Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
MINe 109 wrote:
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

Letsee how many times do we have to explain this to
Jenn? I'm in a generous mood today - I'll cast my
pearls in front of the the swine one more time! ;-)

(1) The CD format is capable of sonically perfect
reproduction of any known audio signal.

Below 20kHz.

(2) However, there are no known audio signals that
perfectly represent live music.

Gotcha.

(3) Even though the CD format reproduces *any* audio
signal audibly

I'm asking for enlightenment in all sincerity
without an ulterior motive. I know less than little about
electronic technology. I'm told that cd is perfect at
reproducing the digital master.

Digital copies are generally completely perfect.

Is the digital
master better at capturing the live sound than
the analogue master?

Yes.

Evidence etc. please.

*any* relevant unbiased objective or subjective measure.

For example, analog masters are generally 15 ips magnetic tape. A first
generation copy of 15 ips magnetic tape can be detected in an ABX test. The
copy can be reliably distingushed from the source for even just one
generation of copying.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm

The essence of creating a master is copying some analog or digital source
onto the mastering media, whether analog tape or digital media.

An analog source can be digitized and converted back to an analog signal
that copies the source, and the source will be indistinguishable from the
copy.

IOW a good ADC driving a good DAC will produce a signal that is audibly
indistinguishable from the ADC's input signal. The copy and the source can't
be distinguished from each other. This can extend over a goodly number of
generations:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm

A digital source can be copied exactly, so the copy and the source are
indistinguishable.

Arny, I truly appreciate your prompt answer and I do not intend to
carp. But I do not think
that we're talking about the same thing.
My fault no doubt- not explaining myself adequately.
I do not doubt that you can get near perfect digital COPIES from any
manufactured source.
(If you don't understand what I mean by "manufactured" I'm sorry- can
not think of a better synonym right now. Just try to be with me-
believe me discussion is more interesting and helpful that way)
For instance I can burn near-perfect ( to my ears) copies of music
disks on my computer. That's digital enough for me. I need no
convincing.
What I want to know is : is there any evidence that LIVE music is
captured better by digital than analogue master?
Once again: D'Agostino and Meitner do not (or did not) think so. And
they are both producing DIGITAL components. (very,very high end digital
components) So they have no axe to grind..
And again: the golden age of LP. were the sixties- some of it ( now
don't change what I say SOME) still unsurpassed..
Ludovic Mirabel
I've been nice long enough. Now for a bit of carping RAO style.
Somewhere you said that you listened to Meitner's stuff and found it
unexciting. (or words to that effect). Isn't it an article of faith
that all the competently designed amps. sound the same. Did you ABX
Meitner- or did you, lord forbid- judge it SIGHTED? Horrors.