Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:


16 bits was an obvious choice because it's two bytes and provides a
sufficient degree of overkill. What you could also say is that not
for nothing was the early use and acceptance of 14 bit CD players,
when 16 bit converters were more difficult/expensive to make.

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.


Pray tell how oversampling increases resolution ? The reason for
oversampling was/is to make reconstruction filters easier to implemnt
without artifiacts of a steep slope. It's been a whil, have I forgotten ?

geoff

"Rob" wrote


I'm not trying to be a superior git here btw - I'm pretty sure I have
certain baggage that affects my opinions. And I'm not forgetting your
professional experience.


That *is* a ****take - right...???

:-))

Keith G wrote:

**** all this 'controlled listening test' horse**** - normal
listening is the best way to enjoy LPs.....

Consider this travesty - 50's Jazz on a CD......??

(Doesn't bear thinking about, does it?)

Or Chaliapin, or Gobbi....??!!

Let's keep it *real*.....

Record those LPs (or 78's) onto CD with good gear and you can play them back
with pretty much the exact artifacts that you enjoy from the vinyl, or
shellac...

geoff

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
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 ... :-)

Just look at this from our resident ayatollah - Mr G...

From: Keith G
Subject: Vinyl to CD on a PC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:10
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

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


Mmm. I think you misunderstand. That statement doesn't say anything
close to 'vinyl is better than CD' in absolute terms. Perhaps you do
understand, but you can find a better example?

Contrary to what some may believe, measurements to me are just a useful
tool to analyse why and where. At the end of the day, though, with
acoustic music - or speech - I want realism. Which vinyl simply can't
come
close to in comparison to good digital.


And yet you have never done a bias controled listening test using SOTA
lp playback gear and SOTA vinyl to verify this claim.



**** all this 'controlled listening test' horse**** - normal listening is
the best way to enjoy LPs.....

Consider this travesty - 50's Jazz on a CD......??

(Doesn't bear thinking about, does it?)

Or Chaliapin, or Gobbi....??!!

Let's keep it *real*.....

"Rob" wrote in message
news
Keith G wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote


I don't think anyone who prefers vinyl would argue that, for example,
dynamic range and S/N of CD is potential better (although I prefer
different). There is no proof, BTW, that CD is better than vinyl in
absolute terms.


As you have met him Rob, I would add that Shiny Nigel had a collection of
about 1,500 CDs when I first met him (and probably still has) - he was
given a ProJect Perspective turntable a while back (that can happen when
you're in the trade, apparently) and started grabbing LPs (I gave him a
couple of carrier bag's worth - Diana Ross, Supertramp, The Human League
&c.)

Last time we spoke on the subject he told he *never* plays CDs any
more....



Good ole Nige - hope he's OK btw.


I spoke to him a few weeks ago and he sounded quite good, but he visited a
mutual friend a week or two back and came over all whoozy apparently...??



A couple of months ago a friend expressed an interest in a turntable I
wanted rid of for a friend of his. It was crushed in the post, but still
worked OK.


The Pioneer...??


He's a real down the line number cruncher, just knocked out a
first class degree in databases/computer science,


As you do....


and over the 15 years
I've known him always managed a friendly 'tut' at my vinyl playing - in
fact he gave me his LP collection as obsolete on the condition I put some
of his faves/unobtainables on CD. Job done.


OK....



I took the TT round to his house, and we plugged it in to check it worked,
nothing more. I thought it sounded fine. He's not a hifi nut, but has a
half decent amp/speakers (Technics/KEF). He, on the other hand, shifted
about quite uneasily. He didn't say anything to me on the day, but over
the next few weeks started to ask me about 'his' LPs - how were they
doing, that type of thing.


'His' LPs, eh....??

:-)



I can't say that he was converted (back to) vinyl as such. All I do know
is that he's kept the turntable :-)


No comment....!!

;-)

Don Pearce wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 12:05:50 -0800, wrote:

For interest, here is the power histogram of one of my recordings of
an organ. The spread of dynamics is quite clear. The entire first half
of the piece is played pianississimo, and frankly the audience
shuffling about is louder than much of it. I can only really listen to
it during the day when the neighbours are out, because if I turn it up
enough for the first half to be properly audible, the walls start
bulging in the second half and I would not be popular. I would venture
to suggest that it would be quite impossible to reproduce this on
vinyl without a serious amount of level compression. On CD, of course,
it is a breeze.

You have ventured to say a lot of stupid things about vinyl so this
comes as no surprise. OTOH you could have checked out some of the
Virgil Fox Organ recordings on D2D using a real high end rig and see
for yourself.

Scott

Sorry, this wasn't intended for you. I posted it for the interest of
people who understand its significance.


You think you have something of significance to say on this subject?
And you say I'm the one missing the irony. I often talk to many folks
who are top flight recording and mastering engineers. Should I drop
your name next time? LMAO.


Scott

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

**** all this 'controlled listening test' horse**** - normal
listening is the best way to enjoy LPs.....

Consider this travesty - 50's Jazz on a CD......??

(Doesn't bear thinking about, does it?)

Or Chaliapin, or Gobbi....??!!

Let's keep it *real*.....

Record those LPs (or 78's) onto CD with good gear and you can play them
back with pretty much the exact artifacts that you enjoy from the vinyl,
or shellac...


'Pretty much'....???

Geoff wrote:
wrote:
Mr.T wrote:
"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 :-(


If we are talking about actual commercial CDs few of todays releases
have more then 20db dynamic range.

But that is a 'production choice' , not a limitation inherent of the media.

As is the case with any record that does not exploit the full dynamic
range of that medium. Does the fact that it is a production choice does
that make it sound better?


Scott

In article . com,
wrote:
Contrary to what some may believe, measurements to me are just a
useful tool to analyse why and where. At the end of the day, though,
with acoustic music - or speech - I want realism. Which vinyl simply
can't come close to in comparison to good digital.


And yet you have never done a bias controled listening test using SOTA
lp playback gear and SOTA vinyl to verify this claim.

'Ye canna change the laws of physics, capt'n'.

However, my current LP playback system was near enough SOTA last time I
updated it - before CD came out.

--
Small asylum seeker wanted as mud flap, must be flexible and willing to travel

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

In article ,
Geoff wrote:
If we are talking about actual commercial CDs few of todays releases
have more then 20db dynamic range.

But that is a 'production choice' , not a limitation inherent of the
media.

What the public want, apparently. After all, those vast record companies
who employ the very best mastering engineers can't be wrong - can they?

The public don't want dynamics. You get complaints if they have to alter
the level of their TV sound from one prog to the next. Perhaps they can't
find the button on the remote.

--
*Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? *

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