"Jenn" wrote in message

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.

That's the essence of what you claim, Jenn.

You may not recognize it, but so what?


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.

That's the essence of what you claim, Jenn.

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

You're just such a great example of someone with a preference for noise and
distortion, Jenn!

"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.

Nahh Jenn, you're just a dupe. A tool.

"Jenn" wrote in message


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.

This fully supports my claim that you have a preference for the sound of
musical instruments with a wide variety of randomly-chosen audible noise and
distortion added.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
et,
wrote:

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


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.

Jenn now demonstrates that not only can't she hear the audible noise and
distoriton inherent in the LP format, she can't hear the effects of room
acoustics on sound.

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com
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?

Asked and answered.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..



You're just such a great example of someone with a preference for noise
and distortion, Jenn!


You're wrong Arnie, she doesn't like you.



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

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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? ;-)

It's a wonder alright.

Let's repeat your "mentioning," omitting one of my responses:

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

snip me Doors on cd

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

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

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

That "mysterious means" is called "reading comprehension."

Stephen

From: vlad
Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 2:41 am
Email: "vlad"

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.

That's interesting. I haven't listened to them yet. What was Soviet
stereo equipment like? Were decent turntables, etc. available? I don't
think I've ever seen what type of equipment that was made there. Or did
they just import stuff?

Maybe this sand is actually the rare 'floobydust' talked about
here...:-)

I don't know about IRAA curve but records
manufactured for export had nice envelopes with pictures and texts but
surface noise was there.

These have nice glossy covers. They have price tags on them with the
store name written in Cyrillic. (Does 1.67 rubles seem right for an
LP?) So I'm not sure if these were for export or not...

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
et,
wrote:

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


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.

Jenn now demonstrates that not only can't she hear the audible noise and
distoriton inherent in the LP format, she can't hear the effects of room
acoustics on sound.

There you go making things up again, Arny. 1. I can very clearly hear
the audible noise and distortion in LPs, and, 2. I can very clearly
hear the effects of room acoustics on sound; I deal with that every day
in my job. Do you think that room acoustics are on the same plane as
knowing if there is an instrument playing in the same room you are in?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" 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.

Nahh Jenn, you're just a dupe. A tool.

I see. Well, I guess that I'm a "tool" for Bach, Beethoven, Grainger,
Mozart.....

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

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.

You get to be wrong.

Except that I'm not. Out of hundreds of LPs released in 1976, can you
name, say, just 10 that were digitally mastered? By the way, the first
symphonic digital recording made in this country was recorded in 1978; I
was at the session.

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.

Not that much higher.

But higher, as I stated.

Steven Sullivan wrote:


I'm going to have to start parsing Jenn's posts with
an 'overstatement filter' in place.

Well go for it. See if I care.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"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.

I did, of course. No sign of that recording:

http://www.google.com/search?client=...o+Pires+Moz a
rt+JVC+1974&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

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


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.

I see. The last harbor of of those making a false claim: "I already
answered that."

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

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.

HeHe! Arny comments on other's mental condition! Anyway, I've never
claimed that LPs are more accurate overall.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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.
What % of new material is done that way?

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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.

There are many makes of guitars that sound different from each other an the
same applies to Violins. I was referring to the illusion of having an
instrument playing in the room I was listening in. It only has worked on
solo instrumments, but I have been able a couple of times to hear solo
instruments that sounded as if they were playing in the room.

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

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.

Its not black and white, son. There are advantages and disadvantages to
both analog and digital recording. I find that whatever one chooses is
often based on one's prejudices, than anything else.

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

If you define "accurate" merely in terms of useable frequency response,
perhaps. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're wrong here, and clearly not
speaking from experience.

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

I'd warn you to be careful about applying insults and labels to people,
like "audiophools" and "idiot audiophiles". It certainly does not
convince anyone of your intelligence or wisdom, and there's nothing
more foolish on God's green earth than some ignorant fool, ranting
about how much of an ignorant fool the other is. The more educated you
are, the more you will realize how little you actually know. Try
engaging in some experience with what you rant about.

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.

:-) That's very funny, mate! If only reality were as simple as that,
recording would be a lot less complicated.... The "exact digital
copies" notion is a myth, just like the myth of "perfect sound forever"
that followed the introduction of the CD.

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.

You're mistaking "detail" for "resolution". Yours is a gross
oversimplification of the entire process, which tells me, you're not a
recording engineer, and only speaking from theories you've read
somewhere. While analog copies do exhibit deterioriation artificats,
its a fact that digital copies do as well. You don't recognize it so
readily, because it doesn't come in the form of "tape hiss"

I'm surprised that this myth about digital copies being perfect is
still prevalent today in some circles, what with any average person
being able to master his own cd's on an inexpensive cd-r unit hooked to
a PC, and being able to easily test any number of copies. Among other
things, I've done extensive testing on just this type of setup. Here
are only some of the variables involved in copying or creating cd's,
that can influence the final result, which anyone can reproduce:
Different burners produce different sound qualities (including dvd
burners burning cd's), different brands produce different qualities,
different software produces different qualities (as does different
settings configured within the software), so do different conditions of
your computer system, so can different cd-r's within the same batch of
cd's. Different digital recorders and DAC units produce different
qualities of sound. Now with all of these possible variables, which is
the "perfect copy" among all these different sounding copies?! The fact
is, I have tested a variety of software and equipment in order to
achieve the goal of producing an exact digital copy of a cd. In years
of trying, I've yet to achieve that goal.

To someone who can not tell the difference between an LP and the same
pressing on CD, I'm sure that there can be no difference between one cd
copy and another. To those with more discriminating ears to whom
fidelity to the music matters greatly, its no wonder many audiophiles
prefer the sound of the original LP to CD reissues, that don't even
come close to their original counterparts when played back on decent,
properly adjusted record decks and pick-ups.

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.

Tape hiss is indeed one of the sorry artifacts of the analog medium. It
is a defect that you learn to live with, as you learn to live with the
defects in teh digital medium. Many people who understand what music
reproduction is about, prefer the defects in the analog medium, because
what is important is not the medium, but how faithful the music sounds.


I'm sorry, I don't have time to educate you, so I don't wish to pursue
this any further. If you are sincerely interested in the subject of
analog and digital recording, I suggest you delve a lot deeper into the
research than you have, and it certainly wouldn't hurt to actual get
some field experience with the various pertinent materials and conduct
experiments on your own. You might learn a lot more that way, than
repeating outdated misconceptions about digital and analog formats.

said to the Bug Eater:

I'm sorry, I don't have time to educate you, so I don't wish to pursue
this any further. If you are sincerely interested in the subject of
analog and digital recording, I suggest you delve a lot deeper into the
research than you have, and it certainly wouldn't hurt to actual get
some field experience with the various pertinent materials and conduct
experiments on your own. You might learn a lot more that way, than
repeating outdated misconceptions about digital and analog formats.


That's certainly a constructive suggestion, and any Normal person who wished to
learn more might well follow it. However, duh-Mikey does not want to learn
anything. He sincerely believes, in his myopic idiom, that he already knows all
he needs to know. For this poor dumb dork, Usenet is not a means to connect with
others who share his interests and from whom he might learn useful infor.
Rather, Mikey values Usenet as a means to pump out his religious bilge. Audio is
not his weakest field, believe it or not.




..
..

wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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.

There are many makes of guitars that sound different from each other an the
same applies to Violins.

Of course!

I was referring to the illusion of having an
instrument playing in the room I was listening in.

As was I.

It only has worked on
solo instrumments, but I have been able a couple of times to hear solo
instruments that sounded as if they were playing in the room.

My other reply stands.

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

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.

Its not black and white, son. There are advantages and disadvantages to
both analog and digital recording. I find that whatever one chooses is
often based on one's prejudices, than anything else.

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

If you define "accurate" merely in terms of useable frequency response,

Thank you for this erudite and educated introduction to the problems
of "accurate" recording.
You realise I hope that it will flow like water on donkey's back.
The semiliterates have an answer: how many analog Lps are being sold
compared to cds?
How many Picassos compared to next door "gallery" daubs?
How many copies of Proust compared to Grisham?
And so on.
Ludovic M.



perhaps. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're wrong here, and clearly not
speaking from experience.

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

I'd warn you to be careful about applying insults and labels to people,
like "audiophools" and "idiot audiophiles". It certainly does not
convince anyone of your intelligence or wisdom, and there's nothing
more foolish on God's green earth than some ignorant fool, ranting
about how much of an ignorant fool the other is. The more educated you
are, the more you will realize how little you actually know. Try
engaging in some experience with what you rant about.

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.

:-) That's very funny, mate! If only reality were as simple as that,
recording would be a lot less complicated.... The "exact digital
copies" notion is a myth, just like the myth of "perfect sound forever"
that followed the introduction of the CD.

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.

You're mistaking "detail" for "resolution". Yours is a gross
oversimplification of the entire process, which tells me, you're not a
recording engineer, and only speaking from theories you've read
somewhere. While analog copies do exhibit deterioriation artificats,
its a fact that digital copies do as well. You don't recognize it so
readily, because it doesn't come in the form of "tape hiss"

I'm surprised that this myth about digital copies being perfect is
still prevalent today in some circles, what with any average person
being able to master his own cd's on an inexpensive cd-r unit hooked to
a PC, and being able to easily test any number of copies. Among other
things, I've done extensive testing on just this type of setup. Here
are only some of the variables involved in copying or creating cd's,
that can influence the final result, which anyone can reproduce:
Different burners produce different sound qualities (including dvd
burners burning cd's), different brands produce different qualities,
different software produces different qualities (as does different
settings configured within the software), so do different conditions of
your computer system, so can different cd-r's within the same batch of
cd's. Different digital recorders and DAC units produce different
qualities of sound. Now with all of these possible variables, which is
the "perfect copy" among all these different sounding copies?! The fact
is, I have tested a variety of software and equipment in order to
achieve the goal of producing an exact digital copy of a cd. In years
of trying, I've yet to achieve that goal.

To someone who can not tell the difference between an LP and the same
pressing on CD, I'm sure that there can be no difference between one cd
copy and another. To those with more discriminating ears to whom
fidelity to the music matters greatly, its no wonder many audiophiles
prefer the sound of the original LP to CD reissues, that don't even
come close to their original counterparts when played back on decent,
properly adjusted record decks and pick-ups.

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.

Tape hiss is indeed one of the sorry artifacts of the analog medium. It
is a defect that you learn to live with, as you learn to live with the
defects in teh digital medium. Many people who understand what music
reproduction is about, prefer the defects in the analog medium, because
what is important is not the medium, but how faithful the music sounds.


I'm sorry, I don't have time to educate you, so I don't wish to pursue
this any further. If you are sincerely interested in the subject of
analog and digital recording, I suggest you delve a lot deeper into the
research than you have, and it certainly wouldn't hurt to actual get
some field experience with the various pertinent materials and conduct
experiments on your own. You might learn a lot more that way, than
repeating outdated misconceptions about digital and analog formats.

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"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.

I did, of course. No sign of that recording:

http://www.google.com/search?client=...o+Pires+Moz a
rt+JVC+1974&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

For people with an extra $20:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12175

Stephen

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"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.


What is a more accurate statement is that some people don't like the
incredible accuracy available from digital recordings and have found
compaines that provide them with the lack of clarity they desire. It's not
about god sound, at least not if you define good as accurate.

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.

Better how?

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.


Yes, just look at how LP's are now reborn, selling well into the, er, um
dozens?

wrote in message
oups.com...

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

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.

Its not black and white, son. There are advantages and disadvantages to
both analog and digital recording. I find that whatever one chooses is
often based on one's prejudices, than anything else.


What do you consider the advatages of analog recording to be?

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

If you define "accurate" merely in terms of useable frequency response,
perhaps. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're wrong here, and clearly not
speaking from experience.

I define accurate as more accurate. More dynamic range, more accurate
reproduction, less noise, more linear response.


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

I'd warn you to be careful about applying insults and labels to people,
like "audiophools" and "idiot audiophiles". It certainly does not
convince anyone of your intelligence or wisdom, and there's nothing
more foolish on God's green earth than some ignorant fool, ranting
about how much of an ignorant fool the other is. The more educated you
are, the more you will realize how little you actually know. Try
engaging in some experience with what you rant about.


At 56 years old I've heard enough of both kinds of recorded material, analog
and digital to know that analog is vastly inferior to digital, in every
meaningful way.

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.

:-) That's very funny, mate! If only reality were as simple as that,
recording would be a lot less complicated.... The "exact digital
copies" notion is a myth, just like the myth of "perfect sound forever"
that followed the introduction of the CD.

Then you should ahve no problem proving that to be so.


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.

You're mistaking "detail" for "resolution". Yours is a gross
oversimplification of the entire process, which tells me, you're not a
recording engineer, and only speaking from theories you've read
somewhere. While analog copies do exhibit deterioriation artificats,
its a fact that digital copies do as well. You don't recognize it so
readily, because it doesn't come in the form of "tape hiss"


No offer of proof, noted.

I'm surprised that this myth about digital copies being perfect is
still prevalent today in some circles, what with any average person
being able to master his own cd's on an inexpensive cd-r unit hooked to
a PC, and being able to easily test any number of copies. Among other
things, I've done extensive testing on just this type of setup. Here
are only some of the variables involved in copying or creating cd's,
that can influence the final result, which anyone can reproduce:
Different burners produce different sound qualities (including dvd
burners burning cd's), different brands produce different qualities,
different software produces different qualities (as does different
settings configured within the software), so do different conditions of
your computer system, so can different cd-r's within the same batch of
cd's. Different digital recorders and DAC units produce different
qualities of sound. Now with all of these possible variables, which is
the "perfect copy" among all these different sounding copies?! The fact
is, I have tested a variety of software and equipment in order to
achieve the goal of producing an exact digital copy of a cd. In years
of trying, I've yet to achieve that goal.

To someone who can not tell the difference between an LP and the same
pressing on CD, I'm sure that there can be no difference between one cd
copy and another. To those with more discriminating ears to whom
fidelity to the music matters greatly, its no wonder many audiophiles
prefer the sound of the original LP to CD reissues, that don't even
come close to their original counterparts when played back on decent,
properly adjusted record decks and pick-ups.

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.

Tape hiss is indeed one of the sorry artifacts of the analog medium. It
is a defect that you learn to live with, as you learn to live with the
defects in teh digital medium. Many people who understand what music
reproduction is about, prefer the defects in the analog medium, because
what is important is not the medium, but how faithful the music sounds.


I'm sorry, I don't have time to educate you, so I don't wish to pursue
this any further. If you are sincerely interested in the subject of
analog and digital recording, I suggest you delve a lot deeper into the
research than you have, and it certainly wouldn't hurt to actual get
some field experience with the various pertinent materials and conduct
experiments on your own. You might learn a lot more that way, than
repeating outdated misconceptions about digital and analog formats.

That you make pronouncements with no offer of proof says it all.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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.

Please provide the quote of me ever saying that. What I said was that
digital is MORE ACCURATE. Thanks for demonstrating you were not really
following along.

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.

It's cast inbto doubt by statements like the claim that any instrument
sounds more real on an LP recording, this clearly calls into question your
hearing, your honesty, or your speakers/room.

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.

Then we're back to honesty or sanity.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"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.

I did, of course. No sign of that recording:

http://www.google.com/search?client=...o+Pires+Moz a
rt+JVC+1974&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

For people with an extra $20:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12175


IMO, not worth $20.

wrote in message
nk.net

Yes, just look at how LP's are now reborn, selling well
into the, er, um dozens?

Well, better than that into the dance club market.

wrote in message
nk.net
"Jenn" wrote in message
...

Incorrect. There are new all analogue LPs being
produced.

What % of new material is done that way?

Since the best-selling LPs are almost all dance club hits - only a tiny
fraction of all new LPs being sold today are made from digital masters.

wrote in message
oups.com
wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

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.

Its not black and white, son. There are advantages and
disadvantages to both analog and digital recording.

The preponderance of the disadvantages go to analog and the preponderance of
the advantages, particularly those related to potential for highest sound
quality go to digital.

I find that whatever one chooses is often based on one's
prejudices, than anything else.

Spoken like somone with negligable experiece with digital and analog
production.

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

If you define "accurate" merely in terms of useable
frequency response, perhaps.

Straw man argument. In fact digital has best audible frequency response,
lowest distortion and highest dynamic range.

Otherwise, I'm afraid you're
wrong here, and clearly not speaking from experience.

Say what?

he 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

I'd warn you to be careful about applying insults and
labels to people, like "audiophools" and "idiot
audiophiles".

Why not - most audio professionals, particularly those in audio production
refer to them that way.

It certainly does not convince anyone of
your intelligence or wisdom, and there's nothing more
foolish on God's green earth than some ignorant fool,
ranting about how much of an ignorant fool the other is.
The more educated you are, the more you will realize how
little you actually know. Try engaging in some experience
with what you rant about.

Spare us. Around here the biggest flamers are so-called audiophiles.


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.

:-) That's very funny, mate!

Not only funny, but true.

If only reality were as
simple as that, recording would be a lot less
complicated....

recording is a lot less complicated with digital. No contest.

The "exact digital copies" notion is a myth,

A myth that can be demonstrated quite easily.

just like the myth of "perfect sound forever" that
followed the introduction of the CD.

True as far as it goes.

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.

You're mistaking "detail" for "resolution".

There's no mistaking the two because they are one and the same. That detail
is not resolution is an audiophile or as one might say audiophool myth.

Yours is a
gross oversimplification of the entire process, which
tells me, you're not a recording engineer, and only
speaking from theories you've read somewhere.

Yours is a gross overcomplexification, which tells me that you're not an
up-to-date recording engineer.

While
analog copies do exhibit deterioriation artificats, its a
fact that digital copies do as well.

Yeah, abuse the digital copies and they start failing. However, any analog
copy is flawed from the git-go.

You don't recognize
it so readily, because it doesn't come in the form of
"tape hiss"

In the case of the digital domain there is no distortion at all. Frequency
response is perfect, and hiss and bandwidth can be improved at will by
assigning more bits.

I'm surprised that this myth about digital copies being
perfect is still prevalent today in some circles, what
with any average person being able to master his own cd's
on an inexpensive cd-r unit hooked to a PC, and being
able to easily test any number of copies. Among other
things, I've done extensive testing on just this type of
setup.

I have to, and it works as advertised.

Here are only some of the variables involved in
copying or creating cd's, that can influence the final
result, which anyone can reproduce: Different burners
produce different sound qualities (including dvd burners
burning cd's),

Actually, its flawed readers that don't do a good job of reading certain
burned discs that cause any problems with sound quality. Most of these
flawed readers are obsolete or in poor repair.

different brands produce different


Different digital recorders and DAC units
produce different qualities of sound.

Actually, all good DACs sound the same and the opening price for a good DAC
is under a buck.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Nahh Jenn, you're just a dupe. A tool.

I see. Well, I guess that I'm a "tool" for Bach,
Beethoven, Grainger, Mozart.....

Middius, Stereophile, TAS...

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
et,
wrote:

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


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.

Jenn now demonstrates that not only can't she hear the
audible noise and distoriton inherent in the LP format,
she can't hear the effects of room acoustics on sound.

There you go making things up again, Arny. 1. I can
very clearly hear the audible noise and distortion in
LPs,

Can you hear the audible noise and distortion that is inherent in the CD
production and replay process?


and, 2. I can very clearly hear the effects of room
acoustics on sound;

Then why can't you understand how this relates to your odd opinons of violin
sound on LPs?

I deal with that every day in my job.

Why would you if it has no effect, as you say?

Do you think that room acoustics are on the same plane as
knowing if there is an instrument playing in the same
room you are in?

Too broad of a question to bother answering.

wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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.

Please provide the quote of me ever saying that.

Of sayin what? Should I take that as a "false" or a "true"?

What I said was that
digital is MORE ACCURATE. Thanks for demonstrating you were not really
following along.

I'm following along just fine, thanks. My question is can something be
more accurate and yet sound less real?


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.

It's cast inbto doubt by statements like the claim that any instrument
sounds more real on an LP recording, this clearly calls into question your
hearing, your honesty, or your speakers/room.

So let's see, is Boyk a musician? Is Boyd Hood? Is Michael Tilson
Thomas?


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.

Then we're back to honesty or sanity.

What reason would I have to lie? That leaves sanity. On that front,
you and others are certainly welcome to your opinions.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
et,
wrote:

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


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.

Jenn now demonstrates that not only can't she hear the
audible noise and distoriton inherent in the LP format,
she can't hear the effects of room acoustics on sound.

There you go making things up again, Arny. 1. I can
very clearly hear the audible noise and distortion in
LPs,

Can you hear the audible noise and distortion that is inherent in the CD
production and replay process?

I can hear that something in the process or media distorts the sound of
instruments.


and, 2. I can very clearly hear the effects of room
acoustics on sound;

Then why can't you understand how this relates to your odd opinons of violin
sound on LPs?

Arny, seriously now: Do you not understand that the differences in
sound caused by room acoustics are of a FAR, FAR smaller magnitude
than the difference between determining whether the instrument you hear
is actually in the same room you are in?

I deal with that every day in my job.

Why would you if it has no effect, as you say?

Again, you are making things up. I have NEVER said that it has no
effect. Quote me where I said that or stop embarrasing yourself.


Do you think that room acoustics are on the same plane as
knowing if there is an instrument playing in the same
room you are in?

Too broad of a question to bother answering.

See the question I asked 6 paragraphs up.

Sillybot postured:

I doubt you have the resources or diligence to set up and perform a
properly-controlled blind test between an LP and a CD.

Whether Jenn has the "resources or diligence" is of no consequence. She's
not the one yammering for "test" results in place of Normal listening.

Speaking of experience with "blind tests", tell us about yours. How many
blind audio "tests" have you participated in? What kinds and models of
equipment were "tested"? What were the results? When and where did the
"tests" take place? Who set the "tests" up and who proctored them? What
controls were instituted to remove extraneous variables? Were the results
of the "tests" published? How did you validate aBxism beforehand? Why
weren't the results of the "tests" published?

Details, Sillybot. Give us facts instead of proselytizing.

wrote in message
nk.net...




There are many makes of guitars that sound different from each other an
the same applies to Violins. I was referring to the illusion of having an
instrument playing in the room I was listening in. It only has worked on
solo instrumments, but I have been able a couple of times to hear solo
instruments that sounded as if they were playing in the room.


Bah!! Expectation effects, totally undocumented.
Prove it !!!



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

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



That's certainly a constructive suggestion, and any Normal person who
wished to
learn more might well follow it. However, duh-Mikey does not want to learn
anything. He sincerely believes, in his myopic idiom, that he already
knows all
he needs to know. For this poor dumb dork, Usenet is not a means to
connect with
others who share his interests and from whom he might learn useful infor.
Rather, Mikey values Usenet as a means to pump out his religious bilge.
Audio is
not his weakest field, believe it or not.


That would be eminent domain.



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

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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.

Please provide the quote of me ever saying that.

Of sayin what? Should I take that as a "false" or a "true"?

What I said was that
digital is MORE ACCURATE. Thanks for demonstrating you were not really
following along.

I'm following along just fine, thanks. My question is can something be
more accurate and yet sound less real?


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.

It's cast inbto doubt by statements like the claim that any instrument
sounds more real on an LP recording, this clearly calls into question
your
hearing, your honesty, or your speakers/room.

So let's see, is Boyk a musician? Is Boyd Hood? Is Michael Tilson
Thomas?


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.

Then we're back to honesty or sanity.

What reason would I have to lie?

I have no idea, but there have been people here posing as all sorts of
things, usually using names that made it obvious that they were having us
on, but others who didn't.


That leaves sanity. On that front,
you and others are certainly welcome to your opinions.

I think you're as sane as anybody else posting here, but then that is not
saying much.
Still a preson who states that they think any instrument sounds more real on
LP has to have more than one screw loose,or one of the other options I've
already stated. Look around through Google for some comparisons of the
signal of a CD recording vs the master tape and then do the same for a
master tape vs. LP and even the most technically naive should be able to see
the benefits of CD over LP.

Surely somewhere in one of the music halls or the school you teach at, there
must be a DAt machine. Make a copy of any media and compare them ansd see
if there's any difference between the DAT copy and the original.

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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.

There are many makes of guitars that sound different from each other an
the
same applies to Violins.

Of course!

I was referring to the illusion of having an
instrument playing in the room I was listening in.

As was I.

It only has worked on
solo instrumments, but I have been able a couple of times to hear solo
instruments that sounded as if they were playing in the room.

My other reply stands.

In light of what I said and you agreeing that it is so, then your reply is
idiotic.

I don't play violin, but I do play guitar a bit and have many friends who d
as well, and while I wouldn't be likely to tell many brands from one
another, (except maybe Ovation) I have experienced the illusion of hearing a
recording that gave the illusion of a musician playing in 3d space, in the
same room I was in.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with knowing what the instrument sounded
like, other than to know it was a guitar or a violin, it has everything to
do with good speakers, properly set up, and a good recording.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

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


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on CD
than
LP these days.

I agree.

But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you.

What does "how much about digital to analog is explained to (me)" have
to do with it? I should change my opinion about what my ears tell me
based on some kind of "information" that is offered?

You should make an effort to do some more meaningful comparisons, since you
obviously are not hearing properly.


It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of preference that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats.

I've not stated anything else.

If you think LPs sound better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

We'll see how the sound is when I get around to trying that, in a couple
of weeks.

This will very likely be a turning point.

wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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.

Please provide the quote of me ever saying that.

Of sayin what? Should I take that as a "false" or a "true"?

What I said was that
digital is MORE ACCURATE. Thanks for demonstrating you were not really
following along.

I'm following along just fine, thanks. My question is can something be
more accurate and yet sound less real?


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.

It's cast inbto doubt by statements like the claim that any instrument
sounds more real on an LP recording, this clearly calls into question
your
hearing, your honesty, or your speakers/room.

So let's see, is Boyk a musician? Is Boyd Hood? Is Michael Tilson
Thomas?


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.

Then we're back to honesty or sanity.

What reason would I have to lie?

I have no idea, but there have been people here posing as all sorts of
things, usually using names that made it obvious that they were having us
on, but others who didn't.

I see. Let's just say that I'm at least as much who I say I am as you
are who you say you are.



That leaves sanity. On that front,
you and others are certainly welcome to your opinions.

I think you're as sane as anybody else posting here, but then that is not
saying much.
Still a preson who states that they think any instrument sounds more real on
LP has to have more than one screw loose,or one of the other options I've
already stated.

I'm afraid that I'll have to quote here what others on your side have
said to me: "Prove it."

Look around through Google for some comparisons of the
signal of a CD recording vs the master tape and then do the same for a
master tape vs. LP and even the most technically naive should be able to see
the benefits of CD over LP.

No doubt CD has several advantages. But as to the sound of instruments
and voices, I listen the way tht normal people listen; not with charts
and graphs.


Surely somewhere in one of the music halls or the school you teach at, there
must be a DAt machine.

Yes, we have a very excelent recording program here; we even have a
Platinum record hanging in the studio due to some efforts by one of our
students.

Make a copy of any media and compare them ansd see
if there's any difference between the DAT copy and the original.

Yet again, I plan on doing such a comparison when tme allows to do it
properly, probably in a couple of weeks.