wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
om
Dave Plowman wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
They've been done to death on here, but the vinyl nerds don't
listen. They have a hearing problem.

No mate, you have a problem with what we like to hear.

For the umpteenth time I don't. But do have a problem with all the
crap talked about how superior it is. Because it isn't by any
measure.

Except the measure of human hearing.

Wrong. Many humans such as myself hear the rather obvious
imperfections in vinyl.

I think you really mean "Except by the measure of my perceptions."

I don't know anyone (other than a few one here) who still believes the
lie that CD (16 bit/44.1Khz) sounds better than a decent analogue
replay system.

You need to get out more.

I don't know anyone (other than a few on Usenet) who still believes the lie
that LP playback sounds better than CD (16 bit/44.1Khz). I have a number
of friends with really pretty good turntables, but they either don't use
them at all or they use them for making digital transcriptions.


Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more. I notice that a major used LP shop around here
just cut its floorspace in half.

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:
Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more.

Agreed.

Birds of a feather...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...

The kind of tests that are doable suggest very strongly that well-made CDs
don't change sound quality.

The interesting conclusion would be that SACD and DVDA (for hi-res stereo)
is a waste of time and a marketing con. However many people claim to hear
improved sound. I realise this could be psychological, or due to better mixing
or mastering.

Tim

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:50:12 +0100, "Tim Anderson"
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...

The kind of tests that are doable suggest very strongly that well-made CDs
don't change sound quality.

The interesting conclusion would be that SACD and DVDA (for hi-res stereo)
is a waste of time and a marketing con.

Yep (AKA another way for record companies to sell their back catalogs
again and again and again ...).

However many people claim to hear
improved sound. I realise this could be psychological, or due to better mixing
or mastering.

In many cases its the last of these ... not sure where there are *any*
cases where an SACD and a "regular" CD are known to be taken from the
same master - and, if so, whether there's any discernable difference.
Actual re*mixing* is rare (although there are exceptions).

OTOH, if selling SACDs at a premium allows the record companies to do
a *proper* mastering job on back catalog material, this may be a Good
Thing. Someone cited the poor mastering of the CD version of Ry
Cooder's "Bop Til You Drop" recently - if WB can charge full price for
an SACD remaster (when the standard CD has been mid-price for years)
then maybe this'll get them to pull their finger out and get a decent
version into the market. The availability of SACD software that is
recognized to be a real improvement over standard CD issues would, I
guess, push up the sales of SACD hardware.

The other issue is whether SACD *players* have any discernable
differences in sound from their regular/redbook cousins - either in
terms of reduced read errors from the disc, improved techniques for
masking such errors, or even introduction of artifacts that are not in
the recording but "make it sound better" to the average listener.

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Tim Anderson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The kind of tests that are doable suggest very strongly that
well-made CDs don't change sound quality.

The interesting conclusion would be that SACD and DVDA (for hi-res
stereo) is a waste of time and a marketing con.

Yes.

However many people claim to hear improved sound.

I see no time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled listening tests with
any such results.


I realize this could be psychological, or due to better mixing or
mastering.

Right. To properly evaluate the sonic performance of a media format, you
need to compare the same artistic work. It appears that the SACD and DVD-A
proponents have gone out of their way to avoid doing such a thing.

Dave Plowman wrote in message ...
In article ,
wrote:
Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more.

Why?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...


You need to get out more.

What has that to do with anything? Do you know how often I go out?
What makes you think that using childish rejoinders will advance your
case? Please explain.


I don't know anyone (other than a few on Usenet) who still believes the lie
that LP playback sounds better than CD (16 bit/44.1Khz).

So, repeating what I wrote but changing a few words is supposed to
make a good point? Hmmm...telling.

I have a number
of friends with really pretty good turntables,

Apparently not that good.

but they either don't use
them at all or they use them for making digital transcriptions.

I know lots of people who prefer the convenience of CD too. Doesn't
make it sound any better.



Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more. I notice that a major used LP shop around here
just cut its floorspace in half.

Probably because the best stuff is bought up so quickly that they are
running out of stock. I buy a lot from charity shops. One pound a disc
for great classical recordings that walk all over most current CD
versions. Most of the people I know who listen to music avidly are
musicians, and it is those people who seem most convinced of the
superiority of analogue/vinyl over digital/CD.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Dave Plowman" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:
Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more.

Agreed.

Birds of a feather...

Like you and Mr. Plowman, for instance?

wrote in message
om...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:
Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more.

Agreed.

Birds of a feather...

Like you and Mr. Plowman, for instance?



'You need to get out more' from those two saddos?

Now that's good (if not just a little passé) - that's *extremely* good
coming from them! They're on here 24/7, grinding out the same dreary old
********. They have been for sodding years, running the same old routine -
feeding on the endless supply of nooby fodder.

Join the club........

In article , Ronnie McKinley
writes
In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:


Which is a shame because you could have taken in the 'Leicestor Investor' on
your way down and blown his Gyro to smithereens as well!


Speaking of smithereens, have you tried this one ....


Go the Google search page and type in "weapons of mass destruction"
(minus the quotation marks).
Hit the "I feel lucky" button.
Read the error message carefully.





And "French military victories"...
--
Tony Sayer