[Keith G]

"Rob" wrote in message
news
Keith G wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote


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.


As you have met him Rob, I would add that Shiny Nigel had a collection of
about 1,500 CDs when I first met him (and probably still has) - he was
given a ProJect Perspective turntable a while back (that can happen when
you're in the trade, apparently) and started grabbing LPs (I gave him a
couple of carrier bag's worth - Diana Ross, Supertramp, The Human League
&c.)

Last time we spoke on the subject he told he *never* plays CDs any
more....



Good ole Nige - hope he's OK btw.


I spoke to him a few weeks ago and he sounded quite good, but he visited a
mutual friend a week or two back and came over all whoozy apparently...??



A couple of months ago a friend expressed an interest in a turntable I
wanted rid of for a friend of his. It was crushed in the post, but still
worked OK.


The Pioneer...??


He's a real down the line number cruncher, just knocked out a
first class degree in databases/computer science,


As you do....


and over the 15 years
I've known him always managed a friendly 'tut' at my vinyl playing - in
fact he gave me his LP collection as obsolete on the condition I put some
of his faves/unobtainables on CD. Job done.


OK....



I took the TT round to his house, and we plugged it in to check it worked,
nothing more. I thought it sounded fine. He's not a hifi nut, but has a
half decent amp/speakers (Technics/KEF). He, on the other hand, shifted
about quite uneasily. He didn't say anything to me on the day, but over
the next few weeks started to ask me about 'his' LPs - how were they
doing, that type of thing.


'His' LPs, eh....??

:-)



I can't say that he was converted (back to) vinyl as such. All I do know
is that he's kept the turntable :-)


No comment....!!

;-)

[[email protected]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 12:05:50 -0800, wrote:

For interest, here is the power histogram of one of my recordings of
an organ. The spread of dynamics is quite clear. The entire first half
of the piece is played pianississimo, and frankly the audience
shuffling about is louder than much of it. I can only really listen to
it during the day when the neighbours are out, because if I turn it up
enough for the first half to be properly audible, the walls start
bulging in the second half and I would not be popular. I would venture
to suggest that it would be quite impossible to reproduce this on
vinyl without a serious amount of level compression. On CD, of course,
it is a breeze.

You have ventured to say a lot of stupid things about vinyl so this
comes as no surprise. OTOH you could have checked out some of the
Virgil Fox Organ recordings on D2D using a real high end rig and see
for yourself.

Scott

Sorry, this wasn't intended for you. I posted it for the interest of
people who understand its significance.


You think you have something of significance to say on this subject?
And you say I'm the one missing the irony. I often talk to many folks
who are top flight recording and mastering engineers. Should I drop
your name next time? LMAO.


Scott

[Keith G]

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

**** all this 'controlled listening test' horse**** - normal
listening is the best way to enjoy LPs.....

Consider this travesty - 50's Jazz on a CD......??

(Doesn't bear thinking about, does it?)

Or Chaliapin, or Gobbi....??!!

Let's keep it *real*.....

Record those LPs (or 78's) onto CD with good gear and you can play them
back with pretty much the exact artifacts that you enjoy from the vinyl,
or shellac...


'Pretty much'....???

[[email protected]]

Geoff wrote:
wrote:
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.

But that is a 'production choice' , not a limitation inherent of the media.

As is the case with any record that does not exploit the full dynamic
range of that medium. Does the fact that it is a production choice does
that make it sound better?


Scott

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article . com,
wrote:
Contrary to what some may believe, measurements to me are just a
useful tool to analyse why and where. At the end of the day, though,
with acoustic music - or speech - I want realism. Which vinyl simply
can't come close to in comparison to good digital.


And yet you have never done a bias controled listening test using SOTA
lp playback gear and SOTA vinyl to verify this claim.

'Ye canna change the laws of physics, capt'n'.

However, my current LP playback system was near enough SOTA last time I
updated it - before CD came out.

--
Small asylum seeker wanted as mud flap, must be flexible and willing to travel

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Geoff wrote:
If we are talking about actual commercial CDs few of todays releases
have more then 20db dynamic range.

But that is a 'production choice' , not a limitation inherent of the
media.

What the public want, apparently. After all, those vast record companies
who employ the very best mastering engineers can't be wrong - can they?

The public don't want dynamics. You get complaints if they have to alter
the level of their TV sound from one prog to the next. Perhaps they can't
find the button on the remote.

--
*Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? *

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

[[email protected]]

Keith G wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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. Perhaps you do
understand, but you can find a better example?

Contrary to what some may believe, measurements to me are just a useful
tool to analyse why and where. At the end of the day, though, with
acoustic music - or speech - I want realism. Which vinyl simply can't
come
close to in comparison to good digital.


And yet you have never done a bias controled listening test using SOTA
lp playback gear and SOTA vinyl to verify this claim.



**** all this 'controlled listening test' horse**** - normal listening is
the best way to enjoy LPs.....

I agree and it is the best way to enjoy CDs. However for all Plowman's
objectivist horse**** on the subject of LPs v. CDs he has never
followed the mantra and done such tests. For the record (no pun
intended) I have. My preferences are not a result of bias when it comes
to LPs and CDs.



Consider this travesty - 50's Jazz on a CD......??

(Doesn't bear thinking about, does it?)

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.


Let's keep it *real*.....


I'm tryin. Check out what Plowman did when I mentioned the new Dylan
album. Maybe he doesn't get Dylan so he doesn't care that his new CD
sucks cock sonically. Maybe music is more of a trivial artifact of
audio to him than a focal point. Next month Yes Fragile will be
released on CD by MoFi and on LP by Analog Productions. That will make
for an interesting shoot out. Meter readers need not concern
themselves, Music is involved.



Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Geoff wrote:
If we are talking about actual commercial CDs few of todays releases
have more then 20db dynamic range.

But that is a 'production choice' , not a limitation inherent of the
media.

What the public want, apparently. After all, those vast record companies
who employ the very best mastering engineers can't be wrong - can they?

They are using the best mastering engineers for these CDs? Names?



The public don't want dynamics.

Oh you've done broad based studies on the subject?

You get complaints if they have to alter
the level of their TV sound from one prog to the next.

Maybe in your home.

Perhaps they can't
find the button on the remote.


Or perhaps you have your head up your ass as usual and are completely
oblivious to the actual reasons why this plague of compression is
really taking place. It has nothing to do with consumers wanting
compression.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
Contrary to what some may believe, measurements to me are just a
useful tool to analyse why and where. At the end of the day, though,
with acoustic music - or speech - I want realism. Which vinyl simply
can't come close to in comparison to good digital.


And yet you have never done a bias controled listening test using SOTA
lp playback gear and SOTA vinyl to verify this claim.

'Ye canna change the laws of physics, capt'n'.

You cannot seem to bring yourself to answer the question. Obviously you
haven't done it. So we can reasonably asume your preference is fully
affected by an anti LP bias and is utterly for anything other than your
own use.


..



However, my current LP playback system was near enough SOTA last time I
updated it - before CD came out.

Yeah right. A ridiculous claim given SOTA has moved far beyond anything
available before CD came out.

Scott

[Keith G]

wrote in message
ups.com...

Keith G wrote:


**** all this 'controlled listening test' horse**** - normal listening is
the best way to enjoy LPs.....

I agree and it is the best way to enjoy CDs. However for all Plowman's
objectivist horse**** on the subject of LPs v. CDs he has never
followed the mantra and done such tests. For the record (no pun
intended) I have. My preferences are not a result of bias when it comes
to LPs and CDs.



Nor mine - I don't actively seek the Hard Way in anything in life, if I
could put up with CDs I'd listen to them, but I can't so I don't....






Consider this travesty - 50's Jazz on a CD......??

(Doesn't bear thinking about, does it?)

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.


It certainly seems meter readers worry more about 'artifacts' and
'distortion' than any sane person needs to - different for designers and
manufactures, possibly...




Let's keep it *real*.....


I'm tryin. Check out what Plowman did when I mentioned the new Dylan
album.


I don't see Plowie's posts - I don't allow his insolence on my machine. What
little bits leak through (enough to tell me he still replies to my posts!
:-), I see 'over other people's shoulders'...!!


Maybe he doesn't get Dylan so he doesn't care that his new CD
sucks cock sonically.


Difficult to say that with a mouthful!! :-)


Maybe music is more of a trivial artifact of
audio to him than a focal point. Next month Yes Fragile will be
released on CD by MoFi and on LP by Analog Productions. That will make
for an interesting shoot out. Meter readers need not concern
themselves, Music is involved.


Nicely put!! ;-)

Now, lay off Don - he may not be vinyl's biggest fan, but he's not bigotted
about it and has a wealth of knowledge and experience and he's nothing like
these bashers who are all yap and no trousers....

[Dave Plowman (News)]

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.

It seems quite obvious that there is little interest in sound quality
amoung the meter readers when it comes to playing great music.

Seems to me there's no interest in sound quality for the majority of those
who advocate vinyl - unless they're incredibly selective in what they buy
- to prove some point or other.

--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article . com,
wrote:
I'm tryin. Check out what Plowman did when I mentioned the new Dylan
album. Maybe he doesn't get Dylan so he doesn't care that his new CD
sucks cock sonically.

Is it available on LP?

--
*Vegetarians taste great*

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
**** all this 'controlled listening test' horse**** - normal listening is
the best way to enjoy LPs.....

I agree and it is the best way to enjoy CDs. However for all Plowman's
objectivist horse**** on the subject of LPs v. CDs he has never
followed the mantra and done such tests. For the record (no pun
intended) I have. My preferences are not a result of bias when it comes
to LPs and CDs.



Nor mine - I don't actively seek the Hard Way in anything in life, if I
could put up with CDs I'd listen to them, but I can't so I don't....

This from one who puts up with an appalling listening room, builds single
driver horn speakers with severe restrictions at either end of the audible
frequency range, drives them with puny SET amps...

--
*The colder the X-ray table, the more of your body is required on it *

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

[[email protected]]

Keith G wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Keith G wrote:


**** all this 'controlled listening test' horse**** - normal listening is
the best way to enjoy LPs.....

I agree and it is the best way to enjoy CDs. However for all Plowman's
objectivist horse**** on the subject of LPs v. CDs he has never
followed the mantra and done such tests. For the record (no pun
intended) I have. My preferences are not a result of bias when it comes
to LPs and CDs.



Nor mine - I don't actively seek the Hard Way in anything in life, if I
could put up with CDs I'd listen to them, but I can't so I don't....






Consider this travesty - 50's Jazz on a CD......??

(Doesn't bear thinking about, does it?)

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.


It certainly seems meter readers worry more about 'artifacts' and
'distortion' than any sane person needs to - different for designers and
manufactures, possibly...




Let's keep it *real*.....


I'm tryin. Check out what Plowman did when I mentioned the new Dylan
album.


I don't see Plowie's posts - I don't allow his insolence on my machine. What
little bits leak through (enough to tell me he still replies to my posts!
:-), I see 'over other people's shoulders'...!!


Maybe he doesn't get Dylan so he doesn't care that his new CD
sucks cock sonically.


Difficult to say that with a mouthful!! :-)


Maybe music is more of a trivial artifact of
audio to him than a focal point. Next month Yes Fragile will be
released on CD by MoFi and on LP by Analog Productions. That will make
for an interesting shoot out. Meter readers need not concern
themselves, Music is involved.


Nicely put!! ;-)

Now, lay off Don - he may not be vinyl's biggest fan, but he's not bigotted
about it and has a wealth of knowledge and experience and he's nothing like
these bashers who are all yap and no trousers....

I understand that you and Donny are pals but if it walks like a duck
and quaks like a duck... Hey, if he wants to talk audio straight up I'm
all for it. But when he chimes in without an invite and talks smack
he's gonna get bitch slapped. I don't care who his friends are.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

Your stupidty continues to amaze me. ITS A PROBLEM FOR AUDIOPHILES WITH
AN INTEREST IN MUSIC. I realize that isn't a problem for *you* but for
those of us who are interested in audio for the purpose of getting the
best sound we can with the music we love it is our problem.

However, to make an LP
sound as good as a well recorded CD is impossible.


Utter bull****.


And that's the crux of
the matter.

No, for those who care about music the crux of the matter is our
favorite music is issued in many cases on many formats and sometimes
many times in those formats Those various issues tend to all sound
different mostly because of the mastering. In most cases the best
sounding version will be found on LP. For the compulsive meter readers
this simple fact flies over their heads or it is irrelevant to their
views on audio since music is of no particular interest to them.



It seems quite obvious that there is little interest in sound quality
amoung the meter readers when it comes to playing great music.

Seems to me there's no interest in sound quality for the majority of those
who advocate vinyl - unless they're incredibly selective in what they buy
- to prove some point or other.

That's because you are a complete moron obsessed with some ridiculous
fanatacism over measurements.

Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
I'm tryin. Check out what Plowman did when I mentioned the new Dylan
album. Maybe he doesn't get Dylan so he doesn't care that his new CD
sucks cock sonically.

Is it available on LP?


You have to ask? Yes it is.
http://store.acousticsounds.com/brow...&section=music



Scott

[Geoff]

wrote:
Geoff wrote:
wrote:
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.

But that is a 'production choice' , not a limitation inherent of the
media.

As is the case with any record that does not exploit the full dynamic
range of that medium. Does the fact that it is a production choice
does that make it sound better?

No, but were are talking about media qualities, no programme material.

geoff

[[email protected]]

Geoff wrote:
wrote:
Geoff wrote:
wrote:
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.

But that is a 'production choice' , not a limitation inherent of the
media.

As is the case with any record that does not exploit the full dynamic
range of that medium. Does the fact that it is a production choice
does that make it sound better?

No, but were are talking about media qualities, no programme material.


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. So program material
is very much the issue.


Scott

[Don Pearce]

On 29 Oct 2006 15:16:52 -0800, wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 12:05:50 -0800, wrote:

For interest, here is the power histogram of one of my recordings of
an organ. The spread of dynamics is quite clear. The entire first half
of the piece is played pianississimo, and frankly the audience
shuffling about is louder than much of it. I can only really listen to
it during the day when the neighbours are out, because if I turn it up
enough for the first half to be properly audible, the walls start
bulging in the second half and I would not be popular. I would venture
to suggest that it would be quite impossible to reproduce this on
vinyl without a serious amount of level compression. On CD, of course,
it is a breeze.

You have ventured to say a lot of stupid things about vinyl so this
comes as no surprise. OTOH you could have checked out some of the
Virgil Fox Organ recordings on D2D using a real high end rig and see
for yourself.

Scott

Sorry, this wasn't intended for you. I posted it for the interest of
people who understand its significance.


You think you have something of significance to say on this subject?
And you say I'm the one missing the irony. I often talk to many folks
who are top flight recording and mastering engineers. Should I drop
your name next time? LMAO.


Scott

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.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[[email protected]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 15:16:52 -0800, wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 12:05:50 -0800, wrote:

For interest, here is the power histogram of one of my recordings of
an organ. The spread of dynamics is quite clear. The entire first half
of the piece is played pianississimo, and frankly the audience
shuffling about is louder than much of it. I can only really listen to
it during the day when the neighbours are out, because if I turn it up
enough for the first half to be properly audible, the walls start
bulging in the second half and I would not be popular. I would venture
to suggest that it would be quite impossible to reproduce this on
vinyl without a serious amount of level compression. On CD, of course,
it is a breeze.

You have ventured to say a lot of stupid things about vinyl so this
comes as no surprise. OTOH you could have checked out some of the
Virgil Fox Organ recordings on D2D using a real high end rig and see
for yourself.

Scott

Sorry, this wasn't intended for you. I posted it for the interest of
people who understand its significance.


You think you have something of significance to say on this subject?
And you say I'm the one missing the irony. I often talk to many folks
who are top flight recording and mastering engineers. Should I drop
your name next time? LMAO.


Scott

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

[Don Pearce]

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.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Mr.T]

"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) only be attained by inferior equipment?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

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!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Record those LPs (or 78's) onto CD with good gear and you can play them
back with pretty much the exact artifacts that you enjoy from the vinyl,
or shellac...


'Pretty much'....???

Funny, that's exactly what I thought. Must be something wrong with his A-D
converter :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

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!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"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.)

MrT.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article . com,
wrote:
No, for those who care about music the crux of the matter is our
favorite music is issued in many cases on many formats and sometimes
many times in those formats Those various issues tend to all sound
different mostly because of the mastering.

At least you finally seem to understand something.

In most cases the best sounding version will be found on LP.

Bull****.

--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost?

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

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
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....

In fact you are free to *think* whatever you like, no matter how little
connection it has to reality.

MrT.

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:27:47 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


wrote in message
oups.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?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Dave Plowman (News)]

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.

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 - the distortions of the LP without the wear
problems.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

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?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

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, because the ONLY person in the world who has your
ears is YOU.

What you *think* is good is a PREFERENCE you are entitled to, nothing more.

Your
an official meter reader. Ever listen to music? I thought not.

You thought wrong then!

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 :-) :-) :-)

Says it all I guess.

MrT.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

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.

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

You should be careful of pronouncing on things you have little knowledge
of.

So is that a no on the name drop?

Given you criticise those mastering engineers on near every front, why
would it matter?

--
*What boots up must come down *

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

[John Phillips]

On 2006-10-29, Geoff wrote:
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 ? The reason for
oversampling was/is to make reconstruction filters easier to implemnt
without artifiacts of a steep slope. It's been a whil, have I forgotten ?

I have sometimes wondered about the Philips x4 upsampling DAC in early
CD players (I use "upsampling" here to distinguish from the use of
oversampling in the ADC case).

I assume (but have never looked for proof) that the conversion of a single
16-bit sample xx..xxYY (YY are the two LSBs) would be accomplished by
replacing the single 16-bit sample by four 14-bit samples as follows:

xx..xx00: xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx

xx..xx01: xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx+1

xx..xx10: xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx+1, xx..xx+1

xx..xx11: xx..xx, xx..xx+1, xx..xx+1, xx..xx+1

Or something similar. The DAC will effectively interpolate so the LSBs
are not lost. The noise floor will be right for 16 bits because of
the upsampling.

I wonder if the amplitudes of the preceding and succeding samples should
be taken into account to determine the right order of the +1s in the
interpolation? Probably not as I suspect the spectrum differences will
fall above the original Nyquist limit.

John
--
John Phillips

[John Phillips]

On 2006-10-29, Jim Lesurf wrote:
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?

Very interesting point. I was peripherally aware (in a former job)
of some work on the channel capacity of nonlinear optical channels.
However I never looked at the papers my colleagues were reading so I don't
know if they were relevant. They may be a good starting point, though.

Nothing else comes to mind.

--
John Phillips

[Mr.T]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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?

Yeah, that would win too :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"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.

MrT.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
Only *some* people actually believe that vinyl distortions are "best"
though.

Indeed.

Others realise the best performance/mastering job are not unique
to any media.

There's no doubt of the trend to try and win the 'loudness war' with many
pop CDs, though. Something that has always bemused me.

I was first sort of aware of it many years ago when DAT took over from
cassette on the demo front. Demo cassettes were always peaked to maximum
(and beyond) with *some* justification, I suppose, given the often poor
quality of the replay equipment. But then exactly the same happened with
DAT when to the best of my knowledge no one produced a cheap DAT all in
one playback system to rival a simple cassette player.

--
*Acupuncture is a jab well done*

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

[Jim Lesurf]

In article , John Phillips
wrote:
On 2006-10-29, Geoff wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

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 ? The reason for
oversampling was/is to make reconstruction filters easier to implemnt
without artifiacts of a steep slope. It's been a whil, have I
forgotten ?

I have sometimes wondered about the Philips x4 upsampling DAC in early
CD players (I use "upsampling" here to distinguish from the use of
oversampling in the ADC case).

I'd prefer to call it 'oversampling' in both cases for various reasons. One
being that in some situations 'upsampling' may be a distinctly different
practice.

I assume (but have never looked for proof) that the conversion of a
single 16-bit sample xx..xxYY (YY are the two LSBs) would be
accomplished by replacing the single 16-bit sample by four 14-bit
samples as follows:

xx..xx00: xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx

xx..xx01: xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx+1

xx..xx10: xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx+1, xx..xx+1

xx..xx11: xx..xx, xx..xx+1, xx..xx+1, xx..xx+1

Or something similar. The DAC will effectively interpolate so the LSBs
are not lost. The noise floor will be right for 16 bits because of the
upsampling.

I wonder if the amplitudes of the preceding and succeding samples should
be taken into account to determine the right order of the +1s in the
interpolation? Probably not as I suspect the spectrum differences will
fall above the original Nyquist limit.

The above is essentially the same explanation that I would have given,
but since John puts it quite neatly, I need not bother. :-) A more
detailed explanation is given in the special issue of Philips Tech Rev
that was released at the same time as CD audio was launched, and
describes CD audio and the initial chipsets.

The samples are 'noise shaped'[1] by a process along the lines that the top 14
bits of each sample are DAC converted and fed out as an analog level, and
the 'unused' 2 LSB are fed back and combined with the next sample value.
The simplest method is the one described above, but alternative feedback
shaping processes can be used.

The output filter then acts to take a 'running average'. Four 14 bit values
then sum or average to give a 16-bit result in the passband of the analogue
filtering arrangement.

In principle, the behaviour is the same as when any 'low bit depth' DAC is
used (with oversampling and noise shaping) to get results with higher
depths.

Thus by using oversampling and noise shaping we can symultaneously ease the
burden on the analog reconstruction filter that follows DAC conversion, and
allow the use of a DAC with less than 16 bits. This also is the basis of
other methods like low-bit DAC delta-sigma, 'bitstream', and various other
commercial techniques which use the same general approach to obtain both
a shift of reconstruction images to higher frequencies (thus easing analog
filter requirements) and obtaining high resolutions.

Hence the original Philips 14-bit x4 oversampling system would be able,
in principle, to deliver full 16-bit resolution *if* the chips and the
associated electronics was made with suitable care. As usual, the practical
limits end up being determined by the care put into engineering the
actual implimentation. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

[1] I regret the term 'noise shaped' in this context since we are talking
about a deterministic process, but it became the standard term, so we
seem to be stuck with it!

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
No. you were the fool who insisted that all LPs were
mastered with summed bass and HF roll off. Are you
back to make some more ridiculous claims?

Pity the cartridge trying to track a record with large
amounts of non summed bass :-)

Have you ever heard it? I have.

Sure, many times on CDs and other digita formats where
it is no great shakes, even on the lowest-cost equipment.

I see you have heard a cartridge trying to track a record
with large amounts of non summed bass many times on CDs
and other digital formats.

Sure, because a CD is a record of a musical performance.

With a real high end rig it is fantastic.

Only to a point, which depends on many things.

How would you know?

About 50 years of experience with the theory and the practice of making and
playing music.

Hardly a pity.

Sure it is a pity when the need for megabux equipment to
play means that almost all vinyl ever cut has summed
bass.

No it doesn't.

Ignorance of the well-known properties of vinyl technology noted.

Get your facts straight. oh jeez did I
just ask the village fool to get his facts straight? my
bad.

Meltdown noted.