Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article .com,
wrote: Of course I knew that CDs don't require summed bass, rolled off HF or compression to be properly mastered. It has it's own unique requirements for best results. It has no unique requirements other than observing peak allowable levels. Bet you didn't know that. But you're going to tell us anyway? -- *If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#82
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:03:39 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article .com, wrote: Of course I knew that CDs don't require summed bass, rolled off HF or compression to be properly mastered. It has it's own unique requirements for best results. It has no unique requirements other than observing peak allowable levels. Bet you didn't know that. But you're going to tell us anyway? Bet he can't. Darkly hinting at mysteries beyond the comprehension of mere mortals is the limit of his abilities. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#83
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Geoff wrote: Richard Crowley wrote: "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? Try 12 bits. Try using your ears instead. But if you can't, at least try to get some meaningful data on the subject. What you have going there is about as meaningful as a manufacturer's THD measuements are for an amp. Scott |
#84
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
|
#85
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article .com, wrote: Of course I knew that CDs don't require summed bass, rolled off HF or compression to be properly mastered. It has it's own unique requirements for best results. It has no unique requirements other than observing peak allowable levels. Guess again Bet you didn't know that. But you're going to tell us anyway? Nah, I'll let a few people makes asses of themselves first. Scott |
#86
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Don Pearce wrote: On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:03:39 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article .com, wrote: Of course I knew that CDs don't require summed bass, rolled off HF or compression to be properly mastered. It has it's own unique requirements for best results. It has no unique requirements other than observing peak allowable levels. Bet you didn't know that. But you're going to tell us anyway? Bet he can't. A fool and their money... Darkly hinting at mysteries beyond the comprehension of mere mortals is the limit of his abilities. Dick er Don, do you ever get tired of acting like a fool? Is it the only way you can get that much needed attention? Scott |
#87
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
On 2006-10-25, Geoff wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote: "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? Try 12 bits. Possibly a little optimistic. We have seen earlier on uk.rec.audio the reference to RCA's research into SOTA vinyl which gave 60 dB as the A-weighted SNR you could achieve with the *best available* vinyl. That would be nominally 10 bits. However if you are prepared to let distortion on peak signals reach up to 10% or so you can get more. Actually a genuine 60 dB is quite good enough for most performances reproduced in the home. My own experience is that more than that (I only have one or two recordings which use more) makes setting the "right" volume level for the entire performance difficult. The flies in the vinyl ointment, however, are 1. Typical retail vinyl has not been SOTA. More of it may come close these days since the absolute volume of sales is so low but in the past the quality, in my personal experience, was nowhere near SOTA. 2. The single A-weighted SNR figure hides a frequency-dependent noise floor which rises from about 500 Hz downwards. -- John Phillips |
#89
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article , John Phillips
wrote: On 2006-10-25, Geoff wrote: Richard Crowley wrote: Didn't think there was any argument? Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits? Try 12 bits. Possibly a little optimistic. We have seen earlier on uk.rec.audio the reference to RCA's research into SOTA vinyl which gave 60 dB as the A-weighted SNR you could achieve with the *best available* vinyl. That would be nominally 10 bits. However if you are prepared to let distortion on peak signals reach up to 10% or so you can get more. The following may help. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...ons/page1.html and http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...ons/page2.html The second page may be particularly relevant here. It is based on industry measurements on not only LPs, but also on the previous stages in the LP production process, etc, as reported by manufacturers in JAES. Also on similar work on the playback systems. Details in the references listed on the pages. The pages are a version of an article from 'Hi Fi News'. They don't say anything 'new', but just explain what is in the professional literature. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
#90
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"John Phillips" wrote in message ... On 2006-10-25, Geoff wrote: Richard Crowley wrote: "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? Try 12 bits. Possibly a little optimistic. We have seen earlier on uk.rec.audio the reference to RCA's research into SOTA vinyl which gave 60 dB as the A-weighted SNR you could achieve with the *best available* vinyl. That would be nominally 10 bits. However if you are prepared to let distortion on peak signals reach up to 10% or so you can get more. Actually a genuine 60 dB is quite good enough for most performances reproduced in the home. My own experience is that more than that (I only have one or two recordings which use more) makes setting the "right" volume level for the entire performance difficult. The flies in the vinyl ointment, however, are 1. Typical retail vinyl has not been SOTA. More of it may come close these days since the absolute volume of sales is so low but in the past the quality, in my personal experience, was nowhere near SOTA. 2. The single A-weighted SNR figure hides a frequency-dependent noise floor which rises from about 500 Hz downwards. I have tried to ignore this crossposted thread where the same old faces are thrashing over the same old rubbish, but I have to ask: What is it with vinyl that starts all the stupid, invidious comparisons with other, more modern (speed and convenience) media? In my book, all the arguments are tantamount to saying a Ford Mondeo is a better car than a 30's Bentley - a record is a record and does what a record does, if you don't happen to like that, or prefer summat else, then don't ****ing use them! How hard is that....?? |
#91
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article .com,
wrote: Didn't think there was any argument? Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits? Try 12 bits. Try using your ears instead. But if you can't, at least try to get some meaningful data on the subject. What you have going there is about as meaningful as a manufacturer's THD measuements are for an amp. Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc? Proper blind testing? It's quite revealing. The crunch point comes at about 12 bits (straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think. -- *Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#92
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article .com,
wrote: It has no unique requirements other than observing peak allowable levels. Guess again Not a guess. I deal with digital recording all the time. I also well remember the shortcomings of all analogue recording methods and the tricks needed to try and circumvent them. Bet you didn't know that. But you're going to tell us anyway? Nah, I'll let a few people makes asses of themselves first. Typical 'get out' reply. Afraid of getting shot down in flames - again. -- *(over a sketch of the titanic) "The boat sank - get over it Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#93
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article ,
Keith G wrote: I have tried to ignore this crossposted thread where the same old faces are thrashing over the same old rubbish, but I have to ask: What is it with vinyl that starts all the stupid, invidious comparisons with other, more modern (speed and convenience) media? In my book, all the arguments are tantamount to saying a Ford Mondeo is a better car than a 30's Bentley - a record is a record and does what a record does, if you don't happen to like that, or prefer summat else, then don't ****ing use them! I take it you've never driven a '30s Bentley? Fun though it might be for occasional outings, only a fool would choose it for daily use over a Mondeo. Things move on... But why compare a Bentley with a Ford anyway? 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. There are vintage and classic car groups for those who want to enthuse about obsolete products. And makers who still reproduce such things for the few who want them. But this isn't uk.rec.vintage.audio... -- *Do they ever shut up on your planet? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#94
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
wrote in message oups.com... Geoff wrote: Richard Crowley wrote: "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? Try 12 bits. Try using your ears instead. Hiss, tic, tic, pop. But if you can't, at least try to get some meaningful data on the subject. Letsee, measurements can't be used, and neither can listening unless it produces the *right* results. What you have going there is about as meaningful as a manufacturer's THD measuements are for an amp. Obviously Scott, you don't remember what audio was like before amp THD specs got to be reasonable. |
#95
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: I have tried to ignore this crossposted thread where the same old faces are thrashing over the same old rubbish, but I have to ask: What is it with vinyl that starts all the stupid, invidious comparisons with other, more modern (speed and convenience) media? In my book, all the arguments are tantamount to saying a Ford Mondeo is a better car than a 30's Bentley - a record is a record and does what a record does, if you don't happen to like that, or prefer summat else, then don't ****ing use them! OK Plowie, I twigged you want to talk to me so I have fished you out of my ****ter - see if you can stay out of it... (Doubtful...) I take it you've never driven a '30s Bentley? Nope, but I've driven loaded lorries with crash boxes, 'welded steering' and no brakes worth a damn and owned two (real) Land Rovers in my time, so I expect I could cope with one....!! ;-) Fun though it might be for occasional outings, only a fool would choose it for daily use over a Mondeo. Why? I know which I'd rather have.... Things move on... Sure they do, but ever for the better? Name a single instance - how about a Morris Minor buzzing along leafy lanes at, say, 60 mph compared with a Ferrari doing 20 mph on the North Circular....??? But why compare a Bentley with a Ford anyway? Why not, they're both cars ain't they?? 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. Er, got that twisted about *as usual* - it's more a case of the little gaggle of bashers who come rushing up to yap about how bad vinyl is every time someone mentions it. I got news for you - I prefer it to CD bigtime and nobody's 'shot me down' yet! I go further and suggest to you that not one single person has been put off vinyl by all the yap here about how 'bad' it compares with CD... There are vintage and classic car groups for those who want to enthuse about obsolete products. And makers who still reproduce such things for the few who want them. Get real and FFS stop *denying* for a moment - if you won a raffle and had the choice of a 30's Bentley or a Mondeo which would you choose....??? But this isn't uk.rec.vintage.audio... And it ain't uk.rec.digital.audio neither.... |
#96
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
wrote: In rec.audio.tech wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On 25 Oct 2006 12:23:30 -0700, wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:15:16 +0100, Eiron wrote: wrote: Have you ever heard a SOTA LP on SOTA playback gear? Can you give any examples of SOTA LPs? Unfortunately they are pretty much all SOTA. :-( Why on earth are you chiming in on this subject. Didn't you make a big enough fool of yourself last time you talked about this subject? You're thinking of that Scott bloke No. you were the fool who insisted that all LPs were mastered with summed bass and HF roll off. Are you back to make some more ridiculous claims? I posted my test results on HF rolloff with Herr beloved Cardas test record some time back in RAHE. Now you're over here posting the same drivel. You're just wrong, but enjoy your LP's. Lots of fine music on them. Only an idiot would draw universal conclusions about LPs from one example. You get to join Don and Arny in the corner with the dunce cap. Scott |
#97
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article .com, wrote: Didn't think there was any argument? Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits? Try 12 bits. Try using your ears instead. But if you can't, at least try to get some meaningful data on the subject. What you have going there is about as meaningful as a manufacturer's THD measuements are for an amp. Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc? Yes I have. Have you? Proper blind testing? Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many comparisons have you made of various issues of the same commercial titles blind? I've done hundreds. It's quite revealing. Yes it is. Give it a try. The crunch point comes at about 12 bits What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself? (straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think. Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices. You get what you deserve. Me, I'll keep listening. Scott |
#98
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article .com, wrote: Didn't think there was any argument? Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits? Try 12 bits. Try using your ears instead. But if you can't, at least try to get some meaningful data on the subject. What you have going there is about as meaningful as a manufacturer's THD measuements are for an amp. Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc? Yes I have. Have you? Proper blind testing? Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many comparisons have you made of various issues of the same commercial titles blind? I've done hundreds. It's quite revealing. Yes it is. Give it a try. The crunch point comes at about 12 bits What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself? (straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think. Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices. You get what you deserve. Me, I'll keep listening. Scott |
#99
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article .com, wrote: It has no unique requirements other than observing peak allowable levels. Guess again Not a guess. I deal with digital recording all the time. OK what commercial CDs have you mastered? This could be quite revealing since the vast majority are soooo poorly mastered these days. I also well remember the shortcomings of all analogue recording methods and the tricks needed to try and circumvent them. Maybe that was an issue for you. Were talking SOTA here. Were not talking about your best efforts. Bet you didn't know that. But you're going to tell us anyway? Nah, I'll let a few people makes asses of themselves first. Typical 'get out' reply. Afraid of getting shot down in flames - again. In your head. Scott |
#100
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article ,
Keith G wrote: OK Plowie, I twigged you want to talk to me so I have fished you out of my ****ter - see if you can stay out of it... Please put me back in. Pratts who parade their killfiles to the world don't deserve the time of day. Just who do you think you are that it should concern all who you do and don't read? -- *I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#101
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article . com,
wrote: Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc? Yes I have. Have you? Yes Proper blind testing? Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many comparisons have you made of various issues of the same commercial titles blind? I've done hundreds. I'm not quite clear what you mean. It's quite revealing. Yes it is. Give it a try. Why repeat what I said? The crunch point comes at about 12 bits What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself? Ah - you didn't understand what I meant at all. And obviously haven't conducted this sort of test. (straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think. Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices. Not *my* choices, pal. You get what you deserve. Me, I'll keep listening. Keep giving us the proof you simply don't know what you're listening to. -- *Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#102
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: OK Plowie, I twigged you want to talk to me so I have fished you out of my ****ter - see if you can stay out of it... Please put me back in. With the greatest pleasure! **splash** Now, how long before the stupid **** starts replying to my posts again...??? |
#103
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article . com,
wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article .com, wrote: It has no unique requirements other than observing peak allowable levels. Guess again Not a guess. I deal with digital recording all the time. OK what commercial CDs have you mastered? Who said anything about mastering CDs? This could be quite revealing since the vast majority are soooo poorly mastered these days. Indeed. Is this butchering what you were referring to? However, it's not 'poor' suggesting a mistake or lack of knowledge but deliberate. It's what the public like, apparently. I also well remember the shortcomings of all analogue recording methods and the tricks needed to try and circumvent them. Maybe that was an issue for you. So you don't understand the shortcomings of all analogue recording methods? Figures. Were talking SOTA here. Do you understand what that means? Were not talking about your best efforts. You don't need 'best efforts' with decent digital recorders. They simply function as designed. Perhaps you're too young to remember - or simply don't know - how much skilled effort went in to making a 'SOTA' analogue tape recording. And to cut a lacquer from it. Bet you didn't know that. But you're going to tell us anyway? Nah, I'll let a few people makes asses of themselves first. Typical 'get out' reply. Afraid of getting shot down in flames - again. In your head. Then please enlighten me. -- *If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#104
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article ,
Keith G wrote: Now, how long before the stupid **** starts replying to my posts again...??? Nice language. Shows you for the pillock you are. Your posts don't need replies - just comments on their stupidity. -- *I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#105
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In rec.audio.tech wrote:
wrote: In rec.audio.tech wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On 25 Oct 2006 12:23:30 -0700, wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:15:16 +0100, Eiron wrote: wrote: Have you ever heard a SOTA LP on SOTA playback gear? Can you give any examples of SOTA LPs? Unfortunately they are pretty much all SOTA. :-( Why on earth are you chiming in on this subject. Didn't you make a big enough fool of yourself last time you talked about this subject? You're thinking of that Scott bloke No. you were the fool who insisted that all LPs were mastered with summed bass and HF roll off. Are you back to make some more ridiculous claims? I posted my test results on HF rolloff with Herr beloved Cardas test record some time back in RAHE. Now you're over here posting the same drivel. You're just wrong, but enjoy your LP's. Lots of fine music on them. Only an idiot would draw universal conclusions about LPs from one example. You get to join Don and Arny in the corner with the dunce cap. You made a specific technical claim that is easily refuted. Nobody said anything about 'universal' until you did. You're a weird dude man... |
#106
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article . com, wrote: Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc? Yes I have. Have you? Yes Proper blind testing? Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many comparisons have you made of various issues of the same commercial titles blind? I've done hundreds. I'm not quite clear what you mean. Sorry that my attempt to stay on subject confused you. Remeber the subject of why it makes sense to digitize LPs? Remember the claim that one good reason is becuase in so many cases an LP version of a given title is sonically superior to any CD version? Sorry that my attempt to move back to the real issue confused you. It's quite revealing. Yes it is. Give it a try. Why repeat what I said? Where did you say "Yes it is. Give it a try?" The crunch point comes at about 12 bits What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself? Ah - you didn't understand what I meant at all. And obviously haven't conducted this sort of test. Right. I haven't conducted tests below 16 bits. Why should I when I hear differences between 16 and 24? (straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think. Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices. Not *my* choices, pal. My bad. I forgot that some just can't think for themselves Scott |
#107
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
wrote: In rec.audio.tech wrote: wrote: In rec.audio.tech wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On 25 Oct 2006 12:23:30 -0700, wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:15:16 +0100, Eiron wrote: wrote: Have you ever heard a SOTA LP on SOTA playback gear? Can you give any examples of SOTA LPs? Unfortunately they are pretty much all SOTA. :-( Why on earth are you chiming in on this subject. Didn't you make a big enough fool of yourself last time you talked about this subject? You're thinking of that Scott bloke No. you were the fool who insisted that all LPs were mastered with summed bass and HF roll off. Are you back to make some more ridiculous claims? I posted my test results on HF rolloff with Herr beloved Cardas test record some time back in RAHE. Now you're over here posting the same drivel. You're just wrong, but enjoy your LP's. Lots of fine music on them. Only an idiot would draw universal conclusions about LPs from one example. You get to join Don and Arny in the corner with the dunce cap. You made a specific technical claim that is easily refuted. Really? Knock yourself out dude. Refute the claim that not all LPs were made with summed bass and rolled off HF. Join your pals in the corner. Nobody said anything about 'universal' until you did. Wrong. You're a weird dude man... You're an idiot. Scott |
#108
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article . com,
wrote: Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many comparisons have you made of various issues of the same commercial titles blind? I've done hundreds. I'm not quite clear what you mean. Sorry that my attempt to stay on subject confused you. Remeber the subject of why it makes sense to digitize LPs? Remember the claim that one good reason is becuase in so many cases an LP version of a given title is sonically superior to any CD version? Sorry that my attempt to move back to the real issue confused you. Ah. Of course. Now I understand you haven't a clue as to why some CDs will sound different from the 'same' LP. It's not some magic which can't be measured - it's because they go through different mastering processes. In the case of CD because the intention is to 'improve' on the master tape. With LP often essential to produce a playable version. But if you're copying a LP to CD at home, this doesn't apply. It's quite revealing. Yes it is. Give it a try. Why repeat what I said? Where did you say "Yes it is. Give it a try?" The crunch point comes at about 12 bits What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself? Ah - you didn't understand what I meant at all. And obviously haven't conducted this sort of test. Right. I haven't conducted tests below 16 bits. Why not? You seem convinced 16 bit doesn't deliver what *you* want - so perhaps 12 might? After all, the measurable parameters of an LP are well below 16 bit spec in every way, so perhaps this would be just what you're looking for. Why should I when I hear differences between 16 and 24? Right. Thank you for confirming you don't know how to conduct proper testing. (straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think. Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices. Not *my* choices, pal. My bad. I forgot that some just can't think for themselves Oh you certainly 'think'. Think you can hear differences where non exist. Or where they do, don't actually care why. -- *Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#109
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: In rec.audio.tech wrote: wrote: In rec.audio.tech wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On 25 Oct 2006 12:23:30 -0700, wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:15:16 +0100, Eiron wrote: wrote: Have you ever heard a SOTA LP on SOTA playback gear? Can you give any examples of SOTA LPs? Unfortunately they are pretty much all SOTA. :-( Why on earth are you chiming in on this subject. Didn't you make a big enough fool of yourself last time you talked about this subject? You're thinking of that Scott bloke No. you were the fool who insisted that all LPs were mastered with summed bass and HF roll off. Are you back to make some more ridiculous claims? I posted my test results on HF rolloff with Herr beloved Cardas test record some time back in RAHE. Now you're over here posting the same drivel. You're just wrong, but enjoy your LP's. Lots of fine music on them. Only an idiot would draw universal conclusions about LPs from one example. You get to join Don and Arny in the corner with the dunce cap. That seems to be very important to you, Scott. I guess you have this dream where "Makeup Artist Refutes Audio Technicians". You made a specific technical claim that is easily refuted. Really? Knock yourself out dude. Refute the claim that not all LPs were made with summed bass and rolled off HF. Since that is your straw man Scott, why should we bother? Join your pals in the corner. |
#110
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
wrote in message ups.com... Right. I haven't conducted tests below 16 bits. Why should I when I hear differences between 16 and 24? Because that was based on flawed tests. It would be good for you to first learn how to control all relevant variables before you run around claiming that which is known to be impossible. |
#111
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article . com, wrote: Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many comparisons have you made of various issues of the same commercial titles blind? I've done hundreds. I'm not quite clear what you mean. Sorry that my attempt to stay on subject confused you. Remeber the subject of why it makes sense to digitize LPs? Remember the claim that one good reason is becuase in so many cases an LP version of a given title is sonically superior to any CD version? Sorry that my attempt to move back to the real issue confused you. Ah. Of course. Now I understand No you don't. I suspect you never will. you haven't a clue as to why some CDs will sound different from the 'same' LP. Good lord are you really that ****ing stupid? It's not some magic which can't be measured - it's because they go through different mastering processes. OK an honest question here. Are you really so ****ing stupid that you have missed it every time I have said as much or are you just incapable of having an honest conversation on this subject? Really which is it? 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 must be deaf or a complete ****ing idiot to believe that crap. Hey I have an idea go get the new Dylan album on CD and tell us how the mastering improved the sound on the master tape. But if you're copying a LP to CD at home, this doesn't apply. It's quite revealing. Yes it is. Give it a try. Why repeat what I said? Where did you say "Yes it is. Give it a try?" The crunch point comes at about 12 bits What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself? Ah - you didn't understand what I meant at all. And obviously haven't conducted this sort of test. Right. I haven't conducted tests below 16 bits. Why not? I answered the question just below didp****. You seem convinced 16 bit doesn't deliver what *you* want - so perhaps 12 might? After all, the measurable parameters of an LP are well below 16 bit spec in every way, so perhaps this would be just what you're looking for. You are indeed a ****ing idiot. Why should I when I hear differences between 16 and 24? Right. Thank you for confirming you don't know how to conduct proper testing. thank you for confirming your head is in fact way up your ass. (straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think. Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices. Not *my* choices, pal. My bad. I forgot that some just can't think for themselves Oh you certainly 'think'. Yes, you might want to give it a try some day. *Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment * Is that how you do things? Explains a lot. No thank you. I am a big fan of excellence. Scott |
#112
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
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 must be deaf or a complete ****ing idiot to believe that crap. Better, perhaps, than being just plain uneducated. ;-) Hey I have an idea go get the new Dylan album on CD and tell us how the mastering improved the sound on the master tape. It's an interesting one. Someone of the likes of Dillon complains about poor CD - or rather digital, sound - and then allows his first new album in many years to confirm just that. Can't somehow see him being over-ruled by his record company, so perhaps he couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. But if you're copying a LP to CD at home, this doesn't apply. It's quite revealing. Yes it is. Give it a try. Why repeat what I said? Where did you say "Yes it is. Give it a try?" The crunch point comes at about 12 bits What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself? Ah - you didn't understand what I meant at all. And obviously haven't conducted this sort of test. Right. I haven't conducted tests below 16 bits. Why not? I answered the question just below didp****. No you didn't. You sort of stated the nonsense that you could here the difference between 16 and 24 which isn't the same thing. It suggests you started out thinking 16 bit isn't good enough... You seem convinced 16 bit doesn't deliver what *you* want - so perhaps 12 might? After all, the measurable parameters of an LP are well below 16 bit spec in every way, so perhaps this would be just what you're looking for. You are indeed a ****ing idiot. Why? You apparently love the degradation *all* vinyl causes. Unless you think clicks and plops - just as an example - were actually there before? Why should I when I hear differences between 16 and 24? Right. Thank you for confirming you don't know how to conduct proper testing. thank you for confirming your head is in fact way up your ass. First start with an open mind... (straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think. Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices. Not *my* choices, pal. My bad. I forgot that some just can't think for themselves Oh you certainly 'think'. Yes, you might want to give it a try some day. *Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment * Is that how you do things? Explains a lot. No thank you. I am a big fan of excellence. Tag generators are beyond you too? -- *Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#113
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In rec.audio.tech Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , John Phillips wrote: On 2006-10-25, Geoff wrote: Richard Crowley wrote: Didn't think there was any argument? Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits? Try 12 bits. Possibly a little optimistic. We have seen earlier on uk.rec.audio the reference to RCA's research into SOTA vinyl which gave 60 dB as the A-weighted SNR you could achieve with the *best available* vinyl. That would be nominally 10 bits. However if you are prepared to let distortion on peak signals reach up to 10% or so you can get more. The following may help. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...ons/page1.html and http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...ons/page2.html The second page may be particularly relevant here. It is based on industry measurements on not only LPs, but also on the previous stages in the LP production process, etc, as reported by manufacturers in JAES. Also on similar work on the playback systems. Details in the references listed on the pages. The pages are a version of an article from 'Hi Fi News'. They don't say anything 'new', but just explain what is in the professional literature. See also the 'extra page' where Mr. Lesurf responds to reader comments. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...s/letters.html ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#114
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The Wave editor that comes with the full version of Nero Burning ROM has a very good noise reduction and declicker filter, and I've had very good results from this when transferring vinyl using the method above. If you're going to use such software the quality of the sound card becomes pretty meaningless. Not at all. Garbage in, garbage out. -- Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735 Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/ IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation |
#115
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: y I have an idea go get the new Dylan album on CD and tell us how the mastering improved the sound on the master tape. It's an interesting one. Someone of the likes of Dillon Fooking spool cheekers... -- *Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#116
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
wrote in message ups.com... Good lord are you really that ****ing stupid? Yet another Scotty melt down in progress. |
#117
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:20:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: But Audacity is open-source freeware, and works well enough for transcribing LPs on a budget. Open source is never freeware. It will have a GPL, L-GPL or GNU license. That's why its called open source. |
#118
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"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? MrT. |
#119
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article .com, Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc? Proper blind testing? It's quite revealing. The crunch point comes at about 12 bits (straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think. 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. As for companded systems and compressed data formats, it's always a trade off for any number of reasons. MrT. |
#120
Posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl to CD on a PC
"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. 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. MrT. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why would someone like LP? | High End Audio | |||
Swap Vinyl Save Cash! | Marketplace | |||
Timing | High End Audio | |||
CD verses vinyl - help clear dispute | Pro Audio | |||
SOTA vinyl mastering | High End Audio |