In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Mr.T wrote:
"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 just tried your suggestion (vinyl better CD). Clearly I haven't been
through all 6m but the first few pages seem to be pointing to something
like a more enjoyable, realistic sound. Not unequivocal.


The arrogance of the digital bigots disallows the possibility that anyone
who thinks vinyl is/can sound more realistic than the *flatness* of CD could
be right....

Hold on there, quickdraw. *Is* and *can sound* are two different claims.
And no one says a *preference* for a sound is right or wrong. The claimed
*reasons* for a preference could be.

'Stereo' means solid - using two channels to create an illusion of
'solidity', space and depth is an aural illusion that is *far better*
achieved by vinyl, IME. I can prove this to myself any time I can be arsed
to dig out a corresonding CD to certain LPs I've got.

Also 'far better' achieved, to some ears, by a multichannel reproduction.

Whether or not CD has a lower noise floor or greater dynamic range is of no
consequence to me - it simply does *not* sound better to me....

(Anybody don't like to hear that, then tough ****....)

You seem angry. Also, you're missing the point of this thread..which is that
a CD transfer of an LP could well capture all that 'realism' you like.
If you claim it *can't ever* do that, then it's time to explain why that
could be so.


And you are in the best position to comment. But might your technical
certainties twist your listening experience? Because you know that CD must
be better, do your prophecies self-fulfill?

I used to think the CD bigots bashed vinyl out of jealousy, having got rid
of their vinyl (like so many did), but so many of them claim to still own
many LPs - presumably for the opposite purpose of digging out the occasional
LP just to prove they still don't like 'em...???

Cover art, mainly. And a few that have never come out on CD, I've transferred
from LP. But all of them reside in the attic.

I'm sure lots of vinylphiles own a CD or two, too.


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.


Damn right.


What do you mean by 'absolute terms'? It can't mean 'in every and all
conceivable ways', because that would be an impossible standard. There are
certainly some *objective* measures by which CD (the medium, not individual
CDs) outperforms LP (the medium, not individual LPs) ...dynamic range, S/N,
and flatness of frequency response over the audible range being three.





___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"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*.....

Achieved via introduction of distortions that some find pleasing.

Others might prefer to add such distortions or not, as an
*option*, not an inherent quality of the system.



*Sigh*....

If I had a penny for every time I've heard/read that old chestnut I could
afford the portable digital recorder I would like.....

In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"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*.....

Achieved via introduction of distortions that some find pleasing.

Others might prefer to add such distortions or not, as an
*option*, not an inherent quality of the system.

*Sigh*....

If I had a penny for every time I've heard/read that old chestnut I could
afford the portable digital recorder I would like.....

shrug

I canna change the laws of physics, cap'n.



--

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

In article .com,
wrote:
Previously you almost admitted the truth that vinyl can only sound better
than CD if the mastering of that CD was poor.


Listen dickwad, I've been telling the truth the whole way. That idea
prbably creeps out a dick head like you. The truth is with most titles
the superior mastering will end up being on an LP version.

Most? Most titles aren't released on LP.

I know this throiugh years of comparisons.

You must lead a sad life.

You are clueless when it comes to this.
But then you really don't care do you? "Music? What's that?" You're all
about geeky technical aspects of audio.Truth is in controled
comparisons of titles where there was no difference in the mastering
other than RIAA EQ for the LP and the proper A/D conversion for the CD
the LP still sounded more realistic than the CD.

Ah. More 'realistic' - but different from the master. You obviously love
second harmonic distortion. Say no more.

You have never made such comparisons. Your beliefs are faith based.

Oh, but I have. And base my views on what I and others whose opinions I
respect heard.

--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

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

In rec.audio.tech 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?


And if a recording exploits the full dynamic range of vinyl...does it have
as much DR as one that exploits the full dynamic range of Redbook, much less
one of the higher-bit digital formats?

Let us compare apples to apples, please...especially as YOU are the one
who keeps insisting on some undefined 'SOTA' spec.

If you want 'purist' recordings, in LP or digital, traditionally one
looks to classical, not pop recordings.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

In article . com,
wrote:
Perfectly possible to make the described recording without the use of a
mic pre-amp.

It's perfectly possible for you to say something intelligent butwhat is
possible and what likely are often very different things

So you've at least learned something? That it is possible to omit a mic
amp under certain circumstances?

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

You should be careful of pronouncing on things you have little
knowledge of.

You are right about this, I know very little about this CD that was
made with no A/D conversion. Maybe you can explain how it works?

I'd say that Don gave you the benefit of the doubt in thinking that you'd
realise a CD was digital. Obviously not since you think to tell the world
about this...

BTW, mics with digital outputs exist. But you'd not know that, would you?

--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees

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

In article .com,
wrote:
Only *some* people actually believe that vinyl distortions are "best"
though.
Others realise the best performance/mastering job are not unique to any
media.

People who care about the music do know this. Tell us some of your
wisdom on mastering. What mastering engineers do you think do the best
job on LPs and CDs? Give us some prime examples. C'mon, you too can
pull an Arny and do a google search. Heck while you are trying to put
up a front of knowing something about this subject you just may learn
something. about it

WTF cares who the engineers are? Only some anorak such as you, and those
in the business who may wish to employ them.

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

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

In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Keith G wrote:


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

I agree and it is the best way to enjoy CDs. However for all Plowman's
objectivist horse**** on the subject of LPs v. CDs he has never
followed the mantra and done such tests. For the record (no pun
intended) I have. My preferences are not a result of bias when it comes
to LPs and CDs.



Nor mine - I don't actively seek the Hard Way in anything in life, if I
could put up with CDs I'd listen to them, but I can't so I don't....


That explains the lazy reasoning you employ , I guess.

Anyway, I see elsewhere that you're a self-admitted troll, so I
guess I've wasted precious seconds of my life responding to your
posts. I won't make that mistake again. Welcome to my
killfile.





___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

In rec.audio.tech "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
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.

Oh that isn't a problem for incompetent engineers. However, to make an LP
sound as good as a well recorded CD is impossible. And that's the crux of
the matter.

Depends on what sounds 'good' to the listener. If you like the 'sound' of
the LP medium, then a CD won't ever sound as good as LP unless you
transfer the LP to CD (or develop a mastering scheme that replicates
that sound).



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Mr.T wrote:
"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 just tried your suggestion (vinyl better CD). Clearly I haven't been
through all 6m but the first few pages seem to be pointing to something
like a more enjoyable, realistic sound. Not unequivocal.


The arrogance of the digital bigots disallows the possibility that anyone
who thinks vinyl is/can sound more realistic than the *flatness* of CD
could
be right....

Hold on there, quickdraw. *Is* and *can sound* are two different claims.
And no one says a *preference* for a sound is right or wrong. The claimed
*reasons* for a preference could be.


Who needs to supply reasons for a preference....???



'Stereo' means solid - using two channels to create an illusion of
'solidity', space and depth is an aural illusion that is *far better*
achieved by vinyl, IME. I can prove this to myself any time I can be
arsed
to dig out a corresonding CD to certain LPs I've got.

Also 'far better' achieved, to some ears, by a multichannel reproduction.


Possibly (but not by mine) - there is no limitation on how many channels may
be employed to create a stereo image...




Whether or not CD has a lower noise floor or greater dynamic range is of
no
consequence to me - it simply does *not* sound better to me....

(Anybody don't like to hear that, then tough ****....)

You seem angry.


Not in the least - I've said it 20 million times he I couldn't care less
who likes/prefers what. All I don't like is when the digital bigots try to
(unsuccessfully) eradicate vinyl from this group as a valid 'audio' format.

I call them the Denial Boyz - they *hate* that!! :-)


Also, you're missing the point of this thread..which is that
a CD transfer of an LP could well capture all that 'realism' you like.
If you claim it *can't ever* do that, then it's time to explain why that
could be so.


You think so??

Interesting....




And you are in the best position to comment. But might your technical
certainties twist your listening experience? Because you know that CD
must
be better, do your prophecies self-fulfill?

I used to think the CD bigots bashed vinyl out of jealousy, having got
rid
of their vinyl (like so many did), but so many of them claim to still own
many LPs - presumably for the opposite purpose of digging out the
occasional
LP just to prove they still don't like 'em...???

Cover art, mainly. And a few that have never come out on CD, I've
transferred
from LP. But all of them reside in the attic.


Your problems are not my problems....



I'm sure lots of vinylphiles own a CD or two, too.


I suppose there are 5 or 6 hundred of them kicking about the place here - I
really ought to try and play some of them, sometime...



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.


Damn right.


What do you mean by 'absolute terms'? It can't mean 'in every and all
conceivable ways', because that would be an impossible standard. There
are
certainly some *objective* measures by which CD (the medium, not
individual
CDs) outperforms LP (the medium, not individual LPs) ...dynamic range,
S/N,
and flatness of frequency response over the audible range being three.


Are you new here or summat....??