wrote in message
ups.com...
You have it back to front. I can't remember the last time anyone STARTED
a
thread bashing vinyl, rather than simply responding to the ill informed.

Who was it that said I don't get irony? Don Plowman? Dick Pearce? You
can't remember this thread while you were posting to it?

You think the OP was bashing vinyl by asking for help in transferring to CD?
You're not ironic, just moronic.

MrT.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Didn't think there was any argument?
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits?

Of course not!
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 14 bits?

Make that 12 bits, and you still have a tough question for the vinyl
bigots
to answer.

Sure, but then your starting to get into the area of debate rather than a
slam dunk.
Now if we start talking about the *average* pressing of the vinyl era, 10
bits would be overkill :-(

MrT.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Nice try Arnold. But I rely on my ears you rely on audio religion.

That's your problem, you rely on your "ears" which are obviously faulty,
Arny relies on test equipment.

Anybody relying on their "ears" alone, should NOT be arguing anything in a
*technical* forum!

MrT.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
(Feck, I do love binning these yapping ****s, especially the ones with
the silly anonymouse 'handles'....!! :-)

'G' is a name now?

Very amusing that "G" is somehow better than "T" :-)

MrT.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:
snip

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.

Indeed.

I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl
is better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound
produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair
believe ... :-)

There is also a group within the uk.rec structure dedicated to
vinyl, but the vinyl nuts don't post there preferring to try and spread
their gospel wide.

Are you two 'CD nuts'? Do you advocate CDs with envangelical zeal? A bit
of empiricism and positivism is not unknown in the faith-belief world
too ;-)

Why?

For myself, I'm more interested in audio than vinyl. I think it's nice
if people can make up their own mind about vinyl by listening, using and
taking on board the technical arguments. The UK audio group tends to
provide a good blend of things I'm interested in.

Even they don't apparently understand.

Understand what - that 'CD is better than vinyl'?

They hate
any home truths

Like what? Do you mean the 'fact' that CD is better than vinyl?

about their pet but constantly invite such responses.


Calm down, it's only a preference :-)

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Serge Auckland" wrote ...

I have deliberately avoided the argument as to whether even 16bit is
excessive for vinyl.........

Didn't think there was any argument? Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in
excess of 16 bits?

Of course not! Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 14 bits?

Make that 12 bits, and you still have a tough question for the vinyl
bigots to answer.

One of the things I have been wondering about for some time is as follows:

It is straightforwards to work out the channel capacity of an analog
channel where the noise level and peak level vary with frequency in a
definable manner. So that could be used to work out a capacity value for LP
systems. However this essentially ignores any effect of nonlinear
distortion on capacity below the defined peak limit value.

I haven't seen a treatment which analyses the capacity of a channel where
nonlinear distortion rises with signal level and may represent the
practical limit. i.e. not seen a treatment of how distortion affects
channel information capacity.

Anyone know if this has been done, and can suggest a reference?

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

"Rob" wrote in message
...
I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl
is better than CD'.

Try Google, there are thousands of them.

I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound
produced from vinyl'.

If only it were true. Everyone is entitled to their own *preference*, and I
have said so many times.

Are you two 'CD nuts'? Do you advocate CDs with envangelical zeal?

Not me, I still have vinyl as well, I can't speak for anyone else.

A bit of empiricism and positivism is not unknown in the faith-belief
world
too ;-)

It's not "faith" if you have verifiable, testable, repeatable proof, is it?

For myself, I'm more interested in audio than vinyl. I think it's nice
if people can make up their own mind about vinyl by listening, using and
taking on board the technical arguments.

Sure, but the smart ones just listen to the music, without any need for
false claims.

MrT.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com

Heaven forbid anyone express their opinions if they run
contrary to the meter rerader's religion. The irony is
justing piling up since it is the folks who did openly
criticize the results of CD sound that have been behind
most of the improvements in CD quality. Well we don't
want people speaking up or making improvements.


Name an improvement to the parameters of the CD format that has improved
CD quality.



Hazard a rough guess as to how many posts you've currently got up *harping
on* about CD...???

.....to the nearest *dozen* will do....

(What is it you Denial Boyz are so damn *scared* of.....???)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com


Well, we disagree about the transarency of 16/44.1

That's due to your religious belief that there's something that still
needs to be fixed with the CD format to make it as accurate as LPs.


Accurate? Do you mean as in *lifelike*....???

Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of *realism*.....

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:
snip

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.

Indeed.

I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl
is better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound
produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair
believe ... :-)

The slightest prod produces plenty of 'statements' about why they prefer
vinyl, though - and all of them iffy. Retort with the know issues of vinyl
and you're some form of deaf nutcase. I doubt anyone has any issues about
what people prefer - but certainly can have with the reasons they give if
false.

There is also a group within the uk.rec structure dedicated to vinyl,
but the vinyl nuts don't post there preferring to try and spread their
gospel wide.

Are you two 'CD nuts'?

Which two?

Do you advocate CDs with envangelical zeal?

Decent digital recording, yes. As anyone who has had any true experience
of analogue types will. Unless for a special effect.

--
* What do they call a coffee break at the Lipton Tea Company? *

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