first things I did with my RNC was compress a CD of chamber
music (that *did* have some dynamic range) to a minidisc to play in the
car. It's certainly worth considering for anyone who burns CDRs for car
use. RNC's Super nice mode with long time constants is great for this.

BTW, DAB (digital audio broadcasting) does transmit compression
information, and my DAB receiver has settings for compressed or
uncompressed reception.

Anahata

In article .com writes:

Wells those aren't my words, but yes I can make that work for you....
Let me make (excuse me) "state" my case one last time in detail.


To my ears 16/44 digital recording sounds unnatural. Midrange is
especially weak, highs are brittle, and the entire spectrum lacks
dimension and depth. I find 16/44 a bit fatiging to listen too. The
lower sample and bit rate are not adequete for accurate sound
reproduction IMO and I hear the problems.

And let me state my case one last time in detail. There is no
technical reason for 16/44 digital to have a weak midrange and brittle
highs. Lack of dimension and depth, as well as brittleness is often a
result of jitter, which may be less noticable at higher sample rates.

Your own equipment may be deficient, but that's no reason to dismiss
the technology. For what it's worth, it's easier to find good sounding
24-bit converters than good sounding 16-bit converters, and higher
sample rates can hide some problems with lower grade equipment.

I don't disagree that 24-bit recording can sound better than 16-bit
recording, and that higher sample rates make some processing work
better. But for all but the most critical listening, a decent quality
16-bit 44.1 kHz system is good enough for all but the exceptional
listener. And if you're listening that closely for artifacts, you
surely aren't enjoying the music.

Under very good listening conditions, and within the bounds of fair
comparison, I actually find vinyl to be closer sounding to 24/96
digital than 16/44 CDs in many aspects

Well, you're comparing apples, oranges, and bananas. Unless you're
comparing a well mastered DVD-A release of a vinyl record that you
have, comparing a "recording" with a "CD" or "vinyl disk" introduces
too many variables to make a fair comparison.

You are, of course, entitled to listen to whatever you prefer. But
you've said it enough already. Go fix your CD player and buy some
really good CDs.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Joe Sensor wrote:

What? What was trollish about that? A person can't have an opinion
different than YOURS?

It ain't about the opinion, it's about the bull**** "explanations". I
happen to like lots of the nivyl I have here, now with my
father-in-law's recent contributions maybe ready to bump around 3K
albums. But I am also able to admit that several CD's here sound
fabulous, and that puts the lie to calims of a medium's inevitable
inferiority.

Geeeez, some people's kids.

I'm looking to turn 61.

--
ha

Arny Krueger wrote:

I find your whining about imagninary faults to be a bit
fatiguing to read.


Thenb why are you reading it? Just so you can sit here and bitch and moan?

ASSHOLE!

Mike Rivers wrote:


And let me state my case one last time in detail. There is no
technical reason for 16/44 digital to have a weak midrange and brittle
highs. Lack of dimension and depth, as well as brittleness is often a
result of jitter, which may be less noticable at higher sample rates.

Your own equipment may be deficient, but that's no reason to dismiss
the technology. For what it's worth, it's easier to find good sounding
24-bit converters than good sounding 16-bit converters, and higher
sample rates can hide some problems with lower grade equipment.

Mike, I usually enjoy your posts. But sorry to say in this case you're
talking out of your ass.

hank alrich wrote:
Joe Sensor wrote:

What? What was trollish about that? A person can't have an opinion
different than YOURS?

It ain't about the opinion, it's about the bull**** "explanations". I
happen to like lots of the nivyl I have here, now with my
father-in-law's recent contributions maybe ready to bump around 3K
albums. But I am also able to admit that several CD's here sound
fabulous, and that puts the lie to calims of a medium's inevitable
inferiority.

If vinyl sounds so great, why aren't people sending me more cutting
business? Put your money where your mouth is and issue some LPs!

Or at _least_ buy a copy of the RAP LP compilation. I'm really getting
short on storage space and I'll send all of them to Hank soon if people
don't get them.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article ,
Joe Sensor wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:


And let me state my case one last time in detail. There is no
technical reason for 16/44 digital to have a weak midrange and brittle
highs. Lack of dimension and depth, as well as brittleness is often a
result of jitter, which may be less noticable at higher sample rates.

Your own equipment may be deficient, but that's no reason to dismiss
the technology. For what it's worth, it's easier to find good sounding
24-bit converters than good sounding 16-bit converters, and higher
sample rates can hide some problems with lower grade equipment.

Mike, I usually enjoy your posts. But sorry to say in this case you're
talking out of your ass.

Why do you say that?
For the most part, I agree with Mike although I am not sure jitter is
thhe most important reason that bad converters sound bad.

A good-sounding 16-bit converter will beat a bad-sounding 24-bit converter
any day. I have heard good 16-bit digital audio. Not a lot of it, but
enough to affirm that it exists.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Joe Sensor wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

I find your whining about imagninary faults to be a bit
fatiguing to read.

Thenb why are you reading it?

It's good prep for taking a nap.


Just so you can sit here and bitch and moan?

Pardon me for thinking that *vinyl believer* actually seeks
replies to his posts.

ASSHOLE!

Now that was mature of you, wasn't it?

Feel better, now?

Perhaps you need to post that 100 times so you feel really
good!

LOL!

"Joe Sensor" wrote in message ...
Mike Rivers wrote:


And let me state my case one last time in detail. There is no
technical reason for 16/44 digital to have a weak midrange and brittle
highs. Lack of dimension and depth, as well as brittleness is often a
result of jitter, which may be less noticable at higher sample rates.

Mike, I usually enjoy your posts. But sorry to say in this case you're
talking out of your ass.


There is no reason except for total faith in the math rather than the ears
or poor recording technique.

Scott Dorsey wrote:


Why do you say that?
For the most part, I agree with Mike although I am not sure jitter is
thhe most important reason that bad converters sound bad.

Because the technical reasons don't matter, at least as far as the end
results. They *might* help explain why there are some faults with 16 bit
PCM, but the faults are there, regardless of whether they can be
explained or not. I agree with vinyl believer.

Mike seems to be reverting to the mindset of many here, that if these
faults cannot be scientifically explained/graphed/etc., than they must
be our imagination. I say that is bull****.


A good-sounding 16-bit converter will beat a bad-sounding 24-bit converter
any day. I have heard good 16-bit digital audio. Not a lot of it, but
enough to affirm that it exists.

I agree. I have heard some pretty good sounding CD's. But when compared
to the record (assuming a good copy of the record), even the best
sounding CD's still exhibit some of the problems that VB mentioned. So
in my opinion, and the opinion of plenty of others, there are still
problems with 44.1/16, even with the best converters.

Joe Sensor wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Why do you say that?
For the most part, I agree with Mike although I am not sure jitter is
thhe most important reason that bad converters sound bad.

Because the technical reasons don't matter, at least as far as the end
results. They *might* help explain why there are some faults with 16 bit
PCM, but the faults are there, regardless of whether they can be
explained or not. I agree with vinyl believer.

Yes, but it's clear the faults aren't those that can be fixed with
higher sampling rates and longer word sizes.

Mike seems to be reverting to the mindset of many here, that if these
faults cannot be scientifically explained/graphed/etc., than they must
be our imagination. I say that is bull****.

Again, I have heard some digital systems that were very clean.

A good-sounding 16-bit converter will beat a bad-sounding 24-bit converter
any day. I have heard good 16-bit digital audio. Not a lot of it, but
enough to affirm that it exists.

I agree. I have heard some pretty good sounding CD's. But when compared
to the record (assuming a good copy of the record), even the best
sounding CD's still exhibit some of the problems that VB mentioned. So
in my opinion, and the opinion of plenty of others, there are still
problems with 44.1/16, even with the best converters.

Run out right now and buy the JVC XRCD issue of Steve Miller's _The Joker_.
Compare with the LP. Actually, you can do that with any of the XRCD
discs if you have the LP versions. It's really stunning to hear what is
possible when good engineers make the decisions instead of marketing hacks.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Let's Change Partners..
Or at least topics... It's easy: watch!


On 6/13/05 12:47 PM, in article , "Scott
Dorsey" wrote:

Joe Sensor wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Why do you say that?
For the most part, I agree with Mike although I am not sure jitter is
thhe most important reason that bad converters sound bad.

Because the technical reasons don't matter, at least as far as the end
results. They *might* help explain why there are some faults with 16 bit
PCM, but the faults are there, regardless of whether they can be
explained or not. I agree with vinyl believer.

Yes, but it's clear the faults aren't those that can be fixed with
higher sampling rates and longer word sizes.

Mike seems to be reverting to the mindset of many here, that if these
faults cannot be scientifically explained/graphed/etc., than they must
be our imagination. I say that is bull****.

Again, I have heard some digital systems that were very clean.

A good-sounding 16-bit converter will beat a bad-sounding 24-bit converter
any day. I have heard good 16-bit digital audio. Not a lot of it, but
enough to affirm that it exists.

I agree. I have heard some pretty good sounding CD's. But when compared
to the record (assuming a good copy of the record), even the best
sounding CD's still exhibit some of the problems that VB mentioned. So
in my opinion, and the opinion of plenty of others, there are still
problems with 44.1/16, even with the best converters.

Run out right now and buy the JVC XRCD issue of Steve Miller's _The Joker_.
Compare with the LP. Actually, you can do that with any of the XRCD
discs if you have the LP versions. It's really stunning to hear what is
possible when good engineers make the decisions instead of marketing hacks.
--scott

Joe Sensor wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:


Why do you say that?
For the most part, I agree with Mike although I am not
sure jitter is
thhe most important reason that bad converters sound bad.

Because the technical reasons don't matter, at least as
far as the end
results.

Really?

So Joe we can can quote you as saying that technology
doesn't have any relevance to end results?

They *might* help explain why there are some faults with
16
bit PCM, but the faults are there, regardless of whether
they can be
explained or not.

You seem to have the cart before the horse, Joe. Before one
starts explaining faults, first develop reliable evidence
that the faults exist. So far your mantra seems to be:

"I know the faults are there, but don't ask me to provide
any reliable evidence to back my claims"

I agree with vinyl believer.

That could be very dangerous to your mental health, Joe.

Mike seems to be reverting to the mindset of many here,
that if these
faults cannot be scientifically explained/graphed/etc.,
than they must
be our imagination. I say that is bull****.

No, we're saying that if the faults are only present during
sighted evaluations, then they are probably due to sighted
bias.

I have heard some pretty good sounding CD's. But when
compared to the record (assuming a good copy of the
record), even the
best sounding CD's still exhibit some of the problems that
VB
mentioned.

But both of you admit that you've never done reliable,
bias-controlled listening tests comparing 16/44 downsampled
recordings to the origional analog tapes or high
resolution (e.g., 24/96) digital recordings.

So in my opinion, and the opinion of plenty of others,
there are still problems with 44.1/16, even with the best
converters.

The common thread is a lack of experience with reliable,
bias-controlled listening tests comparing 16/44 downsampled
recordings to the origional analog tapes or high
resolution (e.g., 24/96) digital recordings.

On 6/13/05 12:14 PM, in article , "Joe Sensor"
wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:


Why do you say that?
For the most part, I agree with Mike although I am not sure jitter is
thhe most important reason that bad converters sound bad.

Because the technical reasons don't matter, at least as far as the end
results. They *might* help explain why there are some faults with 16 bit
PCM, but the faults are there, regardless of whether they can be
explained or not. I agree with vinyl believer.

Mike seems to be reverting to the mindset of many here, that if these
faults cannot be scientifically explained/graphed/etc., than they must
be our imagination. I say that is bull****.


A good-sounding 16-bit converter will beat a bad-sounding 24-bit converter
any day. I have heard good 16-bit digital audio. Not a lot of it, but
enough to affirm that it exists.

I agree. I have heard some pretty good sounding CD's. But when compared
to the record (assuming a good copy of the record), even the best
sounding CD's still exhibit some of the problems that VB mentioned. So
in my opinion, and the opinion of plenty of others, there are still
problems with 44.1/16, even with the best converters.

Are we using the term 'problems' in the sense of "doesn;t sound like
something else" or actually 'PROBLEMS' as in non-inadequate-hardware
inherent PROBLEMS?

Bad convertors (AD -or- DA), bad clock, bad mastering are NOT evidenciary
support for "bad = 44/16"