In article .com writes:

Well Mike if you'd taken the time to read my post on the process you'd
actaully know WTF you're talking about.

I have a short memory and I don't go back to look up old posts. If you
have a point to make, make it fully. It's not like we're talking face
to face, you know.

I did record at 24/96 and 16/44 I/0 AKM 5393, 4393 Converters Chips and
compared the results. The results were even worse when played through a
good consumer CD player.

OK, you're still talking vague here. You're talking chips and I'm
talking converters - the whole box including clocking, power supply,
analog input and output circuitry. And what am I supposed to know
about your "good consumer" CD player that would make me trust it? I'm
not arguing about what you hear. I'm only arguing that you're not
performing meaningful experiments and that your terminology to
describe what you hear doesn't support the way the technology works.

Quote ...... "Transfer was done via Throens turntable through Denon
pre-amp into Masterlink via onboard AKM converters at 24/96. As stated
"The hi-res. play back is very close to the original".

OK, so you played a record into a Masterlink. What did you listen to
the 96 kHz playback through? The Masterlink? That's a fair test of
what the Masterlink's conversion electronics does. You might like it,
you might not. Apparently you think it's satisfactory.

Did you create the comparison CD by pushing the "Make a Red Book CD"
button on the Masterlink? What do you know about how it does the
sample rate and word length conversion? That's another variable that's
unique to the Alesis device, not generic to the digital recording
process. You need to separate those or else all you're saying is that
you like a 96 kHz Masterlink recording better than a CD made on the
Masterlink of that same recording. I can understand that.

But when down-sized to 16/44, WITHIN the masterlink and listened
to..... ALONG with burning a CD and listened to within the masterlink
... AND listened to on other CD players.... the problems of reduced
resolution were obvious. "

No argument there, but still, you're talking about a specific piece of
equipment and a specific process. And not a very high quality one at
that, by today's standards.

If you really want to prove your point, conduct a valid experiment.
Otherwise, just state clearly that for copies of your records, you
like the sound of your Masterlink at 96 kHz better than the CDs that
you make at home. Nobody will argue with that. But you can't
generalize deficiencies in the sampling theory based on your
corrupted experiment


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

If you had stopped before you said "and then CD" you might have a leg
to stand on. At this point you're just telling us that you don't like your
process for making CDs.

STRAWMAN

This is at least the second or maybe third message that I've seen you
respond with that one word answer. Can you elaborate, or are you just
showing that your computer still works?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:


STRAWMAN


This is at least the second or maybe third message that I've seen you
respond with that one word answer. Can you elaborate, or are you just
showing that your computer still works?

You are avoiding the actually issue by trying to change the subject.

On 24 Jun 2005 15:17:37 -0700, Vinyl_Believer wrote:

Transfer was done via Throens turntable through Denon pre-amp into
Masterlink via onboard AKM converters at 24/96. As stated "The hi-res.
play back is very close to the original".

I use a Masterlink to record about 20 concerts every year. It's A/D
use quite usable.

But when down-sized to 16/44, WITHIN the masterlink and listened
to..... ALONG with burning a CD and listened to within the masterlink
... AND listened to on other CD players.... the problems of reduced
resolution were obvious.

Actually you changed a lot of things (parameters) at the same time
without any control of quality. You have a poorly sounding CD but
there may be many components to blame for. Let me give you an example
on what could go wrong:

I usually record on the Masterlink at 48 kHz and burn that on CD as
AIF files, known ad CD-24 format. Then I read that CD on a computer,
perform some editing, cutting, cleaning up - whatever is needed using
Adobe Audition (former CoolEdit Pro). To get a decent sounding reverb
I have to upsample to 96 kHz (24 bits) and compute reverb at that
sample rate. The next steps are EQ and down sampling to CD format
(44.1/16). The reverb settings are 2.000 seconds, 90% dry signal and
36% wet signal.

When I try to do the reverb at 44.1/24 sample rate I need to set the
duration of the reverb to 2.200 seconds, 90% dry and 60% wet signal,
to have a similar sounding reverb. But it sounds rather unnatural
though. Why? I assume that the program has too few vertices to calc
a good reverb at low sample rates. Using a higher sample rate will
result in a much finer reverb - although upsampling from 48 to 96 kHz
doesn't generate any new information.

What does that impact your problem? To compare sample rates rather
than operating modes of some D/A-converter you should try the
following procedu Burn the recording of the LP with the Masterlink
as CD-24 format. Read that on a computer and downsample to 44.1/16
by using a good quality sample rate converter such as r8brain by
Voxengo (http://www.voxengo.com/product/r8brain/) or shibatch ssrc.
Although you may now burn that as an audio CD you will not get usable
results. In the next step convert the file back to 96/24, save it
as AIF format and burn a Masterlink compatible CD from that. (Alesis
has a utility program to make an ISO image for transfering music
to the ML). As a last step import that CD to the project that contains
the original recording and compare.

Using this procedure you are shure that the D/A-converter is always
operating under the same conditions. If you still hear any differences
- and you might do so - you can be sure that they are not due to some
unknown implementation of sample rate conversion and different
operating conditions of the D/A-converter of the Masterlink.

Norbert

In article writes:

You are avoiding the actually issue by trying to change the subject.

Refresh my memory. What was the subject? And what did I change it to?
I don't think anyone has mentioned Sheffiled recordings in several
postings.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

when transferred to 16/44 and then CD there is a clear loss of
dimension and
smoothness and fullness in all freq. ranges.....

this may be because of the firmware limitations
this all in one attempt at "looking" at the results may be tainted


can one ask how the transferring was done,
maybe that is the problem
inferior processing software


STRAWMAN

sir the quality of the changes can be caused by the quality of the
equipemnt used to induce said changes.
if you do not like how these changes sound,
try another system.
one that is not a simple box
one that has more options

tin man, does that explain to you the nature of the comment
it is on topic it just blew over your head!

dale wrote:

sir the quality of the changes can be caused by the quality of the
equipemnt used to induce said changes.

True. But if there continues to be a pattern across many different sets
of equipment, many different mastering jobs, throughout many different
types of music and arrangements, at some point you have to acknowledge
at least a possibility that the format could have something to do with it.

At least if you're reasonable.

"a pattern across many different sets
of equipment, many different mastering jobs, throughout many different
types of music and arrangements, at some point you have to acknowledge
at least a possibility that the format could have something to do with
it."

I was responding to VB's statement on his "remastering" of LP's.
now you post this....pontification!

It is a combination of factors from A/D used, software used and final
boxes chosen to
master. BTW, the most important thing, is of course, the person(s)
behind the
knobs.

dale wrote:

Vinyl_Believer wrote:

when transferred to 16/44 and then CD there is a clear
loss of
dimension and
smoothness and fullness in all freq. ranges.....


can one ask how the transferring was done,
maybe that is the problem
inferior processing software

Two words: sighted bias.

Joe Sensor wrote:
Agent 86 wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:25:20 -0500, Joe Sensor wrote:


Possibly you are just an asshole?


Possibly. And possibly I'm your daddy, so show a little
respect.


Believe me. You ain't my daddy.

Not enough canine blood, no doubt.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:50:29 -0500, Joe Sensor wrote:

Possibly. And possibly I'm your daddy, so show a little respect.


Believe me. You ain't my daddy.

You gonna send me a pic of your mom, so we can be sure?

Joe Sensor wrote:

dale wrote:

sir the quality of the changes can be caused by the quality of the
equipemnt used to induce said changes.


True. But if there continues to be a pattern across many different sets
of equipment, many different mastering jobs, throughout many different
types of music and arrangements, at some point you have to acknowledge
at least a possibility that the format could have something to do with it.

At least if you're reasonable.

All it takes is one counterexample - one good sounding CD - to
prove the format works.

--
Les Cargill

Joe Sensor wrote:
dale wrote:

Vinyl_Believer wrote:
when transferred to 16/44 and then CD there is a clear loss of
dimension and
smoothness and fullness in all freq. ranges.....


can one ask how the transferring was done,
maybe that is the problem inferior processing software


STRAWMAN

Huh? How so?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Les Cargill wrote:

All it takes is one counterexample - one good sounding CD - to
prove the format works.

What if that one good sounding CD happens to lack some of the components
that really pushes the system?

Les Cargill wrote:
Joe Sensor wrote:

dale wrote:

sir the quality of the changes can be caused by the
quality of the
equipemnt used to induce said changes.


True. But if there continues to be a pattern across many
different
sets of equipment, many different mastering jobs,
throughout many
different types of music and arrangements, at some point
you have to
acknowledge
at least a possibility that the format could have
something to do
with it.

At least if you're reasonable.

All it takes is one counterexample - one good sounding
CD - to
prove the format works.

Actually, you don't need a CD that sounds good, just a
representative one whose playback can't be distinguished
from the analog signal that was digitized to make it.

Sensor and VB have repeatedly claimed that the CD format
clearly and consistently changes the sound of music
recorded using it.

Just one CD of representative music that sounds just like
the analog signal that was used to make it disproves their
claim.

This is actually a pretty easy test to do, given that they
have claimed that the 24/96 format causes far less audible
degradation of sound. Would the posting of excerpts from a
SACD or DVD-A re-recorded at 24/96, then downsampled and
upsampled be a relevant comparison?

What Sensor and VB can't provide is an LP that would pass
the same test nearly as well. Both high speed analog tape
and LP recording/playback are not sonically transparent in
fairly obvious ways.

Joe Sensor wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

All it takes is one counterexample - one good sounding
CD - to
prove the format works.

What if that one good sounding CD happens to lack some of
the
components that really pushes the system?

Good question. Of course you won't ever admit that pushing
the system to distortion is a far more common problem with
your deified vinyl system.

Actually, you don't need a CD that sounds good, just a
representative one whose playback can't be distinguished
from the analog signal that was digitized to make it.

Sensor and VB have repeatedly claimed that the CD format
clearly and consistently changes the sound of music
recorded using it.

Just one CD of representative music that sounds just like
the analog signal that was used to make it disproves their
claim.

Can I toss in a monkey wrench?

You're absolutely right in principle. But I remember Julian Hirsch (pace)
visiting Shure and hearing LPs (played with Shure pickups, of course) that
were essentially indistinguishable from their master tapes. Yet I doubt any
critical listener would claim "absolute" fidelity for LP recording and
playback. *

I doubt there's any recording/playback technology that's 100% transparent on
the cleanest, most-complex signal direct from the mic. But as that signal is
progressively degraded (when it passes through the console, is laid down as
an analog or digital recording), it becomes increasingly easy to for the
playback to match the "original" (which it no longer is).

* I am no lover of mechanical recording. (Long before there was CD, I
preferred tape.) But I'm often surprised at just how "good" (both in terms
of euphony and accuracy) LPs can sound. The catch is that to get that level
of sound quality, you have to spend a whole lot more than what you spend on
a CD player.

In article writes:

STRAWMAN

Huh? How so?

Somebody just learned that word, but doesn't know what it means. Ain't
the Internet wonderful?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:


STRAWMAN

Huh? How so?


Somebody just learned that word, but doesn't know what it means. Ain't
the Internet wonderful?

Actually it was Arny that really got me interested in the word.

Joe Sensor wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

All it takes is one counterexample - one good sounding CD - to
prove the format works.


What if that one good sounding CD happens to lack some of the components
that really pushes the system?

Seriously? If you are able to repeatedly show one particular
"signature" in signals causes all PCM systems to break down,
some folks would wanna talk to you....

In general, this is unlikely.

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill wrote:


Seriously? If you are able to repeatedly show one particular
"signature" in signals causes all PCM systems to break down,

Yes, I have found a few. Consistently.

Joe Sensor wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:


Seriously? If you are able to repeatedly show one
particular
"signature" in signals causes all PCM systems to break
down,

Yes, I have found a few. Consistently.

That would be a reversal of your prior claims that all CDs
sound bad because the format is lacking.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Actually, you don't need a CD that sounds good, just a
representative one whose playback can't be distinguished
from the analog signal that was digitized to make it.

Sensor and VB have repeatedly claimed that the CD format
clearly and consistently changes the sound of music
recorded using it.

Just one CD of representative music that sounds just like
the analog signal that was used to make it disproves
their
claim.

Can I toss in a monkey wrench?

You're absolutely right in principle. But I remember
Julian Hirsch
(pace) visiting Shure and hearing LPs (played with Shure
pickups, of
course) that were essentially indistinguishable from their
master
tapes. Yet I doubt any critical listener would claim
"absolute"
fidelity for LP recording and playback. *

I seriously doubt that Julian had, at the time access to
listening tests as sensitive as we do now. Just guessing,
but there was probably quite a bit of delay built into his
comparisons at the time.

I doubt there's any recording/playback technology that's
100%
transparent on the cleanest, most-complex signal direct
from the mic.

Sure there is - 16/44 and up if done reasonably well.

But as that signal is progressively degraded (when it
passes through
the console, is laid down as an analog or digital
recording), it
becomes increasingly easy to for the playback to match the
"original"
(which it no longer is).

These days its possible to do quite a bit of production
under very pristine conditions. Tere's no certainly no need
for using a console or analog recording any more.


* I am no lover of mechanical recording. (Long before
there was CD, I
preferred tape.) But I'm often surprised at just how
"good" (both in
terms of euphony and accuracy) LPs can sound.

If you wish to damn the LP format with faint praise, I'd be
happy to chime it. LP's sound pretty good given how
inherently imperfect the format is.

The catch is that to
get that level of sound quality, you have to spend a whole
lot more
than what you spend on a CD player.

Well in the case of the LP format, there simply ain't enough
money in the world to make it sound sonically transparent by
modern standards for comparison.

Joe Sensor wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:


STRAWMAN

Huh? How so?


Somebody just learned that word, but doesn't know what it
means.
Ain't the Internet wonderful?

Actually it was Arny that really got me interested in the
word.

I'm sorry I introduced you to it, Joe.

Arny Krueger wrote:

That would be a reversal of your prior claims that all CDs
sound bad because the format is lacking.

Well now you do have your foot in your mouth.

Easy enough, find one post where I said this.

Joe Sensor wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

That would be a reversal of your prior claims that all
CDs
sound bad because the format is lacking.

Well now you do have your foot in your mouth.

Easy enough, find one post where I said this.

Let's start out with all the posts where your only response
was "Strawman", Joe.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Joe Sensor wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:


That would be a reversal of your prior claims that all

CDs

sound bad because the format is lacking.

Well now you do have your foot in your mouth.

Easy enough, find one post where I said this.


Let's start out with all the posts where your only response
was "Strawman", Joe.

And that has exactly what to do with the claim you just made? Every post
you make you just look dumber and dumber.

Joe Sensor wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Joe Sensor wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:


That would be a reversal of your prior claims that all

CDs

sound bad because the format is lacking.

Well now you do have your foot in your mouth.

Easy enough, find one post where I said this.


Let's start out with all the posts where your only
response
was "Strawman", Joe.

And that has exactly what to do with the claim you just
made?

Nothing I guess, Joe. Is that what you're saying? Your
"Strawman" posts had no relevance?

Every post you make you just look dumber and dumber.

You're way ahead of me in that area, Joe.

Please post again when you actually have some defense for
your weird claims, Joe.

"Geoff Wood" wrote in message
...

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...

He's saying he prefers the sound of great musicians playing in a
carefully
chosen acoustic space feeding a world class mic into state-of-the art
preamps directly feeding a cutting lathe to the sound of the same source
and record electronics feeding a great two track analog deck played back
into a mid-80s A/D converter recorded onto a PCM1610 (unless it's one of
the newer transfers.)


Wonder what a discriminating CD transfer of this D2D would sound like on
CD
? With no mastering apart from dithering to 44k1/16 . And also comparing
to
a monitored signal off the AD stage.

geoff


I have both the half speed master lacquer of Supertramp's Crime of the
Century and the CD. Both are excellent. It's not the medium, it's the
attention to detail. Direct to Disc, half speed master lacquers, doesn't
matter. The SNR is less than CD by itself and a well done CD can sound just
like the real thing. Hell, Massenburg did it with Little Feat on both LP
and cassette, although in a real sense one could complain about the
cassette. But only a little. Superb work. Al Kooper complained of this on
subsequent CD releases of his projects without his intervention, but it
seems that it's becoming more important on some levels to have the original
engineers do the new work, or, like Mark Linnett, someone that's gone back
through Brian Wilson's entire catalog and understands exactly what the
artist wants.

Or, just for ****s and giggles, buy Lucky Man Clark from Guido (Joe Welsh)
and listen to extremely good music mastered without the thought of being the
loudest on radio play. Or John Wheeler's Hayseed Dixie stuff. David
Martin's high school jazz stuff or tons of stuff off of any of the RAP CDs.

A lot can be learned just from refreshing one's memory from time to time and
that's what the RAP CDs were for. And that goes for me as well as anyone
else. This week it's all my recordings of Ricky Loza since it's the 4th
anniversary (June 25th) of his demise. Tremendous drumming and a particular
treat for me every year as I offer up my own tribute to his work, even if
it's just me listening and I recorded it (or Scott Dorsey).

The first time I listened to Night on Bald Mountain off of Direct to Disc I
was simply floored. Same thing with the 1812 Overture with the live
cannons. Simply stunning. And then I had friends who were dyed in the wool
audiophiles and really had some astounding stuff, both off of LP and
cassette. Cassette, when done right, wasn't hardly any worse than an LP,
but I'm not inviting any bull on the rememberance. I still have a dbx
cassette recording of Night on Bald Mountain and it's surprising.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Joe Sensor" wrote in message
...
dale wrote:

sir the quality of the changes can be caused by the quality of the
equipemnt used to induce said changes.

True. But if there continues to be a pattern across many different sets
of equipment, many different mastering jobs, throughout many different
types of music and arrangements, at some point you have to acknowledge
at least a possibility that the format could have something to do with it.

At least if you're reasonable.

Bull. Your supposition is a statement of fact which has no basis in fact.
The more likely problem is that you don't listen to enough genres of music
to be able to make the determination and so you suppose that something is
fact when it's not.

Check out Scott Dorsey's stereo cut on the last RAP CD (if you don't have
it, buy it from Harvey Gerst or buy Scott's RAP LP). If there's anything
that should show someone what the basic CD format should be able to
accomplish, I don't know what it is. All of us know about pushing
everything up into the last 1 dB of available space, but a lot of people
don't realize that by having peaks hit the same point but the overall
dynamic range of some -20 dB at least, one will not know what good sound is
like on a CD. And that's assuming a noisy environment like a live recording
where one would be lucky to come up with a total of -55 dB (ah, that LP
range) of dynamic range. Properly recorded 16 bit/44.1 kHz can sound like
magic. But one has to forego the idea of negating someone from having to
turn up the volume. ****, that's why people have remotes these days.
Nowadays, DVD players have built in compressers and that sucks. I'd rather
see a built in limiter.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

Roger W. Norman wrote:

True. But if there continues to be a pattern across many different sets
of equipment, many different mastering jobs, throughout many different
types of music and arrangements, at some point you have to acknowledge
at least a possibility that the format could have something to do with it.

At least if you're reasonable.


Bull. Your supposition is a statement of fact which has no basis in fact.
The more likely problem is that you don't listen to enough genres of music
to be able to make the determination and so you suppose that something is
fact when it's not.

Because you can't hear a difference or I can, doesn't establish anything.

Where is the statement of fact? I stated no fact. I merely said that if
there are enough people that claim that they can hear difference, you
have to entertain the possibility that there *could* be something to it.

And the variety of genres that I listen to is really irrelevant, though
yes, I do listen to quite a variety.

"Joe Sensor" wrote in message
...
Roger W. Norman wrote:

True. But if there continues to be a pattern across many different sets
of equipment, many different mastering jobs, throughout many different
types of music and arrangements, at some point you have to acknowledge
at least a possibility that the format could have something to do with
it.

At least if you're reasonable.


Bull. Your supposition is a statement of fact which has no basis in
fact.
The more likely problem is that you don't listen to enough genres of
music
to be able to make the determination and so you suppose that something
is
fact when it's not.

Because you can't hear a difference or I can, doesn't establish anything.

Where is the statement of fact? I stated no fact. I merely said that if
there are enough people that claim that they can hear difference, you
have to entertain the possibility that there *could* be something to it.

And the variety of genres that I listen to is really irrelevant, though
yes, I do listen to quite a variety.

The point being that different genres are treated differently than modern
pop and rock music. To assume that a format isn't capable due to one's
treatment of the material prior to it's being applied to the medium is
simply incorrect. As Les said, if there's one well done CD out there, then
it's not a question about whether the medium can handle it. It becomes some
other argument.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message

I have both the half speed master lacquer of Supertramp's Crime of the
Century and the CD. Both are excellent. It's not the medium, it's the
attention to detail. Direct to Disc, half speed master lacquers, doesn't
matter. The SNR is less than CD by itself and a well done CD can sound
just
like the real thing.

I have this in several formats too. Must be one of the most DR intensive
rock recordings around. I have an early CD version with more tapre hiss
than the standard LP. Not sure how that worked.

LP versions include (was it ?) Practcal HiFi ' Supercut '. My preference is
the most recent 'Remastered' CD version.


geoff

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Check out Scott Dorsey's stereo cut on the last RAP CD (if you don't have
it, buy it from Harvey Gerst or buy Scott's RAP LP). If there's anything
that should show someone what the basic CD format should be able to
accomplish, I don't know what it is. All of us know about pushing
everything up into the last 1 dB of available space, but a lot of people
don't realize that by having peaks hit the same point but the overall
dynamic range of some -20 dB at least, one will not know what good sound
is
like on a CD. And that's assuming a noisy environment like a live
recording
where one would be lucky to come up with a total of -55 dB (ah, that LP
range) of dynamic range. Properly recorded 16 bit/44.1 kHz can sound like
magic. But one has to forego the idea of negating someone from having to
turn up the volume. ****, that's why people have remotes these days.
Nowadays, DVD players have built in compressers and that sucks. I'd
rather
see a built in limiter.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

Yes! Check out "Okaido" on the second disc, Scott Dorsey's remarkable
contribution. I just listened to it while watching the peaks on the quietly
recorded areas to be about -40dBFS, and the sound is just as "detailed" as I
could ask for. When the drum comes in at full scale - WOW! And it has such a
beautiful tone. It's also very good on headphones.

Stuart

"Stuart Welwood" wrote in message
...

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Check out Scott Dorsey's stereo cut on the last RAP CD (if you don't
have
it, buy it from Harvey Gerst or buy Scott's RAP LP). If there's
anything
that should show someone what the basic CD format should be able to
accomplish, I don't know what it is. All of us know about pushing
everything up into the last 1 dB of available space, but a lot of people
don't realize that by having peaks hit the same point but the overall
dynamic range of some -20 dB at least, one will not know what good sound
is
like on a CD. And that's assuming a noisy environment like a live
recording
where one would be lucky to come up with a total of -55 dB (ah, that LP
range) of dynamic range. Properly recorded 16 bit/44.1 kHz can sound
like
magic. But one has to forego the idea of negating someone from having
to
turn up the volume. ****, that's why people have remotes these days.
Nowadays, DVD players have built in compressers and that sucks. I'd
rather
see a built in limiter.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

Yes! Check out "Okaido" on the second disc, Scott Dorsey's remarkable
contribution. I just listened to it while watching the peaks on the
quietly
recorded areas to be about -40dBFS, and the sound is just as "detailed" as
I
could ask for. When the drum comes in at full scale - WOW! And it has such
a
beautiful tone. It's also very good on headphones.

Stuart


It's a treat, that's for certain. I've always loved working with Scott but
unfortunately I was always running around managing three rooms so I really
never got to learn anything in the sense of being there with him. But I got
to mix an awful lot of his work and he left a ton of options.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Geoff Wood" wrote in message
...

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message

I have both the half speed master lacquer of Supertramp's Crime of the
Century and the CD. Both are excellent. It's not the medium, it's the
attention to detail. Direct to Disc, half speed master lacquers,
doesn't
matter. The SNR is less than CD by itself and a well done CD can sound
just
like the real thing.

I have this in several formats too. Must be one of the most DR intensive
rock recordings around. I have an early CD version with more tapre hiss
than the standard LP. Not sure how that worked.

LP versions include (was it ?) Practcal HiFi ' Supercut '. My preference
is
the most recent 'Remastered' CD version.


geoff


Can't put my hands on it right now for all the Hayseed Dixie CDs, Warren
Zevon's last, Jeff Healey's latest (great jazz standards album), and tons of
CDs I seem to get both solicited and unsolicited these days. Some of those
I have of interest would be the David Morgan engineered Jazz Combo 1 "In the
Pocket" from the Booker T. Washington High School for the Performing and
Visual Arts, the Vermont Jazz Ensemble "25 years in the moonlight", The
Byrds "Sweetheart of the Rodeo Legacy Edition", my wife's vocal coach,
Laurie Nelson's "Baybee Face Nelson" (absolutely stunning even though it's a
Mackie/ADAT recording) and a ton of others that are just superb efforts. No
need to go beyond what a CD can do if one does it right. Alas, we aren't
really talking about the lack of technical prowess of the CD format, but the
lack of intelligence with those who control the dollars in music production.
When left to quality artists and engineers, CDs can sound just fine.

Of course, or somehow, my DVD-A/SACD player got stuck up in the TV room with
the new 37" HDTV monitor so I haven't had the opportunity to check out
either DVD-A or SACD in my studio yet. Guess I'll have to actually purchase
one before I get my **** together and get that unit down here where it
belongs! g Then again, that means another $200 for a DVD player because I
happen to like it.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Loopy" wrote in message

Now let's talk about 16/44k....
No contest...
The vinyl wins hands down........
It has a depth that the 16/44 for some odd reason can't mimic.
I tried one tune. Corner Pocket, at 16/44 and it was easy to tell the
difference.


So now your mission can be to discover how to quantify this 'depth' thing
in terms other than frequency linearity, impulse response, slew rate, or
distortion. As these are already understood and measured.

geoff

Loopy wrote:


OK!!! I gave it a try, ........ So what's my opinion?

Upon first listen, they sound identical, however upon flipping back
and forth I hear some obvious differences.......the saxs sound kind of like
kazoos in the digital copy, not bad, but just missing something in the
lower mid range.
Something isn't right on the digital copy,
I can't describe it but it IS audible and the digital copy is
irritating in that respect.

Now let's talk about 16/44k....
No contest...
The vinyl wins hands down........
It has a depth that the 16/44 for some odd reason can't mimic.
I tried one tune. Corner Pocket, at 16/44 and it was easy to tell the
difference.


Those are pretty much the same conclusions that I have come to and
stated earlier in this thread and elsewhere.

From: "Vinyl_Believer" Date: 24 Jun 2005 14:11:04 -0700

"Two weeks I transferred the entire Beatles MFSL Vinyl Box Set to 24/96
digital. The hi-res. play back is very close to the original, but when
transferred to 16/44 and then CD there is a clear loss of depth,
dimension and smoothness and fullness in all freq. ranges..... Not sure
that you can measure that, but it is obvious. "

VB

"Vinyl_Believer" wrote in message
"Two weeks I transferred the entire Beatles MFSL Vinyl Box Set to 24/96
digital. The hi-res. play back is very close to the original, but when
transferred to 16/44 and then CD there is a clear loss of depth,
dimension and smoothness and fullness in all freq. ranges..... Not sure
that you can measure that, but it is obvious. "


The "loss of depth" is probably euphonic physical excitation of the replay
system via air-and-equipment-bourne vibration.

geoff

The "loss of depth" is probably euphonic physical excitation

Or space Aliens.

Geoff why don't you just do a listening test yourself and let us know
what You hear....... It's hard to debate or draw conclusion when you
haven't Heard the results.

VB