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.

geoff

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?


Scott

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

In article . com,
wrote:
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.

Previously you almost admitted the truth that vinyl can only sound better
than CD if the mastering of that CD was poor.

So program material is very much the issue.

So logically transferring a pristine LP to CD (without any 'mastering')
gives the best of both worlds - the distortions of the LP without the wear
problems.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
So logically transferring a pristine LP to CD (without any 'mastering')
gives the best of both worlds - the distortions of the LP without the wear
problems.

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

MrT.

In article ,
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
Only *some* people actually believe that vinyl distortions are "best"
though.

Indeed.

Others realise the best performance/mastering job are not unique
to any media.

There's no doubt of the trend to try and win the 'loudness war' with many
pop CDs, though. Something that has always bemused me.

I was first sort of aware of it many years ago when DAT took over from
cassette on the demo front. Demo cassettes were always peaked to maximum
(and beyond) with *some* justification, I suppose, given the often poor
quality of the replay equipment. But then exactly the same happened with
DAT when to the best of my knowledge no one produced a cheap DAT all in
one playback system to rival a simple cassette player.

--
*Acupuncture is a jab well done*

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

Mr.T wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
So logically transferring a pristine LP to CD (without any 'mastering')
gives the best of both worlds - the distortions of the LP without the wear
problems.

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



Scott

Mr.T wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
So logically transferring a pristine LP to CD (without any 'mastering')
gives the best of both worlds - the distortions of the LP without the wear
problems.

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



Scott

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

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. I know this
throiugh years of comparisons. 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. You have never made
such comparisons. Your beliefs are faith based.




So program material is very much the issue.

So logically transferring a pristine LP to CD (without any 'mastering')
gives the best of both worlds


No transfering LPs to 24/96 or higher rez formats is the logical thing
to do. That is my next project. Yeah I would much rather play digital
copies of my LPs that are indistiguishable from the LP. Funny, I
chimmed in only when some one on this thread claimed it was not
worthwhile because CDs were so much better.


Scott