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

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


Scott,

It is you how is making an idiot of yourself. The people you are
criticising have demonstrated their extensive knowledge of physics and
engineering on many occasions; all you are doing is parading your
ignorance for all those who have even a basic knowledge in these areas
to see.

Please either go and educate yourself in the subject or shut up.

Thanks.

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Mr.T wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Whatever - if you did start such a thread in a car group you'd also get
shot down unless you heavily qualified your opinion. Which is what
happens
here to all those who constantly harp on about how marvellous vinyl is
while knocking digital.

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?

Scott, Dick Pierce and Don Pearce are two different people.

Funny thing about the meter reders, they actualy do all sound th same.



Both are capable of laying your arguments to waste,


So they choose to make asses of themselves instead? Odd choice.


so perhaps
that's what's confused you.


I wasn't confused. Thank you for finally taking the bait. I had all but
given up on my punchline about all meter readers sounding the same.



Scott

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech 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 ... :-)

It rarely stops there...

But it has on this thread. Disappointed I bet. So gosh, if you can't
get someone to say what you want so you can attack it best thing to do
is just say it yourself and then attack it.



it's usually followed by some rather technically
dubious claims about analog and digital....often phrased as a report of
hearing things that digital 'can't do'. Originally it was digital, period,
but in the past half decade or so the scripture has been amended to allow
that 'hi rez' digital might, on a good day, sound as good as vinyl, but
16/44.1, heavens no, it can't sound as good as 'the best' vinyl played on
'SOTA' gear to 'golden ears', even if it's a CD transfer of an LP. Which
brings us back to this thread.


aw, c'mon you could do better than that can't you?






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.

I think it's nice if people understand the well-documented limitations of
'listening' as it is generally done..

"The limitations of listening." Good one. Thanks for a nother laugh.
Yeah if the meter readers can't corilate the numbers to the aesthetic
experience there must be something wrong with the aesthetic expeience.
That's about as backassward as it gets. in the world of meter readers
the perception must bend to meet the expectations given to them by the
measurements.


yet many vinylphiles seem less
interested in that than in promoting what they believe (often without basis)
are audible limitations of digital.


Maybe they are just looking for an explination for what they hear? As
if that is so terrible but attacking the perceptions as wrong because
they don't fit the meter reader's formulas is completely reasonable.


Scott

Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.

I think thre is something to this claim. I remember a mastering
engineer, I think it was Stan Ricker, saying that he often found the
LPs he mastered often sounded more lifelike than the original master
tapes even when he did a flat transfer with no processing. It stands to
reason that it would be the introduction of colorations that lead to
that effect. Now while the idea of distortion may bother the meter
readers because it makes for uglier numbers, for those who ar
interested in sound quality this shouldn't create a philisophical
dilema. Sounds better is better. It's a simple and pure philosophy.



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

I think that is great idea. Do you know of a program that does this
digitally?


Scott

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

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.

No, no one is required to have an explination for their perceptions.
You see that is part of the bull**** game. You demand an explination
for peoples' perceptions and when they offer a wild guess that has
obvious technical flaws you attack the whole claim via the explination.
It's ****ing shell game with you dorks. You don't like the aesthetic
perceptions when they don't line up with the technogeek meter readers
true love, the numbers.




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.


There you go. And you have no excuse Sully. You know that mastering is
an overriding factor.



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



Or several hundred.


Scott

Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.


Please do tell us how the claim that vinyl inherently sounds more life
like than CD in stereo playback violates any laws of physics.


Scott

Steven Sullivan wrote:
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?

IME the percieved dynamic range of Redbook and Vinyl at their best are
neck and neck. You can whine about how that doesn't fit the
measurements but again that would the classic scenerio of meter readers
damning the aesthetics becuase they don't meet thier expectations based
on the numbers. **** that. I'll always go with what I hear. That is
what I hear. 24/96? Whole different ball game. heard a 24/96 recording
of a live jazz ensemble on the Martin Logan Statements. Never heard any
LP or CD with that dynamic range.




Let us compare apples to apples, please...


I have all along. Please pay attention.


especially as YOU are the one
who keeps insisting on some undefined 'SOTA' spec.


There you go again. Can't get "specs" out of your head. um wher have I
refered to "some undefined 'SOTA' spec?"



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


Your point?



Scott


P.S. One can find some amazing purist recordings in pop music.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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?

I must be psychic, I predicted you didn't know squat about the subject.
Gosh who the **** cares about who mastered their favorite music?
Audiophiles that are in it for the enjoyment of music. You see dip****
if you know who is mastering your recordings and you have an idea of
the quality of their work it makes it easier to narrow down the likely
sonic winners and losers. But if you don't really give a **** about
sound quality when music is involved you have no need to check. Once
again you have been pegged.

Scott

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
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.)

Hey mr science dude. How on earth is the claim unbprovable? It's a
simple claim to test and it has been tested with vinyl coming out on
top.

Don't be silly. Your tests must be flawed in that they chose specific
examples to prove the point.

Wrong again Einstein. The examples chosen were chosen based on two
factors, SOTA recording and lack of diffeences due tomastering. Nothing
more nothing less.



You simply can't get round the fact that a double blind AB comparison
between a decent master tape - digital or analogue - copied straight to
both LP and CD with no 'mastering' other than making sure the maximum mod
isn't exceeded - will result in *anyone* hearing the difference reliably
between that master and the LP, but not between it and the CD.


Please cite any peer reviewed published results that support this
assertion.




You can wave your arms all you want but that reality will not
change.

You're the one doing the waving while drowning...


"I know you are but what am I."" I'm rubber and you're glue..." blah
blah blah. ****ing moron.


Scott

wrote in message
oups.com...

Maybe they are just looking for an explination for what they hear?

Explination??? what the hell is one of those!

Surely you mean "explanation"...