Sony Quality or Sony Scams?

[JackA]

Interesting!...

http://www.irdial.com/scum.htm

Jack

[geoff]

On 21/11/2015 4:42 a.m., JackA wrote:
> Interesting!...
>
> http://www.irdial.com/scum.htm
>
> Jack
>


Interesting ? Pretty common knowledge.

Though SACD may not actually offer much or any perceptible improvement
in the already-limited sound quality of many recordings, it offers quite
a few potential advantages in the replay equipment.

geoff

[JackA]

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 5:23:28 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 21/11/2015 4:42 a.m., JackA wrote:
> > Interesting!...
> >
> > http://www.irdial.com/scum.htm
> >
> > Jack
> >
>
>
> Interesting ? Pretty common knowledge.
>
> Though SACD may not actually offer much or any perceptible improvement
> in the already-limited sound quality of many recordings, it offers quite
> a few potential advantages in the replay equipment.

Not even sure I have any SACDs! Not really interested in HQ media, more interested in HQ human mastering!! That is hard to find!

Jack
>
> geoff

[Trevor]

On 21/11/2015 9:22 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 21/11/2015 4:42 a.m., JackA wrote:
>> Interesting!...
>>
>> http://www.irdial.com/scum.htm
>>

What a load of drivel. Nobody was using a 1630 by the time SACD came
along. And unfortunately for them they found you can't fool all the
people all the time, (just most of the time) so SACD was a dismal failure.


>
> Interesting ? Pretty common knowledge.

Yes, "knowledge" doesn't necessarily equate to fact in an way. :-(

>
> Though SACD may not actually offer much or any perceptible improvement
> in the already-limited sound quality of many recordings, it offers quite
> a few potential advantages in the replay equipment.

Which are?
(Ignoring advantages for the marketing department of course.)

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 21/11/2015 9:59 p.m., Trevor wrote:

>>
>> Interesting ? Pretty common knowledge.
>
> Yes, "knowledge" doesn't necessarily equate to fact in an way. :-(

Fact or fiction, I thought most of us, at least here, would have a
pretty good appreciation of the technologies, formats, and arguments
for and against the supposed potential benefits.


>> Though SACD may not actually offer much or any perceptible improvement
>> in the already-limited sound quality of many recordings, it offers quite
>> a few potential advantages in the replay equipment.
>
> Which are?
> (Ignoring advantages for the marketing department of course.)

Of debatable value. 5.1 capability for those excited by it. More than
doubled potential frequency response for your pet bat.

On SACDs I have listened to, I at least imagined that listening to the
SACD layer of a hydrid disc of ostensibly identically-mastered music,
that the SACD version was somehow more relaxing to listen to. Yes, quite
possibly psychological. The filters of the player were certainly
'different' for each path and option - even the two available CD output
filter options on the NAD M5 I used.

But whatever anybody's imagined or real perceptions, the debate as to
the benefits of SACD are certainly not previously unheard of by many
here. I hope. So "common knowledge" ? I say yes.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 22/11/2015 4:45 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 21/11/2015 9:59 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>> Yes, "knowledge" doesn't necessarily equate to fact in any way. :-(
>
> Fact or fiction, I thought most of us, at least here, would have a
> pretty good appreciation of the technologies, formats, and arguments
> for and against the supposed potential benefits.

Right, but what is the point?


>>> Though SACD may not actually offer much or any perceptible improvement
>>> in the already-limited sound quality of many recordings, it offers quite
>>> a few potential advantages in the replay equipment.
>>
>> Which are?
>> (Ignoring advantages for the marketing department of course.)
>
> Of debatable value. 5.1 capability for those excited by it. More than
> doubled potential frequency response for your pet bat.

Right again. I don't have a pet bat, and 5.1 is fine for watching
BluRay. Unlike SACD, that is an improvement on DVD that people have
readily accepted.
Funny how you can buy a BluRay movie with 5.1 high quality audio for
less than the cost of an audio only soundtrack SACD too, but that's the
problem when there is such a limited market for the latter.


> On SACDs I have listened to, I at least imagined that listening to the
> SACD layer of a hydrid disc of ostensibly identically-mastered music,
> that the SACD version was somehow more relaxing to listen to. Yes, quite
> possibly psychological.

Not at all, the two layers are *rarely* the same master simply resampled
(if ever) They want to show some difference, even if it's all a con.


> The filters of the player were certainly
> 'different' for each path and option - even the two available CD output
> filter options on the NAD M5 I used.

Bitstream should negate the old filter debate now.


> But whatever anybody's imagined or real perceptions, the debate as to
> the benefits of SACD are certainly not previously unheard of by many
> here. I hope. So "common knowledge" ? I say yes.

So you admit the "benefits" may be imagined, don't specify what they are
(other than for bats) and still claim the benefits are "common
knowledge"? God is common knowledge too I guess, even if there are
hundreds to choose from :-)

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 22/11/2015 7:15 p.m., Trevor wrote:

>
> So you admit the "benefits" may be imagined, don't specify what they are
> (other than for bats) and still claim the benefits are "common
> knowledge"?



IIRC I suggested that SACD was common knowledge. JackAss seemed to think
is was something secret or new.

>God is common knowledge too I guess, even if there are
> hundreds to choose from :-)

And mostly mutually exclusive.


geoff

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "Not at all, the two layers are *rarely* the same master simply resampled
(if ever) They want to show some difference, even if it's all a con"


Trevor: You and I AGREE on this! So that makes us both
"trolls" for rocking the engineers' boat.

[None]

< thekma-thekma-thekma @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> Trevor wrote: "Not at all, the two layers are *rarely* the same
> master simply resampled
> (if ever) They want to show some difference, even if it's all a con"
>
> Trevor: You and I AGREE on this! So that makes us both
> "trolls"

No, there's no reason to call Trevor a troll, and you're a troll
because you came here solely to whine that you're being called a
troll. That shows that you're a troll. It's already established (by
your own claims) that you're a dumb****.

> for rocking the engineers' boat.

You're not rocking any boat, li'l buddy. More like you're gibbering
that you have to drill holes in the hull "to let the water out" and
when nobody listens, you throw your little toddler tantrums. That's a
much more apt metaphor. Of course, the dead hobby horse is also a very
appropriate metaphor. ARLBKC? FCKWAFSBA.

[None]

< thekma-thekma-thekma @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> Trevor wrote: "Not at all, the two layers are *rarely* the same
> master simply resampled
> (if ever) They want to show some difference, even if it's all a con"
>
> Trevor: You and I AGREE on this! So that makes us both
> "trolls"

No, there's no reason to call Trevor a troll, and you're a troll
because you came here solely to whine that you're being called a
troll. That shows that you're a troll. It's already established (by
your own claims) that you're a dumb****.

> for rocking the engineers' boat.

You're not rocking any boat, li'l buddy. More like you're gibbering
that you have to drill holes in the hull "to let the water out" and
when nobody listens, you throw your little toddler tantrums. That's a
much more apt metaphor. Of course, the dead hobby horse is also a very
appropriate metaphor. ARLBKC? FCKWAFSBA.

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 22/11/2015 7:15 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>
>> So you admit the "benefits" may be imagined, don't specify what they are
>> (other than for bats) and still claim the benefits are "common
>> knowledge"?
>
>IIRC I suggested that SACD was common knowledge. JackAss seemed to think
>is was something secret or new.

SACD was a huge, huge deal when it came out on the market a decade ago.
Sony had an enormous booth promoting it at the CES. There was a lot of
talk about it for a couple of years and many people in the audiophile
community were boosting it. Then, it just kind of died out.

Part of the problem is that SACD is really just a DSD release format, and
as such it's the tip of the iceberg on top of all the DSD production. Thing
is, there isn't any DSD production. There's some hardware out there and a
couple Sonoma workstations were sold, but hardly any DSD stuff ever got made.
And, what DID get made was invariably converted to PCM for editing and then
converted back anyway.

Whatever advantage there is with DSD lies in the simplicity of the conversion
on both ends, but that advantage disappears when you add in the complexity
of production. And, given that we do finally have good sigma-delta filtering
finally, there's really no advantage. Back in the eighties when dbx was
promoting a DSD system, it was a huge advance over the PCM gear of the day,
but PCM stuff got better.

So... I guess it is kind of a secret in the same way the Elcaset is a secret.
It's a thing that didn't make it in the marketplace. Interestingly enough,
DVD-A, late as it came on the market, actually has a small but dedicated
audiophile market, as do high resolution PCM files on blu-ray.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Trevor wrote: "Not at all, the two layers are *rarely* the same master simply resampled
>(if ever) They want to show some difference, even if it's all a con"
>
>Trevor: You and I AGREE on this! So that makes us both
>"trolls" for rocking the engineers' boat.

Trolls? No.

You have two recordings with two different end markets, put on the same disc.
Why should you process them the same? They're aimed at different people
listening in different ways, they should be processed in an appropriate way
for each of them.

Lots of LPs today come with MP3 downloads... you can be damned sure the
masters weren't processed the same way for cutting and for lossy encoding.
Why should they be?

Used to be we'd make a mono mix and a stereo mix of the same single, and put
them on two sides of a 45. Sometimes they'd be different performances,
even, because tracking with stereo in mind is different than tracking with
mono in mind, and because some stereo microphone techniques don't have good
mono compatibility. Nobody complained that the stereo and mono versions were
different. Why should they? Each was optimized for the release format being
used.

It's not a con, it's a matter of horses for courses.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "Why should you process them the same?"

It's called being HONEST. The differences
between low-res lossy and high-res lossless
digital delivery platforms are insignificant
compared to different choices/types of
processing in mastering. High-passing
low end for cutting to LP is a necessary
evil, but it is not one of the types
of processing I'm referring to.

If I'm paying significantly more for high-
res versions of tracks or a whole album,
I should not expect to hear major EQ,
dynamic, or overall level differences
compared to what's on the standard
lossless or even the mp3.

[geoff]

On 23/11/2015 8:23 a.m., wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "Why should you process them the same?"
>
> It's called being HONEST. The differences
> between low-res lossy and high-res lossless
> digital delivery platforms are insignificant
> compared to different choices/types of
> processing in mastering. High-passing
> low end for cutting to LP is a necessary
> evil, but it is not one of the types
> of processing I'm referring to.

"Honesty" is only factor is there is some actual claim or inference that
the versions are identical, apart from the necessary format conversions
one way or the other.

You are paying more for a SACD because the market is hugely smaller. If
SACD had become the major medium, then it would be the lower-priced
version in comparison to whichever alternative. As would Bl-ray versions
if/when they overtake DVDs.


>
> If I'm paying significantly more for high-
> res versions of tracks or a whole album,
> I should not expect to hear major EQ,
> dynamic, or overall level differences
> compared to what's on the standard
> lossless or even the mp3.

The classical SACD v. CD music I comprehensively auditioned a few years
ago (probably 5 years ago) did actually laim to be to all intents and
purposes identical, and there were no dynamic or tonal differences that
I could discern. No, I can't remember what the titles were.

And then there is the best-known DSOTM one, where I don't think any
claim was made either way over what re-mastering applied to the layers.

geoff

[[email protected]]

Geoff: Example of the dishonesty I alluded to:

http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind#C3whflM2vOA9VYzP.97

[geoff]

On 23/11/2015 11:10 a.m., wrote:
> Geoff: Example of the dishonesty I alluded to:
>
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind#C3whflM2vOA9VYzP.97

Two separate issues that are slightly interrelated in this particular case.

Higher resolution is one thing. Probably little or no audible benefit.
Not that I'm particular familiar with Nirvana's music. I would imagine
that those who love Nirvana's style would be of a mindset that actually
prefers hyper-compression. I could be wrong.

Over-compression is another. Actually looking closely at those pix, it
would seem that it is mainly the bass dynamics affected , and the higher
freq content raised in level, but pretty much maintaining it's loud v.
quiet relationship (such as it is ....).

Would need to zoom in much closer to see if there were in fact many
higher freq transients affected.

geoff

[None]

< thekma-thekma-thekma @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> Geoff: Example of the dishonesty I alluded to:
>
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind#C3whflM2vOA9VYzP.97

That's about hyper compression. It all comes back to your hobbyhorse,
doesn't it? It really doesn't matter what the subject is, it's all
hobbyhorse to you, in that tiny little raisin-sized micro brain inside
your cranial vault of granite.

Really not about SACD, but you can wail and weep about the
sausage-fest envelope in the display; that's all you care apparently.
You get all worked up over the way audio files look on a display. Do
you ever actually listen to anything, or is all drowned out by your
pathetic whining and trolling? You're so ****injg predictable,
dumb****. You're just beating a dead horse about hypercompression.
SYBYI? FMSBRWAHH. FCKWAFA.

[JackA]

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 3:02:45 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 22/11/2015 7:15 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>
> >
> > So you admit the "benefits" may be imagined, don't specify what they are
> > (other than for bats) and still claim the benefits are "common
> > knowledge"?
>
>
>
> IIRC I suggested that SACD was common knowledge. JackAss seemed to think
> is was something secret or new.

I don't know much as SACD, but willing to guess they surfaced due to DAW or DAS.

Jack

>
> >God is common knowledge too I guess, even if there are
> > hundreds to choose from :-)
>
> And mostly mutually exclusive.
>
>
> geoff

[Trevor]

On 23/11/2015 1:58 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
>> Trevor wrote: "Not at all, the two layers are *rarely* the same master simply resampled
>> (if ever) They want to show some difference, even if it's all a con"
>>
>> Trevor: You and I AGREE on this! So that makes us both
>> "trolls" for rocking the engineers' boat.

Just because you agree with me on something, please don't put me in your
boat!!!


>
> You have two recordings with two different end markets, put on the same disc.
> Why should you process them the same? They're aimed at different people
> listening in different ways, they should be processed in an appropriate way
> for each of them.

What a concept, people who listen to CD don't want quality. (assuming
you think those that buy SACD do) I know many think that way, but
fortunately many don't.


>
> Lots of LPs today come with MP3 downloads... you can be damned sure the
> masters weren't processed the same way for cutting and for lossy encoding.
> Why should they be?

It's not worth the effort to make a separate master for MP3 most of the
time, so most are simply MP3's made from the CD track. An LP will
usually be a lower Fi version to cope with reduced bass, reduced channel
separation etc. Add in extra noise, distortion, rumble, wow and flutter
etc. and it will often be worse than the MP3, but completely pointless
to compare them anyway. And has NOTHING to do with CD Vs SACD.


>
> Used to be we'd make a mono mix and a stereo mix of the same single, and put
> them on two sides of a 45. Sometimes they'd be different performances,
> even, because tracking with stereo in mind is different than tracking with
> mono in mind, and because some stereo microphone techniques don't have good
> mono compatibility. Nobody complained that the stereo and mono versions were
> different. Why should they? Each was optimized for the release format being
> used.
>
> It's not a con, it's a matter of horses for courses.

It's a con, the absolutely minimal difference between SACD and CD is
hardly justification for a different mix, and is certainly not necessary
like it is for vinyl Vs CD, or stereo Vs mono. You are simply trying to
confuse the issue for whatever reason?

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 23/11/2015 4:44 p.m., JackA wrote:
> On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 3:02:45 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>> On 22/11/2015 7:15 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So you admit the "benefits" may be imagined, don't specify what they are
>>> (other than for bats) and still claim the benefits are "common
>>> knowledge"?
>>
>>
>>
>> IIRC I suggested that SACD was common knowledge. JackAss seemed to think
>> is was something secret or new.
>
> I don't know much as SACD, but willing to guess they surfaced due to DAW or DAS.

Nothing to do with DAW technology in the slightest. Not even with DAMBCP .

geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 12:48:28 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 23/11/2015 4:44 p.m., JackA wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 3:02:45 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >> On 22/11/2015 7:15 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> So you admit the "benefits" may be imagined, don't specify what they are
> >>> (other than for bats) and still claim the benefits are "common
> >>> knowledge"?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> IIRC I suggested that SACD was common knowledge. JackAss seemed to think
> >> is was something secret or new.
> >
> > I don't know much as SACD, but willing to guess they surfaced due to DAW or DAS.
>
> Nothing to do with DAW technology in the slightest. Not even with DAMBCP .

So, are telling me, they magically found a way to remaster high resolution audio?

Jack
>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 5:10:27 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Geoff: Example of the dishonesty I alluded to:
>
> http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind#C3whflM2vOA9VYzP.97

There you go, DAW at work!!

But, really, where are these people who can detect High Resolution? Hard to find!

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>Geoff: Example of the dishonesty I alluded to:
>
>http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind#C3whflM2vOA9VYzP.97

Yes, but this has nothing to do with processing different versions on the
same disc differently.

In fact, processing different versions on the same disc in different ways
_prevents_ this problem. It means that you can put on a clean high resolution
version with wide dynamics, and also put on an mp3 that is crushed for subway
listening. So everybody gets what they want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 9:22:11 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >,
> > wrote:
> >Geoff: Example of the dishonesty I alluded to:
> >
> >http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind#C3whflM2vOA9VYzP.97
>
> Yes, but this has nothing to do with processing different versions on the
> same disc differently.

Well, if you follow Sony's Mastersound CDs, you find some songs were remixed. So much for "Master" sound!!

Jack
>
> In fact, processing different versions on the same disc in different ways
> _prevents_ this problem. It means that you can put on a clean high resolution
> version with wide dynamics, and also put on an mp3 that is crushed for subway
> listening. So everybody gets what they want.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "It means that you can put on a clean high resolution
version with wide dynamics, and also put on an mp3 that is crushed for subway
listening. So everybody gets what they want. "

Well in that Nirvana case, the high-res ITSELF was crushed,
defeating the purpose of the better format.

And by the way, I have no problem hearing "wide dynamics"
in the car, plane, or train.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/23/2015 9:29 AM, wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "It means that you can put on a clean high resolution
> version with wide dynamics, and also put on an mp3 that is crushed for subway
> listening. So everybody gets what they want. "
>
> Well in that Nirvana case, the high-res ITSELF was crushed,
> defeating the purpose of the better format.

This isn't a problem with the medium or the process, it's a problem with
the people who chose to present that sound to their listening audience.
Compressors don't squash music, people squash music. Bash your artists
on Facebook or however you do it.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "Compressors don't squash music, people squash music. Bash your artists
on Facebook or however you do it.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com "

And that certainly is the challenge Mike.
Unfortunately, engineers present a more
public face, often making them the unjust
targets of this criticism.

[JackA]

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 10:57:59 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: "Compressors don't squash music, people squash music. Bash your artists
> on Facebook or however you do it.
>
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com "
>
> And that certainly is the challenge Mike.
> Unfortunately, engineers present a more
> public face, often making them the unjust
> targets of this criticism.

See, the thing is, like that Nirvana waveform (HD Download), you can make it louder without detection of the waveform!! People are just plain lazy! Most of them should just flip burgers. Engineers? Ba-humbug!

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote: "It means that you can put on a clean high resolution
>version with wide dynamics, and also put on an mp3 that is crushed for subway
>listening. So everybody gets what they want. "
>
>Well in that Nirvana case, the high-res ITSELF was crushed,
>defeating the purpose of the better format.

Right. That's why the example you bring up is the OPPOSITE of what I was
advocating and it invalidates the argument you are trying to make.

>And by the way, I have no problem hearing "wide dynamics"
>in the car, plane, or train.

A lot of people don't like riding gain while driving. They are customers too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/23/2015 10:57 AM, wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: "Compressors don't squash music, people squash music.


> And that certainly is the challenge Mike.
> Unfortunately, engineers present a more
> public face, often making them the unjust
> targets of this criticism.

What could be a more public face than the artist whose music you bought?
Certainly not the engineer who recorded it or the "I'm just following
directions" engineer who mastered it.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
"A lot of people don't like riding gain while driving. They are customers too. "

I adjust my volume maybe TWICE during a
20 min commute to work.

[geoff]

On 24/11/2015 4:57 a.m., wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote: "Compressors don't squash music, people squash music. Bash your artists
> on Facebook or however you do it.
>
>


"Yeah, I really LOVE your mix, but could you make it all louder ?"

Sigh.

geoff

[geoff]

On 24/11/2015 8:52 a.m., wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> "A lot of people don't like riding gain while driving. They are customers too."
>
> I adjust my volume maybe TWICE during a
> 20 min commute to work.

You car, and the roads it drives on, must be quieter than mine. And
presumably no 'intolerant' passengers ?

geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 3:51:58 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 24/11/2015 4:57 a.m., wrote:
> > Mike Rivers wrote: "Compressors don't squash music, people squash music. Bash your artists
> > on Facebook or however you do it.
> >
> >
>
>
> "Yeah, I really LOVE your mix, but could you make it all louder ?"

If LOUDER had absolutely no advantage, we wouldn't be talking about it.

Jack
>
> Sigh.
>
> geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 2:52:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> "A lot of people don't like riding gain while driving. They are customers too. "
>
> I adjust my volume maybe TWICE during a
> 20 min commute to work.

And as your neighbors complain about the loud volume setting.

If I didn't hear a KEY advantage with louder sound, I would have never audio enhanced CDs.

Jack

[geoff]

On 24/11/2015 11:54 a.m., JackA wrote:
>>
>> "Yeah, I really LOVE your mix, but could you make it all louder ?"
> If LOUDER had absolutely no advantage, we wouldn't be talking about it.
>
> Jack
>

You'll need to have a chat with Rocky about that.

Stands back .....

geofff

[JackA]

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:58:52 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 24/11/2015 11:54 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >>
> >> "Yeah, I really LOVE your mix, but could you make it all louder ?"
> > If LOUDER had absolutely no advantage, we wouldn't be talking about it.
> >
> > Jack
> >
>
> You'll need to have a chat with Rocky about that.
>
> Stands back .....

-- Over my head!!
>
> geofff

--- Is your "f" key stuck!!??

JackAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA :)

[Trevor]

On 24/11/2015 1:22 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>> Geoff: Example of the dishonesty I alluded to:
>>
>> http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind#C3whflM2vOA9VYzP.97
>
> Yes, but this has nothing to do with processing different versions on the
> same disc differently.
>
> In fact, processing different versions on the same disc in different ways
> _prevents_ this problem. It means that you can put on a clean high resolution
> version with wide dynamics, and also put on an mp3 that is crushed for subway
> listening. So everybody gets what they want.

You do realise the CD layer is not MP3 right? If so why do you insist on
introducing red herrings to every argument?
In any case you could just as easily provide 2 CD versions, one for the
highly compressed fans and another for those who enjoy proper dynamics.
NO need for SACD at all, which is the point of the argument. No need to
buy another expensive player and more expensive disks just to get
different mastering.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 24/11/2015 7:51 AM, geoff wrote:
> "Yeah, I really LOVE your mix, but could you make it all louder ?"
> Sigh.

Yep, get that unfortunately. Then they send it to be mastered because
they think it's not finished until someone else stuffs with it, and it
invariably gets squashed even more. :-(

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "On 24/11/2015 7:51 AM, geoff wrote:
> "Yeah, I really LOVE your mix, but could you make it all louder ?"
> Sigh.

Yep, get that unfortunately. Then they send it to be mastered because
they think it's not finished until someone else stuffs with it, and it
invariably gets squashed even more. :-(

Trevor. "

AMEN Trevor amen! So stop comparing me
to JackA all of you, because a lot of us agree
on this - except for someone here who does
it for their livelihood and gets mad when it
it mentioned.

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
You car, and the roads it drives on, must be quieter than mine. And
presumably no 'intolerant' passengers ?

geoff "


Geoff:

I'm not advocating ZERO dynamics-processing here.
As for the car, I'm talking about listening to first-issues,
on CD, of material released on vinyl up til and including
the late 1980s. This would include stuff from the
Beatles, Marvin Gaye, Boston, Journey, Billy Joel, Michael
Jackson, Bruce Springsteen, Madonna, and Survivor, and
MP3 rips made from material by those artists played from
a digital device.

I have no problem hearing what I need to from those
sources to be able to enjoy them on the go, or on a
CD player or portable player at home. Remasters of
most of the names I listed, however, leave me feeling
flat and my ears fatigued, be it in my house, or in the
car or a train, because one form of dynamics processing
or another, or combination thereof, has been used
on most of those so-called remasters - ABOVE AND
BEYOND what was used during original mixing/mastering
back in the '60s, '70s, or '80s.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 24/11/2015 1:22 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article >,
>> > wrote:
>>> Geoff: Example of the dishonesty I alluded to:
>>>
>>> http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind#C3whflM2vOA9VYzP.97
>>
>> Yes, but this has nothing to do with processing different versions on the
>> same disc differently.
>>
>> In fact, processing different versions on the same disc in different ways
>> _prevents_ this problem. It means that you can put on a clean high resolution
>> version with wide dynamics, and also put on an mp3 that is crushed for subway
>> listening. So everybody gets what they want.
>
>You do realise the CD layer is not MP3 right? If so why do you insist on
>introducing red herrings to every argument?

Because you CAN put an MP3 file on the disc, and you should, because that way
you have control over the MP3 encoding which you do not if the end user
"rips" it from the CD layer.

>In any case you could just as easily provide 2 CD versions, one for the
>highly compressed fans and another for those who enjoy proper dynamics.

Yes, this is absolutely true, and I recommend doing this.

>NO need for SACD at all, which is the point of the argument. No need to
>buy another expensive player and more expensive disks just to get
>different mastering.

I didn't realize that was the point of the argument. It's true that the
only real advantages of SACD disappeared when inexpensive sigma-delta
converter filters finally got good. I thought this was an argument about
putting multiple formats on one disc.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Remasters of
> most of the names I listed, however, leave me feeling
> flat and my ears fatigued,

You need one of these

http://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/dbx/1bx.shtml


Mark

[None]

< thikskullrock @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> Mike Rivers wrote:
> "Bash your artists on Facebook or however you do it.
> And that certainly is the challenge Mike. Unfortunately, engineers
> present a more public face,

No, engineers don't present more of a public face than performers.

> often making them the unjust targets of this criticism.

Then why do you keep criticizing them for it, dumb****?

[None]

< thickskullrockforbrains @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> So stop comparing me to JackA all of you,

Stop trolling and maybe the comparison might be less obvious. As it
is, you're trolling this morning, so comparing you to Agnew is
appropriate.

> except for someone here who does it for their livelihood and gets
> mad when it it mentioned.

There you go again, you trolling dumb****. Put on that hockey helmet
and get back on the short bus. Your hobbyhorse is dead, dumb****.

[[email protected]]

8:34 wrote:
" Remasters of
> most of the names I listed, however, leave me feeling
> flat and my ears fatigued,

You need one of these

http://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/dbx/1bx.shtml

Mark "

Dynamic range enhancer.

And your point, Mark?

[JackA]

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 2:43:16 AM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
> On 24/11/2015 7:51 AM, geoff wrote:
> > "Yeah, I really LOVE your mix, but could you make it all louder ?"
> > Sigh.
>
> Yep, get that unfortunately. Then they send it to be mastered because
> they think it's not finished until someone else stuffs with it, and it
> invariably gets squashed even more. :-(

Many 45 vinyl singles (that became US Top 40 Hits) were "squashed", but I heard no one complaining about them.

Jack
>
> Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/24/2015 7:59 AM, wrote:
> I'm not advocating ZERO dynamics-processing here.
> As for the car, I'm talking about listening to first-issues,
> on CD, of material released on vinyl up til and including
> the late 1980s.

Most of what I listen to in the car (and in an airplane) are recorded
radio programs. The music is pretty well leveled in the broadcast and
streaming processing but often I need to turn up the volume when the (do
they still call them DJs?) comes on and talks about the music. For the
shows that I listen to, they usually have something interesting to say.

Oh, and the promos, when they have to run them, are almost always too loud.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 10:18:33 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> 8:34 wrote:
> " Remasters of
> > most of the names I listed, however, leave me feeling
> > flat and my ears fatigued,
>
> You need one of these
>
> http://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/dbx/1bx.shtml
>
> Mark "
>
> Dynamic range enhancer.
>
> And your point, Mark?

then you can adjust the dynamic range to your taste and not have feel victimized by the "evil" engineers

I have one and i love it.

[[email protected]]

1:20 wrote:
"- show quoted text -
then you can adjust the dynamic range to your taste and not have feel victimized by the "evil" engineers

I have one and i love it. "

If you haven't noticed, I stopped blaming
engineers sometime ago. It's just that I
don't read from too many big label artists
on usenet, so we can tell them to stop
demanding the destruction of their own
music.

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

>1:20 wrote:
>"- show quoted text -
>then you can adjust the dynamic range to your taste and not have feel victimized by the "evil" engineers

>I have one and i love it. "

>If you haven't noticed, I stopped blaming
>engineers sometime ago. It's just that I
>don't read from too many big label artists
>on usenet, so we can tell them to stop
>demanding the destruction of their own
>music.

Well, I'm trying to do my part... Per my suggestion, a bluegrass album I just
finished had this arc of text added to the CD art, along the outside edge, centered
on the main copy, where it would be impossible to miss:

"Wide dynamic range recording -- turn it up and enjoy!"

Now, there was some squish (I'm liking Slate's FG-X mastering processor when used
gently), but the stereo meters actually moved quite a bit. They didn't just hang at
O dBFS.

It'll be interesting to see what the response might be. (The producer, a bluegrass
picker and occasional bluegrass DJ loves the sound of the album in comparison to a
lot of other stuff in the genre, so that's encouraging as well.)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[[email protected]]

N:

Why don't you just kill-file me if my mentioning
over-processing audio upsets/offends you so
much? I mean, we're not talking about your
mother here, seriously. Chill! Let the rest of
the correspondents here communicate in peace.

BTW what year did you graduate college?

[Trevor]

On 25/11/2015 12:29 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 24/11/2015 1:22 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Geoff: Example of the dishonesty I alluded to:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind#C3whflM2vOA9VYzP.97
>>>
>>> Yes, but this has nothing to do with processing different versions on the
>>> same disc differently.
>>>
>>> In fact, processing different versions on the same disc in different ways
>>> _prevents_ this problem. It means that you can put on a clean high resolution
>>> version with wide dynamics, and also put on an mp3 that is crushed for subway
>>> listening. So everybody gets what they want.
>>
>> You do realise the CD layer is not MP3 right? If so why do you insist on
>> introducing red herrings to every argument?
>
> Because you CAN put an MP3 file on the disc, and you should, because that way
> you have control over the MP3 encoding which you do not if the end user
> "rips" it from the CD layer.

But how many do? ANY? And why would you need SACD to do that anyway?


>> In any case you could just as easily provide 2 CD versions, one for the
>> highly compressed fans and another for those who enjoy proper dynamics.
>
> Yes, this is absolutely true, and I recommend doing this.
>
>> NO need for SACD at all, which is the point of the argument. No need to
>> buy another expensive player and more expensive disks just to get
>> different mastering.
>
> I didn't realize that was the point of the argument. It's true that the
> only real advantages of SACD disappeared when inexpensive sigma-delta
> converter filters finally got good. I thought this was an argument about
> putting multiple formats on one disc.

Not from my reading of the original post. That seems to be where you
took it.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 25/11/2015 12:34 AM, wrote:
> Remasters of
>> most of the names I listed, however, leave me feeling
>> flat and my ears fatigued,
>
> You need one of these
>
> http://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/dbx/1bx.shtml

3BX was better. But you can do the same in software much better now and
simply remaster CD's to suit your taste if you think that sort of
processing helps. I must admit to having done it a few times myself,
including declipping and EQ etc.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 25/11/2015 12:29 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> You do realise the CD layer is not MP3 right? If so why do you insist on
>>> introducing red herrings to every argument?
>>
>> Because you CAN put an MP3 file on the disc, and you should, because that way
>> you have control over the MP3 encoding which you do not if the end user
>> "rips" it from the CD layer.
>
>But how many do? ANY? And why would you need SACD to do that anyway?

You don't, but you need some sort of multi-volume disc. You can't do it with
a CD without violating the red book. You can do it with SACD or DVD-A or some
of the other DVD formats.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."