"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

I think Nick's point is that if CD technology renders LPs obsolete, then
the 'new, improved' technologies of SACD/DVD-A/Blu Ray &c. renders CD
obsolete in similar fashion...?? (My point is anything that is still
produced, available and used is categorically *not* obsolete...)

Overwhelming market penetration by the sequel technology is required for
the prior technology to be obsolesced in a practi al sense.

For example, certain magnetic tape formats had far better performance than
the LP format for decades prior to the CD, but never achieved overwhelming
market penetration. Therefore, mag tape never obsoleted the LP in a
practical sense. But, the CD did.


We have different understandings of the word obsolete - see my reply to
Serge...

(Ask if you need the phrase 'thatched roofs' explained... :-)



It is arguable that the CD is in the process of being obsoleted by one or
the other compressed formats that is used for portable digital players and
downloading.



CD is not obsolete for the very same reasons as LP in my book - it only
becomes truly obsolete when you can't play it *anywhere* and that won't
happen for a very long time....

Keith G wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote


Sadly, you are probably right. I should think that there are far more
tracks being listened to from data-compressed medialess streams than there
are off CD (or vinyl for that matter). However, I was referring to music
"carriers" i.e. physical items you can hold in your hand. But then, I'm
over 30 and can remember when we had to go to a "shop" (remember those?)
and actually pay for music.


I remember (briefly) when you could go in a little booth (two of you at a
squeeze - lovely, if the one you were squeezed in with had a decent rack :-)
and hear a whole side of an LP if the shop was busy....!! :-)


So I suggest we need to consider moving CD into the vintage section of
the group, and thus cease discussing it.

You have given perfectly good reasons why you consider CD a perfectly
good media, but not one that make vinyl obsolete. I may consider vinyl to
be adequate, you may not, thats down to choice.

As to vinyl's obsolescence, it *is* obsolete given that CDs have all the
myriad advantages we all know and love, with vinyl having the sole
advantage that the sleeve art is more attractive. (pace those who think
vinyl intrinsically sounds better...) However, as long as people play and
enjoy playing vinyl, it will never go away.


I consider summat 'obsolete' when you can no longer get parts for it or it
doesn't do what it says on the box, usually due to specification changes in
its intended application - neither of these criteria applies to a simple LP.

Being in a minority market position doesn't necessarily render anything
obsolete, it just makes unusual or mebbe even *rare* - think 'thatched
roofs'....


It depends what you mean by "obsolete". In this context, I define it as
having been superseded by "better" technology. I think even you will
accept that CDs are "better" than LPs in every measurable and material
way, although that doesn't, of course, stop you enjoying them more than
CDs. Your analogy of the thatched roof is a case in point. Of course
thatched roofs are obsolete in that better performance is available from
more modern materials, but it doesn't stop them being visually very
attractive. Similarly vintage cars, vintage watches, vintage fountain
pens, all made obsolete by more modern items but still a pleasure to own
and use.

S.

wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 12:23:30 -0700, wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:15:16 +0100, Eiron wrote:

wrote:

Have you ever heard a SOTA LP on SOTA playback gear?

Can you give any examples of SOTA LPs?

Unfortunately they are pretty much all SOTA. :-(

Why on earth are you chiming in on this subject. Didn't you make a big
enough fool of yourself last time you talked about this subject?


You're thinking of that Scott bloke


No. you were the fool who insisted that all LPs were mastered with
summed bass and HF roll off. Are you back to make some more ridiculous
claims?

I posted my test results on HF rolloff with Herr beloved Cardas test record
some time back in RAHE. Now you're over here posting the same drivel.

You're just wrong, but enjoy your LP's. Lots of fine music on them.

Only an idiot would draw universal conclusions about LPs from one
example. You get to join Don and Arny in the corner with the dunce cap.


Scott

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Didn't think there was any argument?
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits?

Try 12 bits.


Try using your ears instead. But if you can't, at least try to get some
meaningful data on the subject. What you have going there is about as
meaningful as a manufacturer's THD measuements are for an amp.


Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme
material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc?

Yes I have. Have you?

Proper blind
testing?

Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many comparisons
have you made of various issues of the same commercial titles blind?
I've done hundreds.


It's quite revealing.

Yes it is. Give it a try.


The crunch point comes at about 12 bits

What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you
came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself?


(straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy.
The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit
weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think.


Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices. You get what you
deserve.
Me, I'll keep listening.


Scott

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Didn't think there was any argument?
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits?

Try 12 bits.


Try using your ears instead. But if you can't, at least try to get some
meaningful data on the subject. What you have going there is about as
meaningful as a manufacturer's THD measuements are for an amp.


Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme
material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc?

Yes I have. Have you?

Proper blind
testing?

Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many comparisons
have you made of various issues of the same commercial titles blind?
I've done hundreds.


It's quite revealing.

Yes it is. Give it a try.


The crunch point comes at about 12 bits

What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you
came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself?


(straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy.
The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit
weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think.


Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices. You get what you
deserve.
Me, I'll keep listening.


Scott

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
It has no unique requirements other than observing peak allowable
levels.

Guess again

Not a guess. I deal with digital recording all the time.

OK what commercial CDs have you mastered? This could be quite revealing
since the vast majority are soooo poorly mastered these days.


I also well
remember the shortcomings of all analogue recording methods and the tricks
needed to try and circumvent them.


Maybe that was an issue for you. Were talking SOTA here. Were not
talking about your best efforts.



Bet you didn't know that.

But you're going to tell us anyway?


Nah, I'll let a few people makes asses of themselves first.

Typical 'get out' reply. Afraid of getting shot down in flames - again.

In your head.

Scott

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:49:06 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:39:10 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
. ..

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:47:23 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


There are vintage and classic car groups for those who want to enthuse
about obsolete products. And makers who still reproduce such things for
the few who want them.

But this isn't uk.rec.vintage.audio...

Then by that logic, why is CD still still acceptable as a discussion
topic?

Been HMV lately?



If Pipex/SmartFTP would let me, I'd post a pic of the *brand new* vinyl Swim
brought back from Edinburgh a few days ago - 4 x Virgin, 1 x HMV..

(Unless it wuz 'Scotch Mist' of course...?? ;-)

Don't let's see you joining the Denial Boyz, Don - contrary to all the
shrieks of 'obsolete' you might hear, vinyl is very much alive and still
enjoyed by a lot of (more discerning, dare I say) people today. It hasn't
gone away simply because of the sad little crowd here (and nowhere else) who
come rushing up and start yammering about bitrates, noise floors and SNRs
every time it gets a mention!!

(I still wonder what it is they are so *scared* of...??)





My post wasn't about the lack or otherwise of vinyl, I was replying to
Nick's suggestion that CDs were obsolete.

d

Yes, and I was asking, indirectly what was the feature of a CD that made
it any less obsolete than vinyl?

The fact that it records essentially perfect audio and doesn't degrade
with age - at least every CD in my collection plays exactly as it did
when it was new.

Balony. LPs do a better job of capturing the music off of a live feed
or an original master tape.


Scott

On 26 Oct 2006 09:20:12 -0700, wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:49:06 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:39:10 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
. ..

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:47:23 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


There are vintage and classic car groups for those who want to enthuse
about obsolete products. And makers who still reproduce such things for
the few who want them.

But this isn't uk.rec.vintage.audio...

Then by that logic, why is CD still still acceptable as a discussion
topic?

Been HMV lately?



If Pipex/SmartFTP would let me, I'd post a pic of the *brand new* vinyl Swim
brought back from Edinburgh a few days ago - 4 x Virgin, 1 x HMV..

(Unless it wuz 'Scotch Mist' of course...?? ;-)

Don't let's see you joining the Denial Boyz, Don - contrary to all the
shrieks of 'obsolete' you might hear, vinyl is very much alive and still
enjoyed by a lot of (more discerning, dare I say) people today. It hasn't
gone away simply because of the sad little crowd here (and nowhere else) who
come rushing up and start yammering about bitrates, noise floors and SNRs
every time it gets a mention!!

(I still wonder what it is they are so *scared* of...??)





My post wasn't about the lack or otherwise of vinyl, I was replying to
Nick's suggestion that CDs were obsolete.

d

Yes, and I was asking, indirectly what was the feature of a CD that made
it any less obsolete than vinyl?

The fact that it records essentially perfect audio and doesn't degrade
with age - at least every CD in my collection plays exactly as it did
when it was new.

Balony. LPs do a better job of capturing the music off of a live feed
or an original master tape.



There's this really irritating high-pitched buzzing noise in here.
Anyone got a fly-swat?

d

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

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I consider summat 'obsolete' when you can no longer get parts for it or
it doesn't do what it says on the box, usually due to specification
changes in its intended application - neither of these criteria applies
to a simple LP.

Being in a minority market position doesn't necessarily render anything
obsolete, it just makes unusual or mebbe even *rare* - think 'thatched
roofs'....


It depends what you mean by "obsolete". In this context, I define it as
having been superseded by "better" technology.



That's where we differ - I consider *obsolete* to mean no longer fit for
purpose, no longer available or no longer viable due to lack of available
parts/supplies

See:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obsolete


Even then it's relative - the .303 cartridge is obsolete as far as the Army
is concerned, but it is still available, can still be purchased and is still
used by some today, so it is not yet completely obsolete. Many other rounds
are, however....


I think even you will
accept that CDs are "better" than LPs in every measurable and material
way,


'Measurable' possibly - if the measurements mean real, audible differences
to me but not in any other way much....


although that doesn't, of course, stop you enjoying them more than
CDs. Your analogy of the thatched roof is a case in point. Of course
thatched roofs are obsolete in that better performance is available from
more modern materials, but it doesn't stop them being visually very
attractive.


Ah no, Serge - there's a lot more to thatched roofs than mere 'visual
appeal'. I personally consider them as incendiary devices, but there's a lot
of good in a thatched roof (sound and heat insulation properties &c.) as
well as being very eco-friendly when compared to the the highly-worked roof
tiles with the essential, additional insulation alternatives. Thatched roofs
do not perform less well and are in no way obsolete in the strict sense of
the word, IMO....


Similarly vintage cars, vintage watches, vintage fountain
pens, all made obsolete by more modern items but still a pleasure to own
and use.


Sure and is not the Biro/Fountain Pen a good analogy for CD/LP, inasmuch as
one superceded the other in the mass market and they are both now themselves
being *superceded* by 'virtual writing' in many/most cases, but neither one
is truly *obsolete* yet...???

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:
There are vintage and classic car groups for those who want to enthuse
about obsolete products. And makers who still reproduce such things for
the few who want them.

But this isn't uk.rec.vintage.audio...

Then by that logic, why is CD still still acceptable as a discussion
topic?

So you'll not find CDs on sale in your local supermarket? Perhaps they
sell LPs instead?

--
*A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory *

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