[Arny Krueger]

"Geoff" wrote in message

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

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

Pray tell how oversampling increases resolution ?

http://www.daqchina.net/daqchina/circuit/adpro.pdf

The reason for oversampling was/is to make reconstruction
filters easier to implemnt without artifiacts of a steep
slope.

That's one reason of several.

It's been a whil, have I forgotten ?

yep.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message


I don't think anyone who prefers vinyl would argue that,
for example, dynamic range and S/N of CD is potential
better (although I prefer different). There is no proof,
BTW, that CD is better than vinyl in absolute terms.

FYI, dynamic range and S/N are analogous.

The CD format has 4 undeniable advantages over the LP format in absolute
terms:

(1) Dynamic range
(2) Vastly reduced nonlinear distortion (actually implied by item 1)
(3) Vastly reduced linear distortion, AKA frequency and phase response in
the audio band
(4) Robustness and general practicality as a distribution medium.

When I say "absolute" I mean that the above advantages are stated using
standard technical terms that are generally understood as common technical
terms related to the audio arts.

They are undeniable facts that are generally true under all reasonable
circumstances.

They can be found in papers in widely-recognized refereed professional audio
technical publications (e.g. IEEE and AES).

They can be determined and compared by standard mechanical (or electrical)
means that are generally-recognized and very low in terms of personal bias.

They are also generally true when evaluated in bias-controlled listening
tests.

Almost all consumers of audio recordings accept that they are true if they
have any amount of personal experience with both mediums.

The only people who disagree with any of them are themselves highly biased.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

And yet you have never done a bias controled listening
test using SOTA lp playback gear and SOTA vinyl to verify
this claim.

The definition of SOTA lp playback gear and SOTA vinyl is not generally
agreed-upon, and does have a stable definition.

The corresponding equipment is not practical for ordinary mortals who are
unwilling to mortage their children's future, to own.

In contrast I can define an adequte reference SOTA digital music player for
comparison as follows:

A good CD or DVD player, costing $39 and up.

I can also define an adequate media production/reproduction facility for the
digital side:

A ca. $400 Dell PC with CD or DVD burner and onboard audio interface.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
. com,
wrote:
I already pointed out some specific examples of that
travesty. The meter readers seemed utterly ans
completely disinterested when I started talking about
specific examples of terrible sounding CDs that are
trumped by great sounding LPs of the same title.

Oh that isn't a problem for incompetent engineers.
However, to make an LP sound as good as a well recorded
CD is impossible. And that's the crux of the matter.

Even just making an adequate high speed analog tape master for cutting the
LP is mission impossible.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:27:47 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home
wrote:


wrote in message
ups.com...
And yet you have never done a bias controled listening
test using SOTA lp playback gear and SOTA vinyl to
verify this claim.

I have, and it was a lay down misere for vinyl I'm
afraid. (for those who don't play cards, it's where you
lose every trick :-)


Do you mean a misere ouvert?

But the necessity of using a $100,000 turntable to
compete (and lose) against a $500 CD player was the
really amusing part!


That would be a $50 CD surely?

$39 or less in the USA. ;-)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:

[snip]
Almost all consumers of audio recordings accept that they are true if
they have any amount of personal experience with both mediums.

The only people who disagree with any of them are themselves highly
biased.

Or so lacking in knowledge they blame the CD medium for other reasons. And
enjoy fiddling with pickups, etc.

--
*It is wrong to ever split an infinitive *

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

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

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


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

I will just give you an example of one person's efforts.
http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf


Scott, I guess you can't tell the difference between an AES conference
paper, where almost anything goes, and a JAES article, which is refereed for
technical accuracy by a independent review board.

The cited paper is just a piece of self-aggrandizing puffery, replete with
name-dropping.

It actually describes no technical changes, let alone improvements, to the
CD format.

[Arny Krueger]

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

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

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

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

If we are talking about actual commercial CDs few of
todays releases have more then 20db dynamic range.

If its true, its a consequence of artistic decisions, not technical
decisions.

It's about particular implmentations, not any technical limitation of the CD
medium.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
, Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

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

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

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

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

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

One of the things I have been wondering about for some
time is as follows:

It is straightforwards to work out the channel capacity
of an analog channel where the noise level and peak level
vary with frequency in a definable manner. So that could
be used to work out a capacity value for LP systems.
However this essentially ignores any effect of nonlinear
distortion on capacity below the defined peak limit
value.

I haven't seen a treatment which analyses the capacity of
a channel where nonlinear distortion rises with signal
level and may represent the practical limit. i.e. not
seen a treatment of how distortion affects channel
information capacity.

Anyone know if this has been done, and can suggest a
reference?

I think the usual approach is to take the spurious responses due to the
nonlinear distortion as being part of the noise floor. IOW you calculate
dynamic range from a SNR measurement made with a FS or near-FS signal is
present.

This is probably a bit optimistic because it underestimates the adverse
effects of the probable cross-products when complex musical signals are
being reproduced.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

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

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

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

Agreed that using one's brain can be a great help, as opposed to turning off
the brain and just relying on the ears. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com

As ever the point whistles straight over your head
Scott, sonny. There is NO mastering on that recording.
It went to CD EXACTLY as it came from the mics.

Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It
went to CD exactly as it came from the mics." You should
publish a technical article on this amazing breakthrough.
No mic preamp, no A/D converter, nothin but the raw
analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right over my
head.

I'm ROTFLMAO that Scott apparently thinks that LP recordings don't involve
the use of mic preamps, and other technical apparataus with technical flaws
so egregious as to make good A/D converters seem to be as pure as
freshly-fallen snow.

BTW it mght be possible to make a pretty good organ recording with just mics
and a top-notch line-level audio interface, no mic preamp needed. 120 dB
below about 1 volt is a pretty good noise floor for a mic.

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:17:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com

As ever the point whistles straight over your head
Scott, sonny. There is NO mastering on that recording.
It went to CD EXACTLY as it came from the mics.

Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It
went to CD exactly as it came from the mics." You should
publish a technical article on this amazing breakthrough.
No mic preamp, no A/D converter, nothin but the raw
analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right over my
head.

I'm ROTFLMAO that Scott apparently thinks that LP recordings don't involve
the use of mic preamps, and other technical apparataus with technical flaws
so egregious as to make good A/D converters seem to be as pure as
freshly-fallen snow.

BTW it mght be possible to make a pretty good organ recording with just mics
and a top-notch line-level audio interface, no mic preamp needed. 120 dB
below about 1 volt is a pretty good noise floor for a mic.


True - as I said, audience noise, not mic noise was the limiting
factor. If I could have recorded this with the church empty, I would
have been happy, and the organist would have played the quiet bit even
quieter. But, it was an "event" and they wanted a memento of "their"
performance.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[[email protected]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 21:10:42 -0800, wrote:


As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There
is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came
from the mics.

Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It went to CD
exactly as it came from the mics." You should publish a technical
article on this amazing breakthrough. No mic preamp, no A/D converter,
nothin but the raw analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right
over my head.

Don't you get tired of making an ass of yourself?


So is that a no on the name drop?


Scott

That little insect buzzing noise is back again. It is seriously
irritating.

Goooood come back. Very witty and original. Maybe you should write
comedy. You do amuse me. Gotta love those new CDs of yours that are
copied straight off the mic with no A/D conversion. That made me laugh.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of
*realism*.....


Mmm. I think you misunderstand. That statement doesn't say anything
close to 'vinyl is better than CD' in absolute terms.

I'm puzzled as to what you think he means? Can a sense of "realism"
(whatever that really means)

If you don't know what that means you really aren't qualified to
discuss hifi.



only be attained by inferior equipment?


Nice. Just use charged language and you maifest reality. Your reasoning
is so amazing. Just call vinyl inferior and then it can't possibly
sound better. You have now risen to the intelectual level that
qualifies you to be president of the United States.


Scott

[Don Pearce]

On 30 Oct 2006 08:04:05 -0800, wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 21:10:42 -0800, wrote:


As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There
is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came
from the mics.

Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It went to CD
exactly as it came from the mics." You should publish a technical
article on this amazing breakthrough. No mic preamp, no A/D converter,
nothin but the raw analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right
over my head.

Don't you get tired of making an ass of yourself?


So is that a no on the name drop?


Scott

That little insect buzzing noise is back again. It is seriously
irritating.

Goooood come back. Very witty and original. Maybe you should write
comedy. You do amuse me. Gotta love those new CDs of yours that are
copied straight off the mic with no A/D conversion. That made me laugh.


Scott

Scott, had it been anybody else saying this, I would have believed
that they knew what I meant and were taking the **** in a rather
half-arsed way at my shorthand. But this is you, so I take you at face
value and assume you really do believe I think I wrote analogue to a
CD. You really are too stupid for words.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
And yet you have never done a bias controled listening test using SOTA
lp playback gear and SOTA vinyl to verify this claim.

I have, and it was a lay down misere for vinyl I'm afraid.
(for those who don't play cards, it's where you lose every trick :-)

But the necessity of using a $100,000 turntable to compete (and lose)
against a $500 CD player was the really amusing part!

This where our resdent scientist, Jim is supposed to ask for the
details of this test so we can decide whether or not it was meaningful.
But Jim likes to pick and choose his moments to do this based on
whether or not he likes the results of a test report. (Sooooo
scientific) So I will step in and ask for those specifics.

What exact equipment was used?
What exact LPs and CDs were used?
What was the test methodology?
What were the actual results?


Scott

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
I already pointed out some specific examples of that travesty. The
meter readers seemed utterly ans completely disinterested when I
started talking about specific examples of terrible sounding CDs that
are trumped by great sounding LPs of the same title. It seems quite
obvious that there is little interest in sound quality amoung the meter
readers when it comes to playing great music.

In fact I, and many others have readilly admitted there are some CD's out
there SO bad that the vinyl version is better. However a few pathological
examples of faulty mastering does NOT prove vinyl is better than CD for
anything other than the cover art!

A few? Well that's just further evidence that you are another amoung
the meter readers that think of music as a trivial artifact when it
comes to audio. Pleease tell us what LPs and CDs you havecompared and
what equipment you used and what were the specific differences you
heard? Anyone who cares about sound quality would have done a lot of
these sorts of comparisons to find the best sounding versions of their
favorite titles. I bet you are drawing a blank right now.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
I don't think anyone who prefers vinyl would argue that, for example,
dynamic range and S/N of CD is potential better (although I prefer
different). There is no proof, BTW, that CD is better than vinyl in
absolute terms.

I guess you have an interesting definition of "absolute terms" then, if S/N
ratio, distortion, wow and flutter, rumble, frequency bandwidth and
flattness etc. are all irrelevant.

Indeed. False claims are a different matter, though.

Which is all I'm complaining about, the unprovable claim that vinyl is
better than CD (rather than simply saying - some CD's are dreadful despite
the mediums huge technical superiority.)


Hey mr science dude. How on earth is the claim unbprovable? It's a
simple claim to test and it has been tested with vinyl coming out on
top. You can wave your arms all you want but that reality will not
change.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
If we are talking about actual commercial CDs few of todays releases
have more then 20db dynamic range.

So true, but so what?

LOL so what? Well there you have it. Another meter reader plays his
hand and tells us that for him music is indeed a trvial artifact of
audio rather than a focal point. SO WHAT?!?


Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
No we were originally discussing why it is worth while to transfer LPs
to digital. The comment that started the debate was that the only
reason to do so is if an LP is not available on CD. Clearly if one
cares about sound quality there are other reasons.

Previously you almost admitted the truth that vinyl can only sound better
than CD if the mastering of that CD was poor.


Listen dickwad, I've been telling the truth the whole way. That idea
prbably creeps out a dick head like you. The truth is with most titles
the superior mastering will end up being on an LP version. I know this
throiugh years of comparisons. You are clueless when it comes to this.
But then you really don't care do you? "Music? What's that?" You're all
about geeky technical aspects of audio.Truth is in controled
comparisons of titles where there was no difference in the mastering
other than RIAA EQ for the LP and the proper A/D conversion for the CD
the LP still sounded more realistic than the CD. You have never made
such comparisons. Your beliefs are faith based.




So program material is very much the issue.

So logically transferring a pristine LP to CD (without any 'mastering')
gives the best of both worlds


No transfering LPs to 24/96 or higher rez formats is the logical thing
to do. That is my next project. Yeah I would much rather play digital
copies of my LPs that are indistiguishable from the LP. Funny, I
chimmed in only when some one on this thread claimed it was not
worthwhile because CDs were so much better.


Scott

[[email protected]]

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

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

That says it all. The ears are wrong the test equipment is right.

Yes, in absolute terms,

Absolute terms? LOL do you guys have something similar to a cross to
represent your religion? It would be nice if we can ID you guys from a
distance.


because the ONLY person in the world who has your
ears is YOU.

Oh, now there is a revelation. I suppose in your version of your audio
religion each individual has their own truly and completely unique
hearing? There is no common ground amoung humans when it comes to sound
perception? It's funny how you guys like to whine about the lack of
controled listening in audio yet very few of you guys really know jack
about psychoacoustics. But.... since I buy audio equipment and records
and Cds to please me...




What you *think* is good is a PREFERENCE you are entitled to, nothing more.

Dude, since when did you have ANY say so as to what I am entitled to?



Your
an official meter reader. Ever listen to music? I thought not.

You thought wrong then!

Oh, well then do tell us about your experience in comparing the various
masterings of your favorite titles. I bet you have nothing to say about
it. Quick, do an Arny and google other peoples' views on the subject
then do a Howaard Ferstler and plagarize them.





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

This is a technical forum? You really are a ****ing moron.

The man claiming rec,audio.TECH, is NOT a technical forum is calling ME a
moron :-) :-) :-)


Dude, I am posting on UK.rec,audio




Says it all I guess.


Um yeah, Says it all. I guess.



Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There
is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came
from the mics.

Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It went to CD
exactly as it came from the mics." You should publish a technical
article on this amazing breakthrough. No mic preamp, no A/D converter,
nothin but the raw analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right
over my head.

Perfectly possible to make the described recording without the use of a
mic pre-amp.

It's perfectly possible for you to say something intelligent butwhat is
possible and what likely are often very different things



Don't you get tired of making an ass of yourself?

You should be careful of pronouncing on things you have little knowledge
of.

You are right about this, I know very little about this CD that was
made with no A/D conversion. Maybe you can explain how it works?

So is that a no on the name drop?

Given you criticise those mastering engineers on near every front, why
would it matter?

I do? Examples? Quotations? You are full of ****.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
So logically transferring a pristine LP to CD (without any 'mastering')
gives the best of both worlds - the distortions of the LP without the wear
problems.

Only *some* people actually believe that vinyl distortions are "best"
though.
Others realise the best performance/mastering job are not unique to any
media.

People who care about the music do know this. Tell us some of your
wisdom on mastering. What mastering engineers do you think do the best
job on LPs and CDs? Give us some prime examples. C'mon, you too can
pull an Arny and do a google search. Heck while you are trying to put
up a front of knowing something about this subject you just may learn
something. about it



Scott

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
So logically transferring a pristine LP to CD (without any 'mastering')
gives the best of both worlds - the distortions of the LP without the wear
problems.

Only *some* people actually believe that vinyl distortions are "best"
though.
Others realise the best performance/mastering job are not unique to any
media.

People who care about the music do know this. Tell us some of your
wisdom on mastering. What mastering engineers do you think do the best
job on LPs and CDs? Give us some prime examples. C'mon, you too can
pull an Arny and do a google search. Heck while you are trying to put
up a front of knowing something about this subject you just may learn
something. about it



Scott

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

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


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

I will just give you an example of one person's efforts.
http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf


Scott, I guess you can't tell the difference between an AES conference
paper, where almost anything goes, and a JAES article, which is refereed for
technical accuracy by a independent review board.

The cited paper is just a piece of self-aggrandizing puffery, replete with
name-dropping.

It actually describes no technical changes, let alone improvements, to the
CD format.

Well Arny, thanks for admitting you don't understand the advantages of
better A/D conversion and dither not to mention the use of better
cutting consoles. Figures.



Scott

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

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

If we are talking about actual commercial CDs few of
todays releases have more then 20db dynamic range.

If its true, its a consequence of artistic decisions, not technical
decisions.

It's about particular implmentations, not any technical limitation of the CD
medium.

But that's OK with dorks like you. So long as the technology gives you
a woody who cares if the music sounds like crap. Music just gets in
your way of your love of measurements.


Scott

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

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

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

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

Scott, Dick Pierce and Don Pearce are two different people.
Both are capable of laying your arguments to waste, so perhaps
that's what's confused you.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Well, it might have helped if you'd spelled 'commas' and 'allegory'
in standard fashion. Maby.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

As ever the point whistles straight over your head
Scott, sonny. There is NO mastering on that recording.
It went to CD EXACTLY as it came from the mics.

Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It
went to CD exactly as it came from the mics." You should
publish a technical article on this amazing breakthrough.
No mic preamp, no A/D converter, nothin but the raw
analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right over my
head.

I'm ROTFLMAO that Scott apparently thinks that LP recordings don't involve
the use of mic preamps, and other technical apparataus with technical flaws
so egregious as to make good A/D converters seem to be as pure as
freshly-fallen snow.

Arny lay off the drugs. This ridiculous line of reasoning cannot
possibley happen without drugs or some sort of brain damage. Oh never
mind.



BTW it mght be possible to make a pretty good organ recording with just mics
and a top-notch line-level audio interface, no mic preamp needed. 120 dB
below about 1 volt is a pretty good noise floor for a mic.


Don't tell Donny he needs all that stuff. He just uses a mic feed to
record his CDs. To hell with any interface or A/D converters for that
matter.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 08:04:05 -0800, wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 21:10:42 -0800, wrote:


As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There
is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came
from the mics.

Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It went to CD
exactly as it came from the mics." You should publish a technical
article on this amazing breakthrough. No mic preamp, no A/D converter,
nothin but the raw analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right
over my head.

Don't you get tired of making an ass of yourself?


So is that a no on the name drop?


Scott

That little insect buzzing noise is back again. It is seriously
irritating.

Goooood come back. Very witty and original. Maybe you should write
comedy. You do amuse me. Gotta love those new CDs of yours that are
copied straight off the mic with no A/D conversion. That made me laugh.


Scott

Scott, had it been anybody else saying this, I would have believed
that they knew what I meant and were taking the **** in a rather
half-arsed way at my shorthand. But this is you, so I take you at face
value and assume you really do believe I think I wrote analogue to a
CD. You really are too stupid for words.



Dude, you are the idiot that said " There is NO mastering on that
recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came from the mics."
Did you not know that exactly what came from the mics was an analog
signal? Did you not know that what goes into a CD is a digital signal?
Your words dude. Your stupidity. Don't expect others to clean up your
mess.



Scott

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:
snip

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

Indeed.

I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl
is better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound
produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair
believe ... :-)

It rarely stops there...it's usually followed by some rather technically
dubious claims about analog and digital....often phrased as a report of
hearing things that digital 'can't do'. Originally it was digital, period,
but in the past half decade or so the scripture has been amended to allow
that 'hi rez' digital might, on a good day, sound as good as vinyl, but
16/44.1, heavens no, it can't sound as good as 'the best' vinyl played on
'SOTA' gear to 'golden ears', even if it's a CD transfer of an LP. Which
brings us back to this thread.

For myself, I'm more interested in audio than vinyl. I think it's nice
if people can make up their own mind about vinyl by listening, using and
taking on board the technical arguments. The UK audio group tends to
provide a good blend of things I'm interested in.

I think it's nice if people understand the well-documented limitations of
'listening' as it is generally done..yet many vinylphiles seem less
interested in that than in promoting what they believe (often without basis)
are audible limitations of digital.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com


Well, we disagree about the transarency of 16/44.1

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


Accurate? Do you mean as in *lifelike*....???

Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of *realism*.....

Achieved via introduction of distortions that some find pleasing.

Others might prefer to add such distortions or not, as an
*option*, not an inherent quality of the system.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl
is better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound
produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair
believe ... :-)

Just look at this from our resident ayatollah - Mr G...

From: Keith G
Subject: Vinyl to CD on a PC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:10
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of
*realism*.....


Mmm. I think you misunderstand. That statement doesn't say anything
close to 'vinyl is better than CD' in absolute terms.

Sure it does, unless you believe he thinks 'a sense of realism' is a
*bad* thing. And too, the utter lack of qualification -- note
the word 'never' -- brings it into the realm of absolutism.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
BTW it mght be possible to make a pretty good organ recording with just
mics and a top-notch line-level audio interface, no mic preamp needed.
120 dB below about 1 volt is a pretty good noise floor for a mic.

Some older well regarded condenser mics had a much higher output than is
common these days - most now conform to the DIN standard. Many years ago I
mixed a live TV pop show in a small studio with very rudimentary sound
facilities (great fun actually) and plugged most of the mics (AKG C28)
into the line inputs. Straight into the fader. ;-)

One such mic I own is a Neumann U77.

--
*He's not dead - he's electroencephalographically challenged

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

[Keith G]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that
'vinyl
is better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound
produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair
believe ... :-)

Just look at this from our resident ayatollah - Mr G...

From: Keith G
Subject: Vinyl to CD on a PC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:10
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of
*realism*.....


Mmm. I think you misunderstand. That statement doesn't say anything
close to 'vinyl is better than CD' in absolute terms.

Sure it does, unless you believe he thinks 'a sense of realism' is a
*bad* thing. And too, the utter lack of qualification -- note
the word 'never' -- brings it into the realm of absolutism.



Ayatollah...???

:-))


How apposite - I was saying only yesterday, if we walked round with fekkin'
tea-towels over our faces, how long before we got arrested??

Church of Tea Towel anybody...??

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
Which is all I'm complaining about, the unprovable claim that vinyl is
better than CD (rather than simply saying - some CD's are dreadful
despite the mediums huge technical superiority.)

Hey mr science dude. How on earth is the claim unbprovable? It's a
simple claim to test and it has been tested with vinyl coming out on
top.

Don't be silly. Your tests must be flawed in that they chose specific
examples to prove the point.

You simply can't get round the fact that a double blind AB comparison
between a decent master tape - digital or analogue - copied straight to
both LP and CD with no 'mastering' other than making sure the maximum mod
isn't exceeded - will result in *anyone* hearing the difference reliably
between that master and the LP, but not between it and the CD.

You can wave your arms all you want but that reality will not
change.

You're the one doing the waving while drowning...

--
*Why does the sun lighten our hair, but darken our skin?

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

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Mr.T wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl
is better than CD'.

Try Google, there are thousands of them.


I just tried your suggestion (vinyl better CD). Clearly I haven't been
through all 6m but the first few pages seem to be pointing to something
like a more enjoyable, realistic sound. Not unequivocal.


The arrogance of the digital bigots disallows the possibility that anyone
who thinks vinyl is/can sound more realistic than the *flatness* of CD could
be right....

Hold on there, quickdraw. *Is* and *can sound* are two different claims.
And no one says a *preference* for a sound is right or wrong. The claimed
*reasons* for a preference could be.

'Stereo' means solid - using two channels to create an illusion of
'solidity', space and depth is an aural illusion that is *far better*
achieved by vinyl, IME. I can prove this to myself any time I can be arsed
to dig out a corresonding CD to certain LPs I've got.

Also 'far better' achieved, to some ears, by a multichannel reproduction.

Whether or not CD has a lower noise floor or greater dynamic range is of no
consequence to me - it simply does *not* sound better to me....

(Anybody don't like to hear that, then tough ****....)

You seem angry. Also, you're missing the point of this thread..which is that
a CD transfer of an LP could well capture all that 'realism' you like.
If you claim it *can't ever* do that, then it's time to explain why that
could be so.


And you are in the best position to comment. But might your technical
certainties twist your listening experience? Because you know that CD must
be better, do your prophecies self-fulfill?

I used to think the CD bigots bashed vinyl out of jealousy, having got rid
of their vinyl (like so many did), but so many of them claim to still own
many LPs - presumably for the opposite purpose of digging out the occasional
LP just to prove they still don't like 'em...???

Cover art, mainly. And a few that have never come out on CD, I've transferred
from LP. But all of them reside in the attic.

I'm sure lots of vinylphiles own a CD or two, too.


I don't think anyone who prefers vinyl would argue that, for example,
dynamic range and S/N of CD is potential better (although I prefer
different). There is no proof, BTW, that CD is better than vinyl in
absolute terms.


Damn right.


What do you mean by 'absolute terms'? It can't mean 'in every and all
conceivable ways', because that would be an impossible standard. There are
certainly some *objective* measures by which CD (the medium, not individual
CDs) outperforms LP (the medium, not individual LPs) ...dynamic range, S/N,
and flatness of frequency response over the audible range being three.





___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Keith G]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com


Well, we disagree about the transarency of 16/44.1

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


Accurate? Do you mean as in *lifelike*....???

Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of
*realism*.....

Achieved via introduction of distortions that some find pleasing.

Others might prefer to add such distortions or not, as an
*option*, not an inherent quality of the system.



*Sigh*....

If I had a penny for every time I've heard/read that old chestnut I could
afford the portable digital recorder I would like.....

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com


Well, we disagree about the transarency of 16/44.1

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


Accurate? Do you mean as in *lifelike*....???

Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of
*realism*.....

Achieved via introduction of distortions that some find pleasing.

Others might prefer to add such distortions or not, as an
*option*, not an inherent quality of the system.

*Sigh*....

If I had a penny for every time I've heard/read that old chestnut I could
afford the portable digital recorder I would like.....

shrug

I canna change the laws of physics, cap'n.



--

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
Previously you almost admitted the truth that vinyl can only sound better
than CD if the mastering of that CD was poor.


Listen dickwad, I've been telling the truth the whole way. That idea
prbably creeps out a dick head like you. The truth is with most titles
the superior mastering will end up being on an LP version.

Most? Most titles aren't released on LP.

I know this throiugh years of comparisons.

You must lead a sad life.

You are clueless when it comes to this.
But then you really don't care do you? "Music? What's that?" You're all
about geeky technical aspects of audio.Truth is in controled
comparisons of titles where there was no difference in the mastering
other than RIAA EQ for the LP and the proper A/D conversion for the CD
the LP still sounded more realistic than the CD.

Ah. More 'realistic' - but different from the master. You obviously love
second harmonic distortion. Say no more.

You have never made such comparisons. Your beliefs are faith based.

Oh, but I have. And base my views on what I and others whose opinions I
respect heard.

--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

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