"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley wrote:

A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the
CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the
CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code


When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing
plant? Was this something done in the early 80s?

I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally --
redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital
mastering.

I believe this was actually the early 90's, but he did say by then delivery
of analog audio to them was becoming less and less common. Still, he still
tends to avoid buying AAD CD's based on what he saw going on at the plant
since you can't tell from the AAD code who did the mastering from the analog
tapes.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley wrote:

A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he
understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the
CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the
CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code


When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing
plant? Was this something done in the early 80s?

I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally --
redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital
mastering.

I believe this was actually the early 90's, but he did say by then
delivery of analog audio to them was becoming less and less common.
Still, he still tends to avoid buying AAD CD's based on what he saw going
on at the plant since you can't tell from the AAD code who did the
mastering from the analog tapes.

Jeff

I always purchased CDs based on the quality of the music. The SPARS code was
irrelevant to me, but I always took comfort that if it said AAD, it meant
that the master tape ensured adequate dithering for the CD. :-)

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in
its audible sound quality than CD playback
equipment does. But your method eliminates that
variable completely, and the mastering decisions of
a commercial CD aren't a factor, either.
"
Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer
has managed two maxims from anecdote.
No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts,
and with a very considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts,
and with a considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements. The measurements need to be coordinated
with what is known about human perception of sound. This
has been done.

That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle
about supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you
shouldn't hear, makes the notion of 'audible' a problem
for dunces like me :-)

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
Properly stated they are findings of science that have
been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
to substantiate this?

Here's an example of some people who tried to collect their own data:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

The digital delay device being tested used the identical same data format as
audio CDs and was of professional grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD
player back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to time in more
modern contexts with identical results.


OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of
(incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to:

http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological
and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. The
bibliography is rather narrow and doesn't (of course) guide the reader
towards references. What made the inventor choose that method? It didn't
just come out of the air!

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.
That wasn't the point.
Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is
based on stimulus and perception. Perception is based on
the body's sensory reaction to stimulus and how the
brain processes those reactions. If you trace through
the steps, you find the most variations in how different
people's brains work.

Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

Robust fact.

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are
well-informed about sensation and perception.

I think you're steering towards a
rational/'nature'/positivist explanation. Nothing wrong
with that in itself, but you do understand there are
different ways of thinking about things?!

It seems to me that when a bunch of audiophiles and recording engineers
listen to high quality live and recorded analog sources and find that they
can't tell the difference between a short piece of wire and relatively
complex digital encoding and decoding in the signal path, a lot of heavy
philosophical thinking can be bypassed.


Of course - but it's obvious to anyone looking at those tests that it's
a pretty narrow respondent sample. To turn it round and say "Well, they
are the most qualified to comment" is IMO elitist claptrap.

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
Properly stated they are findings of science that have
been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
to substantiate this?

Here's an example of some people who tried to collect
their own data: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

The digital delay device being tested used the identical
same data format as audio CDs and was of professional
grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD player
back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to
time in more modern contexts with identical results.

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

In article ,
Rob wrote:


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain
English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me
by. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

"Keith G" wrote in message
news

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by Dr
Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here.

Frankly, I don't know why they're discussing (or I'm reading) an issue that
was already settled 25 years ago by anyone willing to accept the obvious
physical, mathematical and usability advantages of digital audio, instead
of, oh, I don't know, whether Western Civilization has the nerve to fight a
dangerous religious war to the death, or if we're in life-threatening
denial. At least we have our priorities straight. :-)

Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
news
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/
with an odd statement about methodology.

What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
Well, it's your ball :-)


What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by Dr
Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here.


Do you mean ontology and epistemology? They're common enough words when
discussing methodology - Arny started that ball rolling. I do tend to
agree that a lot of BS accompanies philosophical 'analysis'.

Frankly, I don't know why they're discussing (or I'm reading) an issue that
was already settled 25 years ago by anyone willing to accept the obvious
physical, mathematical and usability advantages of digital audio,

Agreed. But I didn't start it :-)

instead
of, oh, I don't know, whether Western Civilization has the nerve to fight a
dangerous religious war to the death, or if we're in life-threatening
denial. At least we have our priorities straight. :-)


I didn't start that one either!

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain
English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me
by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising -
you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more
than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained
('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set
about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and
the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I
know, roughly, thank you.

The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread.