In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Ian was indeed paying attention, and is correct in what he says.
I think that those who have been involved in the cutting process,
will agreed that the first generation was *always* used.

No it's not. It might have well be in the things you were involved in, but
is by no means universal. And perhaps more so where the product released
isn't being produced totally in house. Like for example an overseas
recording being released in the UK etc.

If you were the copyright owner of a recording, and an overseas company
subsequently negotiated publishing rights, would you send them the one and
only master tape? And yes, I'd have made a duplicate at the time...

--
*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life *

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

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I freely agree that peak limiting, compression, and
LF summing were used, but the situation is not so simple
as you would like others to believe.
These were all tools that were available if needed,
just as bold, italic and underline are available in word
processors. But you would not use all of them, all of the
time, would you?

When it comes down to deciding if an LP is a fair copy of the master, the
use of any of these immediately negates it.

--
*Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.) *

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

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 07:41:13 -0000, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

The resolution of an analogue device is, by its nature, infinite.

The resolution of an analogue device is, by its nature, tied to its
noise floor. Please don't let's get into this utter ******** again!

The resolution of any signal recording and reproduction device is the number
of different output values it can reproduce. So if it's analogue it's
infinite - however it also has a noise floor and a maximum output.

Those are also *all* features of properly made digital.

As does
digital equipment. However if (say) there is 1uV of noise and 1V peak
deflection then a 16 bit device can resolve /less/ points than a 24 bit
device between those points.

That represents a range of 1 million to one, or about 20 bits, so yes,
that would be true.

An analogue device with the same range could
resolve infinite points on that scale.

Nope, an analogue device with the same range cannot resolve any more
information than can any digital system whose LSB is smaller than the
noise floor, i.e. of the same dynamic range. There is of course *no*
analogue system which has even 16 bits equivalent resolution, i.e.
93dB dynamic range.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:14:25 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

We have already established that I am quite a bit younger than
you, Stewart, and also considerably more active.

Doubtful. How old are you?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I have about forty years worth of hands-on experience in audio
*engineering*, you appear to have about none, or at least have
*learned* nothing from what little experience you do have. Being a
fader jockey isn't *engineering*, y'know...............

We are still trying to find your engineering qualifications.
To date, I can find no university in the UK which has granted you
a Bachelor's, or Master's degree, or a PhD.

I really, really, really hate all this 'who has the biggest cock' type
rubbish that seems to proliferate on all newsgroups. At the end of the
day, it can't be proved that the person writing the post is even who he
claims to be, let alone the qualifications he claims to have.

So let's just get back to each person expressing their opinion, and
backing it up with any verifiable research if necessary.

--
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

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

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:27:55 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:


The ultimate resolution of all these systems is infinite given
sufficient averaging time.

Not quite. :-) As Ian's postings brought out, this assumes the signal
pattern is spread across the observed/integrated period. In practice, what
matters is having a duration that captures the desired signal energy and
gives the optimum signal/noise energy.

Also, there is a formal snag w.r.t. 1/f noise whose effect may 'blow up' as
we proceed to infinite time. ;-)

However in this context, both the above points are just an academic
exercise in quibbling. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

Ta! We must be kept honest in these matters...

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message


We are still trying to find your engineering qualifications.
To date, I can find no university in the UK which has granted you
a Bachelor's, or Master's degree, or a PhD.

Remiind me again whose name is on the top of your diploma, and what kind of
a diploma it is, Iain?

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 07:47:08 -0000, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:

Personal opinion is that moving to 24/96 or 24/192 makes a noticable
difference to the quality of reproduction in the subtleties and increased
resolution, especially of high frequencies. I have a cheap DVD Audio player,
but music is more enjoyable from the DVDA than it is from CD.

I also have a DVD-A player and cannot hear any difference between the
same disc at 96/24 and 44.1/16. (I run the signal through a sample
rate converter to get the lower sample rate.) The output is fed to a
pair for Stax headphones.

If you are anywhere near Southampton, would you like to try a blind
test to see whether you can still tell the difference?


--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

Chris Isbell wrote:
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 07:47:08 -0000, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:

Personal opinion is that moving to 24/96 or 24/192 makes a noticable
difference to the quality of reproduction in the subtleties and
increased resolution, especially of high frequencies. I have a cheap
DVD Audio player, but music is more enjoyable from the DVDA than it
is from CD.

I also have a DVD-A player and cannot hear any difference between the
same disc at 96/24 and 44.1/16. (I run the signal through a sample
rate converter to get the lower sample rate.) The output is fed to a
pair for Stax headphones.

If you are anywhere near Southampton, would you like to try a blind
test to see whether you can still tell the difference?

Lol - stax headphones... cool...
So you're using an external DAC for both the 96/24 and the 44.1/16, and
doing the conversion in the digital domain, and you can't hear the
difference???


--
"Get a paper bag"

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I have about forty years worth of hands-on experience in audio
*engineering*, you appear to have about none, or at least have
*learned* nothing from what little experience you do have. Being a
fader jockey isn't *engineering*, y'know...............

We are still trying to find your engineering qualifications.
To date, I can find no university in the UK which has granted you
a Bachelor's, or Master's degree, or a PhD.

I really, really, really hate all this 'who has the biggest cock' type
rubbish that seems to proliferate on all newsgroups. At the end of the
day, it can't be proved that the person writing the post is even who
he claims to be, let alone the qualifications he claims to have.

More to the point, none of us gives a toss...


--
"Get a paper bag"