Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
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. It seems quite
obvious that there is little interest in sound quality amoung the meter
readers when it comes to playing great music.

In fact I, and many others have readilly admitted there are some CD's out
there SO bad that the vinyl version is better. However a few pathological
examples of faulty mastering does NOT prove vinyl is better than CD for
anything other than the cover art!

A few? Well that's just further evidence that you are another amoung
the meter readers that think of music as a trivial artifact when it
comes to audio. Pleease tell us what LPs and CDs you havecompared and
what equipment you used and what were the specific differences you
heard? Anyone who cares about sound quality would have done a lot of
these sorts of comparisons to find the best sounding versions of their
favorite titles. I bet you are drawing a blank right now.


Scott

Mr.T wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
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.

I guess you have an interesting definition of "absolute terms" then, if S/N
ratio, distortion, wow and flutter, rumble, frequency bandwidth and
flattness etc. are all irrelevant.

Indeed. False claims are a different matter, though.

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


Scott

Mr.T wrote:
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?

LOL so what? Well there you have it. Another meter reader plays his
hand and tells us that for him music is indeed a trvial artifact of
audio rather than a focal point. SO WHAT?!?


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

Mr.T wrote:
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,

Absolute terms? LOL do you guys have something similar to a cross to
represent your religion? It would be nice if we can ID you guys from a
distance.


because the ONLY person in the world who has your
ears is YOU.

Oh, now there is a revelation. I suppose in your version of your audio
religion each individual has their own truly and completely unique
hearing? There is no common ground amoung humans when it comes to sound
perception? It's funny how you guys like to whine about the lack of
controled listening in audio yet very few of you guys really know jack
about psychoacoustics. But.... since I buy audio equipment and records
and Cds to please me...




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

Dude, since when did you have ANY say so as to what I am entitled to?



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

You thought wrong then!

Oh, well then do tell us about your experience in comparing the various
masterings of your favorite titles. I bet you have nothing to say about
it. Quick, do an Arny and google other peoples' views on the subject
then do a Howaard Ferstler and plagarize them.





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 :-) :-) :-)


Dude, I am posting on UK.rec,audio




Says it all I guess.


Um yeah, Says it all. I guess.



Scott

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

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



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?

So is that a no on the name drop?

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

I do? Examples? Quotations? You are full of ****.


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

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

Heaven forbid anyone express their opinions if they run
contrary to the meter rerader's religion. The irony is
justing piling up since it is the folks who did openly
criticize the results of CD sound that have been behind
most of the improvements in CD quality. Well we don't
want people speaking up or making improvements.


Name an improvement to the parameters of the CD format
that has improved CD quality.

I will just give you an example of one person's efforts.
http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf


Scott, I guess you can't tell the difference between an AES conference
paper, where almost anything goes, and a JAES article, which is refereed for
technical accuracy by a independent review board.

The cited paper is just a piece of self-aggrandizing puffery, replete with
name-dropping.

It actually describes no technical changes, let alone improvements, to the
CD format.

Well Arny, thanks for admitting you don't understand the advantages of
better A/D conversion and dither not to mention the use of better
cutting consoles. Figures.



Scott

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com
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.

If its true, its a consequence of artistic decisions, not technical
decisions.

It's about particular implmentations, not any technical limitation of the CD
medium.

But that's OK with dorks like you. So long as the technology gives you
a woody who cares if the music sounds like crap. Music just gets in
your way of your love of measurements.


Scott