I dragged out a couple of Sheffield Direct To Disc recordings today for
lack of anything else to do.
Playback equipment is a Thorens TD 316 Turntable.. Shure V15 Type V MR
cartridge...Marantz 2285B Pre-amp (actually the pre-amp part of a reciever)
BW 800D speakers, Bryston 4B amp..also played in my studio on Event ASP8's...

All I can say is WOW.................

CD, sounds nice, but it don't sound like Harry playing on D2D, I'm sorry....
The image, fullness of response, depth and natural sound are all there and
even though my TT is not the greatest......

It literally sounds like the band is right in front of me, and while CD's
are nice, and theory is in their favor, I would offer up that people
interested in comparisons, should seriously listen to some great analog
D2D stuff on decent playback equipment because you really might be
surprised.
I was...
However, i am not about to scrap digital, I am only pointing out that
analog can sound real freaking good when played on decent equipment.

A bottle of chianti and Harry blowing his horn has made for a wonderful
evening....

Peace!!


flatfish+++
(the real one, not the troll)

flatfish+++ wrote:
I dragged out a couple of Sheffield Direct To Disc recordings today for
lack of anything else to do.
Playback equipment is a Thorens TD 316 Turntable.. Shure V15 Type V MR
cartridge...Marantz 2285B Pre-amp (actually the pre-amp part of a reciever)
BW 800D speakers, Bryston 4B amp..also played in my studio on Event ASP8's...

All I can say is WOW.................

CD, sounds nice, but it don't sound like Harry playing on D2D, I'm sorry....
The image, fullness of response, depth and natural sound are all there and
even though my TT is not the greatest......

You must be talking about the "King James Version" Harry James big
band. Very very good record.

It literally sounds like the band is right in front of me, and while CD's
are nice, and theory is in their favor, I would offer up that people
interested in comparisons, should seriously listen to some great analog
D2D stuff on decent playback equipment because you really might be
surprised.

I routinely surprise people who haven't heard vinyl in a while and
remember it only as a scratchy, distorted, crappy sound that to them
pales in comparison to CD. The way I describe it is that there is a
"direct" connection to the sound, instead of sounding like it is
somehow "behind" an invisible wall. Of course this may be a function of
distortion, etc. but it seems to be more "lifelike" in many ways.
I was...
However, i am not about to scrap digital, I am only pointing out that
analog can sound real freaking good when played on decent equipment.

Hear Hear.

A bottle of chianti and Harry blowing his horn has made for a wonderful
evening....

Peace!!

I'm fortunate enough to have a moderate collection of classical and
jazz LPs, including some Sheffield and MoFi stuff, although not nearly
as many as I'd like. But a well pressed Phillips or RCA can sound damn
good, too...

I must say though that the new SACD recordings I've heard are better
than LP in 99% of the cases, and simply blow away CDs. Very "alive"
sounding and smooth. Best of both worlds IMO.

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:00:25 -0700, Karl Winkler wrote:


You must be talking about the "King James Version" Harry James big
band. Very very good record.

Yep!
King James Version.
Comin' From a Good Place.
Still Harry After All these Years.
Etc....



I routinely surprise people who haven't heard vinyl in a while and
remember it only as a scratchy, distorted, crappy sound that to them
pales in comparison to CD. The way I describe it is that there is a
"direct" connection to the sound, instead of sounding like it is somehow
"behind" an invisible wall. Of course this may be a function of
distortion, etc. but it seems to be more "lifelike" in many ways.

That's a wonderful, and IMHO accurate way of describing the sound.
Sure, there are occasional clicks and pops, but somehow, I dunno why, the
music just sounds *good*....
At least THAT TYPE of music, IOW jazz/bigband.





I'm fortunate enough to have a moderate collection of classical and jazz
LPs, including some Sheffield and MoFi stuff, although not nearly as
many as I'd like. But a well pressed Phillips or RCA can sound damn
good, too...

Yes they do.
I have a decent, although somewhat borked dues to crummy tt's collection
myself.
They sound a lot better today than I would have ever thought back in 1979.

I must say though that the new SACD recordings I've heard are better
than LP in 99% of the cases, and simply blow away CDs. Very "alive"
sounding and smooth. Best of both worlds IMO.

I agree....
Most, recorded for CD recordings of major artists sound wondeful.
Unfortunately, it's the crap, mostly rap stuff that gives audio a bad
name.
I'm getting sick of hearing Earth Wind and Fire's "Setptember" horn riff
in rap tunes.....

FWIW if you can find a copy of Manhattan Transfer's Live album on vinyl
it's a keeper. I used to tour with Bose (don't shoot me) and that's what
we used to demo the 901's....Of course the 4 track tape was juiced beyond
belief, but you didn't hear it from me



Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com

Karl Winkler wrote:

I must say though that the new SACD recordings I've heard are better
than LP in 99% of the cases, and simply blow away CDs. Very "alive"
sounding and smooth. Best of both worlds IMO.


Karl, you are a brave man...

"flatfish+++" wrote in message
...
I dragged out a couple of Sheffield Direct To Disc recordings today for
lack of anything else to do.
Playback equipment is a Thorens TD 316 Turntable.. Shure V15 Type V MR
cartridge...Marantz 2285B Pre-amp (actually the pre-amp part of a
reciever)
BW 800D speakers, Bryston 4B amp..also played in my studio on Event
ASP8's...

All I can say is WOW.................

CD, sounds nice, but it don't sound like Harry playing on D2D, I'm
sorry....
The image, fullness of response, depth and natural sound are all there and
even though my TT is not the greatest......

It literally sounds like the band is right in front of me, and while CD's
are nice, and theory is in their favor, I would offer up that people
interested in comparisons, should seriously listen to some great analog
D2D stuff on decent playback equipment because you really might be
surprised.
I was...
However, i am not about to scrap digital, I am only pointing out that
analog can sound real freaking good when played on decent equipment.

A bottle of chianti and Harry blowing his horn has made for a wonderful
evening....

So you are saying that you like the color of sound that the RIAA curve
imparts on music that has been encoded and decoded with it?

Charles Tomaras wrote:
"flatfish+++" wrote in message
...

All I can say is WOW.................

CD, sounds nice, but it don't sound like Harry playing on D2D


So you are saying that you like the color of sound that the RIAA curve
imparts on music that has been encoded and decoded with it?


That would be a different experiment.

He's saying he prefers the sound of great musicians playing in a
carefully chosen acoustic space feeding a world class mic into
state-of-the art preamps directly feeding a cutting lathe to the sound
of the same source and record electronics feeding a great two track
analog deck played back into a mid-80s A/D converter recorded onto a
PCM1610 (unless it's one of the newer transfers.)

Charles Tomaras wrote:
"flatfish+++" wrote in message
...

It (Sheffield D2D Harry James LP)
literally sounds like the band is right in front of me,
and while
CD's are nice, and theory is in their favor, I would
offer up that
people interested in comparisons, should seriously listen
to some
great analog D2D stuff on decent playback equipment
because you
really might be surprised.

So you are saying that you like the color of sound that
the RIAA curve
imparts on music that has been encoded and decoded with
it?

Interesting question.

Note that flatfish didn't do any level-matched time-synched
direct comparisons between the LP and the second (brown
cover) CD remastering of the tape that was made at the same
time as the LP was cut. I'll bet that he doesn't even know
that the first CD remastering (yellow cover) was based on a
different tape that was audibly distorted.

What I remember from my copy of the Sheffield D2D Harry
James LP was that it was darn hard to avoid LP-induced glare
that gave it a suped-up sound that some audiophiles liked,
but people who actually listened to good brass knew was
phonier than a $3 bill.

Excuses, excuses...... Here's Arny again apologizing for his scruffy
friend, the CD.

VB

CD, sounds nice, but it don't sound like Harry playing on D2D, I'm
sorry.... The image, fullness of response, depth and natural sound are
all ....

Here, here....... Ears don't lie and damn the numbers. CDs can't
compete with well made and played vinyl for natural sound, depth and
dimension.

Vinyl is not dead and a very viable medium that people should
re-explore.

But hi res. digital does sound good indeed, and maybe someday we'll see
a higher quality consumer medium.......and 16/44 CDs will go the way of
cassettes!!!

VB

Joe Sensor wrote:
Karl Winkler wrote:

I must say though that the new SACD recordings I've heard are better
than LP in 99% of the cases, and simply blow away CDs. Very "alive"
sounding and smooth. Best of both worlds IMO.

Karl, you are a brave man...

Don't worry, once the "modern mastering" guys get their hands on SACD
hardware, they'll be turning out stuff that sounds just as bad as CD
and LP releases.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Charles Tomaras wrote:


So you are saying that you like the color of sound that the RIAA curve
imparts on music that has been encoded and decoded with it?

It shouldn't impart _any_ color. That's the whole point of the curve.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

flatfish+++ wrote in
:

It literally sounds like the band is right in front of me, and while
CD's are nice, and theory is in their favor, I would offer up that
people interested in comparisons, should seriously listen to some
great analog D2D stuff on decent playback equipment because you really
might be surprised.
I was...

I'm terrified of starting another vinyl vs CD debate, but I am curious.

Do you have some high quality A/D and D/A converters?
If so, how does a digital copy of your record sound?

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Charles Tomaras wrote:


So you are saying that you like the color of sound that the RIAA curve
imparts on music that has been encoded and decoded with it?

It shouldn't impart _any_ color. That's the whole point of the curve.
--scott


Of course it shouldn't, that's why I recommend everyone use drastic
equalization while recording tracks and then use the opposite eq in the mix.
Whatever you do...do not use the eq bypass modes on your boards..you wanna
make sure those non color imparting devices are always inline.

In article writes:

So you are saying that you like the color of sound that the RIAA curve
imparts on music that has been encoded and decoded with it?

Where did he say that? He liked the sound on this one recording,
that's all. I'll bet that if the original master disk was available
and still in good shape, a CD made with all the care of the vinyl
pressing, when played through good equipment, would sound equally as
good. But I can't prove that to you because I don't have the master.

It was music from a different time, and that's far more important than
the accuracy of an equalizer.



--
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

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1119441749k@trad...

In article
writes:

So you are saying that you like the color of sound that the RIAA curve
imparts on music that has been encoded and decoded with it?

Where did he say that? He liked the sound on this one recording,
that's all. I'll bet that if the original master disk was available
and still in good shape, a CD made with all the care of the vinyl
pressing, when played through good equipment, would sound equally as
good. But I can't prove that to you because I don't have the master.

It was music from a different time, and that's far more important than
the accuracy of an equalizer.

I actually agree 100%. I'm just saying that while I own my fair share of DD
vinyl from those days and can attest to the excitement I feel and felt when
listening to it I just don't find vinyl to be all that accurate. It may be a
pleasing sound that legions prefer, but accuracy is not one of its
hallmarks. I'm certain that if one were to put the best mastering lathe into
a signal path in an ab test that one would pick the non lathe path as being
more accurate with a high degree of probability.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Joe Sensor wrote:
Karl Winkler wrote:

I must say though that the new SACD recordings I've
heard are better
than LP in 99% of the cases, and simply blow away CDs.
Very "alive"
sounding and smooth. Best of both worlds IMO.

Karl, you are a brave man...

Don't worry, once the "modern mastering" guys get their
hands on SACD
hardware, they'll be turning out stuff that sounds just as
bad as CD
and LP releases.

Good point. It's clear that Sensor and VB don't understand
the role that mastering plays in the objectionable sound of
so many modern, as well as some legacy CDs.

"Vinyl_Believer" wrote:

CD, sounds nice, but it don't sound like Harry playing on D2D, I'm
sorry.... The image, fullness of response, depth and natural sound are
all ....

Here, here....... Ears don't lie and damn the numbers. CDs can't
compete with well made and played vinyl for natural sound, depth and
dimension.

Maybe you should have written "CDs _made in 1985_ can't
compete with well made and played vinyl for natural sound..."

Now 20 years have passed. How do vinyls recorded in 1955 compare
with those done 20 years later?

Norbert

Vinyl_Believer wrote:

CD, sounds nice, but it don't sound like Harry playing
on D2D, I'm
sorry.... The image, fullness of response, depth and
natural sound are
all ....

Here, here....... Ears don't lie and damn the numbers.

Ears don't lie? Obviously VB you are ignorant of the many
well-known audible illusions.

Furthermore VB, you have demonstrated quite clearly that you
don't think your ears work at all unless you can see what is
playing.

CDs can't
compete with well made and played vinyl for natural sound,
depth and
dimension.

In fact, it is Vinyl that can't compete with well made and
played CDs for natural sound, depth and dimension, low
noise, excellent dynamic range, playing time, durability,
easy production and reproducability, as well as full audible
frequency response.

In fact the main sucessor medium to the CD has turned out to
have less natural sound, depth, dimension, low noise, etc.
showing that the CD format can easily exceed consumer
demands for sound quality.

Vinyl is not dead and a very viable medium that people
should re-explore.

Vinyl is dead except in a few tiny niche markets, at least
one of which has nothing to do with sound quality.

But hi res. digital does sound good indeed, and maybe
someday we'll
see a higher quality consumer medium.......and 16/44 CDs
will go the
way of cassettes!!!

No way. What really happened is that cassettes went the way
of vinyl.

Norbert Hahn wrote:
"Vinyl_Believer" wrote:

CD, sounds nice, but it don't sound like Harry playing on D2D, I'm
sorry.... The image, fullness of response, depth and natural sound are
all ....

Here, here....... Ears don't lie and damn the numbers. CDs can't
compete with well made and played vinyl for natural sound, depth and
dimension.

Maybe you should have written "CDs _made in 1985_ can't
compete with well made and played vinyl for natural sound..."

Now 20 years have passed. How do vinyls recorded in 1955 compare
with those done 20 years later?

The difference here is that as the technology improved, the sound quality
of many CDs got worse, rather than better over that 20-year period.

On the other hand, the improvement in LP sound quality from, say, 1947
to 1967 was considerable (although a lot of it did result from engineers
learning what they could and could not get away with).
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Charles Tomaras wrote:

So you are saying that you like the color of sound that the RIAA curve
imparts on music that has been encoded and decoded with it?


It shouldn't impart _any_ color. That's the whole point of the curve.

Of course. Charles is grasping at straws.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Good point. It's clear that Sensor and VB don't understand
the role that mastering plays in the objectionable sound of
so many modern, as well as some legacy CDs.

Is it clear? I am very aware of the effect mastering can have on CD's,
record albums, and every other form of media music is released on.

The only thing clear is that you have an accute case of tunnel vision.

Joe Sensor wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Good point. It's clear that Sensor and VB don't
understand
the role that mastering plays in the objectionable sound
of
so many modern, as well as some legacy CDs.

Is it clear? I am very aware of the effect mastering can
have on CD's,
record albums, and every other form of media music is
released on.

Easy to claim, but where's the evidence?

The only thing clear is that you have an accute case of
tunnel vision.

Sticks and stones...

Charles Tomaras wrote:

Of course it shouldn't, that's why I recommend everyone use drastic
equalization while recording tracks and then use the opposite eq in the mix.

Truly invertable filtering is much easier said than done.
You won't get it from a graphic equalizer with complementary
settings. FWIW, and that's eqivocal, the phase of such a
cascade is throughly mixed up.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Vinyl_Believer wrote:

Here, here....... Ears don't lie and damn the numbers. CDs can't
compete with well made and played vinyl for natural sound, depth and
dimension.

And one with reasonably good gear could digitally record the
output of your turntable/pre and you would not be able to
tell any difference between the digital playback and the
output of the pre. Vinyl imparts euphonic inaccuricies
which can be perfectly captured (within the limits of
perception) with 16 bit digital using modern technology.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Carey Carlan wrote:
flatfish+++ wrote in
:

It literally sounds like the band is right in front of
me, and while
CD's are nice, and theory is in their favor, I would
offer up that
people interested in comparisons, should seriously listen
to some
great analog D2D stuff on decent playback equipment
because you
really might be surprised.
I was...

I'm terrified of starting another vinyl vs CD debate, but
I am
curious.

Do you have some high quality A/D and D/A converters?
If so, how does a digital copy of your record sound?

Given his stance on DBT's it's quite likely that all he's
heard is the badly-done yellow-faced CD, not the later
remastering of a different performance.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Interesting question.


Note that flatfish didn't do any level-matched time-synched
direct comparisons between the LP and the second (brown
cover) CD remastering of the tape that was made at the same
time as the LP was cut. I'll bet that he doesn't even know
that the first CD remastering (yellow cover) was based on a
different tape that was audibly distorted.

What I remember from my copy of the Sheffield D2D Harry
James LP was that it was darn hard to avoid LP-induced glare
that gave it a suped-up sound that some audiophiles liked,
but people who actually listened to good brass knew was
phonier than a $3 bill.


What you remember is that you had an arm/cartridge combination that simply
wasn't up to the job. An adequate arm/cartridge combination, properly
loaded, produces nothing but realistic-sounding brass.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Interesting question.


Note that flatfish didn't do any level-matched
time-synched
direct comparisons between the LP and the second (brown
cover) CD remastering of the tape that was made at the
same
time as the LP was cut. I'll bet that he doesn't even
know
that the first CD remastering (yellow cover) was based on
a
different tape that was audibly distorted.

What I remember from my copy of the Sheffield D2D Harry
James LP was that it was darn hard to avoid LP-induced
glare
that gave it a suped-up sound that some audiophiles
liked,
but people who actually listened to good brass knew was
phonier than a $3 bill.

What you remember is that you had an arm/cartridge
combination that
simply wasn't up to the job.

Harry, you're nuts if you think that my vinyl playback
system was the only one I ever heard.

An adequate arm/cartridge combination,
properly loaded, produces nothing but realistic-sounding
brass.

Gosh Harry, all these I thought the turntable and the vinyl
itself contributed something to the sound. Now you tell us
all we need for natural brass sound is an arm and a
cartridge. ;-)

Bob Cain wrote:
Charles Tomaras wrote:

Of course it shouldn't, that's why I recommend everyone
use drastic
equalization while recording tracks and then use the
opposite eq in
the mix.

Truly invertable filtering is much easier said than done.

I think the Lip****z and Vanderkooy AES paper pretty well
solved the problem of complementary RIAA equalization.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Interesting question.


Note that flatfish didn't do any level-matched
time-synched
direct comparisons between the LP and the second (brown
cover) CD remastering of the tape that was made at the
same
time as the LP was cut. I'll bet that he doesn't even
know
that the first CD remastering (yellow cover) was based on
a
different tape that was audibly distorted.

What I remember from my copy of the Sheffield D2D Harry
James LP was that it was darn hard to avoid LP-induced
glare
that gave it a suped-up sound that some audiophiles
liked,
but people who actually listened to good brass knew was
phonier than a $3 bill.

What you remember is that you had an arm/cartridge
combination that
simply wasn't up to the job.

Harry, you're nuts if you think that my vinyl playback
system was the only one I ever heard.

An adequate arm/cartridge combination,
properly loaded, produces nothing but realistic-sounding
brass.

Gosh Harry, all these I thought the turntable and the vinyl
itself contributed something to the sound. Now you tell us
all we need for natural brass sound is an arm and a
cartridge. ;-)


Actually, it could also have been the headamp if it was a MC
cartridge...some of them in the late '70's / early '80's weren't so great.

But it only takes one falsification to prove it wasn't that vinyl....and
I've heard that falsification in my own system (as well as in others). No
"glare", just natural sounding brass.

Harry Lavo wrote:

But it only takes one falsification to prove it wasn't
that
vinyl....and I've heard that falsification in my own
system (as well
as in others). No "glare", just natural sounding brass.

Harry, how old are you? Do you even have enough hearing left
to say anything authoritative about sound quality at all?

Bob Cain wrote:

And one with reasonably good gear could digitally record the output of
your turntable/pre and you would not be able to tell any difference
between the digital playback and the output of the pre.

You say this is if it were fact. It ain't.

Arny Krueger spewed:


Harry, how old are you? Do you even have enough hearing left
to say anything authoritative about sound quality at all?


Once again, Krueger turns an audio debate into a personal attack.

Seems to be your standard way of operating.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

But it only takes one falsification to prove it wasn't
that
vinyl....and I've heard that falsification in my own
system (as well
as in others). No "glare", just natural sounding brass.

Harry, how old are you? Do you even have enough hearing left
to say anything authoritative about sound quality at all?



Yep, one ear is rolled off, but the other is flat out to 16khz.

And FWIW, I'm 65. The averages are just that, averages. My two ears on
average roll off. But one doesn't. Moreover, the brain has a wonderful way
of equalizing, so long as one ear is good. It boosts the other ear
subjectively. What you hear when listening with both ears is quite
different from what you hear when listening with just one.

Moreover, it doesn't take super frequency response to hear glare if it is
present. It originates in the upper mid-range, not the extreme treble.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


snip

What I remember from my copy of the Sheffield D2D Harry
James LP was that it was darn hard to avoid LP-induced
glare
that gave it a suped-up sound that some audiophiles
liked,
but people who actually listened to good brass knew was
phonier than a $3 bill.

What you remember is that you had an arm/cartridge
combination that
simply wasn't up to the job.

Harry, you're nuts if you think that my vinyl playback
system was the only one I ever heard.

An adequate arm/cartridge combination,
properly loaded, produces nothing but realistic-sounding
brass.

Gosh Harry, all these I thought the turntable and the vinyl
itself contributed something to the sound. Now you tell us
all we need for natural brass sound is an arm and a
cartridge. ;-)


Actually, it could also have been the headamp if it was a MC
cartridge...some of them in the late '70's / early '80's weren't so great.

But it only takes one falsification to prove it wasn't that vinyl....and
I've heard that falsification in my own system (as well as in others). No
"glare", just natural sounding brass.


This thread just prompted me to pull out my three Harry James Sheffields and
give them a listen once again...haven't had them out for at least seven
years or so. Sampled all six sides, no glare but an occassional mic
overload. For the most part, wonderful, natural big-band sound. I was
lucky enough to hear the Basie Big Band two years ago in a club setting...so
have a pretty good idea of what such bands sound like close up. These
Sheffields are very, very well done. And the performances are a wonderful
sampler of the big band era (my dad in addition to being an 40's era
audiophile, was also a jazz drummer in college and I grew up on this stuff).

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


Charles Tomaras wrote:

Of course it shouldn't, that's why I recommend everyone use drastic
equalization while recording tracks and then use the opposite eq in the
mix.

Truly invertable filtering is much easier said than done. You won't get it
from a graphic equalizer with complementary settings. FWIW, and that's
eqivocal, the phase of such a cascade is throughly mixed up.

Needless to say I was being facetious in response to the notion that the
RIAA curve was transparent.

Arny Krueger wrote:

I think the Lip****z and Vanderkooy AES paper pretty well
solved the problem of complementary RIAA equalization.

I've never studied it in detail but I've always assumed the
equalization was designed to have a pretty exact inverse.

On second thought, can that really be accomplished with
minimum phase filters? Hmmmm.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Charles Tomaras wrote:

Truly invertable filtering is much easier said than done. You won't get it
from a graphic equalizer with complementary settings. FWIW, and that's
eqivocal, the phase of such a cascade is throughly mixed up.


Needless to say I was being facetious in response to the notion that the
RIAA curve was transparent.



Understood. I was just addressing a common
misunderstanding, not asserting that you shared it.


Sorry,

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Joe Sensor wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:

And one with reasonably good gear could digitally record the output of
your turntable/pre and you would not be able to tell any difference
between the digital playback and the output of the pre.


You say this is if it were fact. It ain't.

Arny, you (or someone) needs to build a little box with a
cascaded A/D and D/A (of reasonable but not insane quality)
and a PIC which can mechanically switch an output between
the analog line in and the cascade to do double blind
switching control. We could lend it to these guys and ask
for their results (encoded so as to not be subject to
fakery.) :-)

To mask the cascade's (probably detectable) delay, a short
silent period could be inserted at every switch time.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:1LGdnZoJmO0OMiTfRVn-
:

Carey Carlan wrote:
flatfish+++ wrote in
:

It literally sounds like the band is right in front of
me, and while
CD's are nice, and theory is in their favor, I would
offer up that
people interested in comparisons, should seriously listen
to some
great analog D2D stuff on decent playback equipment
because you
really might be surprised.
I was...

I'm terrified of starting another vinyl vs CD debate, but
I am
curious.

Do you have some high quality A/D and D/A converters?
If so, how does a digital copy of your record sound?

Given his stance on DBT's it's quite likely that all he's
heard is the badly-done yellow-faced CD, not the later
remastering of a different performance.

Irrelevant to my question. I want to know how HIS digital copy of his
record sounds. I'd like to know if any of that magic quality remains.

Joe Sensor wrote:

Arny Krueger spewed:

Harry, how old are you? Do you even have enough hearing
left
to say anything authoritative about sound quality at all?

Once again, Krueger turns an audio debate into a personal
attack.

Thanks for admitting that I raised a valid concern, Joe.

Seems to be your standard way of operating.

See Harry's answer. Lots of reason to have concerns, the
least of which is not his ability to tolerate and even
apparently favor the tics and pops that come with vinyl
playback that has not been assisted digitally.