On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:49:58 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


In article ,
Paul wrote:
Ok. Then I guess I will have to talk about it.
To me, the 'vinyl' issue is simple.
We could perform a little experiment.
Here we go...
Take a sound source that can be replicated. Let's use a digital synth
together with a sequencer.

[snip]

There's an easier way.

Take your 'favourite' CD. Copy it to CD. If you do this properly there
will be no difference.
Now copy it to LP. Expensive yes, but I've done it. *Anyone* will hear the
difference between the original CD and LP copy.

This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.

A better test would be to use a higher quality recording and master it
to both LP and CD and compare.

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
Take your 'favourite' CD. Copy it to CD. If you do this properly there
will be no difference. Now copy it to LP. Expensive yes, but I've done
it. *Anyone* will hear the difference between the original CD and LP
copy.

This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.

A better test would be to use a higher quality recording and master it
to both LP and CD and compare.

Absolutely not. *Mastering* to both CD and LP invariably involves changing
the master. Copy would be ok, but then a straight copy to CD will to all
intents and purposes sound the same as the master.

Of course for my test you'd need to choose the material carefully, as not
everything can be directly copied to LP. Another of its disadvantages. ;-)

--
*The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Absolutely not. *Mastering* to both CD and LP invariably involves changing
the master.

Sorry Dave, but that is incorrect. Do you have practical experience in
either disc cutting or CD mastering?

Iain

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Absolutely not. *Mastering* to both CD and LP invariably involves
changing the master.

Sorry Dave, but that is incorrect.

No it's not. After all, you've taken great pride in giving an example, to
prove a point of yours.

Do you have practical experience in either disc cutting or CD mastering?

Yes.

I'm not saying *every* master can't be transferred direct, but the vast
majority aren't. Otherwise there would be no need for a separate mastering
session.

--
*Gargling is a good way to see if your throat leaks.

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

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Absolutely not. *Mastering* to both CD and LP invariably involves
changing
the master.

Absolutely true.

Sorry Dave, but that is incorrect. Do you have practical experience in
either disc cutting or CD mastering?

Sure and as usual Iaan, you're just plain wrong.

This is pretty amazing Iain, because you no doubt have seen a lot of both CD
mastering and LP mastering done, live and up front and personal. You've had
the opportunity to discuss the matter with skilled practitioners of both
arts. And, you reached the wrong conclusion.

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...

snip (am I getting the hang of this )


A better test would be to use a higher quality recording and master it
to both LP and CD and compare.


I believe my little experiment describes the ultimate test!! There is no
higher quality source than that which I have described.
What I have is effectively a live performance that can be replicated time
and time again. Your suggestion will certainly highlight the inadequacies of
vinyl but it cannot test for High Fidelity.

Perhaps I should not have brought vinyl into the test in the first place. My
quest is the pursuit of High Fidelity.
I have clearly inadvertently fuelled the vinyl bashers/CD lovers pointless
debate. Vinyl is more than capable of clubbing itself to death and has been
doing so since its creation.

If people enjoy what they listen to then they've cracked it! That's
marvellous. No really, I'm not taking the mick. Perhaps, if I had part of my
brain removed I could join the club and be content. However, while I get
immense pleasure from listening to music (as opposed to my system), I know
that the job can be done better.

Those who's enjoyment is derived from listening to their systems are on a
different quest. Good luck to them. We simply have different agendas. My
goal is not for those who revel in sound which is 'smooth', 'warm', 'laid
back', 'up front' or 'beguiling etc. To me, they are simply describing a
coloured, inaccurate sound which has no place in my living room. What they
are not doing is describing High Fidelity. They have no interest in High
Fidelity and I have no problem with that.

Paul

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:49:58 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:


In article ,
Paul wrote:
Ok. Then I guess I will have to talk about it.
To me, the 'vinyl' issue is simple.
We could perform a little experiment.
Here we go...
Take a sound source that can be replicated. Let's use a digital synth
together with a sequencer.

[snip]

There's an easier way.

Take your 'favourite' CD. Copy it to CD. If you do this properly there
will be no difference.

Agreed.

Now copy it to LP. Expensive yes, but I've done it. *Anyone* will hear the
difference between the original CD and LP copy.

This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.

A better test would be to use a higher quality recording and master it
to both LP and CD and compare.

That's been done - same results.

IOW take a technically higher quality master recording, say a 24/96 or
24/192 made under the best possible conditions.

Then re-record that master recording as a CD.

Here, listen to the comparison for yourself if you have a 24/96 capable
audio interface:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/

Then compare the CD to the origional master.

The results are that you can't hear the difference between the two.