[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Geoff wrote:
wrote:
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.

But that is a 'production choice' , not a limitation inherent of the media.

As is the case with any record that does not exploit the full dynamic
range of that medium. Does the fact that it is a production choice does
that make it sound better?


And if a recording exploits the full dynamic range of vinyl...does it have
as much DR as one that exploits the full dynamic range of Redbook, much less
one of the higher-bit digital formats?

Let us compare apples to apples, please...especially as YOU are the one
who keeps insisting on some undefined 'SOTA' spec.

If you want 'purist' recordings, in LP or digital, traditionally one
looks to classical, not pop recordings.


___
-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:
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

So you've at least learned something? That it is possible to omit a mic
amp under certain circumstances?

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?

I'd say that Don gave you the benefit of the doubt in thinking that you'd
realise a CD was digital. Obviously not since you think to tell the world
about this...

BTW, mics with digital outputs exist. But you'd not know that, would you?

--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
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

WTF cares who the engineers are? Only some anorak such as you, and those
in the business who may wish to employ them.

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

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

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Keith G wrote:


**** all this 'controlled listening test' horse**** - normal listening is
the best way to enjoy LPs.....

I agree and it is the best way to enjoy CDs. However for all Plowman's
objectivist horse**** on the subject of LPs v. CDs he has never
followed the mantra and done such tests. For the record (no pun
intended) I have. My preferences are not a result of bias when it comes
to LPs and CDs.



Nor mine - I don't actively seek the Hard Way in anything in life, if I
could put up with CDs I'd listen to them, but I can't so I don't....


That explains the lazy reasoning you employ , I guess.

Anyway, I see elsewhere that you're a self-admitted troll, so I
guess I've wasted precious seconds of my life responding to your
posts. I won't make that mistake again. Welcome to my
killfile.





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

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
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.

Depends on what sounds 'good' to the listener. If you like the 'sound' of
the LP medium, then a CD won't ever sound as good as LP unless you
transfer the LP to CD (or develop a mastering scheme that replicates
that sound).



___
-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:

"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.


Who needs to supply reasons for a preference....???



'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.


Possibly (but not by mine) - there is no limitation on how many channels may
be employed to create a stereo image...




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.


Not in the least - I've said it 20 million times he I couldn't care less
who likes/prefers what. All I don't like is when the digital bigots try to
(unsuccessfully) eradicate vinyl from this group as a valid 'audio' format.

I call them the Denial Boyz - they *hate* that!! :-)


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.


You think so??

Interesting....




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.


Your problems are not my problems....



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


I suppose there are 5 or 6 hundred of them kicking about the place here - I
really ought to try and play some of them, sometime...



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.


Are you new here or summat....??

[Keith G]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
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.



**** me...

If I had a penny for every time I heard *that* one I could afford 20 digital
recorders....

[Keith G]

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

wrote in message
ups.com...

Keith G wrote:


**** all this 'controlled listening test' horse**** - normal listening
is
the best way to enjoy LPs.....

I agree and it is the best way to enjoy CDs. However for all Plowman's
objectivist horse**** on the subject of LPs v. CDs he has never
followed the mantra and done such tests. For the record (no pun
intended) I have. My preferences are not a result of bias when it comes
to LPs and CDs.



Nor mine - I don't actively seek the Hard Way in anything in life, if I
could put up with CDs I'd listen to them, but I can't so I don't....


That explains the lazy reasoning you employ , I guess.

Anyway, I see elsewhere that you're a self-admitted troll, so I
guess I've wasted precious seconds of my life responding to your
posts. I won't make that mistake again. Welcome to my
killfile.



**** and I've just wasted seconds of my life replying to him!!

Oh well, 'the biter bit' I suppose!! :-)

Or: 'Who lives by the ****ter, dies by the ****ter....!!'

:-))

Feck, YHFL....

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
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, it is not my fault that you can't distinguish between changes in
implementation details such as changing the brand of A/D converter, and
changes to parameters of the CD format. It's also not my fault that you
don't know that dither was always part of the parameters for the CD format.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
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,

Yet another one of Scott's meltdowns.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
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.

Yet another one of Scott's meltdowns.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
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.

I'm thinking that those old high output condenser mics may have had higher
output levels designed to overcome the inherent noise of the tubed equipment
they were used with.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
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.

I'm thinking that those old high output condenser mics may have had higher
output levels designed to overcome the inherent noise of the tubed
equipment they were used with.



Modern versions of those old mics, like the Nevatons, go for anything like
600 poon in this country these days and some (many?) dealers have waiting
lists for them, apparently....

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:07:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I'm thinking that those old high output condenser mics may have had higher
output levels designed to overcome the inherent noise of the tubed equipment
they were used with.

What sort of circuit did they use to achieve the high output? :-)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.

I got the 'alagory' bit. But not the 'camas'. Thought he was referring to
his favourite fetish wear.

--
*Black holes are where God divided by zero *

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
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.

The second sentence qualified the first. Which referred to mastering. And
would be plain to anyone with a reasonable command of the English
language. Ie, obviously everyone *else* reading this group, since you're
the only one not to understand what was meant.

--
*If you remember the '60s, you weren't really there

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
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

That the 'old chestnut' is provably true doesn't concern you?

I could afford the portable digital recorder I would like.....

But surely a man of your discrimation would demand an analogue machine?

Why not even a disc recorder? They come up on Ebay from time to time.

--
*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.

Depends on what sounds 'good' to the listener. If you like the 'sound'
of the LP medium, then a CD won't ever sound as good as LP unless you
transfer the LP to CD (or develop a mastering scheme that replicates
that sound).

An LP transcripted to CD using the finest equipment and the greatest care
still won't 'sound' the same to vinyl nuts. Their 'realism' comes from
watching the turntable go round and round...

--
*If you can't see my mirrors, I'm doing my hair*

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Not in the least - I've said it 20 million times he I couldn't care
less who likes/prefers what.

But rise to each and every bait to preach your vinyl gospel...

All I don't like is when the digital bigots try to (unsuccessfully)
eradicate vinyl from this group as a valid 'audio' format.

How can anyone try to eliminate anything from a public un moderated group?
Have you had treatment for your paranoia?

I call them the Denial Boyz - they *hate* that!! :-)

You have insight into the minds of those who read this group?

I queried your use of 'denial' before as it's a term used by addicts.

So say no more...

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in
message
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:07:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I'm thinking that those old high output condenser mics
may have had higher output levels designed to overcome
the inherent noise of the tubed equipment they were used
with.

What sort of circuit did they use to achieve the high
output? :-)

I presume that you mean to elicit the following answer: "A tube". ;-)

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:32:37 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

In fact the only reason I used a preamp on that recording was that it
was a handy way to get 48V. Otherwise it would have been straight into
line, no problem.

d

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

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:07:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I'm thinking that those old high output condenser mics may have had higher
output levels designed to overcome the inherent noise of the tubed equipment
they were used with.

What sort of circuit did they use to achieve the high output? :-)

A large capsule and a high polarising voltage does it.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote
"Arny Krueger" wrote

I'm thinking that those old high output condenser mics
may have had higher output levels designed to overcome
the inherent noise of the tubed equipment they were used
with.

What sort of circuit did they use to achieve the high
output? :-)

I presume that you mean to elicit the following answer: "A tube". ;-)

You missed the important bits.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote
"Arny Krueger" wrote

I'm thinking that those old high output condenser mics
may have had higher output levels designed to overcome
the inherent noise of the tubed equipment they were
used with.

What sort of circuit did they use to achieve the high
output? :-)

I presume that you mean to elicit the following answer:
"A tube". ;-)

You missed the important bits.


Of course. The smiley emoticons are supposted to indicate that we were
joking.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
I'm thinking that those old high output condenser mics may have had
higher output levels designed to overcome the inherent noise of the
tubed equipment they were used with.

What sort of circuit did they use to achieve the high output? :-)

A large capsule and a high polarising voltage does it.

The AKG C28 is a small capsule design. About 1". Interchangeable with
later C451s.

--
*When the going gets tough, use duct tape

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

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

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.

An analog signal fed from a mic to a digital recorder stands a good chance of coming out
exactly as it came from the mic, when converted back to analog (as all
digital must). An analog signal fed to an analog recorder, doesn't.

Of course, neither is 'exactly like' the original *sound*...because of the
hit it takes in the mic (an analog transducer)


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

[Chris Isbell]

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

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


Scott,

It is you how is making an idiot of yourself. The people you are
criticising have demonstrated their extensive knowledge of physics and
engineering on many occasions; all you are doing is parading your
ignorance for all those who have even a basic knowledge in these areas
to see.

Please either go and educate yourself in the subject or shut up.

Thanks.

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.

Funny thing about the meter reders, they actualy do all sound th same.



Both are capable of laying your arguments to waste,


So they choose to make asses of themselves instead? Odd choice.


so perhaps
that's what's confused you.


I wasn't confused. Thank you for finally taking the bait. I had all but
given up on my punchline about all meter readers sounding the same.



Scott

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
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...

But it has on this thread. Disappointed I bet. So gosh, if you can't
get someone to say what you want so you can attack it best thing to do
is just say it yourself and then attack it.



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.


aw, c'mon you could do better than that can't you?






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..

"The limitations of listening." Good one. Thanks for a nother laugh.
Yeah if the meter readers can't corilate the numbers to the aesthetic
experience there must be something wrong with the aesthetic expeience.
That's about as backassward as it gets. in the world of meter readers
the perception must bend to meet the expectations given to them by the
measurements.


yet many vinylphiles seem less
interested in that than in promoting what they believe (often without basis)
are audible limitations of digital.


Maybe they are just looking for an explination for what they hear? As
if that is so terrible but attacking the perceptions as wrong because
they don't fit the meter reader's formulas is completely reasonable.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.

I think thre is something to this claim. I remember a mastering
engineer, I think it was Stan Ricker, saying that he often found the
LPs he mastered often sounded more lifelike than the original master
tapes even when he did a flat transfer with no processing. It stands to
reason that it would be the introduction of colorations that lead to
that effect. Now while the idea of distortion may bother the meter
readers because it makes for uglier numbers, for those who ar
interested in sound quality this shouldn't create a philisophical
dilema. Sounds better is better. It's a simple and pure philosophy.



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

I think that is great idea. Do you know of a program that does this
digitally?


Scott

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

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.

No, no one is required to have an explination for their perceptions.
You see that is part of the bull**** game. You demand an explination
for peoples' perceptions and when they offer a wild guess that has
obvious technical flaws you attack the whole claim via the explination.
It's ****ing shell game with you dorks. You don't like the aesthetic
perceptions when they don't line up with the technogeek meter readers
true love, the numbers.




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.


There you go. And you have no excuse Sully. You know that mastering is
an overriding factor.



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



Or several hundred.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.


Please do tell us how the claim that vinyl inherently sounds more life
like than CD in stereo playback violates any laws of physics.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Geoff wrote:
wrote:
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.

But that is a 'production choice' , not a limitation inherent of the media.

As is the case with any record that does not exploit the full dynamic
range of that medium. Does the fact that it is a production choice does
that make it sound better?


And if a recording exploits the full dynamic range of vinyl...does it have
as much DR as one that exploits the full dynamic range of Redbook, much less
one of the higher-bit digital formats?

IME the percieved dynamic range of Redbook and Vinyl at their best are
neck and neck. You can whine about how that doesn't fit the
measurements but again that would the classic scenerio of meter readers
damning the aesthetics becuase they don't meet thier expectations based
on the numbers. **** that. I'll always go with what I hear. That is
what I hear. 24/96? Whole different ball game. heard a 24/96 recording
of a live jazz ensemble on the Martin Logan Statements. Never heard any
LP or CD with that dynamic range.




Let us compare apples to apples, please...


I have all along. Please pay attention.


especially as YOU are the one
who keeps insisting on some undefined 'SOTA' spec.


There you go again. Can't get "specs" out of your head. um wher have I
refered to "some undefined 'SOTA' spec?"



If you want 'purist' recordings, in LP or digital, traditionally one
looks to classical, not pop recordings.


Your point?



Scott


P.S. One can find some amazing purist recordings in pop music.

[[email protected]]

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

WTF cares who the engineers are?

I must be psychic, I predicted you didn't know squat about the subject.
Gosh who the **** cares about who mastered their favorite music?
Audiophiles that are in it for the enjoyment of music. You see dip****
if you know who is mastering your recordings and you have an idea of
the quality of their work it makes it easier to narrow down the likely
sonic winners and losers. But if you don't really give a **** about
sound quality when music is involved you have no need to check. Once
again you have been pegged.

Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

Wrong again Einstein. The examples chosen were chosen based on two
factors, SOTA recording and lack of diffeences due tomastering. Nothing
more nothing less.



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.


Please cite any peer reviewed published results that support this
assertion.




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

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


"I know you are but what am I."" I'm rubber and you're glue..." blah
blah blah. ****ing moron.


Scott

[Mike Coatham]

wrote in message
oups.com...

Maybe they are just looking for an explination for what they hear?

Explination??? what the hell is one of those!

Surely you mean "explanation"...

[[email protected]]

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

The second sentence qualified the first. Which referred to mastering. And
would be plain to anyone with a reasonable command of the English
language. Ie, obviously everyone *else* reading this group, since you're
the only one not to understand what was meant.

Once again you show us what an idiot you are when it comes to
mastering.

Scott

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

you really are a ****ing moron. obviously this is only in regards to
titles that have been released on both formats dip****. **** you are
stupid.



I know this throiugh years of comparisons.

You must lead a sad life.


Not at all. I'm living my dream. But I can see how searching for the
best sounding versions of one's favorite music would seem sad if you
don't give a **** about sound quality when listening to music.



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.

Did I say that? Did you hear that in your comparisons? Stop shilling
your presumptions as fact dude. you have never compared an LP that has
been mastered on SOTA cutting equipment with no manipulation to the
signal to the master tape. You're ****ng clueless.


You obviously love
second harmonic distortion. Say no more.

Oh it's second order harmonic distortion. Get your meter reader myths
straight dude. We are not talking about tube amps dip****.




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

Oh, but I have.


Bull****. but do tell us about those comparisons. What titles? What
versions of those titles? What eqipment was used? How did you control
your anti-vinyl bias?


And base my views on what I and others whose opinions I
respect heard.


Yep meter readers all sound the same. Can't think for themselves.
Anything different confuses them and makes them angry.


Scott

[[email protected]]

Chris Isbell wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 21:10:42 -0800, wrote:

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


Scott,

It is you how is making an idiot of yourself.

huh?

The people you are
criticising have demonstrated their extensive knowledge of physics and
engineering on many occasions;


Oh, it is matter of knowledge in the fields of physics and engineeing
that determine one's ability to make calls when it comes to one's
aesthetic experiences. Yeah right.


all you are doing is parading your
ignorance for all those who have even a basic knowledge in these areas
to see.

Knowledge? Like what? The ridiculous claim that all LPs were mastered
with summed bass and HF roll off? Dude, you've been suckered. sorry if
pointing these things out is so painful.



Scott

[[email protected]]

Mike Coatham wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Maybe they are just looking for an explination for what they hear?

Explination??? what the hell is one of those!

Surely you mean "explanation"...

I do and don't call me Shirley. Yep my spelling sucks and I make a lot
of typos. Some people seem to think it means the meter readers are
right about CD v. LP sound.



Scott