[Arny Krueger]

http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com:80/archi...29/338888.aspx

"There's a good reason for this. In addition to what people remember as the
bad things that LPs provide (scratches, clicks and pops) vinyl discs have
lots of good things going for them. LPs contain close to 100-percent of the
uncompressed music information as originally recorded. CDs contain only
about half of that recorded information. And compressed music files are
left with only a small percentage of the information that's on a CD."

With all due respect to Gary Krakow, he seems to be flaunting his ignorance
of the relevant technologies. I understand that Gary wrote for Stereophile
once upon a time. I don't think that even John Atkinson would tolerate this
kind of technical error, heavy vinylista advertising in Stereophile
notwithstanding.

Information theory (which Gary is obviously appealing to when he says "music
information") states that information can be quantified, based on the
product of bandwidth and dynamic range.

For example, an analog or digital channel with 6 dB more dynamic range is
capable of passing twice as much information. An analog or digital channel
with twice the bandwidth is capable of passing twice as much information.

Applying the most generous weighting factors will allow the claim that the
LP format is capable of about 75 dB dynamic range. In the real world,
disappointing dynamic ranges of even 45 dB are not unheard of when vinyl is
in play.

The CD format is capable of more like 95 dB dynamic range, even when judged
by a stiffer standard - unweighted noise. The clear advantage goes to the
CD format, and by a factor of 10 or more.

BTW, my analysis ignores the fact that LPs are prone to many scratches,
clicks, and pops while CDs are not. Krakow goes further than most
vinylistas in the direction of truth by admitting that these exist.
Scratches, clicks and pops do more than just distract you from the music,
they detract from dynamic range. A good scratch or pop may be louder than
the music, possibly leading to the mind-bending concept of negative dynamic
range.

Therefore, by the most pro-LP-biased of technical evaluations, the music
information leader is as always the CD format, and by a factor of at least
10. This means that if the LP format had far more bandwidth than the CD
format (which as a practical matter it does not) the LP format would need to
have 10 times more bandwidth than the CD format to break even.

It would be a different world if journalists who pretend to be technical
experts by dispensing technical advice had useful amounts of basic audio
engineering training.

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Much obvious, but essentially meaningless stuff.

And those who like vinyl will continue to like it. And those who do
not will continue in their ways as well.

Nothing will change and nothing will be learned other than a
monumental waste of bandwidth will transpire if this thread gets legs.
Which it should not IMHO. Even the likes of the "commander" and Bret
should recognize that much and stay under their various rocks.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[GregS[_2_]]

In article om, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Much obvious, but essentially meaningless stuff.

And those who like vinyl will continue to like it. And those who do
not will continue in their ways as well.


Not necessarily.

greg

[Keith G]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Much obvious, but essentially meaningless stuff.

And those who like vinyl will continue to like it. And those who do
not will continue in their ways as well.


Says it all and I will not add to this thread again other than to say,
having been cornered into the position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in
UKRA in the recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few* should
not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio topic' - no-one ever
said it was *compulsory*....

[tubegarden]

Uuf Duh! As we say in Minnesota, well, northern Minnesota, anywho ...

It is wonderful to see you monkeys raping other peoples' hobby
horses Such Elan! Perspicacity!

Meters can measure stuff very accurately, occasionally, if not every
last picosecond ... several were over before meters were even thunked
up, theoretically. Without meters, how can we know???

I listened to big, floor standing AM radio for years well below the
noise floor. Negative dynamic range? Sure, kids. OK, the ocassional
fake gun shot may have breached the surface, briefly ... unless there
was coincident events in the noise mix

Noise is not meaningful, hence the term: noise.

Signal to Noise Ratio and Noise to Signal Ratio are both measureable,
but, if you are listening to the Lone Ranger and Tonto planning to
outwit those Bad Guys, friends, nobody gives a RAT's ass, you should
pardon ...

I remember the Lone Ranger. I know there was noise, but, frankly, I
forgot it. You guys never have any fun.

Just keep pulling it.

Happy Ears!
Al

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Says it all and I will not add to this thread again other than to say,
having been cornered into the position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in
UKRA in the recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few* should
not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio topic' - no-one ever
said it was *compulsory*....

But vinyl has NOT been banned. You are still welcome to buy it and listen to
it. What more do you need???
Others are just sick of hearing the same stupid arguments for 25 years!


MrT.

[roughplanet]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Says it all and I will not add to this thread again other than to say,
having been cornered into the position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in
UKRA in the recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few* should
not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio topic' - no-one ever
said it was *compulsory*....

But vinyl has NOT been banned. You are still welcome to buy it and listen
to
it. What more do you need???
Others are just sick of hearing the same stupid arguments for 25 years!

Uh huh. So this is where you hang out these days, still banging the same old
anti-vinyl gong. Different newsgroup, same message. Not much changes, does
it T?

ruff

[Mr.T]

"roughplanet" wrote in message
u...
Uh huh. So this is where you hang out these days, still banging the same
old
anti-vinyl gong.

If I'm so anti vinyl, how come I still have over 1000 LP's?
Face it Ruff, *I* didn't start this or *ANY* other vinyl Vs digital debate.
Can you say the same?

Different newsgroup, same message. Not much changes, does
it T?

Nope, some people still can't accept that technology has actually improved.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Says it all and I will not add to this thread again
other than to say, having been cornered into the
position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in UKRA in the
recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few*
should not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio
topic' - no-one ever said it was *compulsory*....

But vinyl has NOT been banned.

Agreed. Although the trite "I just bought a new LP" posts should be were
that to be possible.

You are still welcome to
buy it and listen to it. What more do you need???

Reinforcement that said activity makes him "special".

Others are just sick of hearing the same stupid arguments
for 25 years!

Arguments like those presented by Krakow, which are based on a complete
contradiction of established facts, get very tiring, very fact. The real
question is: "Is Krakow knowlegable enough to be lying"? Or, is he merely
mislead?

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Says it all and I will not add to this thread again
other than to say, having been cornered into the
position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in UKRA in the
recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few*
should not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio
topic' - no-one ever said it was *compulsory*....

But vinyl has NOT been banned.

Agreed. Although the trite "I just bought a new LP" posts should be
were that to be possible.


If you are talking about me I would be interested to see such a post -
can you point me to one, or is this another example of the distortion
you vinyl-bashers need to reinforce your hopeless *antivinyl* arguments?



You are still welcome to
buy it and listen to it. What more do you need???

Reinforcement that said activity makes him "special".


Don't be so ridiculous, I'm fed up with seeing/hearing everything being
related to vinyl - all the way down to CDs being made to look like 7
inch 45s....

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Says it all and I will not add to this thread again other than to
say,
having been cornered into the position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in
UKRA in the recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few*
should
not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio topic' - no-one ever
said it was *compulsory*....


OK, I've changed my mind and will add to this thread...



But vinyl has NOT been banned. You are still welcome to buy it and
listen to
it. What more do you need???


Perfect example of the deliberate distortion that all vinyl bashers need
to forward their agenda - or you really can't distinguish between
banning *vinyl* or the *topic of vinyl* in an audio ng....??

Others are just sick of hearing the same stupid arguments for 25
years!


Their problem, not mine....

[John Byrns]

In article om,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Much obvious, but essentially meaningless stuff.

And those who like vinyl will continue to like it. And those who do
not will continue in their ways as well.

Nothing will change and nothing will be learned other than a
monumental waste of bandwidth will transpire if this thread gets legs.
Which it should not IMHO. Even the likes of the "commander" and Bret
should recognize that much and stay under their various rocks.

I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns wrote:

I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.

Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both". And even analog tape,
both via the ubiquitous A77 and even ~~SHUDDER~~ cassette or 8-Track.
I do own the mandatory A77, of course. A road-deck as it happens. It
even gets used on occasion. Also a few cassette decks, but never and
no 8-Tracks.

One would think that the sole-and-entire purpose of the hobby is to
have fun with it. Those that perforce must make a living at it, and
those who believe that they are God's Gift to the hobby and its
bleeding edge will see things differently of course. Writing for
myself, I am happy to putter about with what crosses my path, learning
a little as I go and spending a good deal of time being pleasantly
surprised at what I hear and what I do. And I can rest in the certain
knowledge that *nothing* I do will be cause for earth-shattering
revelations... the pressure is 'off' in other words.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Jenn]

In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns wrote:

I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.

Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".

I certainly agree. I personally like them both.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Aug, 21:10, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns wrote:

I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.

Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".

I certainly agree. I personally like them both.

so do i, but i like one even better than the other.

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 30, 3:00 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

I agree 8 Tracks are dog****. But, while the Revox was one of the
better consumer decks, why not ante up for a real one-an AG440 Ampex
maybe? Or even a 351.

Bret, the Revox A700 is perhaps the best 1/4" tape deck ever made.
Even more so than any Ampex ever, or even the (in)famous Crowns. I
kept one briefly, but frankly, the A77 met my needs, is much more
portable, and with the built in amps and speakers is far more
adaptable to most uses. So I made a nice little profit on the 700, and
kept the A77.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[John Stone]

On 8/30/07 2:00 PM, in article
, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

On Aug 30, 12:59 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns wrote:

I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.

Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both". And even analog tape,
both via the ubiquitous A77 and even ~~SHUDDER~~ cassette or 8-Track.
I do own the mandatory A77, of course. A road-deck as it happens. It
even gets used on occasion. Also a few cassette decks, but never and
no 8-Tracks.
I agree 8 Tracks are dog****. But, while the Revox was one of the
better consumer decks, why not ante up for a real one-an AG440 Ampex
maybe? Or even a 351.

The Ampex units are total overkill for domestic use. I'd take a Revox A700
over an Ampex any day. For speed stability, that direct drive Pabst capstan
motor combined with the electronic servo tensioning, was just unbeatable.
And the electronics were modern and quiet. Plus, unlike the Ampex, the whole
package doesn't take up an entire room.

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 30, 6:00 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
The Ampex units are total overkill for domestic use. I'd take a Revox A700
over an Ampex any day. For speed stability, that direct drive Pabst capstan
motor combined with the electronic servo tensioning, was just unbeatable.
And the electronics were modern and quiet. Plus, unlike the Ampex, the whole
package doesn't take up an entire room.

What's better about a Revox than an AG440 or a 351? Besides, aren't
the Studer versions of the Revox generally easier to use and more
desireable?

The new head and other part suppliers are geared up to supply Ampex
parts, morso than anything else.

Plus, 351 transports can be had for free sometimes, and you can build
your own electronics or use the aftermarket Inovonics units.

Bret:

It becomes increasingly clear from your general driveling and trolling
that you haven't even the faintest actual knowledge or direct
experience of anything audio beyond one (1) Dynaco ST-70 that scared
you as a child, and maybe you observed an Ampex product somewhere,
somehow. You do have a talent for juxtaposing random tidbits culled
from hours of web-wanderings (apparently mostly while intoxicated)
passed off as experienced opinion, but vanishingly little more. You
really need to get some sort of life or you will wind up like Jute...
a superannuated, stroked out never-was posing as as some sort of Audio
Avatar. Oops... you are there already. Sorry.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article . com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:
Besides, aren't the Studer versions of the Revox generally easier to
use and more desireable?

Studer is the name for the pro machines - Revox the domestic ones. Most
are totally different.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

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

[tony sayer]

In article . com, Bret
Ludwig scribeth thus


The Ampex units are total overkill for domestic use. I'd take a Revox A700
over an Ampex any day. For speed stability, that direct drive Pabst capstan
motor combined with the electronic servo tensioning, was just unbeatable.
And the electronics were modern and quiet. Plus, unlike the Ampex, the whole
package doesn't take up an entire room.

What's better about a Revox than an AG440 or a 351? Besides, aren't
the Studer versions of the Revox generally easier to use and more
desireable?

The new head and other part suppliers are geared up to supply Ampex
parts, morso than anything else.

Plus, 351 transports can be had for free sometimes, and you can build
your own electronics or use the aftermarket Inovonics units.


Inovonics

Who are they?, AFAIK they make broadcast processor equipment do they or
did they make recording equipment?..
--
Tony Sayer

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com

The Ampex units are total overkill for domestic use. I'd
take a Revox A700 over an Ampex any day. For speed
stability, that direct drive Pabst capstan motor
combined with the electronic servo tensioning, was just
unbeatable. And the electronics were modern and quiet.

Plus, unlike the Ampex, the whole package doesn't take
up an entire room.

What's better about a Revox than an AG440 or a 351?

The A77 had a number of advantages over those old Ampexes especially the
351- size, weight, price, reliability, and availability. All that and
equivalent or better performance.

Unlike you Bret, I've actually seen and touched a 351. The thing is about
the size of a washing machine and about as portable. People who carted 351s
around to record live performances were heroes!

Besides, aren't the Studer versions of the Revox
generally easier to use and more desireable?

Only in terms of practical use. ;-)

The new head and other part suppliers are geared up to
supply Ampex parts, morso than anything else.

The real problem is that restoring or even maintaining a reel-to-reel
recorder is an act of love, not an act of utility.

Plus, 351 transports can be had for free sometimes, and
you can build your own electronics or use the aftermarket
Inovonics units.

A few years back, I turned down the gift of a PR 99, admittedly in need of
some parts. A friend who lives nearby has a 351 in his basement.

[dizzy]

Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns wrote:

I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.

Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".

Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant vinyl-lovers
would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems as though every half-wit
out there thinks they have sufficient knowledge of digital audio to
make bold statements about it's supposed limitations.

[Jenn]

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns wrote:

I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.

Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".

Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant vinyl-lovers
would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems as though every half-wit
out there thinks they have sufficient knowledge of digital audio to
make bold statements about it's supposed limitations.

It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying
something would actually read the posts of those individuals.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article . com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:
Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both". And even analog tape,
both via the ubiquitous A77 and even ~~SHUDDER~~ cassette or 8-Track.
I do own the mandatory A77, of course. A road-deck as it happens. It
even gets used on occasion. Also a few cassette decks, but never and
no 8-Tracks.

I agree 8 Tracks are dog****.

They sounded better than the average cassette of the day due to running at
twice the speed. I've got a rather rare Woolensack recorder with Dolby B
which uses ferrichrome tape. Just as good as a decent 1/4" at 7.5 ips. Of
course they all suffer from the limited track running time.

--
*The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread *

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

[GregS[_2_]]

In article , John Byrns wrote:
In article om,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Much obvious, but essentially meaningless stuff.

And those who like vinyl will continue to like it. And those who do
not will continue in their ways as well.

Nothing will change and nothing will be learned other than a
monumental waste of bandwidth will transpire if this thread gets legs.
Which it should not IMHO. Even the likes of the "commander" and Bret
should recognize that much and stay under their various rocks.

I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.

I thought there would be a lot of collectors of old jackets, but I have not
seen anything to my knowledge, except that I still have a stack of records,
and of course they are in the jackets.

greg

[Rob[_3_]]

GregS wrote:
In article , John Byrns wrote:
In article om,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Much obvious, but essentially meaningless stuff.
And those who like vinyl will continue to like it. And those who do
not will continue in their ways as well.

Nothing will change and nothing will be learned other than a
monumental waste of bandwidth will transpire if this thread gets legs.
Which it should not IMHO. Even the likes of the "commander" and Bret
should recognize that much and stay under their various rocks.
I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.

I thought there would be a lot of collectors of old jackets, but I have not
seen anything to my knowledge, except that I still have a stack of records,
and of course they are in the jackets.

greg

I recently sold several hundred LPs (from a 30 quid ebay job lot) to a
bloke who uses the covers to decorate rooms in his stately home in
Yorkshire. He's had frames built in some rooms so he can change the
covers to suit his mood. And why not :-)

Rob

[Mr.T]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.

So true. One simply has to decide if the music or the cover art is more
important to them, and buy whatever suits their needs.

MrT.

[Ethan Winer]

Arny,

CDs contain only about half of that recorded information.

LOL, I wonder how he came up with "half." Arny, you should email him and ask
for the exact formula he used to determine that. :-)

--Ethan

[Mr.T]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
CDs contain only about half of that recorded information.

LOL, I wonder how he came up with "half." Arny, you should email him and
ask
for the exact formula he used to determine that. :-)

Firstly the quote is "about half", and my guess is he simply believes vinyl
has a possible frequency response to ~40kHz rather than 22 kHz, and doesn't
understand in the slightest the concepts of information theory.
Then he simply ignore the flatness of the response, the bass problems, noise
problems, distortion problems, speed problems and every other bloody problem
associated with vinyl, .

People here seem to forget the most important thing though, such writers are
*PAID* to write such crap for the audio rags.
The people here waste their time endlessly for free.

Who is really smarter then :-)

MrT.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
Firstly the quote is "about half", and my guess is he simply believes
vinyl has a possible frequency response to ~40kHz rather than 22 kHz,
and doesn't understand in the slightest the concepts of information
theory. Then he simply ignore the flatness of the response, the bass
problems, noise problems, distortion problems, speed problems and every
other bloody problem associated with vinyl, .

To me the real killer point is if you take any decent source - analogue or
digital - and copy to digital in the CD format and to vinyl, there were be
a *very* noticeable difference between that master and the vinyl but not
between it and the digital copy. Of course *some* will prefer the vinyl
sound. But then come up with all sorts of bull**** as to why.

--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off*

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

[Mr.T]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
To me the real killer point is if you take any decent source - analogue or
digital - and copy to digital in the CD format and to vinyl, there were be
a *very* noticeable difference between that master and the vinyl but not
between it and the digital copy. Of course *some* will prefer the vinyl
sound. But then come up with all sorts of bull**** as to why.

Yep it's been happening for 25 years and no sign of stopping.

My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions", but can't
possibly accept the fact that they may PREFER something not actually as
technically accurate. They then have to come up with stupid explanations
plausible to themselves, and once they have convinced themselves, feel the
need to be evangelical and convert the rest of the world, just like most
religions :-)

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...

To me the real killer point is if you take any decent
source - analogue or digital - and copy to digital in
the CD format and to vinyl, there were be a *very*
noticeable difference between that master and the vinyl
but not between it and the digital copy. Of course
*some* will prefer the vinyl sound. But then come up
with all sorts of bull**** as to why.

Yep it's been happening for 25 years and no sign of
stopping.

My take is that now that the DJ-driven demand for vinyl is falling off, and
sales are already dropping preciptiously, the hype will trail off.

My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic
distortions", but can't possibly accept the fact that
they may PREFER something not actually as technically
accurate.

I think we need to consider the psychology and sociology of the situation,
By publically fawning all over vinyl, people join what they perceive to be
an elite. The psychology of preferring vinyl despite its warts is similar to
piercing.

They then have to come up with stupid
explanations plausible to themselves,

Especially those who have a full-blown addiction, and repeatedly blow $100's
and $1,000's on overpriced upgrades to their vinyl-mangling equipment.

and once they have
convinced themselves, feel the need to be evangelical and
convert the rest of the world, just like most religions
:-)

Vinylista propaganda is more like an indeology than a religion. Converting
to Vinylism seems to often involve refuting the established claims of
science, as the OP shows Mr. Krakow doing.

[Rob[_3_]]

Mr.T wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
To me the real killer point is if you take any decent source - analogue or
digital - and copy to digital in the CD format and to vinyl, there were be
a *very* noticeable difference between that master and the vinyl but not
between it and the digital copy. Of course *some* will prefer the vinyl
sound. But then come up with all sorts of bull**** as to why.

Yep it's been happening for 25 years and no sign of stopping.

My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions",

Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath,
relax, and get over it. Until then -

but can't
possibly accept the fact that they may PREFER something not actually as
technically accurate.

I don't think 'they' know or care, in general.

They then have to come up with stupid explanations
plausible to themselves,

Really? Again, generally people just prefer the sound. The 'why' isn't
particularly important. Knowing why might be interesting, but it's
hardly requisite.

and once they have convinced themselves, feel the
need to be evangelical and convert the rest of the world, just like most
religions :-)


Unlike digitypes? ;-)

Rob

[Ethan Winer]

Firstly the quote is "about half", and my guess is he simply believes
vinyl has a possible frequency response to ~40kHz rather than 22 kHz, and
doesn't understand in the slightest the concepts of information theory.

Right, with "believe" being the operative word.

Who is really smarter then :-)

You and me. :-)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Ethan Winer ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:
CDs contain only about half of that recorded information.

LOL, I wonder how he came up with "half." Arny, you should email him and
ask for the exact formula he used to determine that. :-)

The recording is made up of noughts and ones. Noughts naturally are
nothing so only the ones count. Therefore 50% of the total.

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

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

[Adrian C]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The recording is made up of noughts and ones. Noughts naturally are
nothing so only the ones count. Therefore 50% of the total.


An LP has two sides, a CD only one. 50% difference.

--
Adrian C

[tubegarden]

On Aug 31, 2:19?am, Adrian C wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The recording is made up of noughts and ones. Noughts naturally are
nothing so only the ones count. Therefore 50% of the total.


Not an equal number of ones and zeroes ...


An LP has two sides, a CD only one. 50% difference.

--
Adrian C


Some LP's had three sides. One side had two grooves, which one you got
was determined by where the stylus fell.

So, 33 to 50%

Actually, I think it was just a way to use up surface space when there
was a shortage of taped master stuff. Three tracks were less than two.

Maybe.

But, nobody makes an acoustic CD player ...

Happy Ears!
Al

[Ethan Winer]

The recording is made up of noughts and ones.
An LP has two sides, a CD only one. 50% difference.
Some LP's had three sides.

LOL, you guys kill me. :-)

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com:80/archi...29/338888.aspx
It would be a different world if journalists who pretend to be technical
experts by dispensing technical advice had useful amounts of basic audio
engineering training.

But such rags are only designed to sell advertising to uneducated suckers.
What really annoys me is when I see similar howlers in technical trade
magazines, and I have unfortunately.

MrT.

[Adam Stouffer]

Arny Krueger wrote:

The CD format is capable of more like 95 dB dynamic range, even when judged
by a stiffer standard - unweighted noise. The clear advantage goes to the
CD format, and by a factor of 10 or more.


Too bad they don't take advantage of it

http://georgegraham.com/compress.html

BTW, my analysis ignores the fact that LPs are prone to many scratches,
clicks, and pops while CDs are not. Krakow goes further than most
vinylistas in the direction of truth by admitting that these exist.
Scratches, clicks and pops do more than just distract you from the music,
they detract from dynamic range. A good scratch or pop may be louder than
the music, possibly leading to the mind-bending concept of negative dynamic
range.

Therefore, by the most pro-LP-biased of technical evaluations, the music
information leader is as always the CD format, and by a factor of at least
10. This means that if the LP format had far more bandwidth than the CD
format (which as a practical matter it does not) the LP format would need to
have 10 times more bandwidth than the CD format to break even.

It would be a different world if journalists who pretend to be technical
experts by dispensing technical advice had useful amounts of basic audio
engineering training.

I find it amusing you choose to complain here instead of discussing your
opinion with the author of the article. I'll listen to Edison wax
cylinders if I feel like it and theres not a damn thing you can do about it.


Adam