wrote:
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?

No, but were are talking about media qualities, no programme material.

geoff

Geoff wrote:
wrote:
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?

No, but were are talking about media qualities, no programme material.


No we were originally discussing why it is worth while to transfer LPs
to digital. The comment that started the debate was that the only
reason to do so is if an LP is not available on CD. Clearly if one
cares about sound quality there are other reasons. So program material
is very much the issue.


Scott

On 29 Oct 2006 15:16:52 -0800, wrote:


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

As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There
is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came
from the mics.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 15:16:52 -0800, wrote:


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

As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There
is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came
from the mics.

Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It went to CD
exactly as it came from the mics." You should publish a technical
article on this amazing breakthrough. No mic preamp, no A/D converter,
nothin but the raw analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right
over my head.

Don't you get tired of making an ass of yourself?


So is that a no on the name drop?


Scott

On 29 Oct 2006 21:10:42 -0800, wrote:


As ever the point whistles straight over your head Scott, sonny. There
is NO mastering on that recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came
from the mics.

Wow you have the first all analog CD. That's amazing. "It went to CD
exactly as it came from the mics." You should publish a technical
article on this amazing breakthrough. No mic preamp, no A/D converter,
nothin but the raw analog signal off the mics. Yep that did go right
over my head.

Don't you get tired of making an ass of yourself?


So is that a no on the name drop?


Scott

That little insect buzzing noise is back again. It is seriously
irritating.

d

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

"Rob" wrote in message
...

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.

I'm puzzled as to what you think he means? Can a sense of "realism"
(whatever that really means) only be attained by inferior equipment?

MrT.

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

I have, and it was a lay down misere for vinyl I'm afraid.
(for those who don't play cards, it's where you lose every trick :-)

But the necessity of using a $100,000 turntable to compete (and lose)
against a $500 CD player was the really amusing part!

MrT.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
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'....???

Funny, that's exactly what I thought. Must be something wrong with his A-D
converter :-)

MrT.

wrote in message
ups.com...
I already pointed out some specific examples of that travesty. The
meter readers seemed utterly ans completely disinterested when I
started talking about specific examples of terrible sounding CDs that
are trumped by great sounding LPs of the same title. It seems quite
obvious that there is little interest in sound quality amoung the meter
readers when it comes to playing great music.

In fact I, and many others have readilly admitted there are some CD's out
there SO bad that the vinyl version is better. However a few pathological
examples of faulty mastering does NOT prove vinyl is better than CD for
anything other than the cover art!

MrT.

"Rob" wrote in message
...
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.

I guess you have an interesting definition of "absolute terms" then, if S/N
ratio, distortion, wow and flutter, rumble, frequency bandwidth and
flattness etc. are all irrelevant.

Indeed. False claims are a different matter, though.

Which is all I'm complaining about, the unprovable claim that vinyl is
better than CD (rather than simply saying - some CD's are dreadful despite
the mediums huge technical superiority.)

MrT.