http://www.urpressing.com/tips.html

Take it from experts.

A couple of excerpts:
The phonograph record is a marvelous medium for storing and reproducing
sound. With frequency response from 7 Hz to 25kHz and over 75 dB dynamic
range possible, it is capable of startling realism. Its ability to convey a
sense of space, that is width and depth of sound stage, with a degree of
openness and airiness, is unrivaled by anything but the most esoteric
digital systems.



Next limitation: treble. You can put as much treble on a DAT or CD as you
want. Unfortunately this is not true on a record (or analog tape for that
matter). Although 25kHz response is possible, excessive transients are a
problem. There are several reasons for this. It was decided with the advent
of the first electrical transcription phonograph record, to reduce bass and
boost treble in the cutting of the master record.

wrote:
http://www.urpressing.com/tips.html

Take it from experts.

A couple of excerpts:
The phonograph record is a marvelous medium for storing and reproducing
sound. With frequency response from 7 Hz to 25kHz and over 75 dB dynamic
range possible, it is capable of startling realism. Its ability to convey a
sense of space, that is width and depth of sound stage, with a degree of
openness and airiness, is unrivaled by anything but the most esoteric
digital systems.



Next limitation: treble. You can put as much treble on a DAT or CD as you
want. Unfortunately this is not true on a record (or analog tape for that
matter). Although 25kHz response is possible, excessive transients are a
problem. There are several reasons for this. It was decided with the advent
of the first electrical transcription phonograph record, to reduce bass and
boost treble in the cutting of the master record.

It so happens that many CDs have entirely excessive, forward and harsh
treble. Coincidence?

Bertie said to the Bug Eater:

It so happens that many CDs have entirely excessive, forward and harsh
treble. Coincidence?

Mickey doesn't care how bad it sounds as long as it's "accurate".

BTW, when are you going to realize how ****ing stupid duh-Mikey is?

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message


the truth that Middius lacks the rocks to post

BTW, when am I going to realize how incredibly stupid I am?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
BTW, when am I going to realize how incredibly stupid I am?

Never. You are too stupid to do that.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Clyde Slick said:

BTW, when am I going to realize how incredibly stupid I am?

Never. You are too stupid to do that.

Note how Turdborg rushes to defend poor Mikey when the Normals start
laughing too hard at him.

George M. Middius wrote:
Bertie said to the Bug Eater:

It so happens that many CDs have entirely excessive, forward and harsh
treble. Coincidence?

Mickey doesn't care how bad it sounds as long as it's "accurate".

I care if I like it. I also know that if it sounds a certain way, as
in the case of harsh and overly bright, it's the ay they intended it to
sound. I would avoid that artist's work in the future.

Accuracy is the goal of hi-fi, but it don't meansquat if you don't like
teh way it was recorded.


BTW, when are you going to realize how ****ing stupid duh-Mikey is?

Letting someone get information from LP experts and enthusiasts is a
sign of stupidity in your world George?

Oh wait, you don't really exist, so your comments are worth what we
paid for them.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
wrote:
http://www.urpressing.com/tips.html

Take it from experts.

A couple of excerpts:
The phonograph record is a marvelous medium for storing
and reproducing sound. With frequency response from 7 Hz
to 25kHz and over 75 dB dynamic range possible, it is
capable of startling realism. Its ability to convey a
sense of space, that is width and depth of sound stage,
with a degree of openness and airiness, is unrivaled by
anything but the most esoteric digital systems.

The idea of clean bass from vinyl much below 100Hz is generally a fantasy.

Two words: tone arm resonance.

Next limitation: treble. You can put as much treble on a
DAT or CD as you want. Unfortunately this is not true on
a record (or analog tape for that matter). Although
25kHz response is possible, excessive transients are a
problem. There are several reasons for this. It was
decided with the advent of the first electrical
transcription phonograph record, to reduce bass and
boost treble in the cutting of the master record.

It so happens that many CDs have entirely excessive,
forward and harsh treble. Coincidence?

Just goes to show that some people who do mastering and mixing are short on
taste. The CD format has uniform power bandwidth over the audible range, so
unlike vinyl it puts no constraints on making recordings with lots of
treble.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:41:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


The idea of clean bass from vinyl much below 100Hz is generally a fantasy.

Two words: tone arm resonance.

Isn't that three?

paul packer said:

Two words: tone arm resonance.

Isn't that three?

paulie, it looks like you've discovered a new branch of Kroosciccecene --
Kroomath. Congratulations!