Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
wrote: wrote: Like I said before, in any debate or disagreement, if one side can accurately represent the opposing view (like I did with the objectivist POV) That's YOUR opinion. Actually it was the opinion of almost every objectivist that responded. so you will have to take up *your* differences with *them.* A quick poll of objectivists: How did Scott do? I disagreed with just about every statement he made. Dick P. was so disgusted he refused to even answer. Anybody want to come to Scotty's defense here? bob |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 9 Mar 2006 00:44:33 GMT, wrote: Chung wrote: Dennis Moore wrote: http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl_two.html Part way down the page is the info you are asking about. http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html The attempted explanation of what CD sound is on that page is wrong. The writer clearly does not know anything about digital audio. His description of the vinyl sound is also laughable (e.g. "no information is lost"). It's amazing how vinylphiles keep getting basic stuff wrong, even now. Hey it goes both ways. Digifiles keep getting basic stuff wrong too. even here on RAHE. Such as? Have you been reading the thread? here is one example form NYOB on this thread just two days ago. "They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended." Can you find any examples of digiphiles 'getting it wrong', or is this just more smoke and mirrors? One of my favorites. you getting it wrong. of course you will argue that you are right. That just makes the whole thing even more ridiculous. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...54c5e58adc8c84 I don't know about the ratios but if you want a list of things Stewart said that are factually wrong just in this thread. 1."The reconstruction filter ensures that the output is a smooth curve, following the original bandwidth-limited input signal *exactly*, not approximately." Fact is it can never be "exact." But then there are the digiphiles that i suspect you think are getting it wrong. forgot about them? I don't know any "vinylphiles' painting their LPs green. There are didgphiles buying some very expensive gear like belt drive tubed CD players. Do you think those digphiles are "getting it right?" Scott |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote in message
... wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: In article , wrote: OK, now we've established that our opinions differ. That was established long long agao. Sorry i didn't give you anything to attack. End of yet another pointless exercise. Pointless? Examining and trying to understand different POVs is pointless? I suppose for those who believe they already know it all and are right about everything. What new thng did you actually learn? That in moments of noncombativeness, some objectivists actually were aware fo the real world shortcomings of so many commercial CDs including failings in the digitization an manufacturing of them. That was not news AFAICT, it is the same as so many badly produced LP's. Others, such as yourself hava a completely unrealistic idealized impression of CDs no matter how bad any number of them sound and some, like yourself are willing to accept such bad sound under the mistaken belief that because it is CD it is always more "accurate" to the master tape and more true to the intentions of the people who made the recording. So then YOU are the one collecting the Million Dollars for being able to read minds? If you think I am unaware that there are bad sounding CD's, you are mistaken. If you think that I don't know that it is possible for the production and mix of an album to get away from the artist' intentions you ar again mistaken. The reasoning behind that belief is fataly flawed on so many levels. 1. The presumption that the transfer was transparent When done by nominally competent people it is. 2. The presumption that the right choices were made in picking and playing "the" master tape That's different for LP's how? 3 The presumption that the mastering engineer did a good job See above. 4. The presumption that the chosen master tape best represents the artists' intentions despite the fact that LP test pressings were so often the final arbitrator of artist intentions.5. The presumtion that using a master tape as a reference is meaningful given the fact that one cannot use a master tape as a reference without also using a playback system as part of that reference thereby setting up playback as a reference for playback. But if one does, one will get the exact playback that one wouldget from the master tape that was used. Something that can NEVER happen with an LP. 6. The ignored fact that you have no access to that original master or to the actual sound that the artists used to judge their work given that they all listened to playback systems you cannot access. Sorry, but I find your idea of master tapes as a reference to be very unreasonable, very arbitrary, and very impractical. I find the notion that we should accept commercial CDs as definitive versions of any given recording because they are "supposed' to be more accurate a very poorly reasoned premise for anyone genuinely interested in the aestheic experience of listenng to music. I can't control what the recording comapny does in the CD mix any more than you can for the LP mix. What I can be sure of is that I am getting an exact copy of whatever they finally used, something that is IMPOSSIBLE for LP. There was nothing that hadn't been covered endlessly before and the truth is still the truth, LP is technically inferior to CD, in every aspect. It appears you missed much of the discussion. Mind reading again? It still remains the case that CD is *vastly* more accurate than LP in technical terms, Let's throw a parade in honor of all those that find this important rather than what their CDs and LPs actually sound like. They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended. You definitely missed most of the discussion. maybe if you wont listen to me you will listen to some of the pros that actually compare the master tapes to th final products be they CD or LP. http://www.allaboutjazz.com/iviews/vangelder.htm "AAJ: Please discuss your approach to the new Rudy Van Gelder Edition Blue Notes in terms of working with the stereo and mono tapes and deciding which format to use for the new master. snip a bunch of stuff that isn't any differnt for CD or LP. You get what teh record company gives you in any case. There are some crappy sounding CD's. This has never been in dispute. I'd rather listen to a crappy soundig CD, than almost any kind of LP. When the CD is done properly, there is absolutely no LP ever made or that can ever BE made that can out perform it. You engaged in a lot of hair splitting aobut some of the higher quality LP's that are or were made, but which were not representative of the general quality of what was most widely avaliable. I'm pleased that you find LP's to meet you musical needs, but to deny that in general CD kicks the crap out of the LP format is to deny reality. There will probably never be a record company that provides the customer with a perfect mix every single time they produce an album, but there was no such thing for LP's either. It all depends on the individuals in charge of production, a fact that is the same for either format. Since the chances of getting a perfect recording in either format are and were never a sure thing, I am going to stay with theone that offers the bonus of absolutely dead quiet playback and that doesn't need to be cleaned each time it is played. I'm going to stick with it because there has never been a better format and there is no more accurate one. You can't get better dynamics, you can't get better bass, you can't get anywhere near the quality of a good recording on CD with LP, plus the expense of purchasing a playback rig that would in your view do justice to LP's is IMO cost prohibitive. The bottom line is that it has always been a ctrapshoot as to how well recorded and mixed any recording is going to be, but one of them offers the possibilty of getting it far more exactly than the other. It ain't LP. |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
wrote in message ... wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: In article , wrote: OK, now we've established that our opinions differ. That was established long long agao. Sorry i didn't give you anything to attack. End of yet another pointless exercise. Pointless? Examining and trying to understand different POVs is pointless? I suppose for those who believe they already know it all and are right about everything. What new thng did you actually learn? That in moments of noncombativeness, some objectivists actually were aware fo the real world shortcomings of so many commercial CDs including failings in the digitization an manufacturing of them. That was not news AFAICT, It wasn't? Then why did you say this about comercial CDs just in your previous post? "They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended. " Please tell me how this claim doesn't blanketly deny the fact that many CDs were sonically screwed up by the A/D conversion or the manufacturing or the mastering or any combination of these problems or even other real world documented causes. It *can't* be both. it is the same as so many badly produced LP's. Which ones were badly digitized? Others, such as yourself hava a completely unrealistic idealized impression of CDs no matter how bad any number of them sound and some, like yourself are willing to accept such bad sound under the mistaken belief that because it is CD it is always more "accurate" to the master tape and more true to the intentions of the people who made the recording. So then YOU are the one collecting the Million Dollars for being able to read minds? No I base it on your words. Let me remind you of them.This is what you said about commercial CDs "They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended. " If you think I am unaware that there are bad sounding CD's, you are mistaken. I am not mistaken since I never made any such claim. If you think that I don't know that it is possible for the production and mix of an album to get away from the artist' intentions you ar again mistaken. Again I can not be mistaken since I have never made any such claim. The reasoning behind that belief is fataly flawed on so many levels. 1. The presumption that the transfer was transparent When done by nominally competent people it is. That is a ridiculous, selfserving, conveniently vague, claim. The *fact* is many, most are not. There is no warning sign on CDs telling you whether they are transparent copies of the master tape or not. You don't know which are and are not. Now if you can come up with a list stating which commercial Cds are and which are not.... Otherwise your claim doesn't mean anything in the real world. It also doesn't jive with this ridiculous claim of yours. "They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended." Are you suggesting that *all* Cds were "nominally competently" made? 2. The presumption that the right choices were made in picking and playing "the" master tape That's different for LP's how? With original issues that should be selfevident. the masters that were used were specifically chosen or made by the people making the recording for the purpose of mastering the LP. But asking about LPs makes the assumption that CDs are more accurate to the artists' intentions how? 3 The presumption that the mastering engineer did a good job See above. Tell me this. How would *you* know which suffered more from bad mastering between any given LP and CD? 4. The presumption that the chosen master tape best represents the artists' intentions despite the fact that LP test pressings were so often the final arbitrator of artist intentions.5. The presumtion that using a master tape as a reference is meaningful given the fact that one cannot use a master tape as a reference without also using a playback system as part of that reference thereby setting up playback as a reference for playback. But if one does, one will get the exact playback that one wouldget from the master tape that was used. Noooooooo. Simply not true. Something that can NEVER happen with an LP. Did you really mean to say this? That it will never happen with LP that one will never get what the artist intended you to get even when the decision of what that was was based on an artist approval from the er um the LP testpressing? Think about it. 6. The ignored fact that you have no access to that original master or to the actual sound that the artists used to judge their work given that they all listened to playback systems you cannot access. Sorry, but I find your idea of master tapes as a reference to be very unreasonable, very arbitrary, and very impractical. I find the notion that we should accept commercial CDs as definitive versions of any given recording because they are "supposed' to be more accurate a very poorly reasoned premise for anyone genuinely interested in the aestheic experience of listenng to music. I can't control what the recording comapny does in the CD mix any more than you can for the LP mix. Nothing I said above has anything to do with any mix. What I can be sure of is that I am getting an exact copy of whatever they finally used, You are simply worng. Did you not understand what wa written about actual A/D converters coloring the sound of the Mercuries? Did you not understand anything I gave you to read at all? You can't be sure at all that you are getting any such thing as an exact copy of what was used. You can go on believing it despite all that I showed you on the subject. But you would be plainly wrong to do so. something that is IMPOSSIBLE for LP. There was nothing that hadn't been covered endlessly before and the truth is still the truth, LP is technically inferior to CD, in every aspect. It appears you missed much of the discussion. Mind reading again? Noooooo. just reading your post and your continued claims about CDs. "They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended." And the new one... " What I can be sure of is that I am getting an exact copy of whatever they finally used," i have given you a great deal of citations of real world pros refuting your claims. You either didn't read it or didn't understand it or didn't believe it and don't want to talk about it. But no mind reading was involved. It still remains the case that CD is *vastly* more accurate than LP in technical terms, Let's throw a parade in honor of all those that find this important rather than what their CDs and LPs actually sound like. They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended. You definitely missed most of the discussion. maybe if you wont listen to me you will listen to some of the pros that actually compare the master tapes to th final products be they CD or LP. http://www.allaboutjazz.com/iviews/vangelder.htm "AAJ: Please discuss your approach to the new Rudy Van Gelder Edition Blue Notes in terms of working with the stereo and mono tapes and deciding which format to use for the new master. snip a bunch of stuff that isn't any differnt for CD or LP. IOW ignore a plethera of facts that refute your eroneous claim about CD accuracy. You get what teh record company gives you in any case. Thanks for that tid bit of information. I had no idea.... There are some crappy sounding CD's. This has never been in dispute. I'd rather listen to a crappy soundig CD, than almost any kind of LP. That is clear and given the exceelent sound one can get from so many LPs this speaks volumes about your biases. When the CD is done properly, there is absolutely no LP ever made or that can ever BE made that can out perform it. Even if that were true how does that affect the existance of the vast bosy of real world Cds most of which were not made with anything near the care that the Mercury reisues were made with? You engaged in a lot of hair splitting aobut some of the higher quality LP's that are or were made, Cittions please. but which were not representative of the general quality of what was most widely avaliable. never said they were. What is your point? I'm pleased that you find LP's to meet you musical needs, but to deny that in general CD kicks the crap out of the LP format is to deny reality. Sorry but you are not the arbitrator of reality. It seems to me that by some of your claims about CDs you are actually very much out of touch with it on this subject. " What I can be sure of is that I am getting an exact copy of whatever they finally used," This quote illustrates that fact. There are so many more too. There will probably never be a record company that provides the customer with a perfect mix every single time they produce an album, but there was no such thing for LP's either. This is not about any mix. It all depends on the individuals in charge of production, a fact that is the same for either format. Since the chances of getting a perfect recording in either format are and were never a sure thing, Why are you going on about "perfect recordings" now? I am going to stay with theone that offers the bonus of absolutely dead quiet playback and that doesn't need to be cleaned each time it is played. Fine. I have no problem with people liking Cds for these reasons. I like their convenience too. I'm going to stick with it because there has never been a better format and there is no more accurate one. You are free to put the cart before the horse and prefer Cds to LPs based on what they are on paper regardless of how awful so many of them actually sound. Your loss. You can't get better dynamics, That depends on the title. you can't get better bass, you can't get anywhere near the quality of a good recording on CD with LP, That is simply completely wrong. You can and most of the time will if you know what you are doing. plus the expense of purchasing a playback rig that would in your view do justice to LP's is IMO cost prohibitive. For some. And this is an issue. It's not a problem I face luckily. The bottom line is that it has always been a ctrapshoot as to how well recorded and mixed any recording is going to be, Not a crap shoot nor a relevant point. This has never been about the quality of the original productions but what you get of them from either format in the real world. but one of them offers the possibilty of getting it far more exactly than the other. It ain't LP. I disagree but what is the point. You still haven't hown any signs of understanding the real world issues I pointed out. Scott |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: Like I said before, in any debate or disagreement, if one side can accurately represent the opposing view (like I did with the objectivist POV) That's YOUR opinion. Actually it was the opinion of almost every objectivist that responded. so you will have to take up *your* differences with *them.* A quick poll of objectivists: How did Scott do? I disagreed with just about every statement he made. better yet lets just review your original reaction. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...988ef9ec55ec17 (Begin quoted text) __________________________________________________ ______________________ wrote: bob wrote: wrote: Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions . It is my impression that 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of the signal used to make them. No. They are audibly transparent transfers of the "master tapes" (by which I mean, the very last stage of processing) used to make them--assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence. OK. i meant the same thing by signal. but if you wish to refer to the master tape that is fine. so you agree with that statement so long as we refer to the master tape itslef rather than the signal. Fine with me. Check. 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or manugfacturing of those CDs. OK, assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence. Which begs the question how many commercial CDs are out there that suffer from " manufacturing screw-ups or other incompetence?" So what say you on this question? Common problem, rare problem not a problem? Outside my area of expertise. I suspect bad choices at the mixing/mastering stage are far more common, however. 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/ engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the master. No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here. Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions as to how their releases will sound. But you're using code words that often mean something very different. The "artists' intentions" often refers to the choices they make in their musical performance, rather than the choices they (or the engineers they entrust with the task) make at the mixing/mastering stage. The "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like. They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings. So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this context. What I had in mind was the idea that the "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are whatever's on the master tape. Then we can ask which medium more accurately reproduces that. 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the original sound of a live recording. LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . . the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here. " __________________________________________________ _______________________ (End of quoted text) So of the four main assertions I made you ended up agreeing with assertions 1 and 2 and the first parts of 3 and 4 but now you are claiming that " I disagreed with just about every statement he made." I guess it's a good idea to take a poll rather than actually look at what you all said. Dick P. was so disgusted he refused to even answer. Yeah that was a really informative constructive post by Dick. not. Anybody want to come to Scotty's defense here? I don't need anyone to come to my defense so long as previous posts on this thread don't start disapearing. The reactions are documented and people can decide for themselves what they were. I think you are trying to backpedal now. I never knew that disagreeing with 25% fo my assertions was "almost everything." Is that the new new math? Scott |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
bob wrote: A quick poll of objectivists: How did Scott do? I disagreed with just about every statement he made. better yet lets just review your original reaction. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...988ef9ec55ec17 Even better, let's look at my REAL original reaction: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...1fc9a54?hl=en& Here's how I responded to the questions in your original troll: No, OK (assuming...), No, Your statement is meaningless, and No. That counts as "disagreed with just about everything" in my book. Frankly, given what's followed in this thread, I wish I'd followed Dick's lead. You didn't really deserve a response. bob |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
On 10 Mar 2006 21:14:18 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 9 Mar 2006 00:44:33 GMT, wrote: Chung wrote: Dennis Moore wrote: http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl_two.html Part way down the page is the info you are asking about. http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html The attempted explanation of what CD sound is on that page is wrong. The writer clearly does not know anything about digital audio. His description of the vinyl sound is also laughable (e.g. "no information is lost"). It's amazing how vinylphiles keep getting basic stuff wrong, even now. Hey it goes both ways. Digifiles keep getting basic stuff wrong too. even here on RAHE. Such as? Have you been reading the thread? here is one example form NYOB on this thread just two days ago. "They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended." What's wrong with that? They *do* sound like the master tape, certainly *much* closer than vinyl ever can. Can you find any examples of digiphiles 'getting it wrong', or is this just more smoke and mirrors? One of my favorites. you getting it wrong. of course you will argue that you are right. That just makes the whole thing even more ridiculous. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...54c5e58adc8c84 I don't know about the ratios but if you want a list of things Stewart said that are factually wrong just in this thread. 1."The reconstruction filter ensures that the output is a smooth curve, following the original bandwidth-limited input signal *exactly*, not approximately." Fact is it can never be "exact." Depends how subatomic a nit you wish to pick, as the error is less than 0.01% across the *entire* audio band for most modern players, but I'll concede that absolutes are dangerous - perfect sound forever being one such nonsense. OTOH, it is for all practical purposes true, as some of my 'launch batch' CDs from 1983 sound as good as anything newly purchased. BTW, as anyone clicking on the link will see, the above quote was from a thread on the *theory* of analogue and digital audio, and a perfectly implemented reconstruction filter would indeed provide an *exact* replica of the input to a perfectly implemented 16/44 digital audio chain. How typical of you to distort the argument to your own ends. Note also above that the real-world result is *extremely* close to 'perfect' by any reasonable standard. But then there are the digiphiles that i suspect you think are getting it wrong. forgot about them? I don't know any "vinylphiles' painting their LPs green. There are didgphiles buying some very expensive gear like belt drive tubed CD players. Do you think those digphiles are "getting it right?" They're not digiphiles, they're audiophools, there's a difference. Real digiphiles know that none of the above do anything good to the sound of CDs. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
On 11 Mar 2006 00:03:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 10 Mar 2006 00:58:41 GMT, wrote: snip 4. The presumption that the chosen master tape best represents the artists' intentions despite the fact that LP test pressings were so often the final arbitrator of artist intentions. We're talking about CD master tapes here. In fact, you make the very point that the 'objectivists' make about vinyl - you *need* test pressings because there's no way that you can get the sound of the mixdown master onto vinyl! Compare and conrast with CD. I hate to burst your bubble, Stewart, but many artists, producers, engineers, and companies that care about sound quality REQUEST hearing one of the CD production masters after the manufacturing facility has made them, because in their experience things can go wrong (particularly jitter) and they want to make sure the masters sound as good as they expect them to. They will compare them to a copy of the source material they have sent for the production mastering. Sometimes several rounds are required to "get it right". IOW, they want a competently produced CD which sounds just like the master tape, and that's what they get. Thanks for that, Harry. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
On 10 Mar 2006 21:07:03 GMT, "bob" wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: Like I said before, in any debate or disagreement, if one side can accurately represent the opposing view (like I did with the objectivist POV) That's YOUR opinion. Actually it was the opinion of almost every objectivist that responded. so you will have to take up *your* differences with *them.* A quick poll of objectivists: How did Scott do? I disagreed with just about every statement he made. Dick P. was so disgusted he refused to even answer. Anybody want to come to Scotty's defense here? I mostly agreed with what he said, with certain caveats which I expressed at the time. Of course, as was predictable, this was all just a precursor to another of Scott's claims of vinyl superiority, for which he now claims support by totally misquoting and distorting what was actually said by the 'objectivists'. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 10 Mar 2006 21:14:18 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 9 Mar 2006 00:44:33 GMT, wrote: Chung wrote: Dennis Moore wrote: http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl_two.html Part way down the page is the info you are asking about. http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html The attempted explanation of what CD sound is on that page is wrong= .. The writer clearly does not know anything about digital audio. His description of the vinyl sound is also laughable (e.g. "no informat= ion is lost"). It's amazing how vinylphiles keep getting basic stuff wr= ong, even now. Hey it goes both ways. Digifiles keep getting basic stuff wrong too. even here on RAHE. Such as? Have you been reading the thread? here is one example form NYOB on this thread just two days ago. "They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended." What's wrong with that? They *do* sound like the master tape, certainly *much* closer than vinyl ever can. I can only guess but you either haven't been reading this thread carefully, you haven't been understanding i or you have been ignoring the parts that refute the above comment and would rather not idscusss the merits. Any which way i assert that it is wrong based on information already posted on this thread along with links to all the sources. i am not going to repeat myself. you have nothing to support your assertion above. so your OSAK is noted and given all the consideation it deserves. None. Can you find any examples of digiphiles 'getting it wrong', or is this just more smoke and mirrors? One of my favorites. you getting it wrong. of course you will argue that you are right. That just makes the whole thing even more ridiculous. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...m/thread/ae37= d3d5f9b46527/3f54c5e58adc8c84?lnk=3Dst&q=3Ddigital+amplitude+pe rfect+group%= 3Arec.audio.high-end+author%3AStewart+author%3APinkerton&rnum=3D9&h l=3Den#3= f54c5e58adc8c84 I don't know about the ratios but if you want a list of things Stewart said that are factually wrong just in this thread. 1."The reconstruction filter ensures that the output is a smooth curve, following the original bandwidth-limited input signal *exactly*, not approximately." Fact is it can never be "exact." Depends how subatomic a nit you wish to pick, No it doesn't "exactly " has a real world meaning. hre it is for you. Main Entry: ex=B7act=B7ly Function: adverb Pronunciation: ig-'zak-(t)le 1 a : in a manner or measure or to a degree or number that strictly conforms to a fact or condition it's exactly 3 o'clock these two pieces are exactly the same size b : in every respect : ALTOGETHER , ENTIRELY that was exactly the wrong thing to do not exactly what I had in mind as the error is less than 0.01% across the *entire* audio band for most modern players, but I'll concede that absolutes are dangerous - perfect sound forever being one such nonsense. Nice to see a digiphile correcting himself ater "getting it wrong." Glad to see you acknowledge that I put up on your little challenge. OTOH, it is for all practical purposes true, as some of my 'launch batch' CDs from 1983 sound as good as anything newly purchased. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Were we discussing the shelf life of CDs? BTW, as anyone clicking on the link will see, the above quote was from a thread on the *theory* of analogue and digital audio, and a perfectly implemented reconstruction filter would indeed provide an *exact* replica of the input to a perfectly implemented 16/44 digital audio chain. How typical of you to distort the argument to your own ends. Note also above that the real-world result is *extremely* close to 'perfect' by any reasonable standard. Oh balony. anyone who wishes to go to the link cans e for themselves what was being discussed. How typical of you to try to change the context of a discussion after the fact. But then there are the digiphiles that i suspect you think are getting it wrong. forgot about them? I don't know any "vinylphiles' painting their LPs green. There are didgphiles buying some very expensive gear like belt drive tubed CD players. Do you think those digphiles are "getting it right?" They're not digiphiles, they're audiophools, there's a difference. Sorry dude but you have no authority to decide who is who. anyone spending that kind of money on digital playback can consider themselves to be a digiphile or digital audio enthusiast if they wish. arguing by ridicule is soooooo weak. Real digiphiles know that none of the above do anything good to the sound of CDs. Dude real digiphiles are the people who see themselves as real digiphiles. you have no say so in it. Scott |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 10 Mar 2006 21:07:03 GMT, "bob" wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Like I said before, in any debate or disagreement, if one side can accurately represent the opposing view (like I did with the objectivist POV) That's YOUR opinion. Actually it was the opinion of almost every objectivist that responded. so you will have to take up *your* differences with *them.* A quick poll of objectivists: How did Scott do? I disagreed with just about every statement he made. Dick P. was so disgusted he refused to even answer. Anybody want to come to Scotty's defense here? I mostly agreed with what he said, with certain caveats which I expressed at the time. Of course, as was predictable, this was all just a precursor to another of Scott's claims of vinyl superiority, Balony please quote me making any claims of vinyl superiority other than *my* preference. yet another misrepresentation of my claims and views. for which he now claims support by totally misquoting and distorting what was actually said by the 'objectivists'. prove it. Posturing is cheap. Cite an example o any misquoting or distortions. OTOH I have made numerous citations of you and the others doing just that with what i actually said. how typical of you and others being guilty of the very things you accuse others of doing. You even managed to do it on this very post. of course you can prove me wrong by quoting my claim of vinyl superiority. Scott |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Mar 2006 00:03:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I hate to burst your bubble, Stewart, but many artists, producers, engineers, and companies that care about sound quality REQUEST hearing one of the CD production masters after the manufacturing facility has made them, because in their experience things can go wrong (particularly jitter) and they want to make sure the masters sound as good as they expect them to. They will compare them to a copy of the source material they have sent for the production mastering. Sometimes several rounds are required to "get it right". IOW, they want a competently produced CD which sounds just like the master tape, and that's what they get. Thanks for that, Harry. That's one possibility. Another is that the master that's sent to whoever's making the CDs might not be "final"--there might be some further processing of the sound at that point, which the artists/producers need to check. I don't know how common that is, but I get the sense that it happens. Perhaps people actually in the business (which I think excludes everybody on this thread so far) could enlighten us. Another possibility is what we might call "artist-producer's remorse." What sounded great last month on the master tape now isn't quite what we want. And, of course, it just *might* happen that the master tape and the CD production master really do sound the same, but the artist/producer *thinks* they sound different. I bet guys at the CD houses could tell some tales. bob |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
bob wrote: wrote: bob wrote: A quick poll of objectivists: How did Scott do? I disagreed with just about every statement he made. better yet lets just review your original reaction. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...988ef9ec55ec17 Even better, let's look at my REAL original reaction: The "real" original reaction was contained in my link along wih our discussion over your misunderstandings over certain language used *an* your later agreement with my asertions after semantic issues were sorted out. By which time you were deep into the semantic gamesmanship you set out to pursue in this thread. Basically, you were trying to take objective statements about the technical merits of the media and twist them into statements about the quality of commercial releases, in order to have something to argue against. Because you can't argue against the objective statements. And I think you know it, which is why you've put so much energy into your mischaracterizations and sophistries. I'll make it simple: If you have a master tape that represents exactly what the artists/producers want their recording to sound like, then there is no question that you can make a CD that sounds closer to that tape than any LP possibly could. That, and only that, is "the truth about accuracy of CD v. LP." You can't argue with that, so you change the subject, and ask whether commerically released CDs are "accurate" to...something. And my objectivist response to that is: How "true" a commercial release is to something depends on what that vague "something" is, and it depends on how well the various producers of the recording did their respective jobs. It does not depend on the accuracy of the medium, which is blameless. All these words spilled, just to defend your preference for the euphonic distortions--pardon me, the "intrinsic beauty"--of vinyl. bob |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
to 'perfect' by any reasonable standard. But then there are the digiphiles that i suspect you think are getting it wrong. forgot about them? I don't know any "vinylphiles' painting their LPs green. There are didgphiles buying some very expensive gear like belt drive tubed CD players. Do you think those digphiles are "getting it right?" They're not digiphiles, they're audiophools, there's a difference. Real digiphiles know that none of the above do anything good to the sound of CDs. Moroever, as Scott conveniently fails to mention, those audiofools are in almost every instance trying to get CDs to sound more like their beloved *vinyl*. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 11 Mar 2006 00:03:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I hate to burst your bubble, Stewart, but many artists, producers, engineers, and companies that care about sound quality REQUEST hearing one of the CD production masters after the manufacturing facility has made them, because in their experience things can go wrong (particularly jitter) and they want to make sure the masters sound as good as they expect them to. They will compare them to a copy of the source material they have sent for the production mastering. Sometimes several rounds are required to "get it right". IOW, they want a competently produced CD which sounds just like the master tape, and that's what they get. Thanks for that, Harry. That's one possibility. Another is that the master that's sent to whoever's making the CDs might not be "final"--there might be some further processing of the sound at that point, which the artists/producers need to check. I don't know how common that is, but I get the sense that it happens. Perhaps people actually in the business (which I think excludes everybody on this thread so far) could enlighten us. Another possibility is what we might call "artist-producer's remorse." What sounded great last month on the master tape now isn't quite what we want. And, of course, it just *might* happen that the master tape and the CD production master really do sound the same, but the artist/producer *thinks* they sound different. I bet guys at the CD houses could tell some tales. Oh yeah. Of the handful of stories I've read about CD production masters not being up to snuff, I've don't recall any that involved blind comparison. So how can we know these 're-dos' were ever really necessary? I've also read that savvy recording and mastering engineers often had at hand a control or knob that led to nothing, but which they would 'adjust' if the artist or producer thought there was 'something off' about the sound. Invariably it seemed to 'work'. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
wrote: bob wrote: wrote: bob wrote: A quick poll of objectivists: How did Scott do? I disagreed with just about every statement he made. better yet lets just review your original reaction. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...988ef9ec55ec17 Even better, let's look at my REAL original reaction: The "real" original reaction was contained in my link along wih our discussion over your misunderstandings over certain language used *an* your later agreement with my asertions after semantic issues were sorted out. By which time you were deep into the semantic gamesmanship you set out to pursue in this thread. Basically, you were trying to take objective statements about the technical merits of the media and twist them into statements about the quality of commercial releases, in order to have something to argue against. Because you can't argue against the objective statements. And I think you know it, which is why you've put so much energy into your mischaracterizations and sophistries. I'll make it simple: If you have a master tape that represents exactly what the artists/producers want their recording to sound like, then there is no question that you can make a CD that sounds closer to that tape than any LP possibly could. That, and only that, is "the truth about accuracy of CD v. LP." You can't argue with that, so you change the subject, and ask whether commerically released CDs are "accurate" to...something. And my objectivist response to that is: How "true" a commercial release is to something depends on what that vague "something" is, and it depends on how well the various producers of the recording did their respective jobs. It does not depend on the accuracy of the medium, which is blameless. All these words spilled, just to defend your preference for the euphonic distortions--pardon me, the "intrinsic beauty"--of vinyl. You have to understand the Scott is coming from the Steve Hoffman board, devoted to a man who makes his living remastering old recordings. If remastering were only to consist of unadorned digital transfers from old analog tapes, plus some track sequencing and indexing, guys like SH would simply be out of a job. Instead, they often *change stuff*, while , in the case of SH, claiming that they stay 'true to the masters'...which or course is really true only if the transfer is 'flat' from those masters. I suspect such an attitude arises from the LP days, when it was not possible to transfer master tapes to 33 1/3 rpm LP format with such high accuracy while keeping the format commercially viable. IN those days it made sense to speak of *trying* to 'stay true to the master tapes', because a sonic compromise was *inevitable* during the transition from tape to the production format. The history of mastering -- why it came to exist as a step in the recording chain in first place, and what it has become in the digital age -- would make for an interesting essay. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Steven Sullivan wrote:
You have to understand the Scott is coming from the Steve Hoffman board, devoted to a man who makes his living remastering old recordings. If remastering were only to consist of unadorned digital transfers from old analog tapes, plus some track sequencing and indexing, guys like SH would simply be out of a job. Instead, they often *change stuff*, while , in the case of SH, claiming that they stay 'true to the masters' Interesting. Many modern remasterings are really good, IME, but they are good precisely because they are NOT just trying to preserve what came before. There's nothing sacrosanct about mastering decisions made decades ago, and nothing wrong with wanting to try for a better sound today. Which is why the Steve Hoffmans of this world and their acolytes (ahem) don't need to hide behind any claims about accuracy or being true to some original. Their work can stand on its own. bob |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 11 Mar 2006 00:03:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I hate to burst your bubble, Stewart, but many artists, producers, engineers, and companies that care about sound quality REQUEST hearing one of the CD production masters after the manufacturing facility has made them, because in their experience things can go wrong (particularly jitter) and they want to make sure the masters sound as good as they expect them to. They will compare them to a copy of the source material they have sent for the production mastering. Sometimes several rounds are required to "get it right". IOW, they want a competently produced CD which sounds just like the master tape, and that's what they get. Thanks for that, Harry. That's one possibility. Another is that the master that's sent to whoever's making the CDs might not be "final"--there might be some further processing of the sound at that point, which the artists/producers need to check. I don't know how common that is, but I get the sense that it happens. Perhaps people actually in the business (which I think excludes everybody on this thread so far) could enlighten us. Another possibility is what we might call "artist-producer's remorse." What sounded great last month on the master tape now isn't quite what we want. And, of course, it just *might* happen that the master tape and the CD production master really do sound the same, but the artist/producer *thinks* they sound different. I bet guys at the CD houses could tell some tales. Oh yeah. Of the handful of stories I've read about CD production masters not being up to snuff, I've don't recall any that involved blind comparison. So how can we know these Selective memory? Read up on the making of the Mercury CDs. Or ask John Marks about it. 're-dos' were ever really necessary? probably far more often then they have happened. I've also read that savvy recording and mastering engineers often had at hand a control or knob that led to nothing, but which they would 'adjust' if the artist or producer thought there was 'something off' about the sound. Invariably it seemed to 'work'. I love this good ole urban legend. Scott |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote: wrote: bob wrote: wrote: bob wrote: A quick poll of objectivists: How did Scott do? I disagreed with just about every statement he made. better yet lets just review your original reaction. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...988ef9ec55ec17 Even better, let's look at my REAL original reaction: The "real" original reaction was contained in my link along wih our discussion over your misunderstandings over certain language used *an* your later agreement with my asertions after semantic issues were sorted out. By which time you were deep into the semantic gamesmanship you set out to pursue in this thread. Basically, you were trying to take objective statements about the technical merits of the media and twist them into statements about the quality of commercial releases, in order to have something to argue against. Because you can't argue against the objective statements. And I think you know it, which is why you've put so much energy into your mischaracterizations and sophistries. I'll make it simple: If you have a master tape that represents exactly what the artists/producers want their recording to sound like, then there is no question that you can make a CD that sounds closer to that tape than any LP possibly could. That, and only that, is "the truth about accuracy of CD v. LP." You can't argue with that, so you change the subject, and ask whether commerically released CDs are "accurate" to...something. And my objectivist response to that is: How "true" a commercial release is to something depends on what that vague "something" is, and it depends on how well the various producers of the recording did their respective jobs. It does not depend on the accuracy of the medium, which is blameless. All these words spilled, just to defend your preference for the euphonic distortions--pardon me, the "intrinsic beauty"--of vinyl. You have to understand the Scott is coming from the Steve Hoffman board, devoted to a man who makes his living remastering old recordings. If remastering were only to consist of unadorned digital transfers from old analog tapes, plus some track sequencing and indexing, guys like SH would simply be out of a job. Instead, they often *change stuff*, while , in the case of SH, claiming that they stay 'true to the masters'...which or course is really true only if the transfer is 'flat' from those masters. I suspect such an attitude arises from the LP days, when it was not possible to transfer master tapes to 33 1/3 rpm LP format with such high accuracy while keeping the format commercially viable. IN those days it made sense to speak of *trying* to 'stay true to the master tapes', because a sonic compromise was *inevitable* during the transition from tape to the production format. The history of mastering -- why it came to exist as a step in the recording chain in first place, and what it has become in the digital age -- would make for an interesting essay. For those of you who believe CD is better than LP I would like to know what your analog and digital gear is. Why - because I used to prefer CD to LP. Then I got a better cartridge and in every case where I have the same LP/CD I like the CD. And in every case where I have a remastered version of both I like the LP better. The common difference is openness and crisper highs. (Having said that I do believe that it is possible that if I had better digital equip I could change my mind. I also believe that CDs that use better technology than standard red book 44.1khz/16 bit might also sound better than LP.) I also wonder if those who like CDs better also prefer solid state over tubes? |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
On 11 Mar 2006 18:58:53 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: to 'perfect' by any reasonable standard. But then there are the digiphiles that i suspect you think are getting it wrong. forgot about them? I don't know any "vinylphiles' painting their LPs green. There are didgphiles buying some very expensive gear like belt drive tubed CD players. Do you think those digphiles are "getting it right?" They're not digiphiles, they're audiophools, there's a difference. Real digiphiles know that none of the above do anything good to the sound of CDs. Moroever, as Scott conveniently fails to mention, those audiofools are in almost every instance trying to get CDs to sound more like their beloved *vinyl*. Indeed. I have often wondered what technically inept and utterly cynical clown ever came up with the idea of a belt-drive CD player, and of increasing the output impedance by sticking a cathode follower on the end of the existing output stage. Of course, the real joke is that what's generally acknowledged as the worlds's best turntable, the Rockport Sirius III, is direct drive! :-) Naturally, Scott then says that he doesn't think the Sirius actually is the best, he prefers the Forsell. How utterly predictable.... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote: wrote: bob wrote: wrote: bob wrote: A quick poll of objectivists: How did Scott do? I disagreed with just about every statement he made. better yet lets just review your original reaction. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...988ef9ec55ec17 Even better, let's look at my REAL original reaction: The "real" original reaction was contained in my link along wih our discussion over your misunderstandings over certain language used *an* your later agreement with my asertions after semantic issues were sorted out. By which time you were deep into the semantic gamesmanship you set out to pursue in this thread. Basically, you were trying to take objective statements about the technical merits of the media and twist them into statements about the quality of commercial releases, in order to have something to argue against. Because you can't argue against the objective statements. And I think you know it, which is why you've put so much energy into your mischaracterizations and sophistries. I'll make it simple: If you have a master tape that represents exactly what the artists/producers want their recording to sound like, then there is no question that you can make a CD that sounds closer to that tape than any LP possibly could. That, and only that, is "the truth about accuracy of CD v. LP." You can't argue with that, so you change the subject, and ask whether commerically released CDs are "accurate" to...something. And my objectivist response to that is: How "true" a commercial release is to something depends on what that vague "something" is, and it depends on how well the various producers of the recording did their respective jobs. It does not depend on the accuracy of the medium, which is blameless. All these words spilled, just to defend your preference for the euphonic distortions--pardon me, the "intrinsic beauty"--of vinyl. You have to understand the Scott is coming from the Steve Hoffman board, devoted to a man who makes his living remastering old recordings. Actually I come from Los Angeles. I do post on Stevehoffman.tv. Steve you used to be a regular there. what happened? Did you lose interest in the aluable inside information one could get about what went into the making of so many Lps and CDs? Scott |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Mar 2006 18:58:53 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: to 'perfect' by any reasonable standard. But then there are the digiphiles that i suspect you think are getting it wrong. forgot about them? I don't know any "vinylphiles' painting their LPs green. There are didgphiles buying some very expensive gear like belt drive tubed CD players. Do you think those digphiles are "getting it right?" They're not digiphiles, they're audiophools, there's a difference. Real digiphiles know that none of the above do anything good to the sound of CDs. Moroever, as Scott conveniently fails to mention, those audiofools are in almost every instance trying to get CDs to sound more like their beloved *vinyl*. Indeed. I have often wondered what technically inept and utterly cynical clown ever came up with the idea of a belt-drive CD player, and of increasing the output impedance by sticking a cathode follower on the end of the existing output stage. Why wonder when you can always ask the designer? Of course, the real joke is that what's generally acknowledged as the worlds's best turntable, the Rockport Sirius III, is direct drive! :-) How is that a joke even if it were true? Naturally, Scott then says that he doesn't think the Sirius actually is the best, he prefers the Forsell. Stewart, ever do a blind comparison between the Forsell and the Rockport? Until you have we don't know that your biases and only your biases are not behind your opinions on the merits o the two tables. How utterly predictable.... Given the fact that I picked the Forsell before I knew you existed this looks like a claim of the paranormal. Better call Randi. Scott -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 11 Mar 2006 18:58:53 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: to 'perfect' by any reasonable standard. But then there are the digiphiles that i suspect you think are getting it wrong. forgot about them? I don't know any "vinylphiles' painting their LPs green. There are didgphiles buying some very expensive gear like belt drive tubed CD players. Do you think those digphiles are "getting it right?" They're not digiphiles, they're audiophools, there's a difference. Real digiphiles know that none of the above do anything good to the sound of CDs. Moroever, as Scott conveniently fails to mention, those audiofools are in almost every instance trying to get CDs to sound more like their beloved *vinyl*. Indeed. I have often wondered what technically inept and utterly cynical clown ever came up with the idea of a belt-drive CD player, and of increasing the output impedance by sticking a cathode follower on the end of the existing output stage. Of course, the real joke is that what's generally acknowledged as the worlds's best turntable, the Rockport Sirius III, is direct drive! :-) snip To be fair, most belt-drive TT fans, at ones who I know, argue that BD is the most cost efficient way to get good sound. The argument isn't that BD is the ONLY way to get good sound. They would argue that it costs $60-some-thousand to get the Rockport sound in DD, but excellent TT sound can be had for far less with BD. Or looking at it another way, to get a DD that sounds as good as my $1000 (TT, arm, cartridge) BD Clearaudio would cost much more than $1000. It's the old Goldmund vs. VPI TNT (for example) argument. |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Of course like much technology it can come down to the execution.
My belt driven CD player has spun more CD's than any other I have owned except for a Mod Squad player. Others either failed due to the cheap bearings or in one case electrical problems. The belt driven CEC and Mod Squad had two things in common. Both used damper discs on top of the CD, and consequently both had better bearings to support it. Direct driven players could be made just as well as proven by the Mod Squad, but often are not. As four DD players haven't lasted as long as my belt which hasn't been replaced so far. So despite their motivation for using belt drive, those guy's may not be as technically inept as you think or as some CD makers apparently are. Dennis "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message Indeed. I have often wondered what technically inept and utterly cynical clown ever came up with the idea of a belt-drive CD player, -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
bob wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: You have to understand the Scott is coming from the Steve Hoffman board, devoted to a man who makes his living remastering old recordings. If remastering were only to consist of unadorned digital transfers from old analog tapes, plus some track sequencing and indexing, guys like SH would simply be out of a job. Instead, they often *change stuff*, while , in the case of SH, claiming that they stay 'true to the masters' Interesting. Many modern remasterings are really good, IME, but they are good precisely because they are NOT just trying to preserve what came before. There's nothing sacrosanct about mastering decisions made decades ago, and nothing wrong with wanting to try for a better sound today. Which is why the Steve Hoffmans of this world and their acolytes (ahem) don't need to hide behind any claims about accuracy or being true to some original. Their work can stand on its own. But then they can't diss other people's remastering work, as being untrue, or even sacriligious. Which activity constitutes a significant part of the Hoffman board traffic. -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
MD wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: bob wrote: wrote: bob wrote: wrote: bob wrote: A quick poll of objectivists: How did Scott do? I disagreed with just about every statement he made. better yet lets just review your original reaction. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...988ef9ec55ec17 Even better, let's look at my REAL original reaction: The "real" original reaction was contained in my link along wih our discussion over your misunderstandings over certain language used *an* your later agreement with my asertions after semantic issues were sorted out. By which time you were deep into the semantic gamesmanship you set out to pursue in this thread. Basically, you were trying to take objective statements about the technical merits of the media and twist them into statements about the quality of commercial releases, in order to have something to argue against. Because you can't argue against the objective statements. And I think you know it, which is why you've put so much energy into your mischaracterizations and sophistries. I'll make it simple: If you have a master tape that represents exactly what the artists/producers want their recording to sound like, then there is no question that you can make a CD that sounds closer to that tape than any LP possibly could. That, and only that, is "the truth about accuracy of CD v. LP." You can't argue with that, so you change the subject, and ask whether commerically released CDs are "accurate" to...something. And my objectivist response to that is: How "true" a commercial release is to something depends on what that vague "something" is, and it depends on how well the various producers of the recording did their respective jobs. It does not depend on the accuracy of the medium, which is blameless. All these words spilled, just to defend your preference for the euphonic distortions--pardon me, the "intrinsic beauty"--of vinyl. You have to understand the Scott is coming from the Steve Hoffman board, devoted to a man who makes his living remastering old recordings. If remastering were only to consist of unadorned digital transfers from old analog tapes, plus some track sequencing and indexing, guys like SH would simply be out of a job. Instead, they often *change stuff*, while , in the case of SH, claiming that they stay 'true to the masters'...which or course is really true only if the transfer is 'flat' from those masters. I suspect such an attitude arises from the LP days, when it was not possible to transfer master tapes to 33 1/3 rpm LP format with such high accuracy while keeping the format commercially viable. IN those days it made sense to speak of *trying* to 'stay true to the master tapes', because a sonic compromise was *inevitable* during the transition from tape to the production format. The history of mastering -- why it came to exist as a step in the recording chain in first place, and what it has become in the digital age -- would make for an interesting essay. For those of you who believe CD is better than LP I would like to know what your analog and digital gear is. My analog gear, when I use it, is a Shure V15typeVMR cart and a Systemdek IIX table. My digital gear has varied lots, but currently is a Yamaha S2500 universal player for the rare disc , while most playback is of lossless compressed files, served from hard drive via USB to my Pioneer 74txvi AVR, using Foobar2000 as playback software. Why - because I used to prefer CD to LP. Then I got a better cartridge and in every case where I have the same LP/CD I like the CD. And in every case where I have a remastered version of both I like the LP better. That's simply preference. You're allowed to prefer the sound that LP form at and playback imparts to a recording, or to prefer the different mastering on the LP vs CD...both of which factors are in play in your example. None of it is evidece that CD is inferior to LP in any objective sense. The common difference is openness and crisper highs. (Having said that I do believe that it is possible that if I had better digital equip I could change my mind. I also believe that CDs that use better technology than standard red book 44.1khz/16 bit might also sound better than LP.) Well, you're allowed to believe that too, but it's got little in the way of objective support. AFAIK, the measurable *accuracy* of high frequency response of CD to 20 kHz is not matched by LP playback. I doubt getting better digital equipment will reveal this to you unless you have extremely bad gear. I also wonder if those who like CDs better also prefer solid state over tubes? My preference is for less distortion rather than more, so I expect I'd prefer SS. -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: In article , wrote: OK, now we've established that our opinions differ. That was established long long agao. Sorry i didn't give you anything to attack. End of yet another pointless exercise. Pointless? Examining and trying to understand different POVs is pointless? I suppose for those who believe they already know it all and are right about everything. What new thng did you actually learn? That in moments of noncombativeness, some objectivists actually were aware fo the real world shortcomings of so many commercial CDs including failings in the digitization an manufacturing of them. That was not news AFAICT, It wasn't? Then why did you say this about comercial CDs just in your previous post? "They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended. " Please tell me how this claim doesn't blanketly deny the fact that many CDs were sonically screwed up by the A/D conversion or the manufacturing or the mastering or any combination of these problems or even other real world documented causes. It *can't* be both. Sure they can, they can be better than the Lp version due to better dynamics and lower noise and lack of compression and still not match up to todays SOTA. They can still be more accurate and faithful to the master. it is the same as so many badly produced LP's. Which ones were badly digitized? None theat I know of. Whic LP's were badly analoged? It's a question that I can't answer and I doubt anybody else can either unless they were there. Others, such as yourself hava a completely unrealistic idealized impression of CDs no matter how bad any number of them sound and some, like yourself are willing to accept such bad sound under the mistaken belief that because it is CD it is always more "accurate" to the master tape and more true to the intentions of the people who made the recording. So then YOU are the one collecting the Million Dollars for being able to read minds? No I base it on your words. Let me remind you of them.This is what you said about commercial CDs "They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended. " Whic is the truth, they sound as close to the master tape (if one was used) than teh LP ever can. Today, the tecnology exists so that the CD is the exact copy of the master no matter how it was created, something that LP can never be. The reasoning behind that belief is fataly flawed on so many levels. 1. The presumption that the transfer was transparent When done by nominally competent people it is. That is a ridiculous, selfserving, conveniently vague, claim. The *fact* is many, most are not. And the proof of this is where? There is no warning sign on CDs telling you whether they are transparent copies of the master tape or not. There is no warning on LP's telling you how many times removed from the master it is either, yet it will never be as close as a CD is. You don't know which are and are not. Now if you can come up with a list stating which commercial Cds are and which are not.... Otherwise your claim doesn't mean anything in the real world. It also doesn't jive with this ridiculous claim of yours. "They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended." Are you suggesting that *all* Cds were "nominally competently" made? I'm responding to the title of the thread, CD is more accurate than LP always has been and will ever be thus. You want to discuss other issues like production values instead. The truth is that CD is the most accurate way to playback music, it also has lower noise and better dynamics. I can't control how they master them any more than you can control the mastering of any LP's. The facts don't change if there was a bad decision in how to mix the final version, but the CD is going to be truer than the LP. If it were not the goal to have that accuracy to the master, then why bother making one? So it stands to reason, that if you care about such things, you stick withg CD's. If you want something that creates an alternate reality from what was recorded so that it suits your idea of what things should sound like, use whatever you like, form Lp's and different cartridges to, EQ and sonic holography. Whatever floats your boat. 2. The presumption that the right choices were made in picking and playing "the" master tape That's different for LP's how? With original issues that should be selfevident. the masters that were used were specifically chosen or made by the people making the recording for the purpose of mastering the LP. But asking about LPs makes the assumption that CDs are more accurate to the artists' intentions how? Because the artist hears what he recorded exactly as it entered the mixing board and doesn't have to wait to hear what they have to do to make it suitable for an LP master. 3 The presumption that the mastering engineer did a good job See above. Tell me this. How would *you* know which suffered more from bad mastering between any given LP and CD? How would you tell that about an LP? 4. The presumption that the chosen master tape best represents the artists' intentions despite the fact that LP test pressings were so often the final arbitrator of artist intentions.5. The presumtion that using a master tape as a reference is meaningful given the fact that one cannot use a master tape as a reference without also using a playback system as part of that reference thereby setting up playback as a reference for playback. But if one does, one will get the exact playback that one wouldget from the master tape that was used. Noooooooo. Simply not true. Something that can NEVER happen with an LP. Did you really mean to say this? That it will never happen with LP that one will never get what the artist intended you to get even when the decision of what that was was based on an artist approval from the er um the LP testpressing? Think about it. Why wait for atest pressing, when you can hear exactly what the CD will soundlike just by playing the master? I've snipped the rest of this for one simple reason, to get back to the thread title. The Truth About accuracy of CD v LP. The truth is that CD is the most accurate and LP is vastly worse on all trechnical grounds, if you want to use some other criteria to judge how musc sounds, then that's your choice. If you want most accurate, you get CD's end of story. |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
On 12 Mar 2006 18:56:53 GMT, Jenn wrote:
To be fair, most belt-drive TT fans, at ones who I know, argue that BD is the most cost efficient way to get good sound. The argument isn't that BD is the ONLY way to get good sound. They would argue that it costs $60-some-thousand to get the Rockport sound in DD, but excellent TT sound can be had for far less with BD. Or looking at it another way, to get a DD that sounds as good as my $1000 (TT, arm, cartridge) BD Clearaudio would cost much more than $1000. It's the old Goldmund vs. VPI TNT (for example) argument. That's probably true, as the motor is of necessity much more expensive. Historically, only the huge resources of the big Japanese corporations have been able to manufacture high quality DD decks at reasonable prices, such as the old Technics SP-10 and several Denon tables. The classic Tehnics 'DJ' deck is of course still going strong at a midrange price, but not many would grant it 'audiophile' status. Otherwise, it's a really exotic technogy, the Goldmund and Rockport examples being the best known. Even at that stratospheric level, the argument still rages, as the Goldmund Reference table was produced using both technologies at different times. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
On 12 Mar 2006 15:44:42 GMT, MD wrote:
For those of you who believe CD is better than LP I would like to know what your analog and digital gear is. http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/stewart_p/stewart_p.html The vinyl rig cost about five times the price of the CD player. Why - because I used to prefer CD to LP. Then I got a better cartridge and in every case where I have the same LP/CD I like the CD. And in every case where I have a remastered version of both I like the LP better. The common difference is openness and crisper highs. That would be your personal preference, but I find that CDs generally have more ambience and smoother treble. (Having said that I do believe that it is possible that if I had better digital equip I could change my mind. Doubtful, as most modern players sound the same. I also believe that CDs that use better technology than standard red book 44.1khz/16 bit might also sound better than LP.) *All* CDs are 16/44. There remains considerable doubt that the 'hi-res' formats such as DVD-A have any real sonic advantage over plain Jane CD, due to the limitations of the masters. I also wonder if those who like CDs better also prefer solid state over tubes? Yes, for the same reasons of lower distortion, superior bass and wider dynamic range. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: bob wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 11 Mar 2006 00:03:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I hate to burst your bubble, Stewart, but many artists, producers, engineers, and companies that care about sound quality REQUEST hearing one of the CD production masters after the manufacturing facility has made them, because in their experience things can go wrong (particularly jitter) and they want to make sure the masters sound as good as they expect them to. They will compare them to a copy of the source material they have sent for the production mastering. Sometimes several rounds are required to "get it right". IOW, they want a competently produced CD which sounds just like the master tape, and that's what they get. Thanks for that, Harry. That's one possibility. Another is that the master that's sent to whoever's making the CDs might not be "final"--there might be some further processing of the sound at that point, which the artists/producers need to check. I don't know how common that is, but I get the sense that it happens. Perhaps people actually in the business (which I think excludes everybody on this thread so far) could enlighten us. Another possibility is what we might call "artist-producer's remorse." What sounded great last month on the master tape now isn't quite what we want. And, of course, it just *might* happen that the master tape and the CD production master really do sound the same, but the artist/producer *thinks* they sound different. I bet guys at the CD houses could tell some tales. Oh yeah. Of the handful of stories I've read about CD production masters not being up to snuff, I've don't recall any that involved blind comparison. So how can we know these Selective memory? Read up on the making of the Mercury CDs. Or ask John Marks about it. You mean, like Dennis Drake's blind comparisons indicating that there was NO audible between the master tapes...and the *final CD*? http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf That, btw , is the only *blind* comparison noted in that paper. There's lots of references to various comparisons made while constructing the remastering chain, but not mention of them being blind. Why is that? 're-dos' were ever really necessary? probably far more often then they have happened. I've also read that savvy recording and mastering engineers often had at hand a control or knob that led to nothing, but which they would 'adjust' if the artist or producer thought there was 'something off' about the sound. Invariably it seemed to 'work'. I love this good ole urban legend. You should try hanging out on pro boards that feature more than just Steve Hoffman. You'd learn a lot...such as that this is no urban legend. You might also find some of Mr. Hoffman's technical notions, pasticularly as regards digital remastering, are considered ill-informed superstition, if not outright absurdity. Fortunately for him most mastering work really *does* have audible effects, if not always for the reason he thinks. And in the end all the listener cares about is what the thing sounds like. ___ -S "Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Yes, but to reiterate the point, Stewart is trying to ignore.
Good execution is very important. Simple one piece plastic bearings that won't last are inferior to two bearings and a belt if well made. Not much way to argue that the design that lasts years is worse than one giving up the ghost in 18 months. A matter of basic engineering, simple overly flimsy parts don't last as long as adequately engineered parts much less over engineered parts. Hence a well done belt drive isn't inept rather simply well done. Dennis "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : It's a matter of basic engineering. LPs spin at constant angular velocity, therefore you want a table with an absolutely constant rotational speed, where high inertia is an advantage. Being a fully mechanical medium, you also need extremely low bearing noise and no transmission of motor vibrations. CDs have a constant linear velocity, hence the rotational speed is constantly varying, and low inertia is an advantage. Combine that with the use of a FIFO buffer and a servo circuit, and the fact that 'cogging' and bearing noise are irrelevant for a CD transport, and it becomes obvious that the addition of a second bearing assembly and intermediate belt offers no advantage, just more to go wrong and higher mechanical stresses. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 12 Mar 2006 18:56:53 GMT, Jenn wrote: To be fair, most belt-drive TT fans, at ones who I know, argue that BD is the most cost efficient way to get good sound. The argument isn't that BD is the ONLY way to get good sound. They would argue that it costs $60-some-thousand to get the Rockport sound in DD, but excellent TT sound can be had for far less with BD. Or looking at it another way, to get a DD that sounds as good as my $1000 (TT, arm, cartridge) BD Clearaudio would cost much more than $1000. It's the old Goldmund vs. VPI TNT (for example) argument. That's probably true, as the motor is of necessity much more expensive. Historically, only the huge resources of the big Japanese corporations have been able to manufacture high quality DD decks at reasonable prices, such as the old Technics SP-10 and several Denon tables. Until last November, I had a Denon 62L that ran great and sounded pretty good. I sold it on ebay for $500, which paid for half of my new Clearaudio, which was a great improvement in my system. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: In article , wrote: OK, now we've established that our opinions differ. That was established long long agao. Sorry i didn't give you anything to attack. End of yet another pointless exercise. Pointless? Examining and trying to understand different POVs is pointless? I suppose for those who believe they already know it all and are right about everything. What new thng did you actually learn? That in moments of noncombativeness, some objectivists actually were aware fo the real world shortcomings of so many commercial CDs including failings in the digitization an manufacturing of them. That was not news AFAICT, It wasn't? Then why did you say this about comercial CDs just in your previous post? "They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended. " Please tell me how this claim doesn't blanketly deny the fact that many CDs were sonically screwed up by the A/D conversion or the manufacturing or the mastering or any combination of these problems or even other real world documented causes. It *can't* be both. Sure they can, So you are saying that a CD can be both soncially screwed up by colored AD conversion and poor manufacturing and "sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape and like th eengineer intended"? to me that makes zero sense. they can be better than the Lp version due to better dynamics and lower noise and lack of compression and still not match up to todays SOTA. While this is true i t has nothing to do with the apparent conflict between your beliefs about the sound of commercial CDs and the reality of the sound of comercial CDs. They can still be more accurate and faithful to the master. Sure but that wasn't your claim. it is the same as so many badly produced LP's. Which ones were badly digitized? None theat I know of. Odd, you brought that up. Whic LP's were badly analoged? Analoged? Please explain. It's a question that I can't answer and I doubt anybody else can either unless they were there. Others, such as yourself hava a completely unrealistic idealized impression of CDs no matter how bad any number of them sound and some, like yourself are willing to accept such bad sound under the mistaken belief that because it is CD it is always more "accurate" to the master tape and more true to the intentions of the people who made the recording. So then YOU are the one collecting the Million Dollars for being able to read minds? No I base it on your words. Let me remind you of them.This is what you said about commercial CDs "They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended. " Whic is the truth, they sound as close to the master tape (if one was used) than teh LP ever can. ::sigh:: It simply isn't true most of the time. I have explianed why and offered references to support those explinations. I guess you don't get it or don't want to get it. Nothing I can do about that. Today, the tecnology exists so that the CD is the exact copy of the master no matter how it was created, something that LP can never be. I agree that with the needed care and hardware that it is possible toget commercial CDs to sound very close to the original source. Unfortunately that doesn't help the thousands and thousands of crappy CDs that have been released. I cannot imagine how anyone with a geniune interest in the sound quality of the music they listen to (provided that is commercially released music) would be worried more about abstract arguments about which media is more accurate and less about what those commercial releases actually sound like. The reasoning behind that belief is fataly flawed on so many levels. 1. The presumption that the transfer was transparent When done by nominally competent people it is. That is a ridiculous, selfserving, conveniently vague, claim. The *fact* is many, most are not. And the proof of this is where? If it were a sanke it would have bit you until it were exhausted. As it is, I am tired of directing yo to that proof over and over again. As I said before, you either don't get it or don't want to. I have provided everything you need to understand that most CDs are not transparent copies of their original source. There is no warning sign on CDs telling you whether they are transparent copies of the master tape or not. There is no warning on LP's telling you how many times removed from the master it is either, yet it will never be as close as a CD is. No there are no warnings. It takes careful investigation. Had you ever engaged in such investigation you would realize just how wrong you are about your assumptions. You don't know which are and are not. Now if you can come up with a list stating which commercial Cds are and which are not.... Otherwise your claim doesn't mean anything in the real world. It also doesn't jive with this ridiculous claim of yours. "They sound like they are supposed to, like the master tape, and like the engineer intended." Are you suggesting that *all* Cds were "nominally competently" made? I'm responding to the title of the thread, CD is more accurate than LP always has been and will ever be thus. Sorry but that simply is not the case in so many commercial releases. You don't get it? Fine, your problem not mine. You want to discuss other issues like production values instead. Production as in the mastering and manfacturing of CDs and LPs is not another issue. It is a primary issue. The truth is that CD is the most accurate way to playback music, it also has lower noise and better dynamics. I can't control how they master them any more than you can control the mastering of any LP's. The facts don't change if there was a bad decision in how to mix the final version, but the CD is going to be truer than the LP. The quality of sound does change. That is the issue you prefer to ignore it seems. If it were not the goal to have that accuracy to the master, then why bother making one? That is a ridiculous question. You make one so you can have a commerical release. So it stands to reason, that if you care about such things, you stick withg CD's. No it does not stand to reason. Please review my post where I explain why it is far from reasonable for a consumer to pretend the "master tape" is any kind of meaningful reference. If you want something that creates an alternate reality from what was recorded so that it suits your idea of what things should sound like, use whatever you like, form Lp's and different cartridges to, EQ and sonic holography. Whatever floats your boat. "Alternate reality?" Do tell me how one determines the "reality" of the sound of a "master tape?" If in carefully explaining how one determines what a "master tape" is supposed to "sound like" you haven't figured out what so many of the problems are in rying to make this a reference, I don't know what else to tell you. 2. The presumption that the right choices were made in picking and playing "the" master tape That's different for LP's how? With original issues that should be selfevident. the masters that were used were specifically chosen or made by the people making the recording for the purpose of mastering the LP. But asking about LPs makes the assumption that CDs are more accurate to the artists' intentions how? Because the artist hears what he recorded exactly as it entered the mixing board and doesn't have to wait to hear what they have to do to make it suitable for an LP master. This makes no sense without a time machine. 3 The presumption that the mastering engineer did a good job See above. Tell me this. How would *you* know which suffered more from bad mastering between any given LP and CD? How would you tell that about an LP? I see you have no answer to the question. thank you. i think you know the answer is that you cant without access to the source. Something we don't have. 4. The presumption that the chosen master tape best represents the artists' intentions despite the fact that LP test pressings were so often the final arbitrator of artist intentions.5. The presumtion that using a master tape as a reference is meaningful given the fact that one cannot use a master tape as a reference without also using a playback system as part of that reference thereby setting up playback as a reference for playback. But if one does, one will get the exact playback that one wouldget from the master tape that was used. Noooooooo. Simply not true. Something that can NEVER happen with an LP. Did you really mean to say this? That it will never happen with LP that one will never get what the artist intended you to get even when the decision of what that was was based on an artist approval from the er um the LP testpressing? Think about it. Why wait for atest pressing, when you can hear exactly what the CD will soundlike just by playing the master? Dude, I am not tlking about some future project. I am talking about the vast majority of actual commercial releases that have already been made. I've snipped the rest of this for one simple reason, to get back to the thread title. The Truth About accuracy of CD v LP. I've snipped the rest of this post because it contains nothing relevant to the topic above just misguided beliefs held despite all the evidence presented to the contrary of those misguided beliefs. Scott |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 18:56:53 GMT, Jenn wrote: Even at that stratospheric level, the argument still rages, as the Goldmund Reference table was produced using both technologies at different times. When was the Goldman Reference ever a DD TT? Scott |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 12 Mar 2006 18:55:55 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 11 Mar 2006 18:58:53 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: to 'perfect' by any reasonable standard. But then there are the digiphiles that i suspect you think are getting it wrong. forgot about them? I don't know any "vinylphiles' painting their LPs green. There are didgphiles buying some very expensive gear like belt drive tubed CD players. Do you think those digphiles are "getting it right?" They're not digiphiles, they're audiophools, there's a difference. Real digiphiles know that none of the above do anything good to the sound of CDs. Moroever, as Scott conveniently fails to mention, those audiofools are in almost every instance trying to get CDs to sound more like their beloved *vinyl*. Indeed. I have often wondered what technically inept and utterly cynical clown ever came up with the idea of a belt-drive CD player, and of increasing the output impedance by sticking a cathode follower on the end of the existing output stage. Why wonder when you can always ask the designer? It's what's called a rhetorical question, Scott. i always thought questions rhetorical or not ended in a question mark. But really, why not ask the designer? Of course, the real joke is that what's generally acknowledged as the worlds's best turntable, the Rockport Sirius III, is direct drive! :-) How is that a joke even if it were true? It's a joke because the only reason for the existence of the technically inept belt-drive CD player is the perception amongst many audiophiles that belt-drive vinyl TTs are best. You know this how? It seems clear you haen't asked the esigner why a belt was used. Seems like yo are building your position on pure prejudice. Of course, different engineeering principles apply when designing equipment to replay constant angular velocity discs such as LPs, than for constant linear velocity discs such as CDs. That makes sense. Naturally, Scott then says that he doesn't think the Sirius actually is the best, he prefers the Forsell. Stewart, ever do a blind comparison between the Forsell and the Rockport? Until you have we don't know that your biases and only your biases are not behind your opinions on the merits o the two tables. As is the case for you, of course. Wrong. As usual. I prefer CD. Old news. not relevant. For a vinyl spinner, there are too many variables to say which is technically superior - some would argue against linear tracking arms, for starters. I for one don't worry so much about what should win on paper. that is why I prefer to listen to make up my mind. How utterly predictable.... Given the fact that I picked the Forsell before I knew you existed this looks like a claim of the paranormal. Better call Randi. The point is that you will always pick something other than that which is generally acknowledged to be the best. That is a silly point. I pick what i pick based on what I hear whether it is a popular choice or not. Excuse me for being an indpendant thinker. I suppose you would alter your preference so as to stay in line with the status quo? I think if that is where you are coming from it is more than fair to say your claim about the Rockport s based on biases and not on any meaningful listening experience. And how is the Rockport generally acknowledged to be the best? Where is your survey? And what does that matter? One can only presume that this is some kind of bid for aesthetic superiority - but whatever. I suppose if one thinks they already know it all they can make all kinds of ridiculous narrow minded presumptions. Don't let the facts get in the way whatever you do. Scott |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
I have tried to follow the logic in this thread for a while but it
seems that I can get the same information on rao. A simplification: x the music that the composer/soloist/producer/conductor wants us to perceive. f(x) the result after recording x (A/D) g(f(x)) the remastering process(A/D) h(g(f(x))) the production process (A/D) i(h(g(f(x)))) the playback hardware p(i(h(g(f(x))))) how we will perceive the playback How many of you (objectivist, subjectivists ... ) are professionals involved in any of the transformations f(),g() or h() and how valid is the information found in the links about the recording process problems that George refers to? Is the information found there obsolete! /mu |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
THE TRUTH ABOUT SPEAKER WIRE | Tech | |||
Share Your Snake Oil Story... | Pro Audio | |||
Share Your Snake Oil Story... | Audio Opinions | |||
Is THD really the Science of Accuracy? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
ADAM P11a vs Truth Audio TA-1 monitors (not Behringer) | Pro Audio |