"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication of
the
master.

If you don't believe that, it's because you're not praying hard enough.


Just because you spend so much time on your knees, doesn't mean everybody
does.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article . net,
wrote:

I'm pretty sure that I've listened to as many CDs as you have.

I wouldn't count on it, but it might be possible.

Just curious: what makes you doubt it?


I know how Iong I've been listening to CD's almost exclusively.

You have an affair going with th LP, which means you have to divide
your time.

Well, the whole issue is kind of silly, but just for accuracy... I
listen to, on average, probably one LP a day, and probably three CDs a
day, plus another one CD a day on average for work (classes, etc.) This
has been true since the say CDs were first released in '83, except for
between 1/95 and 7/05, when I listened to no LPs at all.

You have a slight edge now, but only becuase I have kids, and until recently
we didn't let them have their own TV.

In article . net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade ago. It
is true that there were originally some problems with the conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication of the
master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just because
it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better than LP
which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then. The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a problem.

What changed between 1990 and today?

From: ScottW - view profile
Date: Fri, Mar 10 2006 3:07 pm
Email: "ScottW"

PS toopid: these 'arguments' also deflect from your stated position
(that the war could have been 'saved' by an infusion of a measly 2-300
million in aid to RVN).

Which is what we were talking about.

Nice try.

Laird was calling for that on top of what the administration asked
for ...
Congress cut off everything in violation of agreement.

And effected the eventual outcome...

Tell me how again.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade ago.
It
is true that there were originally some problems with the conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication of
the
master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because
it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better than LP
which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then. The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.

What changed between 1990 and today?

Things like the use of dither, new perceptual coding, people getting used to
the equipment, DAC's are better, not tomention the machines being used to
record with. Experience mostly.


There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the master
tape, which I always thought was what the musicians were after, otherwise,
why go through all the trouble in recording and mixing?

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade ago.
It
is true that there were originally some problems with the conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication of
the
master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because
it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better than
LP
which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then.
The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.

What changed between 1990 and today?

Things like the use of dither, new perceptual coding, people getting used
to the equipment, DAC's are better, not tomention the machines being used
to record with. Experience mostly.


There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the master
tape, which I always thought was what the musicians were after, otherwise,
why go through all the trouble in recording and mixing?

Recall when CDs were labelled DDD or AAD or ADD?
What the hell was that all about?

The master.. the master tape.. the master tape.
Why do you keep ignoring all that goes on... and often in the digital
domain before your beloved master is created?
For many recordings today there is no "master" analogue tape.
Ever hear "direct to digital". Tracks recorded and mixed
DIGITALLY! You keep bitching about SS and tubes
and **** while you yourself are stuck in analogue world
without a ****ing clue about the pitfalls of digital processing.

Digital processing research continues to this day on how
to handle floating point vs fixed and all the dithering options.

This ****s over my head and Zelniker handed Arny his
ass more than a few times for his lack of comprehension
on these issues... but it is clear that digital audio
processing continues to be studied and improved.

http://www.cadenzarecording.com/imag...tingdither.pdf

Don't let Mike oversimplify things. What he says is true..
digitizing an analogue master results in an audible
equivalent of the master. But that isn't what causes
the problems with many digital recordings IMO.

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Sat, Mar 11 2006 7:41 pm
Email: "ScottW"

So you agree that the aid meant nothing and that RVN would have fallen
anyway. Fine.

So you can't include my statement? WTF?


So what did you mean when you said,

I meant we should have enforced the treaty. It impacted a lot
more than S. Vietnam. Every enemy to date has used
this has evidence that America lacks stamina and doesn't
have the courage or the will to stand by our word.


Did the COA on cutting off military aid to South Vietnam
predict 3 million deaths in SE Asia over the next decade?
Was that acceptable to you?

which implies that the 2-300 million in aid would have somehow
'stopped' any deaths there?

And of course, when you added your 'context' back in, you added this:

"of course the next sentence adds much to the context dipoot ignores,
'I
believed then and still believe today that given enough outside
resources,
South Vietnam was capable of defending itself,'"

which also is like saying that if we had kept giving RVN aid, they
could have defended themselves.

Thats what Laird says.. but he doesn't quantify it. The dollar amount
doesn't matter to me.

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: ScottW - view profile
Date: Fri, Mar 10 2006 3:07 pm
Email: "ScottW"

PS toopid: these 'arguments' also deflect from your stated position
(that the war could have been 'saved' by an infusion of a measly 2-300
million in aid to RVN).

Which is what we were talking about.

Nice try.

Laird was calling for that on top of what the administration asked
for ...
Congress cut off everything in violation of agreement.

And effected the eventual outcome...

Tell me how again.

The day Congress cut off funding was the day the North
left the reunification talks and embarked on their
full scale military solution.
Their violation of treaty caused our "economic"
sanctions on the entire region...Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.
You do recall the Kmer Rouge asked for US assistance to
stave off famine? You think our refusal didn't contribute to
their policy of forcing everyone from the cities into the fields?

America sat back and ignored the dying... and complained
about boat people. That the anti-war left refuses to this
day to see the real consequences of their actions is what
makes them truly dangerous. The altered reality BS
to which you still contribute continues to this day
while millions died and they claim to be heroes.
This piece of history is just as despciable as the slave era.

ScottW

In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade ago.
It
is true that there were originally some problems with the conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication of
the
master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because
it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better than LP
which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then. The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.

What changed between 1990 and today?

Things like the use of dither, new perceptual coding, people getting used to
the equipment, DAC's are better, not tomention the machines being used to
record with. Experience mostly.


There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the master
tape, snip

Which is the same thing that was said in 1990 and when CDs were first
released.

In article IwYQf.136291$0G.60978@dukeread10,
"ScottW" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade ago.
It
is true that there were originally some problems with the conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication of
the
master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because
it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better than
LP
which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then.
The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.

What changed between 1990 and today?

Things like the use of dither, new perceptual coding, people getting used
to the equipment, DAC's are better, not tomention the machines being used
to record with. Experience mostly.


There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the master
tape, which I always thought was what the musicians were after, otherwise,
why go through all the trouble in recording and mixing?

Recall when CDs were labelled DDD or AAD or ADD?
What the hell was that all about?

The master.. the master tape.. the master tape.
Why do you keep ignoring all that goes on... and often in the digital
domain before your beloved master is created?
For many recordings today there is no "master" analogue tape.
Ever hear "direct to digital". Tracks recorded and mixed
DIGITALLY! You keep bitching about SS and tubes
and **** while you yourself are stuck in analogue world
without a ****ing clue about the pitfalls of digital processing.

Digital processing research continues to this day on how
to handle floating point vs fixed and all the dithering options.

This ****s over my head and Zelniker handed Arny his
ass more than a few times for his lack of comprehension
on these issues... but it is clear that digital audio
processing continues to be studied and improved.

http://www.cadenzarecording.com/imag...tingdither.pdf

Don't let Mike oversimplify things. What he says is true..
digitizing an analogue master results in an audible
equivalent of the master. But that isn't what causes
the problems with many digital recordings IMO.

Point of interest: Isn't it true that most digital recording done today
involves no tape whatsoever, i.e. recording and mixing done from a hard
drive?

Jenn said:

There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the master
tape, snip

Which is the same thing that was said in 1990 and when CDs were first
released.

Is Mikey saying you better like CDs or else?

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article IwYQf.136291$0G.60978@dukeread10,
"ScottW" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same
master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade
ago.
It
is true that there were originally some problems with the
conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication
of
the
master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record
digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because
it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better
than
LP
which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then.
The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.

What changed between 1990 and today?

Things like the use of dither, new perceptual coding, people getting
used
to the equipment, DAC's are better, not tomention the machines being
used
to record with. Experience mostly.


There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the
master
tape, which I always thought was what the musicians were after,
otherwise,
why go through all the trouble in recording and mixing?

Recall when CDs were labelled DDD or AAD or ADD?
What the hell was that all about?

The master.. the master tape.. the master tape.
Why do you keep ignoring all that goes on... and often in the digital
domain before your beloved master is created?
For many recordings today there is no "master" analogue tape.
Ever hear "direct to digital". Tracks recorded and mixed
DIGITALLY! You keep bitching about SS and tubes
and **** while you yourself are stuck in analogue world
without a ****ing clue about the pitfalls of digital processing.

Digital processing research continues to this day on how
to handle floating point vs fixed and all the dithering options.

This ****s over my head and Zelniker handed Arny his
ass more than a few times for his lack of comprehension
on these issues... but it is clear that digital audio
processing continues to be studied and improved.

http://www.cadenzarecording.com/imag...tingdither.pdf

Don't let Mike oversimplify things. What he says is true..
digitizing an analogue master results in an audible
equivalent of the master. But that isn't what causes
the problems with many digital recordings IMO.

Point of interest: Isn't it true that most digital recording done today
involves no tape whatsoever, i.e. recording and mixing done from a hard
drive?

I don't know about most... but certainly some... and then others
brag about using 60s and 70's era mixing gear and don't go digital
until the end.
Do they still mark CDs with the AAD or ADD or DDD
acronyms?
IIRC they used to mean
Recorded -Analog or Digital
Mixed - Analog or Digital
Mastering (or transcribing) - Always digital

http://twister.lib.siu.edu/ts/cat/cdcat.shtml

ScottW

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Jenn said:

There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the master
tape, snip

Which is the same thing that was said in 1990 and when CDs were first
released.

Is Mikey saying you better like CDs or else?

I'm just trying to determine which "perfect" was the most "perfect".

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade ago. It
is true that there were originally some problems with the conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication of
the master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better
than LP which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then. The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.


Wait a minute!
You are being contradictory here.
Early and recent same material cd's are readily distinguishable from each
other.
They BOTH can't be perfect replications of the master tape.





--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade ago.
It
is true that there were originally some problems with the conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication of
the
master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because
it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better than LP
which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then. The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.

What changed between 1990 and today?

Sony ADC's for the recording industry, they got a lot better.

early CBS and Warner Bros. cd's were quite horrible, for
example. Later versions of the same releases were much improved.

Also, DAC's for cd players are much improved since the mid-late 90's



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade ago.
It
is true that there were originally some problems with the
conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication
of
the
master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because
it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better than
LP
which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then.
The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.

What changed between 1990 and today?

Things like the use of dither, new perceptual coding, people getting used
to
the equipment, DAC's are better, not tomention the machines being used to
record with. Experience mostly.


There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the master
tape, snip

Which is the same thing that was said in 1990 and when CDs were first
released.

That's my point, exactly.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Jenn said:

There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the
master
tape, snip

Which is the same thing that was said in 1990 and when CDs were first
released.

Is Mikey saying you better like CDs or else?

I'm just trying to determine which "perfect" was the most "perfect".

yes, evidently some perfects are more perfect than others.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Jenn wrote:
In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade ago.
It
is true that there were originally some problems with the conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication of
the
master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because
it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better than LP
which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then. The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.

What changed between 1990 and today?

Things like the use of dither, new perceptual coding, people getting used to
the equipment, DAC's are better, not tomention the machines being used to
record with. Experience mostly.


There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the master
tape, snip

Which is the same thing that was said in 1990 and when CDs were first
released.

And is still true for many, probably most of those releases.

From: ScottW
Date: Sun, Mar 12 2006 11:20 am
Email: "ScottW"

toopid goes off on another misguided rant:

Laird was calling for that on top of what the administration asked
for ...
Congress cut off everything in violation of agreement.

And effected the eventual outcome...

Tell me how again.

The day Congress cut off funding was the day the North
left the reunification talks and embarked on their
full scale military solution.

The DVN *never* had anything but a military solution and *total*
victory as its aim. They simply did what they had planned to do all
along.

Their violation of treaty caused our "economic"
sanctions on the entire region...Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.
You do recall the Kmer Rouge asked for US assistance to
stave off famine? You think our refusal didn't contribute to
their policy of forcing everyone from the cities into the fields?

You clearly do not know the history of the war, the negotiations, nor
the 'truce.' You clearly do not know what happened in Cambodia. You are
giving false causation when there isn't even correlation.

Both sides, North and South, massively violated the truce before the
ink was dry. The 'truce' in actuality accomplished very little and was
never followed nor effective. Christ. You don't even seem aware of how
badly, and how often, the RVN violated the 'truce.'

The Khmer Rouge kicked everybody out of the cities and into the fields
*the day* they took them. The day they took Phnom Penh, they forced
amputees and other seriously wounded people out of the hospital and
into the street. Everyone was told to leave the city because "the
American Imperialists are going to bomb it."

This was their plan all along, you idiot. They were clear in their
goal: "We will be the first nation to create a completely Communist
society without wasting time on intermediate steps." (Khieu Samphan)

"Many Cambodians welcomed the arrival of peace, but the Khmer Rouge
soon turned Cambodia--which it called Democratic Kampuchea (DK)--into a
land of horror. IMMEDIATELY AFTER ITS VICTORY, the new regime ordered
the evacuation of all cities and towns, sending the entire urban
population out into the countryside to till the land. Thousands starved
or died of disease during the evacuation. Many of those forced to
evacuate the cities were resettled in new villages, which lacked food,
agricultural implements, and medical care. Many starved before the
first harvest, and hunger and malnutrition--bordering on
starvation--were constant during those years. Those who resisted or who
questioned orders were immediately executed, as were most military and
civilian leaders of the former regime who failed to disguise their
pasts." (emphasis mine)

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2732.htm

Yeah, toopid, the Khmer Rouge were nice people, gentle agrarians, who
turned vicious because the US didn't send aid. Moron.

America sat back and ignored the dying... and complained
about boat people. That the anti-war left refuses to this
day to see the real consequences of their actions is what
makes them truly dangerous. The altered reality BS
to which you still contribute continues to this day
while millions died and they claim to be heroes.
This piece of history is just as despciable as the slave era.

Get this through your thick skull and into your pea brain: the only
thing that could have delayed (yes, *delayed*) what happened is if we
had kept our troops in RVN at high levels, and if we had also massively
intervened militarily in Cambodia and Laos. Aid would not have saved a
single drop of blood. Not one drop.

You can blame the 'anti-war left' for whatever you want. You should
first have some basis for your accusations, don't you think?

First I would recommend reading more than one book about it. The link
to the State Department above is a good start. That movie you saw
doesn't count. Neither does that ignorant Laird article.

I note that the Khmer Rouge were communist: why didn't Moscow or
Beijing send them aid? Yet you feel that any starvation was all on *us*
to solve. Idiot.

You have absolutely *no* idea what you're talking about, that much is
clear.

Oh, and quit denying what you said: you obviously think that aid was
what caused the RVN to fall.

Here's how you can start to look smart: if the military is involved,
just shut up. You're too toopid to discuss anything to do with it, or
with strategy, or with history, intelligently.

Right-wing bonehead.

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade ago. It
is true that there were originally some problems with the conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication of
the master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better
than LP which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then. The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.


Wait a minute!
You are being contradictory here.
Early and recent same material cd's are readily distinguishable from each
other.
They BOTH can't be perfect replications of the master tape.



You don't suppose that some of the new releases that sound better,
might be because technology came into being that allowed for better
clean up of noise that may have been present on those original masters?

In the cases where there never was an anolog master they may have
decided to go back and change things in the digital domain to improve
the perceived quality, thereby creating what amounts to a new master.

wrote in message
ups.com...




You don't suppose that some of the new releases that sound better,
might be because technology came into being that allowed for better
clean up of noise that may have been present on those original masters?


There goes "ACCURACY", out the window!!!!
I thought you just wanted to hear exactly what is
on the master tape.

At any rate, that is not the case, its not about the noise,
its about the inner detail, spatiality, ability to
handle intense passages., and not beiing generally
all mucked up.




In the cases where there never was an anolog master they may have
decided to go back and change things in the digital domain to improve
the perceived quality, thereby creating what amounts to a new master.


The information on the Columbia reissues by Sony says thhat they did
otherwise, just a faithful reproducton f the masters.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
oups.com...

Jenn wrote:
In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same
master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade
ago.
It
is true that there were originally some problems with the
conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore
my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect
replication of
the
master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record
digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because
it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better
than LP
which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then.
The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.

What changed between 1990 and today?

Things like the use of dither, new perceptual coding, people getting
used to
the equipment, DAC's are better, not tomention the machines being used
to
record with. Experience mostly.


There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the
master
tape, snip

Which is the same thing that was said in 1990 and when CDs were first
released.

And is still true for many, probably most of those releases.


Hewre we go again!
there is a pre 1990 version and a post 1990 version.
and they sound different.
"AT LEAST" one of them is not an "ACCURATE" copy of the master.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...




You don't suppose that some of the new releases that sound better,
might be because technology came into being that allowed for better
clean up of noise that may have been present on those original masters?


There goes "ACCURACY", out the window!!!!
I thought you just wanted to hear exactly what is
on the master tape.


Hardly, in any case the CD versions would be closer to the master than
any LP.

At any rate, that is not the case, its not about the noise,
its about the inner detail, spatiality, ability to
handle intense passages., and not beiing generally
all mucked up.

Which brings us to dither.
That and just plain remastering are the only explanations for a CD
sounding different that I know of.


In the cases where there never was an anolog master they may have
decided to go back and change things in the digital domain to improve
the perceived quality, thereby creating what amounts to a new master.


The information on the Columbia reissues by Sony says thhat they did
otherwise, just a faithful reproducton f the masters.


And marketing people always present the unvarnished truth, right?

Super bit mapping, which is what I assume you are referring to invloved
running the original masters through new converters and using noise
shaping which AFAIK requires dithering if it wasn't already present,
they added it to reduce the noise floor. Sony claims that SBM is
different from dithering, but it is clear that the process was a
complete remastering of older material that is now being improved by
newere improved technology to help reveal what was already present on
the masters. Something that still could never be reproduced as
accurately on any LP.

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade ago.
It
is true that there were originally some problems with the conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication of
the
master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because
it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better than
LP
which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then.
The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.

What changed between 1990 and today?

Things like the use of dither, new perceptual coding, people getting used
to the equipment, DAC's are better, not tomention the machines being used
to record with. Experience mostly.


There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the master
tape, which I always thought was what the musicians were after, otherwise,
why go through all the trouble in recording and mixing?

Recall when CDs were labelled DDD or AAD or ADD?
What the hell was that all about?


It was about letting people know how clean the disk would be based on
how much digital technoloby had been used. I assume they stopped it
because people, like me wanted the disks with the DDD designation more
than any other, due the fact that sounded cleaner and more dynamic,
just as direct to digital does.

The master.. the master tape.. the master tape.
Why do you keep ignoring all that goes on... and often in the digital
domain before your beloved master is created?
For many recordings today there is no "master" analogue tape.
Ever hear "direct to digital". Tracks recorded and mixed
DIGITALLY! You keep bitching about SS and tubes
and **** while you yourself are stuck in analogue world
without a ****ing clue about the pitfalls of digital processing.

Do tell, I'm always willing to learn.
There is still a version thaqt is considered the master from which the
CD's are produced.
LP can't match CD for accuracy or faithfullness to that master, no
matter how it was created.

Digital processing research continues to this day on how
to handle floating point vs fixed and all the dithering options.

This ****s over my head and Zelniker handed Arny his
ass more than a few times for his lack of comprehension
on these issues... but it is clear that digital audio
processing continues to be studied and improved.

http://www.cadenzarecording.com/imag...tingdither.pdf

Don't let Mike oversimplify things. What he says is true..
digitizing an analogue master results in an audible
equivalent of the master. But that isn't what causes
the problems with many digital recordings IMO.

What problems are you talking about?

Most of the problems AFAIK have more to do with choices made by the
people doing the mixing and not much with the technology.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...




You don't suppose that some of the new releases that sound better,
might be because technology came into being that allowed for better
clean up of noise that may have been present on those original masters?


There goes "ACCURACY", out the window!!!!
I thought you just wanted to hear exactly what is
on the master tape.


Hardly, in any case the CD versions would be closer to the master than
any LP.

At any rate, that is not the case, its not about the noise,
its about the inner detail, spatiality, ability to
handle intense passages., and not beiing generally
all mucked up.

Which brings us to dither.
That and just plain remastering are the only explanations for a CD
sounding different that I know of.


In the cases where there never was an anolog master they may have
decided to go back and change things in the digital domain to improve
the perceived quality, thereby creating what amounts to a new master.


The information on the Columbia reissues by Sony says thhat they did
otherwise, just a faithful reproducton f the masters.


And marketing people always present the unvarnished truth, right?

Super bit mapping, which is what I assume you are referring to invloved
running the original masters through new converters and using noise
shaping which AFAIK requires dithering if it wasn't already present,
they added it to reduce the noise floor. Sony claims that SBM is
different from dithering, but it is clear that the process was a
complete remastering of older material that is now being improved by
newere improved technology to help reveal what was already present on
the masters. Something that still could never be reproduced as
accurately on any LP.


OH!, So its NOT a perfect and identical reproduction of the master.
Thank you. Now it just becomes a matter of individual choice, as to
which medium one prefers.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
oups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...




You don't suppose that some of the new releases that sound better,
might be because technology came into being that allowed for better
clean up of noise that may have been present on those original
masters?


There goes "ACCURACY", out the window!!!!
I thought you just wanted to hear exactly what is
on the master tape.


Hardly, in any case the CD versions would be closer to the master than
any LP.

At any rate, that is not the case, its not about the noise,
its about the inner detail, spatiality, ability to
handle intense passages., and not beiing generally
all mucked up.

Which brings us to dither.
That and just plain remastering are the only explanations for a CD
sounding different that I know of.


In the cases where there never was an anolog master they may have
decided to go back and change things in the digital domain to improve
the perceived quality, thereby creating what amounts to a new master.


The information on the Columbia reissues by Sony says thhat they did
otherwise, just a faithful reproducton f the masters.


And marketing people always present the unvarnished truth, right?

Super bit mapping, which is what I assume you are referring to invloved
running the original masters through new converters and using noise
shaping which AFAIK requires dithering if it wasn't already present,
they added it to reduce the noise floor. Sony claims that SBM is
different from dithering, but it is clear that the process was a
complete remastering of older material that is now being improved by
newere improved technology to help reveal what was already present on
the masters. Something that still could never be reproduced as
accurately on any LP.


OH!, So its NOT a perfect and identical reproduction of the master.

Of course it is. Comparing what was done 15 years ago to today is
ridiculous.
You can always test the idea of whether it gives you a perfectly exact copy
by recording somethihng and comparing them, but becuase you are not a
compete idiot, you already know the answer.


Thank you. Now it just becomes a matter of individual choice, as to
which medium one prefers.


It was never anything else, but if you want the best fidelitty, you choose
CD. If you want anything other than that, you choose whatever other medium
you wish.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade ago.
It
is true that there were originally some problems with the conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication of
the
master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because
it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better than
LP
which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then.
The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.

What changed between 1990 and today?

Sony ADC's for the recording industry, they got a lot better.

early CBS and Warner Bros. cd's were quite horrible, for
example. Later versions of the same releases were much improved.

Also, DAC's for cd players are much improved since the mid-late 90's


So which DAC's made today can't give an exact copy of whatever you send
them?

In article .net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
oups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...




You don't suppose that some of the new releases that sound better,
might be because technology came into being that allowed for better
clean up of noise that may have been present on those original
masters?


There goes "ACCURACY", out the window!!!!
I thought you just wanted to hear exactly what is
on the master tape.


Hardly, in any case the CD versions would be closer to the master than
any LP.

At any rate, that is not the case, its not about the noise,
its about the inner detail, spatiality, ability to
handle intense passages., and not beiing generally
all mucked up.

Which brings us to dither.
That and just plain remastering are the only explanations for a CD
sounding different that I know of.


In the cases where there never was an anolog master they may have
decided to go back and change things in the digital domain to improve
the perceived quality, thereby creating what amounts to a new master.


The information on the Columbia reissues by Sony says thhat they did
otherwise, just a faithful reproducton f the masters.


And marketing people always present the unvarnished truth, right?

Super bit mapping, which is what I assume you are referring to invloved
running the original masters through new converters and using noise
shaping which AFAIK requires dithering if it wasn't already present,
they added it to reduce the noise floor. Sony claims that SBM is
different from dithering, but it is clear that the process was a
complete remastering of older material that is now being improved by
newere improved technology to help reveal what was already present on
the masters. Something that still could never be reproduced as
accurately on any LP.


OH!, So its NOT a perfect and identical reproduction of the master.

Of course it is. Comparing what was done 15 years ago to today is
ridiculous.
You can always test the idea of whether it gives you a perfectly exact copy
by recording somethihng and comparing them, but becuase you are not a
compete idiot, you already know the answer.

But you're saying that it's perfect now, and it was said to be perfect
then. And yet, they are different.


Thank you. Now it just becomes a matter of individual choice, as to
which medium one prefers.


It was never anything else, but if you want the best fidelitty, you choose
CD. If you want anything other than that, you choose whatever other medium
you wish.

In article .com,
" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
it was just two different cd transcriptions of the same master.

Explain how that is possible.


Different equipment used for conversion.


As I thought, you're talking about releases from over a decade ago.
It
is true that there were originally some problems with the
conversion
equipment, but AFAIK those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.


And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect replication
of
the
master.


Since even then it was possible to get it right and record digitally
something that could not be distinguished from the master tape, just
because
it wasn't completely perfect doesn't mean it wasn't always better than
LP
which it most certainly is now.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it could not be
diferentiated from the master tapes shows that it was possible then.
The
few wrinkles that were a problem for some converters is no longer a
problem.

What changed between 1990 and today?

Things like the use of dither, new perceptual coding, people getting used
to
the equipment, DAC's are better, not tomention the machines being used to
record with. Experience mostly.


There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the master
tape, snip

Which is the same thing that was said in 1990 and when CDs were first
released.

And is still true for many, probably most of those releases.

But since they were both touted to be perfectly accurate, and yet they
are different...?

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
oups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...




You don't suppose that some of the new releases that sound better,
might be because technology came into being that allowed for better
clean up of noise that may have been present on those original
masters?


There goes "ACCURACY", out the window!!!!
I thought you just wanted to hear exactly what is
on the master tape.


Hardly, in any case the CD versions would be closer to the master than
any LP.

At any rate, that is not the case, its not about the noise,
its about the inner detail, spatiality, ability to
handle intense passages., and not beiing generally
all mucked up.

Which brings us to dither.
That and just plain remastering are the only explanations for a CD
sounding different that I know of.


In the cases where there never was an anolog master they may have
decided to go back and change things in the digital domain to improve
the perceived quality, thereby creating what amounts to a new master.


The information on the Columbia reissues by Sony says thhat they did
otherwise, just a faithful reproducton f the masters.


And marketing people always present the unvarnished truth, right?

Super bit mapping, which is what I assume you are referring to invloved
running the original masters through new converters and using noise
shaping which AFAIK requires dithering if it wasn't already present,
they added it to reduce the noise floor. Sony claims that SBM is
different from dithering, but it is clear that the process was a
complete remastering of older material that is now being improved by
newere improved technology to help reveal what was already present on
the masters. Something that still could never be reproduced as
accurately on any LP.


OH!, So its NOT a perfect and identical reproduction of the master.

Of course it is. Comparing what was done 15 years ago to today is
ridiculous.

The master didn't change in 15 years.


You can always test the idea of whether it gives you a perfectly exact
copy by recording somethihng and comparing them, but becuase you are not a
compete idiot, you already know the answer.


Thank you. Now it just becomes a matter of individual choice, as to
which medium one prefers.


It was never anything else, but if you want the best fidelitty, you choose
CD. If you want anything other than that, you choose whatever other
medium you wish.


Depends on what fidelity you are looking for.
One where the music is palpably real.
Or one that is statistically accurate to
oversimplified measurements.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
link.net...


So which DAC's made today can't give an exact copy of whatever you send
them?


All of them.
They are almost there, but not quite.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
. net,
wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


same
mix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

So what?

it was just two different cd transcriptions of the
same master.

Note necessarily. There are a number of steps to the process of producing a
CD. Mixing is not the end of the line. There is the slight matter of
mastering/.

Explain how that is possible.

Different equipment used for conversion.

A minor effect, probably not audible. Analog- digital converters that are
capable of being sonically transparent have been around for something like
35 years or more. The major change was their price. In the early 1970s, the
engineering school I attended had a hybrid computer with a ADC-DAC box that
had enough dynamic range and bandwitch to be sonically transparent. Price:
about $500,000. The same or better level of performance today can be bought
off-the-shelf for less than $200.

As I thought, you're talking about releases from over
a decade ago. It is true that there were originally
some problems with the conversion equipment, but AFAIK
those problems no longer exist. Therefore my
statement applies to music released on CD today.

And back then, it was said to be perfect sound, perfect
replication of the master.

It was a sonically-perfect copy of whatever someone wanted. It was not
necessarily a perfect copy of the master tape. People have been listening to
the recordings they sell before they mass-produce them for a long time. I
doubt they will stop any time soon.

There's always someone who has the final say, and that final say is based on
a listening test. If the person with the final say thinks that the
reocording has too much this or not enough that, there's someone with a
battery of equalizers and dynamics processors that can make the desired
changes, more or less.

The major difference between a LP and CD is that a CD is an exact
representation of something that somebody approved. A LP can't be exactly
the thing that was approved because of the inherent limitations of the LP
process and the variations that naturally happen in LP processing. No two
LPs can sound exactly alike because if nothing else they will have different
added noise in different places. Buying LPs is like buying lottery tickets
that never pay more than the price of a LP, but can pay less.

The recordings of the Mercury stuff and the fact it
could not be diferentiated from the master tapes shows
that it was possible then. The few wrinkles that were a
problem for some converters is no longer a problem.

The better converters that were commercially available in 1980 or so (which
ran up in the $10,000's) were sonically transparent. We ABXed some that
were made by Ampex for LP mastering. They were indistinguishable from a
straight wire, using the highest quality two-track high speed analog tape
masters and live musical sources recorded with the best generally avaiable
mics in a very good sounding studio, as our references.

What changed between 1990 and today?

The cost of quality digital audio went way down and the availabilty went way
up. That happened in just about every area of mainstream audio whether
analog or digital.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

wrote in message
link.net...

So which DAC's made today can't give an exact copy of
whatever you send them?

All of them.

True - but for good DACs the differences aren't audible.

They are almost there, but not quite.

Agreed. There is an inherent slight but inaudible loss which is irreducable.
It's a nit

In fact DACs selling for under $1 in production volume are capable of being
sonically transparent over 20 generations of conversions.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


OH!, So its NOT a perfect and identical reproduction of
the master.

The reproduction can be identical, but it cannot be exactly perfect.

However the difference between exactly perfect and what you get is way less
than the minimal that is audible.

Thank you. Now it just becomes a matter of
individual choice, as to which medium one prefers.

Not at all. The sonic losses inherent in the LP media are audible and
audibly variably. Comparing the LP format to good digital is like comparing
a Tijuana's open sewer along the US border to the purest stream that flows
into Lake Superior.

wrote:

There is no doubt that CD's now areproviding an exact copy of the master
tape, which I always thought was what the musicians were after, otherwise,
why go through all the trouble in recording and mixing?

Recall when CDs were labelled DDD or AAD or ADD?
What the hell was that all about?


It was about letting people know how clean the disk would be based on
how much digital technoloby had been used. I assume they stopped it
because people, like me wanted the disks with the DDD designation more
than any other, due the fact that sounded cleaner and more dynamic,
just as direct to digital does.

and perhaps didn't sound like the original instrument recorded.

The master.. the master tape.. the master tape.
Why do you keep ignoring all that goes on... and often in the digital
domain before your beloved master is created?
For many recordings today there is no "master" analogue tape.
Ever hear "direct to digital". Tracks recorded and mixed
DIGITALLY! You keep bitching about SS and tubes
and **** while you yourself are stuck in analogue world
without a ****ing clue about the pitfalls of digital processing.

Do tell, I'm always willing to learn.
There is still a version thaqt is considered the master from which the
CD's are produced.
LP can't match CD for accuracy or faithfullness to that master, no
matter how it was created.

So you don't care how faithful the master is to the original event
(if there was one)?

Digital processing research continues to this day on how
to handle floating point vs fixed and all the dithering options.

This ****s over my head and Zelniker handed Arny his
ass more than a few times for his lack of comprehension
on these issues... but it is clear that digital audio
processing continues to be studied and improved.

http://www.cadenzarecording.com/imag...tingdither.pdf

Don't let Mike oversimplify things. What he says is true..
digitizing an analogue master results in an audible
equivalent of the master. But that isn't what causes
the problems with many digital recordings IMO.

What problems are you talking about?

Read the paper.


Most of the problems AFAIK have more to do with choices made by the
people doing the mixing and not much with the technology.

Choices made by the people providing the mixing hardware
you mean which is the essence of the technology.
Not many mixing engineers know squat about the goings on
inside their DAWs. They apply the algorithms in their
equipment and expect
a result. This paper shows that the people who develop those
algorithms which are implemented in those DAWs
continue to improve them.

ScottW