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

Can you prove 1 play causes audible degradation as
you've claimed?

Excluded middle argument noted and ignored.

Inability to provide proof of claims noted.

How? I never made that claim.

Sorry Here's the exact exchange.

Steven said:
3. "they'd remain that way after one or two passes of a
stylus"

To which you replied:
Here I disagree with Steven. I have a number of friends
who dabble in classic audio including CD-4. They tell me
that one might get upwards of
10-20 passes under ideal conditions, until the CD-4
carrier is undetectable
with the better CD-4 decoders.

Now he is referrring to HF overtones. You're talking
about CD-4 carrier.

So how many plays is an LP good for before sufferring
audible degradation?

Varies, 5 to a few dozen.

Do you really think SEM photos of vinyl
mean anything to audible degradation?

Yes, when they show trashing of the groove.

How about Mag tape?

Ditto.

I'll bet SEM photoes of mag tape can show damage
to them after playing too.

Ironically when tape is played a number of times it is
often subject to burninshing, which makes it work better.

However, if you play a tape a few hundred times it
becomes trash. Most people who time shift with VCRs know
all about that. It's also been reported that after
thousands or tens of thousands of playings, CDRs are
trashed. I know from personal experience that after a
few hundred erasures and re-recordings, DVD+RW discs are
trashed.

Nothing is forever Scott, but LPs are among the forms of
media that is most likely to be worn out relatively
quickly.

I've got albums that outlasted CD-Rs by a couple of
decades.

Absence of details of comparison noted. Probably due to the fact that the
details would impugn the comparison.

Besides, so what?

Even my old Technics SL-22 didn't give me the
problems you're having.

It's all about your low-resolution, extremely casual
testing procedures, How many years of experience do
you have with vinyl as a mainstream medium, Scott?
It's probably only a fraction of mine.

Do I really care about your experience with crappy TTs
of the 40s and 50's?

Straw man arugment noted and ignored.

BS... How many "years" of relevant SOTA vinyl listening
can you possibly have? SoTA in the 60's isn't
relevant to SoTA today.

Straw man argument noted and ignored.

Nice admission that my fraction of your years of
experience with vinyl is more relevant to the SoTA...

Where did I say that?

since the bulk of yours comes from more than 25 years ago.

The SOTA of vinyl has changed very little in the past 25 years, no matter
what the pro vinyl hype artists say.

Let's see if Scott can figure out how long at the very
least that I listened almost exclusively to LPs. Here's
a hint for you Scott, I didn't stop listening to, or
upgrading my LP playback system in the 60s.

When and what was your last TT?

I currently own a Rega. In the day of I used a Shure/Thorens/SME setup.


Here's some more news flashes for you Scott - recording
is independent of micing and mixing. Playback is
independent of of amplification, speakers and room
acoustics.

Stupidest thing you ever said.

Obviously over your head, Scott.

So now you want to
demonstrate the perfection of digital by comparing a
sound wave to a DAC's electrical output.

You're so highly confused Scott that I don't know where to start.

How do you plan to capture the sound wave? How do you
plan to observe the DAC output without amplification?

Not going to. Going to hold them constant during the comparison.

taking Scott's advice and flushing the rest of the post

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

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


That would be perfectly consistent with your view of
yourself Arny ..... that you know more about everything
than anybody else.

Not at all Harry. I'm far from the most knowlegable
person in the world on just about *any* topic. It's
almost a law of nature that no matter how much you know
about something, somebody else knows more about it. However Harry, I
rarely if ever see you comment on
anything of substance without getting something wrong,
if not everything wrong. This isn't about my exclusive superiority, this
is about
how you seem to have everything wrong but a few small
trivial things.
The laughable thing is how
transparent your ego is to others who spend any time
reading your posts.

No Harry its not about how knowlegable I am, its about
how pathetic you are given that I have to go around
correcting you time and again.
Would you like to tell us what and how you were
recording in 1965?

Letsee if memory serves, the tape recorder I used in
1965 or so was a Tandburg 64 (not 64x). I used a pair of
Shure 55s plugged right into the mic input jacks on the
Tandburg. I made live recordings of people playing and singing,
among other things. My next recording setup (early 70s) was based on a
Revox
A77 and a pair of Sony Electret mics, but I can't
remember their model number. I know that I did some
recordings of choir concerts organ, piano and soloists.


You must be older than you look, then (hand on to that,
you won't get too many compliments from me).

It's all that clean living! ;-)

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Hey, anything's possible.

Let's restrict our discussion to things that are likely, please?

Including people who can't tell a recorded violin from a real one.

That could be very sad for an music lover.

The very phrase
"euphonic distortion" asserts
the existence of distortion that *someone* finds
experience-enhancing.

My take is that this vinyl thing is really about state of mind. We know
that
there are supposedly authoritative sources by the boatload that have been
promoting the idea that vinyl is more realisitic in some sense than
digital.
As Barnum said, you can fool all the people some of the time and some of
the
people all the time. Harry Scott, and Jenn are just examples of people
who
are fooled all the time.

There's one of the big areas where we differ. For me, the ENTIRE POINT
of audio equipment is to FOOL one into receiving a glimpse of real sound.


Jenn has convinced herself that this 'enhancement'
equates to making
the recording sound 'more real'.

Agreed - this has to be learned behavior. Some authority figure convinced
her of this. She is obviously profoundly affected by certain male
authority
figures in her life.

LOL Well, finally, there it is!


Hey, congrats, Jenn, you finally smoked him out.

They always out themselves sooner or later.


He just KNEW you couldn't
be a logical, smart, accomplished, independent, and assertive female, now
could you?

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

Steven Sullivan said:

And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction
of
acoustic music.


An interesting experiment would then be to record a good sounding LP
onto CD and report back whether you hear differences, or that you like
what you hear, or not.

I'd be very interested in the opinion of a professional musician such
as yourself on this.

I'd be more interested to hear the results of the comparison done
sighted,
then blind. It ain't gonna happen, though.

Why not?


Because I doubt you have the resources or diligence to set up and perform a
properly-controlled blind test between an LP and a CD. Certainly it can be
done, but it's not as easy as comparing two sound files. Assuming a
competent
'flat' digital transfer of the LP is performed, the test itself will involve
careful level-matching of outputs from LP and CD sources (for each channel),
randomization of presentation order, thorough double-blinding during the
test,
and making sure no new pops, clicks, or other surface noises are introduced
to
the LP after it is copied to CD, and no audible cues are given as to the
nature of the source in the circuit (e.g, you can't let the listener hear
the needle drop or hit the run-out). Then you'll want to do ~25 trials to
get a
decent statistical handle on the data. Of course you'll also have to use
the
same turntable/stylus setup to do the test as you did for the transfer,
so you've also got to be careful not to change its setup.

Assuming you get the setup ready, here's a page with advice for
performing the test as an ABX, including a link to a table of binomial
probabilities for testing the significance of the results:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=16295


I think the "test" could be much simpler as that.
If an LP, transferred to CD, sounds as horrible to Jenn as CDs in
general,

Just to be clear: I've never said that CDs sound horrible in general.
I think that CDs have a lot going for them. It's specifically the
timbres of instruments that don't sound right to me.

it would mean she has trouble with something (anything) in
the CD redoring/reproduction chain (which I doubt).

If, however, she finds nothing wrong with the sound of an LP, recorded
on CD, she would have proved *to herself* that the possible flaws she
hears in CD reproduction, are not due to the CD format itself.
It would then be likely that it is something in the mastering process
that bothers her (or it is just a psychological thing).

AFAIC, such a test doesn't have to be blind.

In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


Don't know; I'm just asking questions. Arny says that
ADC and DAC are the same as CD, and I'm simply making the
logical statement that they are NOT the same as CD if the
actual media (or as you say, the transport) is the
problem.

IOW Jenn, you're clutching at straws.

It's well known that a good CD player delivers a bit-accurate version of
the
master to its ADC.

Many people have burned audio CDs, and then recovered the digital data
with
a computer or via the digital output of a CD player, and found
bit-perfect
equivalence with the source of the burned CD. Commerical pressed CDs are
generally even better - so that errors are even less frequent.

Forgive me for asking questions. I'm finally learning that here is not
the place to do so. My bad.

If you think so, then ask the same question on rec.audio.tech or RAHE, you
will get the same answer, because it is a matter of fact that a CD provides
an exact replica of the sound of whatever was recorded on the master tape.

That wasn't the point, but never mind; the moment has passed.


Play the master tape and compare it to the CD, they are identical. The
sound from a CD is much more accurate than that from an LP because it has
much higher dynamic range and less noise, among other things. It is just
not possible to get as accurate a reproduction of any instrument from an LP
as it is from a CD.

Your insitence that the LP versions souind more real to you, calls into
question your hearing ability or your honesty.

I can assure you that my hearing is quite good, so what remains is that
you think that I'm a liar. Why would I lie about this? You should stop
reading my posts if you think that I'm a liar.

You seem to be unaware that
every time an analog copy is made, it is degraded from the original, which
is not so with digital. Each digital copy is an EXACT copy of the source,
so th LP version can NEVER be as clean or as accurate as the CD, even when
using the same master.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

it is a matter of fact that a CD provides an
exact replica of the sound of whatever was recorded on
the master tape. Play the master tape and compare it to
the CD, they are identical.

Obviously, that is not good enough for Jenn.

The sound from a CD is much
more accurate than that from an LP because it has much
higher dynamic range and less noise, among other things. It is just not
possible to get as accurate a reproduction
of any instrument from an LP as it is from a CD.

To Jenn, listening to music without added noise and distortion is to her,
what coffee without cream and sugar is to me.

Your insitence that the LP versions souind more real to
you, calls into question your hearing ability or your
honesty.

Personally, I think this is all about her need to troll.

You seem to be unaware that every time an
analog copy is made, it is degraded from the original,
which is not so with digital.

Yes, but according to Jenn, all LP playback systems sound the same insofar
as they all magically change the sound quality of the original recording
(often itself a digital recording) so that it is more lifelike to her.

Don't lie Arny.

Each digital copy is an
EXACT copy of the source, so th LP version can NEVER be
as clean or as accurate as the CD, even when using the
same master.

Exactly, but it very much seems that to Jenn lifelike reproduction is
completely divorced from accuracy.

Don't lie, Arny.

Wow, every paragraph of yours has my name in it. I'm really "in your
head" aren't I?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message




It's well known that a good CD player delivers a bit-accurate version of
the master to its ADC.

Many people have burned audio CDs, and then recovered the digital data
with a computer or via the digital output of a CD player, and found
bit-perfect equivalence with the source of the burned CD. Commerical
pressed CDs are generally even better - so that errors are even less
frequent.


if its already perfect, how does it get better?
or, maybe its not.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


Don't know; I'm just asking questions. Arny says that
ADC and DAC are the same as CD, and I'm simply making
the logical statement that they are NOT the same as CD
if the actual media (or as you say, the transport) is
the problem.

IOW Jenn, you're clutching at straws.

It's well known that a good CD player delivers a
bit-accurate version of the master to its ADC.

Many people have burned audio CDs, and then recovered
the digital data with a computer or via the digital
output of a CD player, and found bit-perfect
equivalence with the source of the burned CD.
Commerical pressed CDs are generally even better - so
that errors are even less frequent.

Forgive me for asking questions. I'm finally learning
that here is not the place to do so. My bad.

No Jenn your problem is not asking questions, but giving
answers that are wrong and that you are unqualified to
give.

Example?

Asked and answered.


Prove it!!!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ink.net

snip

Yes, but according to Jenn, all LP playback systems
sound the same insofar as they all magically change the
sound quality of the original recording (often itself a
digital recording) so that it is more lifelike to her.

Let's lay this one to rest, Arny. The vast majority of
LP's were made *without* every seeing a digital
anything....they predated it.

Here is yet another example of Harry's inability to read simple English:

I write: "the original recording (often itself a digital recording)

Harry writes: "The vast majority of LP's were made *without* every seeing a
digital
anything....they predated it.

Harry clearly thinks that he has somehow invalidated my statement as he
writes:

"Let's lay this one to rest, Arny"


Anybody who has a clue about critical thinking knows that the two statements
aren't incompatible. "often" simply means that something happened
frequently. "The vast majority" does not discount my statement.

And the audiophile labels selling today wouldn't touch a
digital master with a ten foot pole.

However audiophile LP sales are just drop in the barrel, compared to LP
sales between say 1976 and 1990 when digital mastering of LPs was very
common.

I wouldn't say that digital mastering of LPs was "very common" in 1976.


During the very late '70's / early '80's a few labels did
a few recordings this way, and then a trickle of pop has
been release since done this way.

Not true at all. For example that well-known audiophile label Telarc proudly
advertized that their LPs were digitally mastered.

Interestingly, at a higher sampling rate than 44.1 KHz.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Agreed - this has to be learned behavior. Some authority figure convinced
her of this. She is obviously profoundly affected by certain male
authority figures in her life.

Sorry Cholly, were looking for authority figures with good taste.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



Jenn said:

Agreed - this has to be learned behavior. Some authority figure
convinced her of this. She is obviously profoundly affected by certain
male authority figures in her life.

LOL Well, finally, there it is!

Indeed, the Krooborg is completely unnerved at the presence of a woman who
dares
to talk back to him instead of humoring his every tantrum of egomania.


Jenn is certainly not like Mrs. Krooger.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article cNvKf.14726$2c4.769@dukeread11,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:gJrKf.14026$2c4.3567@dukeread11
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

Have you heard LPs where you aren't sure you could tell
the recorded violin, from a real violin playing in your
room?

Once in college I was standing outside my dorm room
chatting with some neighbors when the sound of acoustic
guard floated out of my open door. The guy across the hall whose name
I've long forgotten
said "Wow, you're roommate is getting really good on that
guitar". Except it wasn't my roommate, it was ELP on my
stereo. Then he went on about how my reel to reel sounded so good
compared to records.
Except that tape was one I recorded from vinyl.

System Components we original Large Advents, Sansui
Au6500, Akai GX500db, AR-XA with Shure M93E. Not
exactly SOTA but it did sound pretty good.

Oh, its the 476th incarnation of the "wife in the kitchen" anecdote.

My former sax playing friend was by a few months ago... fantasy football
draft
party. Afterwords I let him listen to my Quads. He has a nice pair of
Energy
towers but lacks the room to position them properly. Anyway, I had a
record on so played it (Kate Bush Hounds of Love), he didn't like Kate
(can you imagine?), but didn't realize he was listening to vinyl till I
was
putting the album away. The thought crossed my mind to get him to
listen
to the CD, perfect opportunity.... but I let him slide.
BTW... he liked the Quads and commented they are really clear on vocals
but
like most musicians wants something more dynamic,
more in your face,snip.

Perhaps I'm the exception; I LOVE the Quads!

If I were listening to classical music, I would prefer the quads.
If I were listening to most anything else, I would not.
Overall, I could not live with them due to the omission of
the beat. It ain't got the beat.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

"Harry Lavo" said:

During the very late '70's / early '80's a few labels did a few recordings
this way, and then a trickle of pop has been release since done this way.


The first commercially available digital recording was done in 1974,
Maria Joao Pires' Mozart cycle on JVC.

I don't think that it was nearly that early.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


Don't know; I'm just asking questions. Arny says that
ADC and DAC are the same as CD, and I'm simply making
the logical statement that they are NOT the same as CD
if the actual media (or as you say, the transport) is
the problem.

IOW Jenn, you're clutching at straws.

It's well known that a good CD player delivers a
bit-accurate version of the master to its ADC.

Many people have burned audio CDs, and then recovered
the digital data with a computer or via the digital
output of a CD player, and found bit-perfect
equivalence with the source of the burned CD.
Commerical pressed CDs are generally even better - so
that errors are even less frequent.

Forgive me for asking questions. I'm finally learning
that here is not the place to do so. My bad.

No Jenn your problem is not asking questions, but giving
answers that are wrong and that you are unqualified to
give.

Example?

Asked and answered.

Incorrect. Why avoid my question? What answer to a question have I
give that is wrong?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


The CD is not the problem and that is well known.

Well, its well known by knowlegable people, which you
obviously are not, Jenn. See what I mean about you
lacking the technical background (which many lay
people have) to make reasonable statements in this
controvery?

Cool. And you are lacking the musical knowledge and
technical background to comment on the sound of music.

Wrong. Musical knowlege and technical knowlege are not
required to know how it sounds. They are required to
know why it sounds.

Electronics knowledge is not required to know how it
sounds. Do you get that now?

I'm making no pretenses
of knowing or saying why music sounds the way it does
in the sense of say, music theory.

So, you can now feel free to ignore my posts.

Your posts still require correction Jenn becuase you
are so mislead and misleading.

You are mislead regarding the sound of instruments.

Prove it.

You think that CD replicates violin sound as well as the
best LP does.

No, better.

It takes a monsterous denial of reality to see a true list of all ways that
the LP process trashes sound quality, and think that somehow it is more
accurate to the origional sound.

I haven't claimed that. But you know that.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


Jenn again demonstrates her ignorance of an obvious and generally
agreed-upon fact: The ears are nothing without the brain, and the brain
is
the most powerful and complex organ in the human body.


There's a big difference between sensation and perception, but its all
lost
on Jenn.

When you sit at home and listen to your stereo, do you simply listen and
enjoy or do you consider the above?

This is music to Arny's ears.
last year he had lots worse, but I shamed him
into improving it
http://www.pcavtech.com/pcta/index.htm



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ink.net



snip




Yes, but according to Jenn, all LP playback systems sound the same
insofar as they all magically change the sound quality of the original
recording (often itself a digital recording) so that it is more lifelike
to her.


Let's lay this one to rest, Arny. The vast majority of LP's were made
*without* every seeing a digital anything....they predated it.

Any new recordings available on LP are now done with digital tape instead of
analog tape, because of the obvious advantages.


What has that to do with the fact that digital recordings are vastly more
accurate than analog recordings?



And the audiophile labels selling today wouldn't touch a digital master
with a ten foot pole.


Which is yet another example of why some people label those kinds of people
as audiophools, they reject better, more accurate recording technolgy for
reasons that don't exist, except in the mind of some idiot audiophiles

During the very late '70's / early '80's a few labels did a few recordings
this way, and then a trickle of pop has been release since done this way.
But find a warehouse full of records of all ages, and draw from random,
and my guess is you will be lucky to have two out of a hundred have
digital masters.

Still meaningless. Take an analog master and digitize it and you have a
copy that is as close as is possible to the original, and you can make
countless more exact copies of that. Then consider the fact that a digital
copy has so much more resolution that it allows one to hear things that were
hidden before becuase of the fact that each analog copy is inferiror to the
one that preceded it.
Going back to the original master tapes and making CD's from them has show
this time after time in th form of tape hiss and the ability to hear edits
or noises in the studio that made their way onto the tape unnoticed until
they were redone for CD.

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:09:56 GMT,
wrote:



"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:42:30 GMT,
wrote:

Your insitence that the LP versions souind more real to you, calls into
question your hearing ability or your honesty. You seem to be unaware
that
every time an analog copy is made, it is degraded from the original,
which
is not so with digital. Each digital copy is an EXACT copy of the
source,
so th LP version can NEVER be as clean or as accurate as the CD, even
when
using the same master.

You're assuming that the master tape is perfect.

No, I'm just assuming that is what they use to produce the media we
playback
recordings on.
Obvioiusly themaster is only as good as the people who produced it, but it
is what is used to produce LP's and CD's. If it was bad it will be bad
when
transferred to CD or to LP.
If it was good it will be better in CD than on LP.

The process of capturing the sound via a microphone, and digitizing
introduces artifacts which may be seem reversed when muffled through
LP recording/playback.

Bull****.


Then make an argument. Just saying "bull****" isn't an argument.

Making a statement that digitizing introduces artifacts that (by implication
at least) are somehow bad, is nothing but an asertion, if you are going to
assert something like that, it is up to you to provide evidence. I have no
obligation to show why you are wrong until you provide a shred of evidence.
Something you have not done, and can't.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


Don't know; I'm just asking questions. Arny says that
ADC and DAC are the same as CD, and I'm simply making the
logical statement that they are NOT the same as CD if the
actual media (or as you say, the transport) is the
problem.

IOW Jenn, you're clutching at straws.

It's well known that a good CD player delivers a bit-accurate version
of
the
master to its ADC.

Many people have burned audio CDs, and then recovered the digital data
with
a computer or via the digital output of a CD player, and found
bit-perfect
equivalence with the source of the burned CD. Commerical pressed CDs
are
generally even better - so that errors are even less frequent.

Forgive me for asking questions. I'm finally learning that here is not
the place to do so. My bad.

If you think so, then ask the same question on rec.audio.tech or RAHE,
you
will get the same answer, because it is a matter of fact that a CD
provides
an exact replica of the sound of whatever was recorded on the master
tape.

That wasn't the point, but never mind; the moment has passed.


Play the master tape and compare it to the CD, they are identical. The
sound from a CD is much more accurate than that from an LP because it has
much higher dynamic range and less noise, among other things. It is just
not possible to get as accurate a reproduction of any instrument from an
LP
as it is from a CD.

Your insitence that the LP versions souind more real to you, calls into
question your hearing ability or your honesty.

I can assure you that my hearing is quite good, so what remains is that
you think that I'm a liar. Why would I lie about this? You should stop
reading my posts if you think that I'm a liar.


Im sorry, I should have included crazy. You simply ignore the fact that
what yo claim is impossible. It is impossible for an LP to more accurately
capture the sound of something than a CD.

It amuses me to read somebody claiming that the least accurate recordings
sound more natural.
It's more amusing that the person doing so is also claiming to be a
conductor and musician.

I did list bad hearing as a possiblity, and the fact that you assert you
hear well doe not jibe with the claim of LP sounding more real, since it is
clearly not possible.


You seem to be unaware that
every time an analog copy is made, it is degraded from the original,
which
is not so with digital. Each digital copy is an EXACT copy of the
source,
so th LP version can NEVER be as clean or as accurate as the CD, even
when
using the same master.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


So, LP violins don't sound like real violins, but
they don't sound like something
else than a violin either, while CD violins always
sound like 'something else
than
a violin, even though you can always tell they are
violins.

Other than adding the word "some" to the LP side, yes,
that's pretty much it. Some LPs sound much closer to
the sound of real violins than do any CDs.


...that you've heard. You haven't heard all CDs.

Duh.


NO media sounds real enough to be fooled into thinking
that
an actual violin is playing in the room.

Probably so,

Probably? I submit that anyone who has ever been fooled
into thinking that any recording is the actual sound of
a violin (or any other instrument or voice) needs MUCH
more experience in the sound of those instruments.

You can certainly stipulate that, but you didn't make
such exceptions in your original post. I was accounting
for all possibilities.

but you are also neglecting the role of acoustics.

In what way?

The same recording played by the same system, will not
sound the same in a different room.

Of course. But what does that have to do with the
discussion?

Because the same recording of a violin could sound more
like a violin in one room and setup, than another.

Exactly.

Jenn obviously has no appreciation for how profoundly room acoustics
affect
an audio system's SQ. This is a pretty trivial observation for someone
with
good hearing and a good idea of what musical instruments sound like in
general. Therefore, its logical to conclude that Jenn lacks what it takes
to
make this observation.

LOL The effect of room acoustics is not even CLOSE to the issue. Have
you, in ANY acoustical space with ANY system been fooled into thinking
that there was a violin in the room with you?

Yes and not just violins, but guitars as well, but they were very good
speakers being used and a very good room.

In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


So, LP violins don't sound like real violins, but
they don't sound like something
else than a violin either, while CD violins always
sound like 'something else
than
a violin, even though you can always tell they are
violins.

Other than adding the word "some" to the LP side, yes,
that's pretty much it. Some LPs sound much closer to
the sound of real violins than do any CDs.


...that you've heard. You haven't heard all CDs.

Duh.


NO media sounds real enough to be fooled into thinking
that
an actual violin is playing in the room.

Probably so,

Probably? I submit that anyone who has ever been fooled
into thinking that any recording is the actual sound of
a violin (or any other instrument or voice) needs MUCH
more experience in the sound of those instruments.

You can certainly stipulate that, but you didn't make
such exceptions in your original post. I was accounting
for all possibilities.

but you are also neglecting the role of acoustics.

In what way?

The same recording played by the same system, will not
sound the same in a different room.

Of course. But what does that have to do with the
discussion?

Because the same recording of a violin could sound more
like a violin in one room and setup, than another.

Exactly.

Jenn obviously has no appreciation for how profoundly room acoustics
affect
an audio system's SQ. This is a pretty trivial observation for someone
with
good hearing and a good idea of what musical instruments sound like in
general. Therefore, its logical to conclude that Jenn lacks what it takes
to
make this observation.

LOL The effect of room acoustics is not even CLOSE to the issue. Have
you, in ANY acoustical space with ANY system been fooled into thinking
that there was a violin in the room with you?

Yes and not just violins, but guitars as well, but they were very good
speakers being used and a very good room.

Then I have to question your knowledge of how instruments sound.

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ink.net

snip

Yes, but according to Jenn, all LP playback systems
sound the same insofar as they all magically change the
sound quality of the original recording (often itself a
digital recording) so that it is more lifelike to her.

Let's lay this one to rest, Arny. The vast majority of
LP's were made *without* every seeing a digital
anything....they predated it.

Here is yet another example of Harry's inability to read simple English:

I write: "the original recording (often itself a digital recording)

Harry writes: "The vast majority of LP's were made *without* every seeing
a digital
anything....they predated it.

Harry clearly thinks that he has somehow invalidated my statement as he
writes:

"Let's lay this one to rest, Arny"


Anybody who has a clue about critical thinking knows that the two
statements aren't incompatible. "often" simply means that something
happened frequently. "The vast majority" does not discount my statement.


And anybody who is intent on using language carefully knows that "sometimes"
or "occassionally" would be a better choice than "often" or "frequently" if
you wish to claim it is not different than my claim that it was a distinct
minority of LP's in existence.


And the audiophile labels selling today wouldn't touch a
digital master with a ten foot pole.

However audiophile LP sales are just drop in the barrel, compared to LP
sales between say 1976 and 1990 when digital mastering of LPs was very
common.


Ah, the McDonalds argument. Yep thousands of crappy sounding LP's were
made between '85 and '00. Generally considered the nadir of LP sound.

Meanwhile, the audiophile labels who DO cater to people who appreciate good
sound have gone out of their way to BYPASS digital whenever they can in
favor of analog.


During the very late '70's / early '80's a few labels did
a few recordings this way, and then a trickle of pop has
been release since done this way.

Not true at all. For example that well-known audiophile label Telarc
proudly advertized that their LPs were digitally mastered. The major
labels made lots of digital masters as evidenced by the vast number of
CDs with SPARS codes of DDD.

The well-know audiophile label Telarc was more mainstream than most
audiophile labels. They also used the better Soundstream digital equipment
than did those who used the Sony stuff. And for a long time they were
essentially alone.



What really happened is that everybody with a brain knew that the LP's
days as mainstream media were numbered. They also knew that technically
speaking, a digital master was a better master, not to mention a more
salable master when digital finally became the basis of mainstream
distribtuion of recordings to consumers.


Yes, that was the mantra of the day. And a decade later they realized they
had been premature.

But find a warehouse
full of records of all ages, and draw from random, and my
guess is you will be lucky to have two out of a hundred
have digital masters.

As always Harry, you're talking out of the back of your neck. About 20% of
my LP collection was digitally mastered in the day of, and its sequel has
similar stats.


Perhaps if you wrote in complete sentences I and others could determine what
it is you are trying to say. As it stands, I can't.

In article . net,
wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ink.net



snip




Yes, but according to Jenn, all LP playback systems sound the same
insofar as they all magically change the sound quality of the original
recording (often itself a digital recording) so that it is more lifelike
to her.


Let's lay this one to rest, Arny. The vast majority of LP's were made
*without* every seeing a digital anything....they predated it.

Any new recordings available on LP are now done with digital tape instead of
analog tape, because of the obvious advantages.
snip

Incorrect. There are new all analogue LPs being produced.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,



LOL The effect of room acoustics is not even CLOSE to the issue. Have
you, in ANY acoustical space with ANY system been fooled into thinking
that there was a violin in the room with you?

Yes and not just violins, but guitars as well, but they were very good
speakers being used and a very good room.



back in the 80's I was fooled into thinking
there was a Technics in the room with me.
It was a Sharp. But never a violin.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,



LOL The effect of room acoustics is not even CLOSE to the issue. Have
you, in ANY acoustical space with ANY system been fooled into thinking
that there was a violin in the room with you?

Yes and not just violins, but guitars as well, but they were very good
speakers being used and a very good room.



back in the 80's I was fooled into thinking
there was a Technics in the room with me.
It was a Sharp. But never a violin.

I've often been in the room with sharp violins.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

During that time all I had to listen to is LPs, live
music and occasional way-to-short sessions of
listening to high speed analog tape masters.

Why didn't a picky listener such as yourself pursue
commercial reel-to-reel?

I did, Revox A77, right?

How would I know?

You read rec.audio.opinion?

Sorry, I haven't memorized your system, although I
remember NHT speakers are involved. That and the powered
monitor system.

Excessive defensiveness noted.

You are really sensitive. One of the reasons I asked you for a
commercial cd reference for strings was that we have the same model of
NHT Pro monitors so it would be easy for me to guess what you were
hearing.

More importantly, you didn't mention commercial
reel-to-reel above, so even someone aware of which model
deck you had might think you used solely for recording.

I used it for both purposes.

Good to hear.

Good for you, though. Did you find the
extra effort worth the trouble compared to just slapping
on a record?

What extra effort?

Loading the reels. Maintenance.

No worse than vinyl.

So, worth it?

The biggest problem with open reel was a lack of good
prerecorded program material @ 7.5 ips.

And finding program material.

I just said that.

Yes. It's odd that you answered your own question just after implying
there was no extra effort, but you certainly did say that.

However, there were some very worthwhile gems. When the
average Doors LP sounded like crap, the 7.5 ips Doors
tapes were clean.

That's the kind of thing. Lots of Doors cds sound like
crap, too, but not all.

No matter what, both the 7.5 ips tapes and the CDs I've heard sound
intensely better than the LPs of the day.

Both of them? One was the Doors, what was the other?

Stephen

In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


Don't know; I'm just asking questions. Arny says that
ADC and DAC are the same as CD, and I'm simply making the
logical statement that they are NOT the same as CD if the
actual media (or as you say, the transport) is the
problem.

IOW Jenn, you're clutching at straws.

It's well known that a good CD player delivers a bit-accurate version
of
the
master to its ADC.

Many people have burned audio CDs, and then recovered the digital data
with
a computer or via the digital output of a CD player, and found
bit-perfect
equivalence with the source of the burned CD. Commerical pressed CDs
are
generally even better - so that errors are even less frequent.

Forgive me for asking questions. I'm finally learning that here is not
the place to do so. My bad.

If you think so, then ask the same question on rec.audio.tech or RAHE,
you
will get the same answer, because it is a matter of fact that a CD
provides
an exact replica of the sound of whatever was recorded on the master
tape.

That wasn't the point, but never mind; the moment has passed.


Play the master tape and compare it to the CD, they are identical. The
sound from a CD is much more accurate than that from an LP because it has
much higher dynamic range and less noise, among other things. It is just
not possible to get as accurate a reproduction of any instrument from an
LP
as it is from a CD.

Your insitence that the LP versions souind more real to you, calls into
question your hearing ability or your honesty.

I can assure you that my hearing is quite good, so what remains is that
you think that I'm a liar. Why would I lie about this? You should stop
reading my posts if you think that I'm a liar.


Im sorry, I should have included crazy.

crazily LOL

You simply ignore the fact that
what yo claim is impossible. It is impossible for an LP to more accurately
capture the sound of something than a CD.

If you use some critical thinking skills, you will find that you are
incorrect. True or False: the recording process, either digital or
analogue, fails to perfectly capture the sound of an instrument. Answer
this, and we'll proceed from there.


It amuses me to read somebody claiming that the least accurate recordings
sound more natural.
It's more amusing that the person doing so is also claiming to be a
conductor and musician.

Not "claiming", it's a fact.

I did list bad hearing as a possiblity, and the fact that you assert you
hear well doe not jibe with the claim of LP sounding more real, since it is
clearly not possible.

Send me a check, and I'll go get an audiometer test for you.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,



LOL The effect of room acoustics is not even CLOSE to the issue.
Have
you, in ANY acoustical space with ANY system been fooled into thinking
that there was a violin in the room with you?

Yes and not just violins, but guitars as well, but they were very good
speakers being used and a very good room.



back in the 80's I was fooled into thinking
there was a Technics in the room with me.
It was a Sharp. But never a violin.

I've often been in the room with sharp violins.

ok, as long as the bows weren't sharp.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,



LOL The effect of room acoustics is not even CLOSE to the issue.
Have
you, in ANY acoustical space with ANY system been fooled into thinking
that there was a violin in the room with you?

Yes and not just violins, but guitars as well, but they were very good
speakers being used and a very good room.



back in the 80's I was fooled into thinking
there was a Technics in the room with me.
It was a Sharp. But never a violin.

I've often been in the room with sharp violins.

ok, as long as the bows weren't sharp.

Nah, mostly the E string.

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,



LOL The effect of room acoustics is not even CLOSE to the issue.
Have
you, in ANY acoustical space with ANY system been fooled into thinking
that there was a violin in the room with you?

Yes and not just violins, but guitars as well, but they were very good
speakers being used and a very good room.



back in the 80's I was fooled into thinking
there was a Technics in the room with me.
It was a Sharp. But never a violin.

I've often been in the room with sharp violins.

ok, as long as the bows weren't sharp.

Nah, mostly the E string.

Note to Arny: Violins have strings, and one of them is tuned to E,
which is a frequency.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
J.Major wrote:

ScottW wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...


"Jenn" wrote in message
...


In article ,
"J.Major" wrote:

snip

snip

To Jenn an Arny that are always arguing about the LP vs CD. I have a
little story to tell. Last week my sister in law call to say that she
will visit us for the weekend. I remenber that she loved a french singer
(Jean Ferrat) so I ask her if she could bring her cd so she could listen
to her singer on my "high end" cd player "a Moon Equinox". I did not
told her that my wife have the same singer album on LP. So she came with
her CD and after supper we tried her CD she was amazed by the quality of
the sound. But after she listen to her cd I put the LP and her jaw
dropped. Her comment was " How come this is much better than my cd when
this is past technology? The cd is not supposed to exceed in quality the
lp? Tomorrow I am going with her to buy a new Turntable.... (By the way
my turntable is an Oracle Delphi)

I had a roughly parallel experience. Friend of mine lived across the
street
upgraded his stereo in the late '80's ....


Now come on... digital recording and mixing has come a long way since then,
even playback has had some improvement.

ScottW



Agreed! Digital recording and mixing did improved but how come after
listening to both media on high end gears, my sister in law just found
out (In 2006 not in the 80) that my wife LP sound so much better than
her own CD of the same album? Do you have any hint?



some ready possibilities:

1) different mastering of the LP vs the CD. This not only affects the
sound you'd hear if you were 'only' listening to the discs (i.e, via
headphones); further differences may be apparent when played in a real
room acoustic space, where you are hearing the room and disc togehter
as a system.
1-My room is acousticaly treated and after my sister in law listen to
both disc on the speaker I let her listen to both disc (a few songs
each)on my stax sigma and again she prefered the LP.
2) your wife simply prefers the euphonic distortions inherent to vinyl
My wife hardly listen to music (She own a couple of LP from the 80). So
she does'nt know (or care) about "euphonic distortions". She even
does'nt know how to operate my audio gears (and does'nt care) so every
time she want to listen to her LP, I put them on my oracle, start it up
and go take a walk (I personnaly dislike this singer-- I am more into
Jazz and Classical Music)
3) unconcious bias - e.g. she 'knew' that you or others already
thought the LP superior to CD
My sister in law knew that I have a good audio system but did'nt know
that I use a turntable (she even tought that no more turntable exist
except in museum). She used to have a turntable (the best one available
in the market according to the Radioshack salesman) No wonder she was
thinking that CD where superior if all she have to compare was a
RadioScrap disk grinder.

Arny Krueger wrote:

So how many plays is an LP good for before sufferring
audible degradation?

Varies, 5 to a few dozen.

5 to 24... got proof?



Do you really think SEM photos of vinyl
mean anything to audible degradation?

Yes, when they show trashing of the groove.

How about Mag tape?

Ditto.

I'll bet SEM photoes of mag tape can show damage
to them after playing too.

Ironically when tape is played a number of times it is
often subject to burninshing, which makes it work better.

However, if you play a tape a few hundred times it
becomes trash. Most people who time shift with VCRs know
all about that. It's also been reported that after
thousands or tens of thousands of playings, CDRs are
trashed. I know from personal experience that after a
few hundred erasures and re-recordings, DVD+RW discs are
trashed.

Nothing is forever Scott, but LPs are among the forms of
media that is most likely to be worn out relatively
quickly.

I've got albums that outlasted CD-Rs by a couple of
decades.

Absence of details of comparison noted. Probably due to the fact that the
details would impugn the comparison.

Impugn comparison? The damn things wouldn't play anymore.
Early CD-Rs sucked for longevity. You could see them changing color
on the shelf and the errors kept increasing until they simply wouldn't
play.
Of course me bagging on early CD-Rs is like you trashing 60's vinyl.


Besides, so what?

Even my old Technics SL-22 didn't give me the
problems you're having.

It's all about your low-resolution, extremely casual
testing procedures, How many years of experience do
you have with vinyl as a mainstream medium, Scott?
It's probably only a fraction of mine.

Do I really care about your experience with crappy TTs
of the 40s and 50's?

Straw man arugment noted and ignored.

BS... How many "years" of relevant SOTA vinyl listening
can you possibly have? SoTA in the 60's isn't
relevant to SoTA today.

Straw man argument noted and ignored.

Nice admission that my fraction of your years of
experience with vinyl is more relevant to the SoTA...

Where did I say that?

Don't get so easily confused. I assumed you could follow logic..
my mistake. Anyway its obvious. Much of your vinyl experience is
simply not relevant to SoTA simply due to the time at which it
occurred.


since the bulk of yours comes from more than 25 years ago.

The SOTA of vinyl has changed very little in the past 25 years, no matter
what the pro vinyl hype artists say.

Ok... so you have 25 years experience with SoTA vinyl...so do I.
So much for your additional years of experience. They are
obsolete.


Let's see if Scott can figure out how long at the very
least that I listened almost exclusively to LPs. Here's
a hint for you Scott, I didn't stop listening to, or
upgrading my LP playback system in the 60s.

When and what was your last TT?

I currently own a Rega. In the day of I used a Shure/Thorens/SME setup.

Rega what?



Here's some more news flashes for you Scott - recording
is independent of micing and mixing. Playback is
independent of of amplification, speakers and room
acoustics.

Stupidest thing you ever said.

Obviously over your head, Scott.

So now you want to
demonstrate the perfection of digital by comparing a
sound wave to a DAC's electrical output.

You're so highly confused Scott that I don't know where to start.

How do you plan to capture the sound wave? How do you
plan to observe the DAC output without amplification?

Not going to. Going to hold them constant during the comparison.

taking Scott's advice and flushing the rest of the post

Realized how stupid and indefensible your statement was I see. I
expected no less.

ScottW

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:36:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


I'm will to concede

Jute won't ever beat you at Krooglish, eh, Arnie? :-)

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:37:31 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I've yet to hear orchestral strings, for example,
particularly upper range violin, sound as right on CD
as it can on LP.

Agreed. If only vinyl wasn't such a totally inconvenient
and fault-ridden invention....

If only thinking wasn't such a lost art on RAO. :-(

And how does that follow from my observation, Arnie?

Since you asked for it Paul: Agrreed there is no logical connection between
your observation and thinking.

Ah, so you don't agree that vinyl is a fault-ridden medium? Now we're
getting somewhere.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 3:12 pm
Email: Steven Sullivan

Not very wise of them, if true.

The RIAA curve is there for a good reason, you know. And if you play
such Russian LPs back though a typical phono preamp, the RIAA compensation
will be applied -- no different than applying rather massive EQ.

IIRC, there were several EQ curves in the beginning of LPs. I had an
Eico HF-20 that had, I think, Angel, Columbia, and some others, 4-6
total.

Maybe the Russians had their own EQ. EQ for LPs is there for very good
reason. RIAA was (I think) just a standard, perhaps one among many...

I think Melodiya was distributed by Angel in the US, no doubt with RIAA
EQ. These are apparently from Russia, as the title, Etc. is all in
Russian.

Wasn't RIAA short for Russian Industries Audio Authority?:-)

Many of Melodia's recordings sound even worse than many DGs.
Now , which camp did I put myself in saying that. Is it an
objectivist or a subjectivist statement?
Or could it be just me?
Ludovic M.

wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 3:12 pm
Email: Steven Sullivan

Not very wise of them, if true.

The RIAA curve is there for a good reason, you know. And if you play
such Russian LPs back though a typical phono preamp, the RIAA compensation
will be applied -- no different than applying rather massive EQ.

IIRC, there were several EQ curves in the beginning of LPs. I had an
Eico HF-20 that had, I think, Angel, Columbia, and some others, 4-6
total.

Maybe the Russians had their own EQ. EQ for LPs is there for very good
reason. RIAA was (I think) just a standard, perhaps one among many...

I think Melodiya was distributed by Angel in the US, no doubt with RIAA
EQ. These are apparently from Russia, as the title, Etc. is all in
Russian.

Wasn't RIAA short for Russian Industries Audio Authority?:-)

Many of Melodia's recordings sound even worse than many DGs.
Now , which camp did I put myself in saying that. Is it an
objectivist or a subjectivist statement?
Or could it be just me?
Ludovic M.

In my student years I lived in Russia. I was collecting records paying
astrononmical prices for DGG, Columbia Masterworks, etc. on the black
market. Melodia LP's in spite of their easy availability were at the
bottom of collector's list by being least desirable. The joke was that
on the plant before putting new records in envelope they were washing
them with sand and applying sand paper to create "unique" sound. These
records had unbelievable surface noise and were sold in generic brown
bag paper envelopes. I don't know about IRAA curve but records
manufactured for export had nice envelopes with pictures and texts but
surface noise was there. We tolerated these LP's only because of
content. The best performance of "Don Giovanny" with W. Furtwangler and
C. Cieppy I heard first from Melodia's LP. Mono recordings of Beethoven
Symphonies with B. Walter were on Melodia too.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

During that time all I had to listen to is LPs,
live music and occasional way-to-short sessions of
listening to high speed analog tape masters.

Why didn't a picky listener such as yourself pursue
commercial reel-to-reel?

I did, Revox A77, right?

How would I know?

You read rec.audio.opinion?

Sorry, I haven't memorized your system, although I
remember NHT speakers are involved. That and the powered
monitor system.

Excessive defensiveness noted.

You are really sensitive. One of the reasons I asked you
for a commercial cd reference for strings was that we
have the same model of NHT Pro monitors so it would be
easy for me to guess what you were hearing.

More importantly, you didn't mention commercial
reel-to-reel above, so even someone aware of which model
deck you had might think you used solely for recording.

I used it for both purposes.

Good to hear.

Good for you, though. Did you find the
extra effort worth the trouble compared to just
slapping on a record?

What extra effort?

Loading the reels. Maintenance.

No worse than vinyl.

So, worth it?

The biggest problem with open reel was a lack of good
prerecorded program material @ 7.5 ips.

And finding program material.

I just said that.

Yes. It's odd that you answered your own question just
after implying there was no extra effort, but you
certainly did say that.

However, there were some very worthwhile gems. When the
average Doors LP sounded like crap, the 7.5 ips Doors
tapes were clean.

That's the kind of thing. Lots of Doors cds sound like
crap, too, but not all.

No matter what, both the 7.5 ips tapes and the CDs I've
heard sound intensely better than the LPs of the day.

Both of them? One was the Doors, what was the other?

Interesting - I mentioned recording formats, not musical groups in a
paragraph, and Stephen by some myserious means thinks I was talking about
musical groups.

Will wonders ever cease? ;-)

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


The CD is not the problem and that is well known.

Well, its well known by knowlegable people, which
you obviously are not, Jenn. See what I mean
about you lacking the technical background (which
many lay people have) to make reasonable
statements in this controvery?

Cool. And you are lacking the musical knowledge and
technical background to comment on the sound of
music.

Wrong. Musical knowlege and technical knowlege are
not required to know how it sounds. They are
required to know why it sounds.

Electronics knowledge is not required to know how it
sounds. Do you get that now?

I'm making no pretenses
of knowing or saying why music sounds the way it does
in the sense of say, music theory.

So, you can now feel free to ignore my posts.

Your posts still require correction Jenn becuase you
are so mislead and misleading.

You are mislead regarding the sound of instruments.

Prove it.

You think that CD replicates violin sound as well as the
best LP does.

No, better.

It takes a monsterous denial of reality to see a true
list of all ways that the LP process trashes sound
quality, and think that somehow it is more accurate to
the origional sound.

I haven't claimed that. But you know that.

Sure you did Jenn. That you can't see it would be a pretty big mental
problem for you to overcome.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


Don't know; I'm just asking questions. Arny says
that ADC and DAC are the same as CD, and I'm simply
making the logical statement that they are NOT the
same as CD if the actual media (or as you say, the
transport) is the problem.

IOW Jenn, you're clutching at straws.

It's well known that a good CD player delivers a
bit-accurate version of the master to its ADC.

Many people have burned audio CDs, and then recovered
the digital data with a computer or via the digital
output of a CD player, and found bit-perfect
equivalence with the source of the burned CD.
Commerical pressed CDs are generally even better - so
that errors are even less frequent.

Forgive me for asking questions. I'm finally learning
that here is not the place to do so. My bad.

No Jenn your problem is not asking questions, but
giving answers that are wrong and that you are
unqualified to give.

Example?

Asked and answered.

Incorrect. Why avoid my question?

The monsterous waste of time involved with answering it again given that you
can't comprehend simple English and lack sufficient personal insight to
apply it.

What answer to a question have I give that is wrong?

See above.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

"Harry Lavo" said:

During the very late '70's / early '80's a few labels
did a few recordings this way, and then a trickle of
pop has been release since done this way.


The first commercially available digital recording was
done in 1974, Maria Joao Pires' Mozart cycle on JVC.

I don't think that it was nearly that early.

Try searching google.