wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
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.

I will just give you an example of one person's efforts.
http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf


Scott, I guess you can't tell the difference between an AES conference
paper, where almost anything goes, and a JAES article, which is refereed for
technical accuracy by a independent review board.

The cited paper is just a piece of self-aggrandizing puffery, replete with
name-dropping.

It actually describes no technical changes, let alone improvements, to the
CD format.

wrote in message
ups.com
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.

If its true, its a consequence of artistic decisions, not technical
decisions.

It's about particular implmentations, not any technical limitation of the CD
medium.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

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?

I think the usual approach is to take the spurious responses due to the
nonlinear distortion as being part of the noise floor. IOW you calculate
dynamic range from a SNR measurement made with a FS or near-FS signal is
present.

This is probably a bit optimistic because it underestimates the adverse
effects of the probable cross-products when complex musical signals are
being reproduced.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

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!

Agreed that using one's brain can be a great help, as opposed to turning off
the brain and just relying on the ears. ;-)

wrote in message
oups.com

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.

I'm ROTFLMAO that Scott apparently thinks that LP recordings don't involve
the use of mic preamps, and other technical apparataus with technical flaws
so egregious as to make good A/D converters seem to be as pure as
freshly-fallen snow.

BTW it mght be possible to make a pretty good organ recording with just mics
and a top-notch line-level audio interface, no mic preamp needed. 120 dB
below about 1 volt is a pretty good noise floor for a mic.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:17:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com

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.

I'm ROTFLMAO that Scott apparently thinks that LP recordings don't involve
the use of mic preamps, and other technical apparataus with technical flaws
so egregious as to make good A/D converters seem to be as pure as
freshly-fallen snow.

BTW it mght be possible to make a pretty good organ recording with just mics
and a top-notch line-level audio interface, no mic preamp needed. 120 dB
below about 1 volt is a pretty good noise floor for a mic.


True - as I said, audience noise, not mic noise was the limiting
factor. If I could have recorded this with the church empty, I would
have been happy, and the organist would have played the quiet bit even
quieter. But, it was an "event" and they wanted a memento of "their"
performance.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:
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.

Goooood come back. Very witty and original. Maybe you should write
comedy. You do amuse me. Gotta love those new CDs of yours that are
copied straight off the mic with no A/D conversion. That made me laugh.


Scott

Mr.T wrote:
"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)

If you don't know what that means you really aren't qualified to
discuss hifi.



only be attained by inferior equipment?


Nice. Just use charged language and you maifest reality. Your reasoning
is so amazing. Just call vinyl inferior and then it can't possibly
sound better. You have now risen to the intelectual level that
qualifies you to be president of the United States.


Scott

On 30 Oct 2006 08:04:05 -0800, wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:
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.

Goooood come back. Very witty and original. Maybe you should write
comedy. You do amuse me. Gotta love those new CDs of yours that are
copied straight off the mic with no A/D conversion. That made me laugh.


Scott

Scott, had it been anybody else saying this, I would have believed
that they knew what I meant and were taking the **** in a rather
half-arsed way at my shorthand. But this is you, so I take you at face
value and assume you really do believe I think I wrote analogue to a
CD. You really are too stupid for words.

d

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

Mr.T wrote:
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!

This where our resdent scientist, Jim is supposed to ask for the
details of this test so we can decide whether or not it was meaningful.
But Jim likes to pick and choose his moments to do this based on
whether or not he likes the results of a test report. (Sooooo
scientific) So I will step in and ask for those specifics.

What exact equipment was used?
What exact LPs and CDs were used?
What was the test methodology?
What were the actual results?


Scott