In article ,
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Now, how long before the stupid **** starts replying to my posts
again...???

Your posts don't need replies - just comments on their stupidity.

So why did you take the bait? He was obviously trolling.

He's not bright enough to be a troll. Who also thinks he owns this group -
even although being a relatively recent poster.

--
*Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now *

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

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Now, how long before the stupid **** starts replying to my posts
again...???

Your posts don't need replies - just comments on their stupidity.

So why did you take the bait? He was obviously trolling.



Streuth! The **** even replied to that!!

Incredible....

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Whatever - if you did start such a thread in a car group you'd also get
shot down unless you heavily qualified your opinion. Which is what
happens
here to all those who constantly harp on about how marvellous vinyl is
while knocking digital.

You have it back to front.



No, you do - I didn't say that, it was Plowie parading his delusions of
grandeur again....



I can't remember the last time anyone STARTED a
thread bashing vinyl, rather than simply responding to the ill informed.

If the vinyl lovers wish to enjoy their personal choice without
disparaging
remarks, all they need do is stop claiming to the world that it is better
than CD.
Seems simple enough to me.



Nope, still got it back to front - check the posts here, no-one really ever
claims *anything* for vinyl other than they prefer it....

....unless I'm having a little troll....

....which I do, from time to time....

;-)

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
check the posts here, no-one really ever claims *anything* for vinyl
other than they prefer it....

Blind as well as deaf, then.

--
*Failure is not an option. It's bundled with your software.

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

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Now, how long before the stupid **** starts replying to my posts
again...???

Your posts don't need replies - just comments on their stupidity.

So why did you take the bait? He was obviously trolling.

Streuth! The **** even replied to that!!

Incredible....

Bait taken hook line and sinker...

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In fairness, I should point out, though, that the first generation Philips
'14 bit' chipsets for CD players actually used x4 oversampling. Thus - in
principle at least - returned 16-bit resolution.

At least that's what they wanted you to believe.

MrT.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Now, how long before the stupid **** starts replying to my posts
again...???

Your posts don't need replies - just comments on their stupidity.

So why did you take the bait? He was obviously trolling.

Streuth! The **** even replied to that!!

Incredible....

.... that you think I replied to you, when I was obviously replying to Dave.
Was the song "You're so vain" actually written about you?
(or can't you read a header?)

MrT.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Now, how long before the stupid **** starts replying to my posts
again...???

Your posts don't need replies - just comments on their stupidity.

So why did you take the bait? He was obviously trolling.

Streuth! The **** even replied to that!!

Incredible....

... that you think I replied to you, when I was obviously replying to
Dave.
Was the song "You're so vain" actually written about you?
(or can't you read a header?)

MrT.



I don't give a **** who you were replying to, but if you want a private
conversation with that puffed up, self-important little twerp Plowie, I'll
make it easy for you - you can join him in my ****ter...

**splash**


Now, what's the betting either or even both these clowns continue to reply
to my posts...??

(Feck, I do love binning these yapping ****s, especially the ones with the
silly anonymouse 'handles'....!! :-)

In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
Of course I knew that CDs don't require summed bass, rolled off HF
or compression to be properly mastered. It has it's own unique
requirements for best results.

It has no unique requirements other than observing peak allowable
levels.

You might also consider the addition of dithering and bandwidth limiting
to be other unique requirements.

Well, equivalent processes tend to occur in analog systems, courtesy of the
basic physics involved. Hence perhaps what is 'unique' to digital systems
in the above respect is that the dither and bandwidth limits don't have to
primarily rely on materials science, etc, as they do in analog record
systems. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:


In the case of CD because the intention is to 'improve' on the master
tape. With LP often essential to produce a playable version.


Dude get your head out of your ass. It will help you hear better. You
really think the current state of CD mastering is about improving the
sound?

You don't understand the use of parenthesis? Or irony?

You don't understand the use of camas and alagory?



You must be deaf or a complete ****ing idiot to believe that
crap.

Better, perhaps, than being just plain uneducated. ;-)

Add that to the list. That's three stikes against you.



Hey I have an idea go get the new Dylan album on CD and tell us
how the mastering improved the sound on the master tape.

It's an interesting one.

Not really. Oh maby for you. You seem to enjoy sonic disasters.


Someone of the likes of Dillon complains about
poor CD - or rather digital, sound - and then allows his first new album
in many years to confirm just that.


"Dillon?" Nice to see that superior education at work. Indeed, that was
one of the better displays of ignorance on the subject of recording and
mastering I've seen in a while. Yeah it's "Dillon's" fault that the CD
was mastered the way it was. But according to you that was to improve
the sound. Yeah you are quite the expert on this subject.

Can't somehow see him being over-ruled
by his record company, so perhaps he couldn't be bothered to do anything
about it.


The record company is the likely problem here. Again shows what an
expert you are on the subject as it applies to real world recordings.




But if you're copying a LP to CD at home, this doesn't apply.



It's quite revealing.

Yes it is. Give it a try.

Why repeat what I said?


Where did you say "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?

Ah - you didn't understand what I meant at all. And obviously
haven't conducted this sort of test.

Right. I haven't conducted tests below 16 bits.

Why not?

I answered the question just below didp****.

No you didn't. You sort of stated the nonsense that you could here the
difference between 16 and 24 which isn't the same thing. It suggests you
started out thinking 16 bit isn't good enough...

You seem convinced 16 bit doesn't deliver what *you* want - so perhaps
12 might? After all, the measurable parameters of an LP are well below
16 bit spec in every way, so perhaps this would be just what you're
looking for.


You are indeed a ****ing idiot.

Why?

I don't know, genetics, bad education, acombination of the two. The
possibilities are vast. Maybe you took too many blows to the head.


You apparently love the degradation *all* vinyl causes. Unless you
think clicks and plops - just as an example - were actually there before?


If you think the only difference between any title issued on both media
are just that then you simply are adding to the evidence that you are
indeed an idiot.






Why should I when I hear differences between 16 and 24?

Right. Thank you for confirming you don't know how to conduct proper
testing.


thank you for confirming your head is in fact way up your ass.

First start with an open mind...

That is funny coming from a guy who clearly can't think for himself.





(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.

Not *my* choices, pal.


My bad. I forgot that some just can't think for themselves

Oh you certainly 'think'.

Yes, you might want to give it a try some day.

*Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment *


Is that how you do things? Explains a lot. No thank you. I am a big fan
of excellence.

Tag generators are beyond you too?


And you say I don't get irony.


Scott