[Mr.T]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Now, how long before the stupid **** starts replying to my posts
again...???

Your posts don't need replies - just comments on their stupidity.

So why did you take the bait? He was obviously trolling.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
ups.com...
Well, we disagree about the transarency of 16/44.1 but a agree with
your point about the extra bits and their usefulness for any
processing. And consider that someday there may be some other kinds of
digital processing that one may want to play with. You can't have too
many bits only too few.

But even 16/44 *recordings* have been routinely processed at 32 bits for
years. Of course most pro recordings are 24/96 now anyway, but mainly
because it is cheap and easy to achieve, not because there is a huge
difference in the final product.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

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

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

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
Of course I knew that CDs don't require summed bass, rolled off HF or
compression to be properly mastered. It has it's own unique
requirements for best results.

It has no unique requirements other than observing peak allowable levels.

You might also consider the addition of dithering and bandwidth limiting to
be other unique requirements.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
...
But Audacity is open-source freeware, and works well enough for
transcribing
LPs on a budget.

Open source is never freeware. It will have a GPL, L-GPL or GNU
license. That's why its called open source.

And it *IS* usually "free" as in no monetary charge at all for private use,
rather than "free" as in no limitations on usage whatsoever.

MrT.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:


16 bits was an obvious choice because it's two bytes and provides a
sufficient degree of overkill. What you could also say is that not for
nothing was the early use and acceptance of 14 bit CD players, when 16
bit converters were more difficult/expensive to make.

In fairness, I should point out, though, that the first generation Philips
'14 bit' chipsets for CD players actually used x4 oversampling. Thus - in
principle at least - returned 16-bit resolution.

Slainte,

Jim

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Whatever - if you did start such a thread in a car group you'd also
get shot down unless you heavily qualified your opinion. Which is
what happens here to all those who constantly harp on about how
marvellous vinyl is while knocking digital.

That happens to be a quote from me, not Mr G.

You have it back to front.

Eh?

I can't remember the last time anyone STARTED a thread bashing vinyl,
rather than simply responding to the ill informed.

I've said that many times. But the paranoid like Mr G won't have it.

If the vinyl lovers wish to enjoy their personal choice without
disparaging remarks, all they need do is stop claiming to the world that
it is better than CD. Seems simple enough to me.

Indeed. There is also a group within the uk.rec structure dedicated to
vinyl, but the vinyl nuts don't post there preferring to try and spread
their gospel wide. Why? Even they don't apparently understand. They hate
any home truths about their pet but constantly invite such responses.

--
*Why is a boxing ring square?

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Now, how long before the stupid **** starts replying to my posts
again...???

Your posts don't need replies - just comments on their stupidity.

So why did you take the bait? He was obviously trolling.

He's not bright enough to be a troll. Who also thinks he owns this group -
even although being a relatively recent poster.

--
*Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now *

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

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Now, how long before the stupid **** starts replying to my posts
again...???

Your posts don't need replies - just comments on their stupidity.

So why did you take the bait? He was obviously trolling.



Streuth! The **** even replied to that!!

Incredible....

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Whatever - if you did start such a thread in a car group you'd also get
shot down unless you heavily qualified your opinion. Which is what
happens
here to all those who constantly harp on about how marvellous vinyl is
while knocking digital.

You have it back to front.



No, you do - I didn't say that, it was Plowie parading his delusions of
grandeur again....



I can't remember the last time anyone STARTED a
thread bashing vinyl, rather than simply responding to the ill informed.

If the vinyl lovers wish to enjoy their personal choice without
disparaging
remarks, all they need do is stop claiming to the world that it is better
than CD.
Seems simple enough to me.



Nope, still got it back to front - check the posts here, no-one really ever
claims *anything* for vinyl other than they prefer it....

....unless I'm having a little troll....

....which I do, from time to time....

;-)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
check the posts here, no-one really ever claims *anything* for vinyl
other than they prefer it....

Blind as well as deaf, then.

--
*Failure is not an option. It's bundled with your software.

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Now, how long before the stupid **** starts replying to my posts
again...???

Your posts don't need replies - just comments on their stupidity.

So why did you take the bait? He was obviously trolling.

Streuth! The **** even replied to that!!

Incredible....

Bait taken hook line and sinker...

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

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

[Mr.T]

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In fairness, I should point out, though, that the first generation Philips
'14 bit' chipsets for CD players actually used x4 oversampling. Thus - in
principle at least - returned 16-bit resolution.

At least that's what they wanted you to believe.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Now, how long before the stupid **** starts replying to my posts
again...???

Your posts don't need replies - just comments on their stupidity.

So why did you take the bait? He was obviously trolling.

Streuth! The **** even replied to that!!

Incredible....

.... that you think I replied to you, when I was obviously replying to Dave.
Was the song "You're so vain" actually written about you?
(or can't you read a header?)

MrT.

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Now, how long before the stupid **** starts replying to my posts
again...???

Your posts don't need replies - just comments on their stupidity.

So why did you take the bait? He was obviously trolling.

Streuth! The **** even replied to that!!

Incredible....

... that you think I replied to you, when I was obviously replying to
Dave.
Was the song "You're so vain" actually written about you?
(or can't you read a header?)

MrT.



I don't give a **** who you were replying to, but if you want a private
conversation with that puffed up, self-important little twerp Plowie, I'll
make it easy for you - you can join him in my ****ter...

**splash**


Now, what's the betting either or even both these clowns continue to reply
to my posts...??

(Feck, I do love binning these yapping ****s, especially the ones with the
silly anonymouse 'handles'....!! :-)

[Jim Lesurf]

In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
Of course I knew that CDs don't require summed bass, rolled off HF
or compression to be properly mastered. It has it's own unique
requirements for best results.

It has no unique requirements other than observing peak allowable
levels.

You might also consider the addition of dithering and bandwidth limiting
to be other unique requirements.

Well, equivalent processes tend to occur in analog systems, courtesy of the
basic physics involved. Hence perhaps what is 'unique' to digital systems
in the above respect is that the dither and bandwidth limits don't have to
primarily rely on materials science, etc, as they do in analog record
systems. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

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

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:


In the case of CD because the intention is to 'improve' on the master
tape. With LP often essential to produce a playable version.


Dude get your head out of your ass. It will help you hear better. You
really think the current state of CD mastering is about improving the
sound?

You don't understand the use of parenthesis? Or irony?

You don't understand the use of camas and alagory?



You must be deaf or a complete ****ing idiot to believe that
crap.

Better, perhaps, than being just plain uneducated. ;-)

Add that to the list. That's three stikes against you.



Hey I have an idea go get the new Dylan album on CD and tell us
how the mastering improved the sound on the master tape.

It's an interesting one.

Not really. Oh maby for you. You seem to enjoy sonic disasters.


Someone of the likes of Dillon complains about
poor CD - or rather digital, sound - and then allows his first new album
in many years to confirm just that.


"Dillon?" Nice to see that superior education at work. Indeed, that was
one of the better displays of ignorance on the subject of recording and
mastering I've seen in a while. Yeah it's "Dillon's" fault that the CD
was mastered the way it was. But according to you that was to improve
the sound. Yeah you are quite the expert on this subject.

Can't somehow see him being over-ruled
by his record company, so perhaps he couldn't be bothered to do anything
about it.


The record company is the likely problem here. Again shows what an
expert you are on the subject as it applies to real world recordings.




But if you're copying a LP to CD at home, this doesn't apply.



It's quite revealing.

Yes it is. Give it a try.

Why repeat what I said?


Where did you say "Yes it is. Give it a try?"




The crunch point comes at about 12 bits

What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess
you came up with this number using blind listening tetsts
yourself?

Ah - you didn't understand what I meant at all. And obviously
haven't conducted this sort of test.

Right. I haven't conducted tests below 16 bits.

Why not?

I answered the question just below didp****.

No you didn't. You sort of stated the nonsense that you could here the
difference between 16 and 24 which isn't the same thing. It suggests you
started out thinking 16 bit isn't good enough...

You seem convinced 16 bit doesn't deliver what *you* want - so perhaps
12 might? After all, the measurable parameters of an LP are well below
16 bit spec in every way, so perhaps this would be just what you're
looking for.


You are indeed a ****ing idiot.

Why?

I don't know, genetics, bad education, acombination of the two. The
possibilities are vast. Maybe you took too many blows to the head.


You apparently love the degradation *all* vinyl causes. Unless you
think clicks and plops - just as an example - were actually there before?


If you think the only difference between any title issued on both media
are just that then you simply are adding to the evidence that you are
indeed an idiot.






Why should I when I hear differences between 16 and 24?

Right. Thank you for confirming you don't know how to conduct proper
testing.


thank you for confirming your head is in fact way up your ass.

First start with an open mind...

That is funny coming from a guy who clearly can't think for himself.





(straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters
get cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded
- and CD at 16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem
to think.


Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices.

Not *my* choices, pal.


My bad. I forgot that some just can't think for themselves

Oh you certainly 'think'.

Yes, you might want to give it a try some day.

*Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment *


Is that how you do things? Explains a lot. No thank you. I am a big fan
of excellence.

Tag generators are beyond you too?


And you say I don't get irony.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Whatever - if you did start such a thread in a car group you'd also get
shot down unless you heavily qualified your opinion. Which is what
happens
here to all those who constantly harp on about how marvellous vinyl is
while knocking digital.

You have it back to front. I can't remember the last time anyone STARTED a
thread bashing vinyl, rather than simply responding to the ill informed.

Who was it that said I don't get irony? Don Plowman? Dick Pearce? You
can't remember this thread while you were posting to it?



If the vinyl lovers wish to enjoy their personal choice without disparaging
remarks, all they need do is stop claiming to the world that it is better
than CD.
Seems simple enough to me.

Heaven forbid anyone express their opinions if they run contrary to the
meter rerader's religion. The irony is justing piling up since it is
the folks who did openly criticize the results of CD sound that have
been behind most of the improvements in CD quality. Well we don't want
people speaking up or making improvements.

Scott

MrT.

[[email protected]]

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

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

MrT.

Have you ever heard it? I have. With a real high end rig it is
fantastic. Hardly a pity. Maybe it's just a pity that another meter
reader myth bites the dust.

Scott

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
Of course I knew that CDs don't require summed bass, rolled off HF or
compression to be properly mastered. It has it's own unique
requirements for best results.

It has no unique requirements other than observing peak allowable levels.

You might also consider the addition of dithering and bandwidth limiting to
be other unique requirements.


A good mastering engineer goes further than that but don't bust Don
Plowman's fantasy that CD mastering has "no unique requirements other
than observing peak allowable levels"


Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
check the posts here, no-one really ever claims *anything* for vinyl
other than they prefer it....

Blind as well as deaf, then.

You could get help for your condition. Pull you head out of your ass
and you will see and hear much better.


Scott

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
Mr.T wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...
In article

.com,
wrote:
Of course I knew that CDs don't require summed bass,
rolled off HF or compression to be properly mastered.
It has it's own unique requirements for best results.

It has no unique requirements other than observing peak
allowable levels.

You might also consider the addition of dithering and
bandwidth limiting to be other unique requirements.


A good mastering engineer goes further than that but
don't bust Don Plowman's fantasy that CD mastering has
"no unique requirements other than observing peak
allowable levels"

Yeah, Dave forgot the part about CD's having allowable peak levels that are
independent of frequency, unlike the LP format where allowable peak levels
are frequency depdent, cutting lathe dependent, lacquer dependent, vinyl
dependent, and customer playback equipment dependent. Did I leave something
out? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

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

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

Have you ever heard it? I have.

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

With a real high end rig it is fantastic.

Only to a point, which depends on many things.

Hardly a pity.

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

Maybe it's just a pity
that another meter reader myth bites the dust.

Didn't happen. Even on megabux equipment, the LP format has severe practical
limitations that are well-known and well-documented. Please see:

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...ons/page2.html

I'll bet money that Scott has never read the first 4 references, and if he
tried, they would be over his head.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
check the posts here, no-one really ever claims
*anything* for vinyl other than they prefer it....

Blind as well as deaf, then.

You could get help for your condition. Pull you head out
of your ass and you will see and hear much better.


Meltdown alert!

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

Heaven forbid anyone express their opinions if they run
contrary to the meter rerader's religion. The irony is
justing piling up since it is the folks who did openly
criticize the results of CD sound that have been behind
most of the improvements in CD quality. Well we don't
want people speaking up or making improvements.


Name an improvement to the parameters of the CD format that has improved CD
quality.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Serge Auckland" wrote ...

I have deliberately avoided the argument as to whether
even 16bit is excessive for vinyl.........

Didn't think there was any argument?
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits?

Of course not!
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 14 bits?

Make that 12 bits, and you still have a tough question for the vinyl bigots
to answer.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com


Well, we disagree about the transarency of 16/44.1

That's due to your religious belief that there's something that still needs
to be fixed with the CD format to make it as accurate as LPs.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
(Feck, I do love binning these yapping ****s, especially the ones with
the silly anonymouse 'handles'....!! :-)

'G' is a name now?

--
*The beatings will continue until morale improves *

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
You might also consider the addition of dithering and bandwidth
limiting to be other unique requirements.


A good mastering engineer goes further than that but don't bust Don
Plowman's fantasy that CD mastering has "no unique requirements other
than observing peak allowable levels"

One minute you're denying any interference with the master when cutting an
LP, next complaining about interference when mastering CDs, and finally
advocating doing exactly that when there's no need with a half decent
recording to start with...

--
*A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all *

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

[[email protected]]

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

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

Have you ever heard it? I have.

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

I see you have heard a cartridge trying to track a record with large
amounts of non summed bass many times on CDs and other digital formats.
Time to go to the corner and put on the dunce cap. What? Oh wait it's a
permanent fixture in your case. never mind.




With a real high end rig it is fantastic.

Only to a point, which depends on many things.

How would you know?



Hardly a pity.

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


No it doesn't. Get your facts straight. oh jeez did I just ask the
village fool to get his facts straight? my bad.




Maybe it's just a pity
that another meter reader myth bites the dust.

Didn't happen.


Yeah it did. But I wouldn't expect a guy like you to see it.

Scott

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:


In the case of CD because the intention is to 'improve' on the
master tape. With LP often essential to produce a playable version.


Dude get your head out of your ass. It will help you hear better. You
really think the current state of CD mastering is about improving the
sound?

You don't understand the use of parenthesis? Or irony?

You don't understand the use of camas and alagory?

I might if I knew what you intended to mean. Or think you intended to
mean.



You must be deaf or a complete ****ing idiot to believe that
crap.

Better, perhaps, than being just plain uneducated. ;-)

Add that to the list. That's three stikes against you.

What's a stike? Is it another of your invented words?


Hey I have an idea go get the new Dylan album on CD and tell us
how the mastering improved the sound on the master tape.

It's an interesting one.

Not really. Oh maby for you. You seem to enjoy sonic disasters.

What's a maby?


Someone of the likes of Dillon complains about poor CD - or rather
digital, sound - and then allows his first new album in many years to
confirm just that.


"Dillon?" Nice to see that superior education at work.

Called a spell checker. Obviously something beyond your comprehension -
like much else, it would seem.

Indeed, that was one of the better displays of ignorance on the subject
of recording and mastering I've seen in a while.

Oh I dunno. You seem to be doing well enough.

Yeah it's "Dillon's" fault that the CD
was mastered the way it was. But according to you that was to improve
the sound. Yeah you are quite the expert on this subject.

You've not looked up 'parenthesis', then?

Can't somehow see him being over-ruled by his record company, so
perhaps he couldn't be bothered to do anything about it.


The record company is the likely problem here. Again shows what an
expert you are on the subject as it applies to real world recordings.

Someone, like Dylan, whose albums go straight into the charts, is in a
position to overrule the record companies. Shows how little *you* know
about the business.

[snip the rest]

--
*No sentence fragments *

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

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
check the posts here, no-one really ever claims
*anything* for vinyl other than they prefer it....

Blind as well as deaf, then.

You could get help for your condition. Pull you head out
of your ass and you will see and hear much better.


Meltdown alert!

Loser who lives his life on Usenet alert.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

Heaven forbid anyone express their opinions if they run
contrary to the meter rerader's religion. The irony is
justing piling up since it is the folks who did openly
criticize the results of CD sound that have been behind
most of the improvements in CD quality. Well we don't
want people speaking up or making improvements.


Name an improvement to the parameters of the CD format that has improved CD
quality.

I will just give you an example of one person's efforts.
http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf
I'm sure in your dellusional state you will fail to see the connection
between this specific example of one person's efforts to improve and
utilize improvements made by others in the state of the art of CD
mastering and manufacturing and my generalixation on the matter. You
are probably dellusional enough to think that CDs were always being
mastered and manufactured as well as these were from day one. You might
also want to look into the works of Keith Johnson and mastering
engineers that have been on the cutting edge of audiophile CD reissues
of you want to learn something meaningful on the subject of the
advancement of the state of the art of commercial CD production. But I
expect you to wallow in your religious audio myths.

Scott

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com


Well, we disagree about the transarency of 16/44.1

That's due to your religious belief that there's something that still needs
to be fixed with the CD format to make it as accurate as LPs.

Nice try Arnold. But I rely on my ears you rely on audio religion.

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:


In the case of CD because the intention is to 'improve' on the
master tape. With LP often essential to produce a playable version.


Dude get your head out of your ass. It will help you hear better. You
really think the current state of CD mastering is about improving the
sound?

You don't understand the use of parenthesis? Or irony?

You don't understand the use of camas and alagory?

I might if I knew what you intended to mean. Or think you intended to
mean.

wow. I was making fun of you. Did you miss it or was this some bizarre
attempt at a witty retort?





You must be deaf or a complete ****ing idiot to believe that
crap.

Better, perhaps, than being just plain uneducated. ;-)

Add that to the list. That's three stikes against you.

What's a stike? Is it another of your invented words?


Idiots have trouble seeing typos for what they are. Assholes think they
gain some sort of points by harping on them. Which applies to you?




Hey I have an idea go get the new Dylan album on CD and tell us
how the mastering improved the sound on the master tape.

It's an interesting one.

Not really. Oh maby for you. You seem to enjoy sonic disasters.

What's a maby?

It's typo that causes assholes to ask questions just like this.


..




Someone of the likes of Dillon complains about poor CD - or rather
digital, sound - and then allows his first new album in many years to
confirm just that.


"Dillon?" Nice to see that superior education at work.

Called a spell checker. Obviously something beyond your comprehension -
like much else, it would seem.

Indeed, that was one of the better displays of ignorance on the subject
of recording and mastering I've seen in a while.

Oh I dunno.

I got that a long time ago.

Yeah it's "Dillon's" fault that the CD
was mastered the way it was. But according to you that was to improve
the sound. Yeah you are quite the expert on this subject.

You've not looked up 'parenthesis', then?


You've not figured out just how stupid your comments on mastering CDs
was?



Can't somehow see him being over-ruled by his record company, so
perhaps he couldn't be bothered to do anything about it.


The record company is the likely problem here. Again shows what an
expert you are on the subject as it applies to real world recordings.

Someone, like Dylan, whose albums go straight into the charts, is in a
position to overrule the record companies. Shows how little *you* know
about the business.


You do love to play the fool. Yeah Dylan supervised the mastering and
then publicly denounced it as crap. Yeah, you really are an idiot.



[snip the rest]

Because you have no answers no doubt.



Scott

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
I don't give a **** who you were replying to, but if you want a private
conversation with that puffed up, self-important little twerp Plowie, I'll
make it easy for you - you can join him in my ****ter...

**splash**

Now, what's the betting either or even both these clowns continue to reply
to my posts...??

I see, you are the only one with the right to post as much crap as you
choose. I guess you think the Internet was built just for you.
Here's a hint, if you don't want replies, DON'T post!
Here's another hint, learn how to use a kill file. I won't be offended in
the slightest.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
ups.com...
You have it back to front. I can't remember the last time anyone STARTED
a
thread bashing vinyl, rather than simply responding to the ill informed.

Who was it that said I don't get irony? Don Plowman? Dick Pearce? You
can't remember this thread while you were posting to it?

You think the OP was bashing vinyl by asking for help in transferring to CD?
You're not ironic, just moronic.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Didn't think there was any argument?
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits?

Of course not!
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 14 bits?

Make that 12 bits, and you still have a tough question for the vinyl
bigots
to answer.

Sure, but then your starting to get into the area of debate rather than a
slam dunk.
Now if we start talking about the *average* pressing of the vinyl era, 10
bits would be overkill :-(

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
oups.com...
Nice try Arnold. But I rely on my ears you rely on audio religion.

That's your problem, you rely on your "ears" which are obviously faulty,
Arny relies on test equipment.

Anybody relying on their "ears" alone, should NOT be arguing anything in a
*technical* forum!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
(Feck, I do love binning these yapping ****s, especially the ones with
the silly anonymouse 'handles'....!! :-)

'G' is a name now?

Very amusing that "G" is somehow better than "T" :-)

MrT.