[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "As I've always said, mastering variations are irrelevant to claims about
actual media capability"


And yet those mastering processes/decisions are
far more sonically audible than the differences
between formats(mp3, CD, and high-res lossless).
Anyone stating otherwise is full of it.

[John Williamson]

On 31/12/2015 11:51, wrote:
Trevor wrote: "As I've always said, mastering variations are irrelevant to claims about
actual media capability"


And yet those mastering processes/decisions are
far more sonically audible than the differences
between formats(mp3, CD, and high-res lossless).
Anyone stating otherwise is full of it.

Post production processing is irrelevant in comparing the sound quality
of various formats. If you don't believe that, take a 24 bit recording,
then work through to 16 bit, then/ mp3 at various rates, and the
differences in quality will be obvious even on the average domestic
equipment.

The fact that processing needs to be different for analogue and digital
formats to get the best out of either is proof that the formats sound
different.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "Post production processing is irrelevant in
comparing the sound quality of various formats"

True. Which is why an apples-to-apples comparison
must be made of UNmastered analog and digital
recording must be made. Something the record or
download buying public doesn't have a chance to do.

It's already been processed(as you said, for different
formats, or as I said: to make it sound *different* in
order to sell more records) by the time it reaches the
shelves - or Amazon.

[John Williamson]

On 31/12/2015 14:26, wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "Post production processing is irrelevant in
comparing the sound quality of various formats"

True. Which is why an apples-to-apples comparison
must be made of UNmastered analog and digital
recording must be made. Something the record or
download buying public doesn't have a chance to do.

I have, and have done blind listening tests with members of the public.
They could easily tell the difference.

It's already been processed(as you said, for different
formats, or as I said: to make it sound *different* in
order to sell more records) by the time it reaches the
shelves - or Amazon.

Irrelevant to comparisons of sound quality between formats.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "I have, and have done blind listening tests with members of the public. "

How do THEY know that nothing was done to one
that wasn't done to the other?

[John Williamson]

On 31/12/2015 15:19, wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "I have, and have done blind listening tests with members of the public. "

How do THEY know that nothing was done to one
that wasn't done to the other?

Because they trusted me to do as I'd said I had. They had also heard the
performers live, although not that exact performance.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 1/01/2016 4:19 AM, wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "I have, and have done blind listening tests with members of the public. "

How do THEY know that nothing was done to one
that wasn't done to the other?


How do WE know you are a real person and not just some automaton
programmed to harp on about loudness etc ?

geoff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
On 31/12/2015 14:26, wrote:
snip
Irrelevant to comparisons of sound quality between formats.



Digital stuff you can buy at Guitar Center is capable of playing back
vanishingly close to what was recorded. This is objectively
true. You can demonstrate this by round-tripping test signals.

I'm sure it's possible to improve on it, but there's very little
to be gained from that.

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

On 1/01/2016 12:50 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 31/12/2015 11:51, wrote:
Trevor wrote: "As I've always said, mastering variations are
irrelevant to claims about
actual media capability"


And yet those mastering processes/decisions are
far more sonically audible than the differences
between formats(mp3, CD, and high-res lossless).
Anyone stating otherwise is full of it.

Of course they can be and often are, who is it you think said otherwise?
Obviously not me since I already said that.


Post production processing is irrelevant in comparing the sound quality
of various formats. If you don't believe that, take a 24 bit recording,
then work through to 16 bit, then/ mp3 at various rates, and the
differences in quality will be obvious even on the average domestic
equipment.

The fact that processing needs to be different for analogue and digital
formats to get the best out of either is proof that the formats sound
different.

Actually proof that their capabilities are different, and thus may sound
different when mastered to suit the different capabilities. However one
may simply record to digital the output of a turntable or tape deck, and
*NO* difference will be heard, unless you really cock it up. As we all
know the reverse is not true.

Trevor.