Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Oh that isn't a problem for incompetent engineers. However, to make an
LP sound as good as a well recorded CD is impossible. And that's the
crux of the matter.

Depends on what sounds 'good' to the listener. If you like the 'sound'
of the LP medium, then a CD won't ever sound as good as LP unless you
transfer the LP to CD (or develop a mastering scheme that replicates
that sound).

An LP transcripted to CD using the finest equipment and the greatest care
still won't 'sound' the same to vinyl nuts. Their 'realism' comes from
watching the turntable go round and round...


Well when all your arguements are shot down this is all you have. Of
course you have to ignore simple facts infront of your face. When I
said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a 24/96 copy of that LP
did you..
1. not understand it
2. chose to ignore it because it violated your religious preconceptions
about vinyl enthusiasts.

Typical strategy of meter readers when all their arguments are laid to
waste. Just make **** up about the people you are arguing with and
point to that as proof you are right about everything. pathetic. maybe
you should search this post for typos and spelling errors so you can
feel better about your pathetic self.


Scott

wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a 24/96 copy of that LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem with digital recording
then. All we need to know now is whether you think you can hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave or so, where vinyl
fails miserably. After all the only other difference for 24/96 over CD is
dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)

MrT.

In article ,
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a 24/96 copy of that
LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem with digital
recording then. All we need to know now is whether you think you can
hear above 22 kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave
or so, where vinyl fails miserably. After all the only other difference
for 24/96 over CD is dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that!
:-)

Be interesting to know which LP Scott thinks would need 24/96 for a clone.
Perhaps CD-4...

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Be interesting to know which LP Scott thinks would need 24/96 for a clone.
Perhaps CD-4...

Not if they've been played a few times though. I wonder how many people
still use CD4 demodulators anyway?

MrT.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...
Be interesting to know which LP Scott thinks would need
24/96 for a clone. Perhaps CD-4...

Not if they've been played a few times though. I wonder
how many people still use CD4 demodulators anyway?

I know a few that say they have one or more that actually work.

Those that do, don't use them very often for the obvious reason.

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a 24/96 copy of that LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem with digital recording
then.

Finally? Did you "finally" pull your head out of your ass?


All we need to know now is whether you think you can hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave or so, where vinyl
fails miserably. After all the only other difference for 24/96 over CD is
dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)


Prove it.

wrote in message
oups.com
Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a
24/96 copy of that LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem
with digital recording then.

Finally? Did you "finally" pull your head out of your ass?


All we need to know now is whether you think you can
hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave
or so, where vinyl fails miserably. After all the only
other difference for 24/96 over CD is dynamic range
beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)


Prove it.

It is your claim to prove, Scott.

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a
24/96 copy of that LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem
with digital recording then.

Finally? Did you "finally" pull your head out of your ass?


All we need to know now is whether you think you can
hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave
or so, where vinyl fails miserably. After all the only
other difference for 24/96 over CD is dynamic range
beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)


Prove it.

It is your claim to prove, Scott.

You seem to be confused Arny. Mr.T claimed the following.
"All we need to know now is whether you think you can hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave or so, where
vinyl fails miserably. After all the only other difference for 24/96
over CD is dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)"

His claim his burden of proof.

Scott

wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a
24/96 copy of that LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem
with digital recording then.

Finally? Did you "finally" pull your head out of your
ass?


All we need to know now is whether you think you can
hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom
octave or so, where vinyl fails miserably. After all
the only other difference for 24/96 over CD is dynamic
range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)


Prove it.

It is your claim to prove, Scott.

You seem to be confused Arny. Mr.T claimed the following.
"All we need to know now is whether you think you can
hear above 22 kHz, and why it is more important than the
bottom octave or so, where vinyl fails miserably. After
all the only other difference for 24/96 over CD is
dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)"

His claim his burden of proof.


Not at all Scott. His comments were based on earlier claims that you
apparently now don't want to stand behind.

wrote in message
ups.com...
You seem to be confused Arny. Mr.T claimed the following.
"All we need to know now is whether you think you can hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave or so, where
vinyl fails miserably. After all the only other difference for 24/96
over CD is dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)"

His claim his burden of proof.

Happy to oblige if :

1. There was the slightest chance you would accept scientific facts.
2. There was the slightest chance you could understand them.
3. You tell us what DNR *you* think vinyl is capable of, and provide ANY
supporting evidence that it is more than CD is capable of, either wideband
OR narrow band.
(it's absolutely impossible of course, so I won't hold my breathe :-)

MrT.