"Joe Sensor" wrote in message
...
hank alrich wrote:

vinyl believer wrote:

.... 16/44 does a pretty good job

Like I said .....16/44 digital isn't a great medium.
Great sound mediums don't do "a pretty good job" .... Vinyl sounds
nice. 24/96 digital sounds great.

The artist only wants to be on a level playing field.

At the price of sounding bad?...... I don't think serious classical and
jazz artists would put up with this kind of mastering.

The recording and mixing engineers really can't do anything but what
the clients
want...

And tell them that it sounds like **** too.

VB, you are quite the troll.

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

Look at your own snippets for the answer. It's trollish because the thread
was motoring along quietly on-topic, until someone happens to give an
opinion that 16/44 does a pretty good job, then --pow!-- VB twists it into
vinyl vs CD, which is an obvious hobby-horse of his and is nothing to do
with this thread. It is a topic that has been done to death a million times
in rec.audio.you-name-it, and everyone has formed their opinions and only a
few are open-minded enough to move either way across the divide.

It's trollish because a flippant vinyl vs CD comment is sure to bring out
the defenders of the other side of the issue and it sure has nothing to do
with the thread unless you try real hard -- too hard.

So VB can go and start his own thread in rec.audio.rigid-opinion, or better
still do some research and take 500 hours to read the prior arguments and
then save us all and keep quiet on the topic unless he has something
interesting to add, or would like to add a question that hasn't been covered
100 times, and if so do it in his own thread.

Kiss my ass..... The debate was between 24/96 digital and 16/44
recording if you could read moron. Vinyl was NOT the issue.

I got attacked early in the thread for daring to question the integrity
of CDs(never mentioned vinyl) and simply stated why 24/96 sounds
better, while engaging the issue of Masteing Problems!

And you start a new flame thread because you don't have a clue what the
topic is.

Contribute something useful yourself or STFU.

VB

vinyl believer wrote:
Kiss my ass..... The debate was between 24/96 digital and
16/44
recording if you could read moron. Vinyl was NOT the
issue.

Yeah sure. That's why you posted the following:

"B: I prfer Vinyl over CDs"

nowater wrote:

So VB can go and start his own thread in rec.audio.rigid-opinion, or better
still do some research and take 500 hours to read the prior arguments and

Or you could just get ****ed!

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

Kiss my ass..... The debate was between 24/96 digital and 16/44
recording if you could read moron. Vinyl was NOT the issue.


All you have to do is look up, VB.

The topic was "loudness"... it had nothing to do with sampling rates
or bit depth and certainly not vinyl, on which loudness is a completely
different issue.


DM

Joe Sensor wrote:

nowater wrote:

So VB can go and start his own thread in rec.audio.rigid-opinion, or better
still do some research and take 500 hours to read the prior arguments and

Or you could just get ****ed!

Got that last night; was very good.

Now, if folks turn the little towers supporting their speaker wires
upside down, the SPL will go down accordionly.

--
ha