"Iain Churches" wrote in message



That's it in a nutshell, The potential for CD is
enormous.

Two words: sonically transparent.

But this potential is often not reached due to
a less than good final product.

Actually, the potential of the CD format is *never* reached in the final
product.

Sad too is the fact that
most people are perfectly happy with what they buy, and don't really care.

As a rule, not even live performances are up to the potential for the CD
format. As a rule, recordings of live performances are audibly trashed by
the time they reach the mic cables, and generally things go downhill after
that.

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

The Bug Eater tries lying at his confessional.

Then obvioulsy the problem is not with CD as a medium,
it's something else.

The biggest problem is your stupidity.

Hmm, the stupidist person who posts here is Art Sackman. Why isn't his
stupidity the biggest problem?


No, wait, it's your hatred of others' preferences.

Preferences could be a serious issue, but around here thay are mostly just a
smoke screen that people hide behind to avoid admitting that the world is
different than what they religiously believe in.

Oops, I forgot about your enduring love for Arnii Krooborg.

Arnii Krooborg is a person who seems to exist only in the mind of George
Middius, who in turn exists only in the minds of his perpetrators and
worshippers. He is any port in a storm for those who want to hold onto their
religious beliefs about audio, even if Middius the ugliest and most widely
reviled long-running persona in the history of Usenet audio groups.

Darn -- there's
also your hypocrisy about aBxism rituals, which you
profess to love but actually are terrified of.

In fact it is the so-called subjectivists who are afraid of bias-controlled
listening tests.

In the eyes of the poorly-informed there is often a conflict between science
and their religious beliefs.

In article
,
Jenn wrote:
Incorrect. I've stated several times that I WANT CD to be superior in
every way, and that's the truth. They are more convenient, more readily
available, and there is more music (my main interest) available in
print. I listen to CDs a great deal more than I listen to LPs and I own
many more CDs than I do LPs. Further, I think that the average CD
sounds better in just about every way to the average LP. I would have
to be an idiot to not CDs to sound better. And, I'm a believer in
science and I understand that the science as we presently understand it
tells us that CDs should sound better than all LPs.

To explain slightly, a CD and decent CD player will give an exact
rendition of the material recorded on that CD. Philips and Sony made sure
the parameters were up to this when launching the first domestic system
capable of giving 'studio' quality. But it can't make up for a poor
quality master tape or whatever - it just reproduces that warts and all.

--
*Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
,
Jenn wrote:
Incorrect. I've stated several times that I WANT CD to
be superior in every way, and that's the truth. They
are more convenient, more readily available, and there
is more music (my main interest) available in print. I
listen to CDs a great deal more than I listen to LPs and
I own many more CDs than I do LPs. Further, I think
that the average CD sounds better in just about every
way to the average LP. I would have to be an idiot to
not CDs to sound better. And, I'm a believer in science
and I understand that the science as we presently
understand it tells us that CDs should sound better than
all LPs.

To explain slightly, a CD and decent CD player will give
an exact rendition of the material recorded on that CD.
Philips and Sony made sure the parameters were up to this
when launching the first domestic system capable of
giving 'studio' quality. But it can't make up for a poor
quality master tape or whatever - it just reproduces that
warts and all.

The core of the misunderstanding by the golden ears is that they've never
heard a mic feed with a good system. They actually believe that most of the
life gets sucked out of the music further on down the production chain.

Dave Plowborg chanted:

To explain slightly, a CD and decent CD player will give an exact
rendition of the material recorded on that CD.

To clarify slightly, Plowborg is immune to all nuances of quality. He
believes that his understanding of music is fully digitized and that the
emotional impetus of composers, and the corresponding emotional
responses of listeners, are irrelevant. He truly believes that his way
of dealing with the vagaries of art is superior because he can
concentrate on "getting the job done" without the distractions of human
emotional response.

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article
,
Jenn wrote:
Incorrect. I've stated several times that I WANT CD to be superior in
every way, and that's the truth. They are more convenient, more readily
available, and there is more music (my main interest) available in
print. I listen to CDs a great deal more than I listen to LPs and I own
many more CDs than I do LPs. Further, I think that the average CD
sounds better in just about every way to the average LP. I would have
to be an idiot to not CDs to sound better. And, I'm a believer in
science and I understand that the science as we presently understand it
tells us that CDs should sound better than all LPs.

To explain slightly, a CD and decent CD player will give an exact
rendition of the material recorded on that CD. Philips and Sony made sure
the parameters were up to this when launching the first domestic system
capable of giving 'studio' quality. But it can't make up for a poor
quality master tape or whatever - it just reproduces that warts and all.

The AES paper that was recently referenced seems to indicate that given
the same input, CD masters can sound different one from the other.

To clarify slightly, Plowborg is immune to all nuances of quality.
(rest of the crap snipped).

Coming from you, this endorsement will have me paying a bit more
attention to what Mr. Plowman has to write. Not quite a case of 'if
little Georgie hates it, it must be good', but mighty close. I am still
waiting for those sock-puppets...

Definition of Sock Puppet: One who can feel Mr. McCoy's fingers at the
back of his throat... How do they taste, Georgie?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article
,
Jenn wrote:
Incorrect. I've stated several times that I WANT CD to
be superior in every way, and that's the truth. They
are more convenient, more readily available, and there
is more music (my main interest) available in print. I
listen to CDs a great deal more than I listen to LPs
and I own many more CDs than I do LPs. Further, I
think that the average CD sounds better in just about
every way to the average LP. I would have to be an
idiot to not CDs to sound better. And, I'm a believer
in science and I understand that the science as we
presently understand it tells us that CDs should sound
better than all LPs.

To explain slightly, a CD and decent CD player will give
an exact rendition of the material recorded on that CD.
Philips and Sony made sure the parameters were up to
this when launching the first domestic system capable of
giving 'studio' quality. But it can't make up for a poor
quality master tape or whatever - it just reproduces
that warts and all.

The AES paper that was recently referenced seems to
indicate that given the same input, CD masters can sound
different one from the other.

Remember, this is a 14 year old AES conference paper, not a JAES article.
AFAIK the only part of a conference paper that is formally reviewed is the
title, and that review is at a fairly low level. So, any statements you find
in the paper are questionable, and in this case, pretty much obsolete. One
of the things that happened when this paper was given, was that it was
questioned. None of those questions or the answers are in the paper.

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:18:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The biggest problem is your stupidity.

Hmm, the stupidist person who posts here is Art Sackman.

A DOUBLE Irony Alert!

A two-fer.

Cool...

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:29:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Remember, this is a 14 year old AES conference paper, not a JAES article.
AFAIK the only part of a conference paper that is formally reviewed is the
title, and that review is at a fairly low level.

So, that makes the 20-plus year old ABX site even MORE irrelevant in
terms of using as a reference.

Cool.