[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Please cite any peer reviewed published results that
support this assertion.

The Dynamic Range of Disc and Tape Records. D. W. Gravereaux, A. J. Gust,
and B. B. Bauer, JAES V18(5) pp 530-5 October 1970

Performance Characteristics of the Commercial Stereo Disc. J. Eargle, JAES
V17(4) pp 416-22 August 1969

Psychoacoustics, the Determining Factor in Stereo Disc Distortion. J. E.
Jacobs and P. Whitman, JAES V12(2) pp 115-23 April 1964.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

I must be psychic, I predicted you didn't know squat
about the subject. Gosh who the **** cares about who
mastered their favorite music?

People who obsess over nits. Most people pay a lot more attention to who
made their favorite music.

Audiophiles that are in it for the enjoyment of music.

No, they are mostly gear sluts. People who are in it for the enjoyment of
music obsess over music, not the equipment they play it on.

You see dip****

Ongoing meltdown noted.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ps.com
Chris Isbell wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 21:10:42 -0800,
wrote:

Don't you get tired of making an ass of yourself?


Scott,

It is you how is making an idiot of yourself.

huh?

Note your multiple meltdowns.


The people you are
criticising have demonstrated their extensive knowledge
of physics and engineering on many occasions;

Oh, it is matter of knowledge in the fields of physics
and engineeing that determine one's ability to make calls
when it comes to one's aesthetic experiences. Yeah right.

What you like relates to the aesthetic. How things work is a matter of
physics and engineering.

all you are doing is parading your
ignorance for all those who have even a basic knowledge
in these areas to see.

Knowledge? Like what?

Say the peer-reviewed papers that have been posted here that say that the LP
format has audible distortion and noise.

The ridiculous claim that all LPs
were mastered with summed bass and HF roll off?

Straw man argument. Excluded middle argument.

In fact just about every LP has been mastered with summed bass and HF
rolloff, but even without those, they still playback clearly audibly
different from the master tapes or other audio source used to make them.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com


Please do tell us how the claim that vinyl inherently
sounds more life like than CD in stereo playback violates
any laws of physics.

Please read and understand:

The Dynamic Range of Disc and Tape Records. D. W. Gravereaux, A. J. Gust,
and B. B. Bauer, JAES V18(5) pp 530-5 October 1970

Performance Characteristics of the Commercial Stereo Disc. J. Eargle, JAES
V17(4) pp 416-22 August 1969

Psychoacoustics, the Determining Factor in Stereo Disc Distortion. J. E.
Jacobs and P. Whitman, JAES V12(2) pp 115-23 April 1964.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Even just making an adequate high speed analog tape master for cutting the
LP is mission impossible.

Not a problem any more since there is no need to make an analog tape master.
You can feed the cutting lathe from a digital recorder :-)
Now where's the specs on the cutting lathe though :-(

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
That would be a $50 CD surely?

$39 or less in the USA. ;-)

Pretty much the same thing here. $1AUD = 75 US cents. In fact CD players can
be had here for $20AUD = $15 USD, but the reliability tends to be a bit
dodgy, even if the sound quality is better than vinyl :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
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. ;-)

Your making the assumption he has a brain, something not in evidence.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Even just making an adequate high speed analog tape
master for cutting the LP is mission impossible.

Not a problem any more since there is no need to make an
analog tape master. You can feed the cutting lathe from a
digital recorder :-)

A working strategy, widely used.

Now where's the specs on the cutting lathe though :-(

The cutting lathe probably performs better than the user's cartridge, etc.
Still not sonically transparent, though.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
ups.com...
Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of
*realism*.....
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.

It's not in any engineering text I've read, the dictionary definition
doesn't mention vinyl, so I wondered about YOUR definition.
I note NONE was forthcoming.
Or do you mean only morons like you are qualified to discuss HiFi?


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.

You will certainly never be that smart though, even GWB is a genius in
comparison to you.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

So where is this "proof"?

MrT.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
Who was it that said I don't get irony? Don Plowman? Dick Pearce? You
can't remember this thread while you were posting to it?

Scott, Dick Pierce and Don Pearce are two different people.

Funny thing about the meter reders, they actualy do all sound th same.



Both are capable of laying your arguments to waste,


So they choose to make asses of themselves instead? Odd choice.


so perhaps
that's what's confused you.


I wasn't confused. Thank you for finally taking the bait. I had all but
given up on my punchline about all meter readers sounding the same.

Strange you are so against using technology to aid judgment. But are so
keen to name drop all the engineers you 'know'. You sound like you don't
know one end of a soldering iron from the other and think that all the
equipment you use was hatched from an egg rather than designed by an
engineer...

--
*The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
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?

Way too much counter-evidence.

It's a simple claim to test and it has been
tested with vinyl coming out on top.

Can't read, can you Scott?

What about all those refereed articles that I posted references to?



You can wave your
arms all you want but that reality will not change.


Scott

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
I think thre is something to this claim. I remember a mastering
engineer, I think it was Stan Ricker, saying that he often found the
LPs he mastered often sounded more lifelike than the original master
tapes even when he did a flat transfer with no processing.

Says it all about some mastering people. "My job is to improve the master"

If the production team wanted distortion that could have been done at the
session. No wonder so many complain the final product on sale sounds
nothing like what they heard at mix down time.

It stands to
reason that it would be the introduction of colorations that lead to
that effect. Now while the idea of distortion may bother the meter
readers because it makes for uglier numbers, for those who ar
interested in sound quality this shouldn't create a philisophical
dilema. Sounds better is better. It's a simple and pure philosophy.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mr.T]

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?!?

You are assuming I buy those pop CD's, and are just making an ass of U, NOT
me :-)

Since very few are even available on vinyl, I can't imagine how you compared
them to the vinyl version anyway. If they were on vinyl then they too would
have 20dB DNR, a fact that I'm not surprised escapes you.

MrT.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article . com,
wrote:
No, no one is required to have an explination for their perceptions.
You see that is part of the bull**** game. You demand an explination
for peoples' perceptions and when they offer a wild guess that has
obvious technical flaws you attack the whole claim via the explination.
It's ****ing shell game with you dorks. You don't like the aesthetic
perceptions when they don't line up with the technogeek meter readers
true love, the numbers.

Nothing like a true believer...

--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
Please do tell us how the claim that vinyl inherently sounds more life
like than CD in stereo playback violates any laws of physics.

Try find any vinyl with natural sounding speech on it. You won't...

--
*Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
IME the percieved dynamic range of Redbook and Vinyl at their best are
neck and neck.

Perceived? You can't hear the difference of more than 20 dB? Explains a
lot.

--
*7up is good for you, signed snow white*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
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 the LP format has more "realism" than the CD format, what then is the
definition of "realism"?

If the LP format has more "realism" than the CD format, then realism means
tics and pops.

If the LP format has more "realism" than the CD format, then realism means
groove noise.

If the LP format has more "realism" than the CD format, then realism means
rumble.

If the LP format has more "realism" than the CD format, then realism means
clearly audible distortion.

If you don't know what that means you really aren't
qualified to discuss hifi.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article . com,
wrote:
WTF cares who the engineers are?

I must be psychic, I predicted you didn't know squat about the subject.
Gosh who the **** cares about who mastered their favorite music?
Audiophiles that are in it for the enjoyment of music. You see dip****
if you know who is mastering your recordings and you have an idea of
the quality of their work it makes it easier to narrow down the likely
sonic winners and losers.

As I thought. You've no interest in music at all. Unless it's wearing the
correct badge.

But if you don't really give a **** about sound quality when music is
involved you have no need to check. Once again you have been pegged.

You've certainly shown yourself up as a grade one anorak.

--
*Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
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.


Please cite any peer reviewed published results that support this
assertion.

I'm surprised you've not been involved on such trials yourself. But
thinking again, not really, as it would show you up for the charlatan you
are. Rather the same as those who claim to hear differences in cables but
can't actually prove it in properly conducted testing.

--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mr.T]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
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.

Naturally they think the measurements must be wrong since they disagree with
"their ears", and we all know THEIR ears are the only true reference.
That's why no-one else in the world can listen to music, wrong ears :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
ps.com...
Yep my spelling sucks and I make a lot of typos.

Not nearly as many as the factual errors!

MrT.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article om,
wrote:
The second sentence qualified the first. Which referred to mastering.
And would be plain to anyone with a reasonable command of the English
language. Ie, obviously everyone *else* reading this group, since
you're the only one not to understand what was meant.

Once again you show us what an idiot you are when it comes to
mastering.

I would ask what that has to do with understanding a post, but wouldn't
expect a sensible reply.

--
*And don't start a sentence with a conjunction *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" wrote in message
news
Others might prefer to add such distortions or not, as an
*option*, not an inherent quality of the system.

You could at least put "quality" in quotes :-)

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.....

Surely you would want a portable analog disk recorder? :-)
Or have you has a change of heart on digital?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
oups.com...
Please do tell us how the claim that vinyl inherently sounds more life
like than CD in stereo playback violates any laws of physics.

Hard to do when we have no idea WHY you *THINK* it does.

MrT.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
You have never made such comparisons. Your beliefs are faith based.

Oh, but I have.


Bull****. but do tell us about those comparisons. What titles? What
versions of those titles? What eqipment was used? How did you control
your anti-vinyl bias?

*Proper* testing doesn't involve 'titles' and avoids bias being a factor
in the results.

You really don't understand, do you?

--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message

I'm surprised you've not been involved on such trials
yourself. But thinking again, not really, as it would
show you up for the charlatan you are. Rather the same as
those who claim to hear differences in cables but can't
actually prove it in properly conducted testing.

I seem to recall that Scott claims to have heard differences due to cables,
in a single-blind test.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
oups.com...
Sounds better is better. It's a simple and pure philosophy.


OK then, all the people who think CD sounds better, are correct after all.


I think that is great idea. Do you know of a program that does this
digitally?

Yep, there are PLENTY of plug-ins available to recreate "analog" sound,
"valve" sound, "vinyl" sound etc. You have probably even heard CD's that
used them in the recording chain, without you realising it.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of
*realism*.....

So this "realism" is simply another word for distortion?

It would seem so, but he refuses to define what HE means by realism.
Obviously not one in any normal dictionary!

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com

IME the percieved dynamic range of Redbook and Vinyl at
their best are neck and neck.

You live near a busy road and are plagued with road noise in your listening
room?

You have hearing problems, you say?

Or is it your legacy technology tubed audio components that are mucking up
the works?

You can whine about how
that doesn't fit the measurements but again that would
the classic scenerio of meter readers damning the
aesthetics becuase they don't meet thier expectations
based on the numbers.

I always thought that vinyl was noisy. Apparently so did about 99% of the
rest of the music lovers on earth.


**** that.

Meltdown noted.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Now where's the specs on the cutting lathe though :-(

The cutting lathe probably performs better than the user's cartridge, etc.

I'm not so sure about that myself. I'm sure there were worse cutting heads
than my Shure V15VMR, and there are FAR more expensive cartridges available.
In fact half speed mastering was to reduce the deficiencies of the cutting
lathes, but a cartridge doesn't need to cut a groove as it goes. (although
some do :-)

Still not sonically transparent, though.

Depends on whose "ears" are being used obviously, going by all the other
posts :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
I seem to recall that Scott claims to have heard differences due to
cables,
in a single-blind test.

More likely in a sighted test, like all the rest of his listening "tests".

MrT.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
Yep, there are PLENTY of plug-ins available to recreate "analog" sound,
"valve" sound, "vinyl" sound etc. You have probably even heard CD's that
used them in the recording chain, without you realising it.

Yup. Analogue clipping on digitally mastered pop CDs.

--
*Why is it that rain drops but snow falls?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

IME the percieved dynamic range of Redbook and Vinyl at
their best are neck and neck.

You live near a busy road and are plagued with road noise in your
listening room?

You have hearing problems, you say?

Or is it your legacy technology tubed audio components that are mucking up
the works?

You can whine about how
that doesn't fit the measurements but again that would
the classic scenerio of meter readers damning the
aesthetics becuase they don't meet thier expectations
based on the numbers.

I always thought that vinyl was noisy. Apparently so did about 99% of the
rest of the music lovers on earth.


Forget all that. The things that made CD so successful are the things that
are now killing it - miniaturisation, ease of handling and lifestyle.

Joe Bloggs (Britain's No 1 music *buyer*) doesn't give a ******** about
*quality* per se - quite plainly proved by his ready (eager?) acceptance of
the lowering of your precious 'bitrates' in digital music...

[Mr.T]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Yep, there are PLENTY of plug-ins available to recreate "analog" sound,
"valve" sound, "vinyl" sound etc. You have probably even heard CD's that
used them in the recording chain, without you realising it.

Yup. Analogue clipping on digitally mastered pop CDs.

That's FAR more often just hyper compression and digital clipping.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
I seem to recall that Scott claims to have heard
differences due to cables, in a single-blind test.

More likely in a sighted test, like all the rest of his
listening "tests".

We call "single blind" tests "Egregiously flawed double blind tests". ;-)

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Forget all that. The things that made CD so successful are the things that
are now killing it - miniaturisation, ease of handling and lifestyle.

Joe Bloggs (Britain's No 1 music *buyer*) doesn't give a ******** about
*quality* per se - quite plainly proved by his ready (eager?) acceptance
of
the lowering of your precious 'bitrates' in digital music...

Well that's partly true, CD killed off vinyl, but many people had already
switched to cassette for convenience before then. MP3 and other compressed
formats have simply replaced cassette for the convenience formats. Both CD
and MP3 are better for their respective uses, than what they replaced. Both
can happily co-exist for some time IMO.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
I seem to recall that Scott claims to have heard
differences due to cables, in a single-blind test.

More likely in a sighted test, like all the rest of his
listening "tests".

We call "single blind" tests "Egregiously flawed double blind tests". ;-)

Yes, but what do you call sighted "tests" then :-)

MrT.

[Keith G]

wrote in message
oups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.

I think thre is something to this claim. I remember a mastering
engineer, I think it was Stan Ricker, saying that he often found the
LPs he mastered often sounded more lifelike than the original master
tapes even when he did a flat transfer with no processing. It stands to
reason that it would be the introduction of colorations that lead to
that effect. Now while the idea of distortion may bother the meter
readers because it makes for uglier numbers, for those who ar
interested in sound quality this shouldn't create a philisophical
dilema. Sounds better is better. It's a simple and pure philosophy.


**Bingo!**


:-))

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
I seem to recall that Scott claims to have heard
differences due to cables, in a single-blind test.

More likely in a sighted test, like all the rest of his
listening "tests".

We call "single blind" tests "Egregiously flawed double
blind tests". ;-)

Yes, but what do you call sighted "tests" then :-)

They aren't tests at all.

No joke.