[Arny Krueger]

Author's profile:

David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England Conservatory (Boston);
teaching assistant to Rudolf Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber music
groups; recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New York in
1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red Seal LP recordings for CD,
at RCA Studios; Grammy award for "Best Historical Album", 1995. Programmer
and instructor of Windows programming (C, C++, C#). Translator (German to
English) and editorial nit-picker of technical and sales literature for
Schoeps GmbH.

Comment:

David Satz" wrote in message
ups.com
"

"
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
"

"
Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]
"

"
Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.
"

"
Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting, etc.--behind
the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.
"

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

[Jeff Findley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Author's profile:

David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England Conservatory (Boston);
teaching assistant to Rudolf Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber
music groups; recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New
York in 1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red Seal LP
recordings for CD, at RCA Studios; Grammy award for "Best Historical
Album", 1995. Programmer and instructor of Windows programming (C, C++,
C#). Translator (German to English) and editorial nit-picker of technical
and sales literature for Schoeps GmbH.

Comment:

David Satz" wrote in message
ups.com
"

"
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
"

"
Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]
"

"
Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.
"

"
Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting, etc.--behind
the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.
"

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code

Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them in both a "low
end" and a "high end" CD player. The high end CD player would actually
report error detection/correction information and a certain amount of errors
were allowed in the final product, but I think they only allowed errors
which were able to be corrected by the CD player.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Keith G]

"Jeff Findley" wrote


A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code

Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them in both a "low
end" and a "high end" CD player. The high end CD player would actually
report error detection/correction information and a certain amount of
errors were allowed in the final product, but I think they only allowed
errors which were able to be corrected by the CD player.



Interesting, but not entirely *news*, Jeff - this is why a few of us (with a
higher *anxiety threshold* than some here) don't trouble too much about what
processes (D or A) went into making various LPs and CDs and just get on with
getting the best out of them as an *end product* on our own kit....

(That said, I believe I can see why some of the 'pre digital/ss' stuff
commands the high prices it does from *discerning* collectors...)

[Jeff Findley]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Interesting, but not entirely *news*, Jeff - this is why a few of us (with
a higher *anxiety threshold* than some here) don't trouble too much about
what processes (D or A) went into making various LPs and CDs and just get
on with getting the best out of them as an *end product* on our own
kit....

(That said, I believe I can see why some of the 'pre digital/ss' stuff
commands the high prices it does from *discerning* collectors...)

Agreed.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Author's profile:

David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England
Conservatory (Boston); teaching assistant to Rudolf
Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber music groups;
recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New
York in 1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red
Seal LP recordings for CD, at RCA Studios; Grammy award
for "Best Historical Album", 1995. Programmer and
instructor of Windows programming (C, C++, C#).
Translator (German to English) and editorial nit-picker
of technical and sales literature for Schoeps GmbH. Comment:

David Satz" wrote in message
ups.com
"

"
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
"

"
Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]
"

"
Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.
"

"
Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular
characteristics of their LP and CD playback equipment.
"

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from
what he understands from working there, the type of media
used to deliver the master to the CD plant could make
some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media
was analog, that meant that what the plant got was going
to be an "AAD" CD with the additional possibility that
the CD plant's analog to digital conversion might not be
as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing
studio.
SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code

Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them
in both a "low end" and a "high end" CD player. The high
end CD player would actually report error
detection/correction information and a certain amount of
errors were allowed in the final product, but I think
they only allowed errors which were able to be corrected
by the CD player.

That sounds similar to what I've heard from people who worked at CD plants.
The idea of people in CD plants mastering CD intended for wide-scale
distribution is a bit scary.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message


Interesting, but not entirely *news*, Jeff - this is why
a few of us (with a higher *anxiety threshold* than some
here) don't trouble too much about what processes (D or
A) went into making various LPs and CDs and just get on
with getting the best out of them as an *end product* on
our own kit....

Sometimes getting the most of of them as an end product is facilitated by
knowing about processes went into making various LPs and CDs.

[Walt]

Arny Krueger wrote:
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]

Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.


I beg to differ. I don't think this really demonstrates a comparrison
between the two media at all - if the CD copy sounds just like the vinyl
it just means that the CD is a very good storage media where you get out
(almost) exactly what you put in.

Imagine going the other way - take a CD and press a vinyl record from it
(going through all the mother/master/stamping steps). Do you think that
the end result would be inidistinguishable?

Or to put a finer point on it, imagine the third generation cassette
copy of "Abba's greatest hits" that spent the summer on the back
dashboard of my car. Transfer it to CD, and you'll find that the CD
sounds just like the third-generation sun-damaged Sweedish crooning on
the tape. What conclusions would you draw from that fact?

//Walt

[Geoff]

Walt wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]

Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.


I beg to differ. I don't think this really demonstrates a comparrison
between the two media at all - if the CD copy sounds just like the
vinyl it just means that the CD is a very good storage media where
you get out (almost) exactly what you put in.

That was, I think, the point !

geoff

[Arny Krueger]

"Geoff" wrote in message

Walt wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I
can make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't
really tell from the original, other than the
cleaning rituals [ ... ]

Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up
with the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic,
practical comparison method between LP and CD that
I've ever heard of.


I beg to differ. I don't think this really demonstrates
a comparrison between the two media at all - if the CD
copy sounds just like the vinyl it just means that the
CD is a very good storage media where you get out
(almost) exactly what you put in.

That was, I think, the point !

Which begs the questions raised by people who claim that the CD format
somehow inherently makes music unacceptable for the purpose of them
listening for their enjoyment.

[Mr.T]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

In fact many CD plants would not touch an analog tape these days. Any who do
would probably perform as good a job as the tape allows for. The only
difference being the quality of the tape machine.


Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them in both a "low
end" and a "high end" CD player. The high end CD player would actually
report error detection/correction information and a certain amount of
errors
were allowed in the final product, but I think they only allowed errors
which were able to be corrected by the CD player.

Unfortunately they even ADD C1 errors these days and call it copy
protection!

MrT.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
Author's profile:

David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England Conservatory (Boston);
teaching assistant to Rudolf Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber music
groups; recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New York in
1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red Seal LP recordings for CD,
at RCA Studios; Grammy award for "Best Historical Album", 1995. Programmer
and instructor of Windows programming (C, C++, C#). Translator (German to
English) and editorial nit-picker of technical and sales literature for
Schoeps GmbH.


I'm not sure if this is an independent view - seems to me the author has
a number of vested interests.

Comment:

David Satz" wrote in message
ups.com
"

"
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
"

"
Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]


I'd go along with that to a point - LP-CD provides a mighty fine
rendition. LP-CD sounds particularly marked in compilations, and really
makes the case for LP IMO. I do find that the CD copy gives a flatter
sound stage.
"

"
Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.


Um - listening to the results is a good idea?! Well, obviously :-)
"

"
Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting, etc.--behind
the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.


OK, yes.
"

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has managed two
maxims from anecdote. This is a problem because it still doesn't explain
*why* some people prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl. It's just
another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they must not'.

Onwards and sideways ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people prefer
a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

It's just another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they
must
not'.

Completely missed the point.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.
Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance
in sources.

These assumptions aren't facts.


This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people prefer
a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.


Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no attempt is made
to explain cause. If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

It's just another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they
must
not'.

Completely missed the point.


I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to: "It's another
attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would you have posted?

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely,
and the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't
a factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts, and with a very
considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts, and with a
considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements. The measurements need to be
coordinated with what is known about human perception of sound. This has
been done.

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used. Properly stated they are
findings of science that have been verified by just about anybody who has
bothered to take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or even
collect their own data. There are no known adverse findings that are
anywhere as near unbiased.

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is based on stimulus and
perception. Perception is based on the body's sensory reaction to stimulus
and how the brain processes those reactions. If you trace through the steps,
you find the most variations in how different people's brains work.

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are well-informed about
sensation and perception.

It's just another attampt at closure of the point:
'They can not, they must
not'.

Completely missed the point.


I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to:
"It's another attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would
you have posted?

Error correction. Education.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely,
and the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't
a factor, either.
"
Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.
No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.
Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts, and with a very
considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts, and with a
considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements. The measurements need to be
coordinated with what is known about human perception of sound. This has
been done.


That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle about
supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you shouldn't hear, makes
the notion of 'audible' a problem for dunces like me :-)

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used. Properly stated they are
findings of science that have been verified by just about anybody who has
bothered to take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or even
collect their own data. There are no known adverse findings that are
anywhere as near unbiased.


Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you have a reference
to a (preferably peer reviewed) source to substantiate this?

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is based on stimulus and
perception. Perception is based on the body's sensory reaction to stimulus
and how the brain processes those reactions. If you trace through the steps,
you find the most variations in how different people's brains work.


Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are well-informed about
sensation and perception.


I think you're steering towards a rational/'nature'/positivist
explanation. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but you do understand
there are different ways of thinking about things?!

It's just another attampt at closure of the point:
'They can not, they must
not'.

Completely missed the point.


I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to:
"It's another attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would
you have posted?

Error correction. Education.


Is that some sort of crossword clue?

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in
its audible sound quality than CD playback
equipment does. But your method eliminates that
variable completely, and the mastering decisions of
a commercial CD aren't a factor, either.
"
Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer
has managed two maxims from anecdote.
No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts,
and with a very considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts,
and with a considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements. The measurements need to be coordinated
with what is known about human perception of sound. This
has been done.

That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle
about supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you
shouldn't hear, makes the notion of 'audible' a problem
for dunces like me :-)

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
Properly stated they are findings of science that have
been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
to substantiate this?

Here's an example of some people who tried to collect their own data:

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

The digital delay device being tested used the identical same data format as
audio CDs and was of professional grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD
player back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to time in more
modern contexts with identical results.


This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is
based on stimulus and perception. Perception is based on
the body's sensory reaction to stimulus and how the
brain processes those reactions. If you trace through
the steps, you find the most variations in how different
people's brains work.

Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

Robust fact.

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are
well-informed about sensation and perception.

I think you're steering towards a
rational/'nature'/positivist explanation. Nothing wrong
with that in itself, but you do understand there are
different ways of thinking about things?!

It seems to me that when a bunch of audiophiles and recording engineers
listen to high quality live and recorded analog sources and find that they
can't tell the difference between a short piece of wire and relatively
complex digital encoding and decoding in the signal path, a lot of heavy
philosophical thinking can be bypassed.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley wrote:

A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code


When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing
plant? Was this something done in the early 80s?

I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally --
redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital
mastering.


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

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.

It's a reasonable assumption that the *audible part* of any LP is fully
captured by a decent CD transcription of it.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance
in sources.

What variances in *this* souce -- would you suggest fail to be
captured?


These assumptions aren't facts.

What data would demonstrate that they are or are not, to you?
How would you falsify Mr. Satz' claims?


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

[Jeff Findley]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley wrote:

A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the
CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the
CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code


When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing
plant? Was this something done in the early 80s?

I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally --
redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital
mastering.

I believe this was actually the early 90's, but he did say by then delivery
of analog audio to them was becoming less and less common. Still, he still
tends to avoid buying AAD CD's based on what he saw going on at the plant
since you can't tell from the AAD code who did the mastering from the analog
tapes.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Karl Uppiano]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley wrote:

A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he
understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the
CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the
CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code


When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing
plant? Was this something done in the early 80s?

I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally --
redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital
mastering.

I believe this was actually the early 90's, but he did say by then
delivery of analog audio to them was becoming less and less common.
Still, he still tends to avoid buying AAD CD's based on what he saw going
on at the plant since you can't tell from the AAD code who did the
mastering from the analog tapes.

Jeff

I always purchased CDs based on the quality of the music. The SPARS code was
irrelevant to me, but I always took comfort that if it said AAD, it meant
that the master tape ensured adequate dithering for the CD. :-)

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in
its audible sound quality than CD playback
equipment does. But your method eliminates that
variable completely, and the mastering decisions of
a commercial CD aren't a factor, either.
"
Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer
has managed two maxims from anecdote.
No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts,
and with a very considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts,
and with a considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements. The measurements need to be coordinated
with what is known about human perception of sound. This
has been done.

That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle
about supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you
shouldn't hear, makes the notion of 'audible' a problem
for dunces like me :-)

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
Properly stated they are findings of science that have
been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
to substantiate this?

Here's an example of some people who tried to collect their own data:

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

The digital delay device being tested used the identical same data format as
audio CDs and was of professional grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD
player back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to time in more
modern contexts with identical results.


OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of
(incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to:

http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological
and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. The
bibliography is rather narrow and doesn't (of course) guide the reader
towards references. What made the inventor choose that method? It didn't
just come out of the air!

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.
That wasn't the point.
Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is
based on stimulus and perception. Perception is based on
the body's sensory reaction to stimulus and how the
brain processes those reactions. If you trace through
the steps, you find the most variations in how different
people's brains work.

Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

Robust fact.

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are
well-informed about sensation and perception.

I think you're steering towards a
rational/'nature'/positivist explanation. Nothing wrong
with that in itself, but you do understand there are
different ways of thinking about things?!

It seems to me that when a bunch of audiophiles and recording engineers
listen to high quality live and recorded analog sources and find that they
can't tell the difference between a short piece of wire and relatively
complex digital encoding and decoding in the signal path, a lot of heavy
philosophical thinking can be bypassed.


Of course - but it's obvious to anyone looking at those tests that it's
a pretty narrow respondent sample. To turn it round and say "Well, they
are the most qualified to comment" is IMO elitist claptrap.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
Properly stated they are findings of science that have
been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
to substantiate this?

Here's an example of some people who tried to collect
their own data: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

The digital delay device being tested used the identical
same data format as audio CDs and was of professional
grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD player
back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to
time in more modern contexts with identical results.

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

[Keith G]

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

[Karl Uppiano]

"Keith G" wrote in message
news

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by Dr
Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here.

Frankly, I don't know why they're discussing (or I'm reading) an issue that
was already settled 25 years ago by anyone willing to accept the obvious
physical, mathematical and usability advantages of digital audio, instead
of, oh, I don't know, whether Western Civilization has the nerve to fight a
dangerous religious war to the death, or if we're in life-threatening
denial. At least we have our priorities straight. :-)

[Rob]

Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
news
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/
with an odd statement about methodology.

What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
Well, it's your ball :-)


What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by Dr
Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here.


Do you mean ontology and epistemology? They're common enough words when
discussing methodology - Arny started that ball rolling. I do tend to
agree that a lot of BS accompanies philosophical 'analysis'.

Frankly, I don't know why they're discussing (or I'm reading) an issue that
was already settled 25 years ago by anyone willing to accept the obvious
physical, mathematical and usability advantages of digital audio,

Agreed. But I didn't start it :-)

instead
of, oh, I don't know, whether Western Civilization has the nerve to fight a
dangerous religious war to the death, or if we're in life-threatening
denial. At least we have our priorities straight. :-)


I didn't start that one either!

[Rob]

Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/
with an odd statement about methodology.

What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)


Oh I think not :-) Still, he's a bloody good sport that Arny!

[Keith G]

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:z6q3h.2238$Wd5.62@trnddc05...

"Keith G" wrote in message
news

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by
Dr Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here.



Sure, why not? It definitely says 'fight fire with fire' on page 28 of my
copy of 'How To Scrape By'.....???

Talking of which, here's a clip of a St Neots (UK) inhabitant enjoying his
fireworks display tonight:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Fireworks.mp3

:-)

(Dual mono for technical reasons.....)

[Keith G]

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/
with an odd statement about methodology.

What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)


Oh I think not :-) Still, he's a bloody good sport that Arny!



Good sport or *a* good sport? - There's a big difference!

(I'd agree with the former....!! ;-)

[Glenn Richards]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but
then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness
wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to
some pop releases.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can
get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field.

--
*Marriage changes passion - suddenly you're in bed with a relative*

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

[Mr.T]

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
. uk...
So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better?

That of course can be the case, but the reverse is also true, far more
often.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

Obviously.

MrT.

[Keith G]

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
. uk...
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)



Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?
(Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??)

Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting, there are two CD racks
full of the sort stuff I like to (and do) play. It is though they do not
exist - I *never* think to play them! I just looked, there is even a 'boxed
set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it hasn't been - it's
still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/cellophane.jpg

It must have been there some years now and one of the *few* things I like on
Carsick FM is the 'Smooth Classics at Seven' prog..!!??

In fact, I suspect over half of them have never been played even once since
they were bought - why is that...??

(I think it's a 'natural selection' based on a genuine preference that has
bugger-all to do with technical differences!)

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?
(Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??)

In my experience, very few. Except kids who want to scratch.

[Arny Krueger]

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
. uk
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular
characteristics of their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is
capable of far better quality sound than vinyl, but due
to sloppy mastering (loudness wars anyone?) vinyl
generally sounds better?

Huh?

My position is that CD is easily capable of far better sound quality than
vinyl, even when people work their butts off trying to make vinyl sound
good. Furthermore, since the CD has been the predominant mainstream method
of distributing music, music has in general sounded far better because it
was no longer cursed with the audible artifacts that are inherent in LPs.

Because it hasn't been compressed to within an inch of its life?

Hypercompression is a production technique, not an inherent property of a
distribution medium. However. the LP format has historically been more
likely to use compression, because the basic dynamic range of the LP medium
is less than that of wide dynamic range music. Thing is that even the LP
format didn't need hypercompression.

The reason that so much music is hypercompressed today is because people no
longer predominately listen to music as their sole activity. Music is more
likely than ever to be listened to while the listener is doing something
else that is more important to them. Therefore, dynamic range is a detriment
to many listener's use of music.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message
news
Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
(and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I *never*
think to play them! I just looked, there is even a 'boxed
set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it
hasn't been - it's still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was in my house, it would
probably stay in the wrapper - on the grounds that I don't have time to
listen to boring music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is boring
music no matter what the format.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message
news
Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
(and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I *never*
think to play them! I just looked, there is even a 'boxed
set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it
hasn't been - it's still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was in my house, it
would probably stay in the wrapper - on the grounds that I don't have time
to listen to boring music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
boring music no matter what the format.



Boring?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG

??

You're a recordist, aren't you?

What's the matter with you? - There's nothing here a little *unison
clapping* and tambourine overdub wouldn't fix.....

:-)


(Well worth letting him out of the ****ter for that one!!)

Tee hee.... :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message
news
Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
(and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I
*never* think to play them! I just looked, there is
even a 'boxed set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not
disturb' and it hasn't been - it's still sealed in a
cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was
in my house, it would probably stay in the wrapper - on
the grounds that I don't have time to listen to boring
music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
boring music no matter what the format.



Boring?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG

??

Yeah, a collection of overplayed warhorses is boring.

You're a recordist, aren't you?

Yeah,

What's the matter with you? - There's nothing here a
little *unison clapping* and tambourine overdub wouldn't
fix.....

What are you talking about? It's clear you don't know.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message
news
Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
(and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I
*never* think to play them! I just looked, there is
even a 'boxed set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not
disturb' and it hasn't been - it's still sealed in a
cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was
in my house, it would probably stay in the wrapper - on
the grounds that I don't have time to listen to boring
music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
boring music no matter what the format.



Boring?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG

??

Yeah, a collection of overplayed warhorses is boring.



I believe the US version had a few tracks by The Osmonds on it....

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message
news
Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like
to (and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I
*never* think to play them! I just looked, there is
even a 'boxed set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not
disturb' and it hasn't been - it's still sealed in a
cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was
in my house, it would probably stay in the wrapper - on
the grounds that I don't have time to listen to boring
music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
boring music no matter what the format.



Boring?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG

??

Yeah, a collection of overplayed warhorses is boring.

I believe the US version had a few tracks by The Osmonds
on it....

Say no more.

There really is such a thing as too much information, you know! ;-)