In article . com,
wrote:
No, for those who care about music the crux of the matter is our
favorite music is issued in many cases on many formats and sometimes
many times in those formats Those various issues tend to all sound
different mostly because of the mastering.

At least you finally seem to understand something.

In most cases the best sounding version will be found on LP.

Bull****.

--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost?

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

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
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....

In fact you are free to *think* whatever you like, no matter how little
connection it has to reality.

MrT.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:27:47 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


wrote in message
oups.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 :-)


Do you mean a misere ouvert?

But the necessity of using a $100,000 turntable to compete (and lose)
against a $500 CD player was the really amusing part!


That would be a $50 CD surely?

d

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

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.

wrote in message
ups.com...
If we are talking about actual commercial CDs few of todays releases
have more then 20db dynamic range.

So true, but so what?

MrT.

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.

That says it all. The ears are wrong the test equipment is right.

Yes, in absolute terms, because the ONLY person in the world who has your
ears is YOU.

What you *think* is good is a PREFERENCE you are entitled to, nothing more.

Your
an official meter reader. Ever listen to music? I thought not.

You thought wrong then!

Anybody relying on their "ears" alone, should NOT be arguing anything in
a
*technical* forum!

This is a technical forum? You really are a ****ing moron.

The man claiming rec,audio.TECH, is NOT a technical forum is calling ME a
moron :-) :-) :-)

Says it all I guess.

MrT.

In article .com,
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.

Perfectly possible to make the described recording without the use of a
mic pre-amp.

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

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

So is that a no on the name drop?

Given you criticise those mastering engineers on near every front, why
would it matter?

--
*What boots up must come down *

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

On 2006-10-29, Geoff wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:
16 bits was an obvious choice because it's two bytes and provides a
sufficient degree of overkill. What you could also say is that not
for nothing was the early use and acceptance of 14 bit CD players,
when 16 bit converters were more difficult/expensive to make.

In fairness, I should point out, though, that the first generation
Philips '14 bit' chipsets for CD players actually used x4
oversampling. Thus - in principle at least - returned 16-bit
resolution.

Pray tell how oversampling increases resolution ? The reason for
oversampling was/is to make reconstruction filters easier to implemnt
without artifiacts of a steep slope. It's been a whil, have I forgotten ?

I have sometimes wondered about the Philips x4 upsampling DAC in early
CD players (I use "upsampling" here to distinguish from the use of
oversampling in the ADC case).

I assume (but have never looked for proof) that the conversion of a single
16-bit sample xx..xxYY (YY are the two LSBs) would be accomplished by
replacing the single 16-bit sample by four 14-bit samples as follows:

xx..xx00: xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx

xx..xx01: xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx+1

xx..xx10: xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx+1, xx..xx+1

xx..xx11: xx..xx, xx..xx+1, xx..xx+1, xx..xx+1

Or something similar. The DAC will effectively interpolate so the LSBs
are not lost. The noise floor will be right for 16 bits because of
the upsampling.

I wonder if the amplitudes of the preceding and succeding samples should
be taken into account to determine the right order of the +1s in the
interpolation? Probably not as I suspect the spectrum differences will
fall above the original Nyquist limit.

John
--
John Phillips

On 2006-10-29, Jim Lesurf wrote:
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?

Very interesting point. I was peripherally aware (in a former job)
of some work on the channel capacity of nonlinear optical channels.
However I never looked at the papers my colleagues were reading so I don't
know if they were relevant. They may be a good starting point, though.

Nothing else comes to mind.

--
John Phillips

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
But the necessity of using a $100,000 turntable to compete (and lose)
against a $500 CD player was the really amusing part!

That would be a $50 CD surely?

Yeah, that would win too :-)

MrT.