Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#241
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"Geoff" wrote in message
Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Mr.T MrT@home wrote: 16 bits was an obvious choice because it's two bytes and provides a sufficient degree of overkill. What you could also say is that not for nothing was the early use and acceptance of 14 bit CD players, when 16 bit converters were more difficult/expensive to make. In fairness, I should point out, though, that the first generation Philips '14 bit' chipsets for CD players actually used x4 oversampling. Thus - in principle at least - returned 16-bit resolution. Pray tell how oversampling increases resolution ? http://www.daqchina.net/daqchina/circuit/adpro.pdf The reason for oversampling was/is to make reconstruction filters easier to implemnt without artifiacts of a steep slope. That's one reason of several. It's been a whil, have I forgotten ? yep. |
#242
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"Rob" wrote in
message I don't think anyone who prefers vinyl would argue that, for example, dynamic range and S/N of CD is potential better (although I prefer different). There is no proof, BTW, that CD is better than vinyl in absolute terms. FYI, dynamic range and S/N are analogous. The CD format has 4 undeniable advantages over the LP format in absolute terms: (1) Dynamic range (2) Vastly reduced nonlinear distortion (actually implied by item 1) (3) Vastly reduced linear distortion, AKA frequency and phase response in the audio band (4) Robustness and general practicality as a distribution medium. When I say "absolute" I mean that the above advantages are stated using standard technical terms that are generally understood as common technical terms related to the audio arts. They are undeniable facts that are generally true under all reasonable circumstances. They can be found in papers in widely-recognized refereed professional audio technical publications (e.g. IEEE and AES). They can be determined and compared by standard mechanical (or electrical) means that are generally-recognized and very low in terms of personal bias. They are also generally true when evaluated in bias-controlled listening tests. Almost all consumers of audio recordings accept that they are true if they have any amount of personal experience with both mediums. The only people who disagree with any of them are themselves highly biased. |
#243
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
wrote in message
ups.com And yet you have never done a bias controled listening test using SOTA lp playback gear and SOTA vinyl to verify this claim. The definition of SOTA lp playback gear and SOTA vinyl is not generally agreed-upon, and does have a stable definition. The corresponding equipment is not practical for ordinary mortals who are unwilling to mortage their children's future, to own. In contrast I can define an adequte reference SOTA digital music player for comparison as follows: A good CD or DVD player, costing $39 and up. I can also define an adequate media production/reproduction facility for the digital side: A ca. $400 Dell PC with CD or DVD burner and onboard audio interface. |
#244
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message In article . com, wrote: I already pointed out some specific examples of that travesty. The meter readers seemed utterly ans completely disinterested when I started talking about specific examples of terrible sounding CDs that are trumped by great sounding LPs of the same title. Oh that isn't a problem for incompetent engineers. However, to make an LP sound as good as a well recorded CD is impossible. And that's the crux of the matter. Even just making an adequate high speed analog tape master for cutting the LP is mission impossible. http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm |
#245
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:27:47 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote: wrote in message ups.com... And yet you have never done a bias controled listening test using SOTA lp playback gear and SOTA vinyl to verify this claim. I have, and it was a lay down misere for vinyl I'm afraid. (for those who don't play cards, it's where you lose every trick :-) Do you mean a misere ouvert? But the necessity of using a $100,000 turntable to compete (and lose) against a $500 CD player was the really amusing part! That would be a $50 CD surely? $39 or less in the USA. ;-) |
#246
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote: [snip] Almost all consumers of audio recordings accept that they are true if they have any amount of personal experience with both mediums. The only people who disagree with any of them are themselves highly biased. Or so lacking in knowledge they blame the CD medium for other reasons. And enjoy fiddling with pickups, etc. -- *It is wrong to ever split an infinitive * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#247
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
wrote in message
ps.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ups.com Heaven forbid anyone express their opinions if they run contrary to the meter rerader's religion. The irony is justing piling up since it is the folks who did openly criticize the results of CD sound that have been behind most of the improvements in CD quality. Well we don't want people speaking up or making improvements. Name an improvement to the parameters of the CD format that has improved CD quality. I will just give you an example of one person's efforts. http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf Scott, I guess you can't tell the difference between an AES conference paper, where almost anything goes, and a JAES article, which is refereed for technical accuracy by a independent review board. The cited paper is just a piece of self-aggrandizing puffery, replete with name-dropping. It actually describes no technical changes, let alone improvements, to the CD format. |
#248
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
wrote in message
ups.com Mr.T wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. Didn't think there was any argument? Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits? Of course not! Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 14 bits? Make that 12 bits, and you still have a tough question for the vinyl bigots to answer. Sure, but then your starting to get into the area of debate rather than a slam dunk. Now if we start talking about the *average* pressing of the vinyl era, 10 bits would be overkill :-( If we are talking about actual commercial CDs few of todays releases have more then 20db dynamic range. If its true, its a consequence of artistic decisions, not technical decisions. It's about particular implmentations, not any technical limitation of the CD medium. |
#249
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
In article , Arny Krueger wrote: "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message "Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... "Serge Auckland" wrote ... I have deliberately avoided the argument as to whether even 16bit is excessive for vinyl......... Didn't think there was any argument? Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits? Of course not! Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 14 bits? Make that 12 bits, and you still have a tough question for the vinyl bigots to answer. One of the things I have been wondering about for some time is as follows: It is straightforwards to work out the channel capacity of an analog channel where the noise level and peak level vary with frequency in a definable manner. So that could be used to work out a capacity value for LP systems. However this essentially ignores any effect of nonlinear distortion on capacity below the defined peak limit value. I haven't seen a treatment which analyses the capacity of a channel where nonlinear distortion rises with signal level and may represent the practical limit. i.e. not seen a treatment of how distortion affects channel information capacity. Anyone know if this has been done, and can suggest a reference? I think the usual approach is to take the spurious responses due to the nonlinear distortion as being part of the noise floor. IOW you calculate dynamic range from a SNR measurement made with a FS or near-FS signal is present. This is probably a bit optimistic because it underestimates the adverse effects of the probable cross-products when complex musical signals are being reproduced. |
#250
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
wrote in message oups.com... Nice try Arnold. But I rely on my ears you rely on audio religion. That's your problem, you rely on your "ears" which are obviously faulty, Arny relies on test equipment. Anybody relying on their "ears" alone, should NOT be arguing anything in a *technical* forum! Agreed that using one's brain can be a great help, as opposed to turning off the brain and just relying on the ears. ;-) |
#251
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
wrote in message
oups.com As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came from the mics. Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It went to CD exactly as it came from the mics." You should publish a technical article on this amazing breakthrough. No mic preamp, no A/D converter, nothin but the raw analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right over my head. I'm ROTFLMAO that Scott apparently thinks that LP recordings don't involve the use of mic preamps, and other technical apparataus with technical flaws so egregious as to make good A/D converters seem to be as pure as freshly-fallen snow. BTW it mght be possible to make a pretty good organ recording with just mics and a top-notch line-level audio interface, no mic preamp needed. 120 dB below about 1 volt is a pretty good noise floor for a mic. |
#252
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:17:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: wrote in message roups.com As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came from the mics. Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It went to CD exactly as it came from the mics." You should publish a technical article on this amazing breakthrough. No mic preamp, no A/D converter, nothin but the raw analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right over my head. I'm ROTFLMAO that Scott apparently thinks that LP recordings don't involve the use of mic preamps, and other technical apparataus with technical flaws so egregious as to make good A/D converters seem to be as pure as freshly-fallen snow. BTW it mght be possible to make a pretty good organ recording with just mics and a top-notch line-level audio interface, no mic preamp needed. 120 dB below about 1 volt is a pretty good noise floor for a mic. True - as I said, audience noise, not mic noise was the limiting factor. If I could have recorded this with the church empty, I would have been happy, and the organist would have played the quiet bit even quieter. But, it was an "event" and they wanted a memento of "their" performance. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#253
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Don Pearce wrote: On 29 Oct 2006 21:10:42 -0800, wrote: As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came from the mics. Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It went to CD exactly as it came from the mics." You should publish a technical article on this amazing breakthrough. No mic preamp, no A/D converter, nothin but the raw analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right over my head. Don't you get tired of making an ass of yourself? So is that a no on the name drop? Scott That little insect buzzing noise is back again. It is seriously irritating. Goooood come back. Very witty and original. Maybe you should write comedy. You do amuse me. Gotta love those new CDs of yours that are copied straight off the mic with no A/D conversion. That made me laugh. Scott |
#254
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Mr.T wrote: "Rob" wrote in message ... Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of *realism*..... Mmm. I think you misunderstand. That statement doesn't say anything close to 'vinyl is better than CD' in absolute terms. I'm puzzled as to what you think he means? Can a sense of "realism" (whatever that really means) If you don't know what that means you really aren't qualified to discuss hifi. only be attained by inferior equipment? Nice. Just use charged language and you maifest reality. Your reasoning is so amazing. Just call vinyl inferior and then it can't possibly sound better. You have now risen to the intelectual level that qualifies you to be president of the United States. Scott |
#256
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Mr.T wrote: wrote in message ups.com... And yet you have never done a bias controled listening test using SOTA lp playback gear and SOTA vinyl to verify this claim. I have, and it was a lay down misere for vinyl I'm afraid. (for those who don't play cards, it's where you lose every trick :-) But the necessity of using a $100,000 turntable to compete (and lose) against a $500 CD player was the really amusing part! This where our resdent scientist, Jim is supposed to ask for the details of this test so we can decide whether or not it was meaningful. But Jim likes to pick and choose his moments to do this based on whether or not he likes the results of a test report. (Sooooo scientific) So I will step in and ask for those specifics. What exact equipment was used? What exact LPs and CDs were used? What was the test methodology? What were the actual results? Scott |
#257
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Mr.T wrote: wrote in message ups.com... I already pointed out some specific examples of that travesty. The meter readers seemed utterly ans completely disinterested when I started talking about specific examples of terrible sounding CDs that are trumped by great sounding LPs of the same title. It seems quite obvious that there is little interest in sound quality amoung the meter readers when it comes to playing great music. In fact I, and many others have readilly admitted there are some CD's out there SO bad that the vinyl version is better. However a few pathological examples of faulty mastering does NOT prove vinyl is better than CD for anything other than the cover art! A few? Well that's just further evidence that you are another amoung the meter readers that think of music as a trivial artifact when it comes to audio. Pleease tell us what LPs and CDs you havecompared and what equipment you used and what were the specific differences you heard? Anyone who cares about sound quality would have done a lot of these sorts of comparisons to find the best sounding versions of their favorite titles. I bet you are drawing a blank right now. Scott |
#258
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Mr.T wrote: "Rob" wrote in message ... I don't think anyone who prefers vinyl would argue that, for example, dynamic range and S/N of CD is potential better (although I prefer different). There is no proof, BTW, that CD is better than vinyl in absolute terms. I guess you have an interesting definition of "absolute terms" then, if S/N ratio, distortion, wow and flutter, rumble, frequency bandwidth and flattness etc. are all irrelevant. Indeed. False claims are a different matter, though. Which is all I'm complaining about, the unprovable claim that vinyl is better than CD (rather than simply saying - some CD's are dreadful despite the mediums huge technical superiority.) Hey mr science dude. How on earth is the claim unbprovable? It's a simple claim to test and it has been tested with vinyl coming out on top. You can wave your arms all you want but that reality will not change. Scott |
#259
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Mr.T wrote: wrote in message ups.com... If we are talking about actual commercial CDs few of todays releases have more then 20db dynamic range. So true, but so what? LOL so what? Well there you have it. Another meter reader plays his hand and tells us that for him music is indeed a trvial artifact of audio rather than a focal point. SO WHAT?!? Scott |
#260
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article . com, wrote: No we were originally discussing why it is worth while to transfer LPs to digital. The comment that started the debate was that the only reason to do so is if an LP is not available on CD. Clearly if one cares about sound quality there are other reasons. Previously you almost admitted the truth that vinyl can only sound better than CD if the mastering of that CD was poor. Listen dickwad, I've been telling the truth the whole way. That idea prbably creeps out a dick head like you. The truth is with most titles the superior mastering will end up being on an LP version. I know this throiugh years of comparisons. You are clueless when it comes to this. But then you really don't care do you? "Music? What's that?" You're all about geeky technical aspects of audio.Truth is in controled comparisons of titles where there was no difference in the mastering other than RIAA EQ for the LP and the proper A/D conversion for the CD the LP still sounded more realistic than the CD. You have never made such comparisons. Your beliefs are faith based. So program material is very much the issue. So logically transferring a pristine LP to CD (without any 'mastering') gives the best of both worlds No transfering LPs to 24/96 or higher rez formats is the logical thing to do. That is my next project. Yeah I would much rather play digital copies of my LPs that are indistiguishable from the LP. Funny, I chimmed in only when some one on this thread claimed it was not worthwhile because CDs were so much better. Scott |
#261
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Mr.T wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Nice try Arnold. But I rely on my ears you rely on audio religion. That's your problem, you rely on your "ears" which are obviously faulty, Arny relies on test equipment. That says it all. The ears are wrong the test equipment is right. Yes, in absolute terms, Absolute terms? LOL do you guys have something similar to a cross to represent your religion? It would be nice if we can ID you guys from a distance. because the ONLY person in the world who has your ears is YOU. Oh, now there is a revelation. I suppose in your version of your audio religion each individual has their own truly and completely unique hearing? There is no common ground amoung humans when it comes to sound perception? It's funny how you guys like to whine about the lack of controled listening in audio yet very few of you guys really know jack about psychoacoustics. But.... since I buy audio equipment and records and Cds to please me... What you *think* is good is a PREFERENCE you are entitled to, nothing more. Dude, since when did you have ANY say so as to what I am entitled to? Your an official meter reader. Ever listen to music? I thought not. You thought wrong then! Oh, well then do tell us about your experience in comparing the various masterings of your favorite titles. I bet you have nothing to say about it. Quick, do an Arny and google other peoples' views on the subject then do a Howaard Ferstler and plagarize them. Anybody relying on their "ears" alone, should NOT be arguing anything in a *technical* forum! This is a technical forum? You really are a ****ing moron. The man claiming rec,audio.TECH, is NOT a technical forum is calling ME a moron :-) :-) :-) Dude, I am posting on UK.rec,audio Says it all I guess. Um yeah, Says it all. I guess. Scott |
#262
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article .com, wrote: As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came from the mics. Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It went to CD exactly as it came from the mics." You should publish a technical article on this amazing breakthrough. No mic preamp, no A/D converter, nothin but the raw analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right over my head. Perfectly possible to make the described recording without the use of a mic pre-amp. It's perfectly possible for you to say something intelligent butwhat is possible and what likely are often very different things Don't you get tired of making an ass of yourself? You should be careful of pronouncing on things you have little knowledge of. You are right about this, I know very little about this CD that was made with no A/D conversion. Maybe you can explain how it works? So is that a no on the name drop? Given you criticise those mastering engineers on near every front, why would it matter? I do? Examples? Quotations? You are full of ****. Scott |
#263
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Mr.T wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... So logically transferring a pristine LP to CD (without any 'mastering') gives the best of both worlds - the distortions of the LP without the wear problems. Only *some* people actually believe that vinyl distortions are "best" though. Others realise the best performance/mastering job are not unique to any media. People who care about the music do know this. Tell us some of your wisdom on mastering. What mastering engineers do you think do the best job on LPs and CDs? Give us some prime examples. C'mon, you too can pull an Arny and do a google search. Heck while you are trying to put up a front of knowing something about this subject you just may learn something. about it Scott |
#264
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Mr.T wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... So logically transferring a pristine LP to CD (without any 'mastering') gives the best of both worlds - the distortions of the LP without the wear problems. Only *some* people actually believe that vinyl distortions are "best" though. Others realise the best performance/mastering job are not unique to any media. People who care about the music do know this. Tell us some of your wisdom on mastering. What mastering engineers do you think do the best job on LPs and CDs? Give us some prime examples. C'mon, you too can pull an Arny and do a google search. Heck while you are trying to put up a front of knowing something about this subject you just may learn something. about it Scott |
#265
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ps.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ups.com Heaven forbid anyone express their opinions if they run contrary to the meter rerader's religion. The irony is justing piling up since it is the folks who did openly criticize the results of CD sound that have been behind most of the improvements in CD quality. Well we don't want people speaking up or making improvements. Name an improvement to the parameters of the CD format that has improved CD quality. I will just give you an example of one person's efforts. http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf Scott, I guess you can't tell the difference between an AES conference paper, where almost anything goes, and a JAES article, which is refereed for technical accuracy by a independent review board. The cited paper is just a piece of self-aggrandizing puffery, replete with name-dropping. It actually describes no technical changes, let alone improvements, to the CD format. Well Arny, thanks for admitting you don't understand the advantages of better A/D conversion and dither not to mention the use of better cutting consoles. Figures. Scott |
#266
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ups.com Mr.T wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. Didn't think there was any argument? Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits? Of course not! Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 14 bits? Make that 12 bits, and you still have a tough question for the vinyl bigots to answer. Sure, but then your starting to get into the area of debate rather than a slam dunk. Now if we start talking about the *average* pressing of the vinyl era, 10 bits would be overkill :-( If we are talking about actual commercial CDs few of todays releases have more then 20db dynamic range. If its true, its a consequence of artistic decisions, not technical decisions. It's about particular implmentations, not any technical limitation of the CD medium. But that's OK with dorks like you. So long as the technology gives you a woody who cares if the music sounds like crap. Music just gets in your way of your love of measurements. Scott |
#267
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
|
#268
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
|
#269
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came from the mics. Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It went to CD exactly as it came from the mics." You should publish a technical article on this amazing breakthrough. No mic preamp, no A/D converter, nothin but the raw analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right over my head. I'm ROTFLMAO that Scott apparently thinks that LP recordings don't involve the use of mic preamps, and other technical apparataus with technical flaws so egregious as to make good A/D converters seem to be as pure as freshly-fallen snow. Arny lay off the drugs. This ridiculous line of reasoning cannot possibley happen without drugs or some sort of brain damage. Oh never mind. BTW it mght be possible to make a pretty good organ recording with just mics and a top-notch line-level audio interface, no mic preamp needed. 120 dB below about 1 volt is a pretty good noise floor for a mic. Don't tell Donny he needs all that stuff. He just uses a mic feed to record his CDs. To hell with any interface or A/D converters for that matter. Scott |
#270
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Don Pearce wrote: On 30 Oct 2006 08:04:05 -0800, wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On 29 Oct 2006 21:10:42 -0800, wrote: As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came from the mics. Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It went to CD exactly as it came from the mics." You should publish a technical article on this amazing breakthrough. No mic preamp, no A/D converter, nothin but the raw analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right over my head. Don't you get tired of making an ass of yourself? So is that a no on the name drop? Scott That little insect buzzing noise is back again. It is seriously irritating. Goooood come back. Very witty and original. Maybe you should write comedy. You do amuse me. Gotta love those new CDs of yours that are copied straight off the mic with no A/D conversion. That made me laugh. Scott Scott, had it been anybody else saying this, I would have believed that they knew what I meant and were taking the **** in a rather half-arsed way at my shorthand. But this is you, so I take you at face value and assume you really do believe I think I wrote analogue to a CD. You really are too stupid for words. Dude, you are the idiot that said " There is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came from the mics." Did you not know that exactly what came from the mics was an analog signal? Did you not know that what goes into a CD is a digital signal? Your words dude. Your stupidity. Don't expect others to clean up your mess. Scott |
#271
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Mr.T MrT@home wrote: snip If the vinyl lovers wish to enjoy their personal choice without disparaging remarks, all they need do is stop claiming to the world that it is better than CD. Seems simple enough to me. Indeed. I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl is better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair believe ... :-) It rarely stops there...it's usually followed by some rather technically dubious claims about analog and digital....often phrased as a report of hearing things that digital 'can't do'. Originally it was digital, period, but in the past half decade or so the scripture has been amended to allow that 'hi rez' digital might, on a good day, sound as good as vinyl, but 16/44.1, heavens no, it can't sound as good as 'the best' vinyl played on 'SOTA' gear to 'golden ears', even if it's a CD transfer of an LP. Which brings us back to this thread. For myself, I'm more interested in audio than vinyl. I think it's nice if people can make up their own mind about vinyl by listening, using and taking on board the technical arguments. The UK audio group tends to provide a good blend of things I'm interested in. I think it's nice if people understand the well-documented limitations of 'listening' as it is generally done..yet many vinylphiles seem less interested in that than in promoting what they believe (often without basis) are audible limitations of digital. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#272
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. wrote in message ups.com Well, we disagree about the transarency of 16/44.1 That's due to your religious belief that there's something that still needs to be fixed with the CD format to make it as accurate as LPs. Accurate? Do you mean as in *lifelike*....??? Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of *realism*..... Achieved via introduction of distortions that some find pleasing. Others might prefer to add such distortions or not, as an *option*, not an inherent quality of the system. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#273
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Rob wrote: I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl is better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair believe ... :-) Just look at this from our resident ayatollah - Mr G... From: Keith G Subject: Vinyl to CD on a PC Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:10 Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of *realism*..... Mmm. I think you misunderstand. That statement doesn't say anything close to 'vinyl is better than CD' in absolute terms. Sure it does, unless you believe he thinks 'a sense of realism' is a *bad* thing. And too, the utter lack of qualification -- note the word 'never' -- brings it into the realm of absolutism. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#274
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote: BTW it mght be possible to make a pretty good organ recording with just mics and a top-notch line-level audio interface, no mic preamp needed. 120 dB below about 1 volt is a pretty good noise floor for a mic. Some older well regarded condenser mics had a much higher output than is common these days - most now conform to the DIN standard. Many years ago I mixed a live TV pop show in a small studio with very rudimentary sound facilities (great fun actually) and plugged most of the mics (AKG C28) into the line inputs. Straight into the fader. ;-) One such mic I own is a Neumann U77. -- *He's not dead - he's electroencephalographically challenged Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#275
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Rob wrote: I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl is better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair believe ... :-) Just look at this from our resident ayatollah - Mr G... From: Keith G Subject: Vinyl to CD on a PC Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:10 Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of *realism*..... Mmm. I think you misunderstand. That statement doesn't say anything close to 'vinyl is better than CD' in absolute terms. Sure it does, unless you believe he thinks 'a sense of realism' is a *bad* thing. And too, the utter lack of qualification -- note the word 'never' -- brings it into the realm of absolutism. Ayatollah...??? :-)) How apposite - I was saying only yesterday, if we walked round with fekkin' tea-towels over our faces, how long before we got arrested?? Church of Tea Towel anybody...?? |
#276
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article .com,
wrote: Which is all I'm complaining about, the unprovable claim that vinyl is better than CD (rather than simply saying - some CD's are dreadful despite the mediums huge technical superiority.) Hey mr science dude. How on earth is the claim unbprovable? It's a simple claim to test and it has been tested with vinyl coming out on top. Don't be silly. Your tests must be flawed in that they chose specific examples to prove the point. You simply can't get round the fact that a double blind AB comparison between a decent master tape - digital or analogue - copied straight to both LP and CD with no 'mastering' other than making sure the maximum mod isn't exceeded - will result in *anyone* hearing the difference reliably between that master and the LP, but not between it and the CD. You can wave your arms all you want but that reality will not change. You're the one doing the waving while drowning... -- *Why does the sun lighten our hair, but darken our skin? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#277
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message ... Mr.T wrote: "Rob" wrote in message ... I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl is better than CD'. Try Google, there are thousands of them. I just tried your suggestion (vinyl better CD). Clearly I haven't been through all 6m but the first few pages seem to be pointing to something like a more enjoyable, realistic sound. Not unequivocal. The arrogance of the digital bigots disallows the possibility that anyone who thinks vinyl is/can sound more realistic than the *flatness* of CD could be right.... Hold on there, quickdraw. *Is* and *can sound* are two different claims. And no one says a *preference* for a sound is right or wrong. The claimed *reasons* for a preference could be. 'Stereo' means solid - using two channels to create an illusion of 'solidity', space and depth is an aural illusion that is *far better* achieved by vinyl, IME. I can prove this to myself any time I can be arsed to dig out a corresonding CD to certain LPs I've got. Also 'far better' achieved, to some ears, by a multichannel reproduction. Whether or not CD has a lower noise floor or greater dynamic range is of no consequence to me - it simply does *not* sound better to me.... (Anybody don't like to hear that, then tough ****....) You seem angry. Also, you're missing the point of this thread..which is that a CD transfer of an LP could well capture all that 'realism' you like. If you claim it *can't ever* do that, then it's time to explain why that could be so. And you are in the best position to comment. But might your technical certainties twist your listening experience? Because you know that CD must be better, do your prophecies self-fulfill? I used to think the CD bigots bashed vinyl out of jealousy, having got rid of their vinyl (like so many did), but so many of them claim to still own many LPs - presumably for the opposite purpose of digging out the occasional LP just to prove they still don't like 'em...??? Cover art, mainly. And a few that have never come out on CD, I've transferred from LP. But all of them reside in the attic. I'm sure lots of vinylphiles own a CD or two, too. I don't think anyone who prefers vinyl would argue that, for example, dynamic range and S/N of CD is potential better (although I prefer different). There is no proof, BTW, that CD is better than vinyl in absolute terms. Damn right. What do you mean by 'absolute terms'? It can't mean 'in every and all conceivable ways', because that would be an impossible standard. There are certainly some *objective* measures by which CD (the medium, not individual CDs) outperforms LP (the medium, not individual LPs) ...dynamic range, S/N, and flatness of frequency response over the audible range being three. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#278
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. wrote in message ups.com Well, we disagree about the transarency of 16/44.1 That's due to your religious belief that there's something that still needs to be fixed with the CD format to make it as accurate as LPs. Accurate? Do you mean as in *lifelike*....??? Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of *realism*..... Achieved via introduction of distortions that some find pleasing. Others might prefer to add such distortions or not, as an *option*, not an inherent quality of the system. *Sigh*.... If I had a penny for every time I've heard/read that old chestnut I could afford the portable digital recorder I would like..... |
#279
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. wrote in message ups.com Well, we disagree about the transarency of 16/44.1 That's due to your religious belief that there's something that still needs to be fixed with the CD format to make it as accurate as LPs. Accurate? Do you mean as in *lifelike*....??? Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of *realism*..... Achieved via introduction of distortions that some find pleasing. Others might prefer to add such distortions or not, as an *option*, not an inherent quality of the system. *Sigh*.... If I had a penny for every time I've heard/read that old chestnut I could afford the portable digital recorder I would like..... shrug I canna change the laws of physics, cap'n. -- ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#280
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article .com,
wrote: Previously you almost admitted the truth that vinyl can only sound better than CD if the mastering of that CD was poor. Listen dickwad, I've been telling the truth the whole way. That idea prbably creeps out a dick head like you. The truth is with most titles the superior mastering will end up being on an LP version. Most? Most titles aren't released on LP. I know this throiugh years of comparisons. You must lead a sad life. You are clueless when it comes to this. But then you really don't care do you? "Music? What's that?" You're all about geeky technical aspects of audio.Truth is in controled comparisons of titles where there was no difference in the mastering other than RIAA EQ for the LP and the proper A/D conversion for the CD the LP still sounded more realistic than the CD. Ah. More 'realistic' - but different from the master. You obviously love second harmonic distortion. Say no more. You have never made such comparisons. Your beliefs are faith based. Oh, but I have. And base my views on what I and others whose opinions I respect heard. -- *I brake for no apparent reason. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why would someone like LP? | High End Audio | |||
Swap Vinyl Save Cash! | Marketplace | |||
Timing | High End Audio | |||
CD verses vinyl - help clear dispute | Pro Audio | |||
SOTA vinyl mastering | High End Audio |