"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
If you check google, you'll find that Harry Lavo has made at least 37
posts claiming that one important reason why CDs can't sound sonically
accurate or sound inferior to LPs, is their transient response.
Here's some typical quotes:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...bb1da448b638a?
"As to LP's, you're criticism of the medium is that high frequencies have
to
be shelved in maximum volume to avoid overload. That says nothering
about
transient performance below the shelved overload point. LP's have a more
extended frequency response than CD when required...and reproducing
transients well tends to be one of the things requiring it. "
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...94aac7eddad17?
"Basically, the argument is that you need 10x the highest audible
frequencies
in order to be able to pass a square wave correctly, and hence high
frequency transient response correctly. I challenged the new head of CBS
Labs on this back in 1970. Being a good engineer he took the party line
that it didn't make a difference, but then later told me that they had
played with it in the lab and that at least some of the folks thought a
wide
bandwidth design sounded better. "
"Still true for digital. You've got to get to 192/24 before at least some
listeners claim to no longer be able to hear a difference from analog.
And
if you look at a very short pulse, it takes that high a frequency until
the
pre-ripple of PCM gets insufficiently small and short (in time) to not be
a
problem. However, I'll agree that for most pop music, 96/24 is more than
enough since their is so little analog "reality" at work to begin with. "
So, when I offer to assist Jenn in setting up a live versus digital
comparison, that fully includes this effect, does Harry jump on board?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo!
Looks like Harry has major problems with being consistent with himself,
eh?
Has nothing to do with me.
Thanks Harry for showing once again that you don't want to take
responsibility for your own claims and statements.
Has to do with the fact that you weren't proposing to test what Jenn
claimed....namely that commercial CD's often affected the timbre of sound.
Thanks again Harry for showing that not only can't you be consistent with
yourself, you can't properly state Jenn's position in the matter of timbre
changes on CDs. She's on record as saying that while she has listened to a
zillion CDs, she's never heard a CD that captures timbre as well as her
LPs.
Just so you can't complain that I won't state my position or be consistent
with it, it is my position that the CD format does not necessarily cause
audible changes to audio signals, even audio signals piped in directly from
a live performance.
I claim that I can illustrate this fact by taking an audio signal piped in
directly from an live performance of Jenn's contriving, and interpose a
conversion to CD format and back using inexpensive off-the-shelf converters.
Jenn won't be able to reliably hear the difference the conversion to CD
format makes.
IOW Harry, contrary to your repeated claims the CD format does not
necessarily cause loss of SQ from live performances all by itself.
I obviously can't control the production of every commercial recording, so
it may be true that the sum of all production procedures may change the
timbre of the sound in some CD recordings. However, that is true of LPs as
well, and to a greater extent due to the well-known audible limitations of
the LP format which vastly exceed those in the CD format.