Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Dude, you are the idiot that said " There is NO mastering on that
recording. It went to CD EXACTLY as it came from the mics."
Did you not know that exactly what came from the mics was an analog
signal? Did you not know that what goes into a CD is a digital signal?
Your words dude. Your stupidity. Don't expect others to clean up your
mess.

The second sentence qualified the first. Which referred to mastering. And
would be plain to anyone with a reasonable command of the English
language. Ie, obviously everyone *else* reading this group, since you're
the only one not to understand what was meant.

Once again you show us what an idiot you are when it comes to
mastering.

Scott

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

you really are a ****ing moron. obviously this is only in regards to
titles that have been released on both formats dip****. **** you are
stupid.



I know this throiugh years of comparisons.

You must lead a sad life.


Not at all. I'm living my dream. But I can see how searching for the
best sounding versions of one's favorite music would seem sad if you
don't give a **** about sound quality when listening to music.



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.

Did I say that? Did you hear that in your comparisons? Stop shilling
your presumptions as fact dude. you have never compared an LP that has
been mastered on SOTA cutting equipment with no manipulation to the
signal to the master tape. You're ****ng clueless.


You obviously love
second harmonic distortion. Say no more.

Oh it's second order harmonic distortion. Get your meter reader myths
straight dude. We are not talking about tube amps dip****.




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

Oh, but I have.


Bull****. but do tell us about those comparisons. What titles? What
versions of those titles? What eqipment was used? How did you control
your anti-vinyl bias?


And base my views on what I and others whose opinions I
respect heard.


Yep meter readers all sound the same. Can't think for themselves.
Anything different confuses them and makes them angry.


Scott

Chris Isbell wrote:
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.

huh?

The people you are
criticising have demonstrated their extensive knowledge of physics and
engineering on many occasions;


Oh, it is matter of knowledge in the fields of physics and engineeing
that determine one's ability to make calls when it comes to one's
aesthetic experiences. Yeah right.


all you are doing is parading your
ignorance for all those who have even a basic knowledge in these areas
to see.

Knowledge? Like what? The ridiculous claim that all LPs were mastered
with summed bass and HF roll off? Dude, you've been suckered. sorry if
pointing these things out is so painful.



Scott

Mike Coatham wrote:
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"...

I do and don't call me Shirley. Yep my spelling sucks and I make a lot
of typos. Some people seem to think it means the meter readers are
right about CD v. LP sound.



Scott

wrote in message
oups.com

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

The Dynamic Range of Disc and Tape Records. D. W. Gravereaux, A. J. Gust,
and B. B. Bauer, JAES V18(5) pp 530-5 October 1970

Performance Characteristics of the Commercial Stereo Disc. J. Eargle, JAES
V17(4) pp 416-22 August 1969

Psychoacoustics, the Determining Factor in Stereo Disc Distortion. J. E.
Jacobs and P. Whitman, JAES V12(2) pp 115-23 April 1964.

wrote in message
ups.com

I must be psychic, I predicted you didn't know squat
about the subject. Gosh who the **** cares about who
mastered their favorite music?

People who obsess over nits. Most people pay a lot more attention to who
made their favorite music.

Audiophiles that are in it for the enjoyment of music.

No, they are mostly gear sluts. People who are in it for the enjoyment of
music obsess over music, not the equipment they play it on.

You see dip****

Ongoing meltdown noted.

wrote in message
ps.com
Chris Isbell wrote:
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.

huh?

Note your multiple meltdowns.


The people you are
criticising have demonstrated their extensive knowledge
of physics and engineering on many occasions;

Oh, it is matter of knowledge in the fields of physics
and engineeing that determine one's ability to make calls
when it comes to one's aesthetic experiences. Yeah right.

What you like relates to the aesthetic. How things work is a matter of
physics and engineering.

all you are doing is parading your
ignorance for all those who have even a basic knowledge
in these areas to see.

Knowledge? Like what?

Say the peer-reviewed papers that have been posted here that say that the LP
format has audible distortion and noise.

The ridiculous claim that all LPs
were mastered with summed bass and HF roll off?

Straw man argument. Excluded middle argument.

In fact just about every LP has been mastered with summed bass and HF
rolloff, but even without those, they still playback clearly audibly
different from the master tapes or other audio source used to make them.

wrote in message
oups.com


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

Please read and understand:

The Dynamic Range of Disc and Tape Records. D. W. Gravereaux, A. J. Gust,
and B. B. Bauer, JAES V18(5) pp 530-5 October 1970

Performance Characteristics of the Commercial Stereo Disc. J. Eargle, JAES
V17(4) pp 416-22 August 1969

Psychoacoustics, the Determining Factor in Stereo Disc Distortion. J. E.
Jacobs and P. Whitman, JAES V12(2) pp 115-23 April 1964.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Even just making an adequate high speed analog tape master for cutting the
LP is mission impossible.

Not a problem any more since there is no need to make an analog tape master.
You can feed the cutting lathe from a digital recorder :-)
Now where's the specs on the cutting lathe though :-(

MrT.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
That would be a $50 CD surely?

$39 or less in the USA. ;-)

Pretty much the same thing here. $1AUD = 75 US cents. In fact CD players can
be had here for $20AUD = $15 USD, but the reliability tends to be a bit
dodgy, even if the sound quality is better than vinyl :-)

MrT.