WCFine

---------------- On 12/8/2004 7:11:16 PM meuge wrote: I don't understand what we're arguing about. We agree that CDs are a more accurate method of delivery. On the other hand, we agree that redbook 44.1Khz CDs are inadequate, because even a frequency of 11Khz (which is very audible) is only sampled 4 times/second when recording at 44.1KHz. The answer to this is very simple -> DVD Audio (and less so with SACD) with a 192KHz sampling rate (where an 11KHz tone is sampled more than 17 times/second) and 24-bit depth, which allows for a much wider dynamic range than either CDs or vinyl can handle well. I think that the reason we're still arguing is because some of us have not yet realized that it's the terrible mastering of CDs and SACDs/DVD-A disks that gives digital a bad name. Some of the best modern music is compressed to mush. I have a CD by Keane - "Somewhere only we know", where the mean dynamic range of the 1st track is an AMAZING 2.91dB!!!!!! On the other hand, one of the tracks on Coldplay's "Parachutes" CD has a mean dynamic range of 15dB and the mean dynamic range of Bach's Double Violin Concerto that I have is over 24dB. Because LPs have a much wider dynamic range on average, they may sound better, in addition to the inherent benefits of continuous analog sampling that we have already discussed. The only way for digital technology to sound better is for the technological advances to actually be UTILIZED. What's the good of having a 100+ dB theoretical dynamic range of a DVD-A disk, if the mean dynamic range of the recording is 5dB! ---------------- Thank you! Hallelujah! WCF

---------------- On 12/8/2004 6:57:04 PM dodger wrote: ---------------- On 12/8/2004 6:47:20 PM WCFine wrote: Frederick Fennell died yesterday at his home. He was 90 years old. Thank you maestro. WCF ---------------- May his soul rest peacefully and the music that he brought to fruition be long remembered. Rest Peacefully, Maestro, the baton has passed to other hands. dodger ---------------- Thank you for your kind words. WCF

---------------- On 12/8/2004 6:37:37 PM sfogg wrote: "So am I to understand that you, like many, subscribe to the fallacy of "Golden Ears"." How do you get that from my post? You are making very big stretches... " I was simply trying to point out how vociferous and frenzied many people today react when confronted with the prospect that just because something is "old" it need not be suspect and in need of upgrade or replacement with the new and better incarnation, and that my friend is naive. That is all. " You are posting this on a message board where many are big supporters of speakers that were designed over half a century ago.... Shawn ---------------- You are changing the subject yet again. I acquiesce to your enlightenment. WCF

Frederick Fennell died yesterday at his home. He was 90 years old. Thank you maestro. WCF

---------------- On 12/8/2004 5:28:34 PM sfogg wrote: "I am merely making observations of fact" This statement is an observation of fact? "If you think digital beats LP hands down even in theory you must be deaf. " Or: "It never ceases to amaze me the reluctance in todays people to acknowledge the superiority of old technology. In this case 100 years old." Sure looks like nothing more then an opinion to me. "anecdotal subjectivity is science" Actually they were controlled double blind listening tests and the subject under test was Ivor Tiefenbrun who if you don't know is the director of Linn and designed things like the highly regarded LP12 turntable. He failed to identify when there was an A/D and D/A chain in his equipment. "It is beyond me to imagine how anyone can be so pretentious as to base points of debate upon what other people said they did or did not hear, and expect to be taken seriously." Said from the guy that also said.... " Much study and testing was done a few years back to answer the question, do record club discs sound as good as store bought. The results were very interesting and proved yet again that the widely held belief that bits is bits is unfounded and naive." Shawn ---------------- Yes, I know of Ivor. So am I to understand that you, like many, subscribe to the fallacy of "Golden Ears". That insecurity is the basis upon which all hi-fi marketing is founded, as well as an inordinate bulk of the ink spilled in the audio press. Secondly, as of this posting, I have not yet provided you with the study. You must be assuming that it supports what you perceive as my position. You might be suprised. Blind testing, A/B testing etc. etc. etc. has been as hotly debated as tube vs. transistor, push-pull vs. SET,and so on, and is an equally frivolous waste of time. Of course I have my opinions and preferences, I am human. But I do not see the point, regardless of which camp one may find himself in, to make proclamations with regard to a technology and equipment that is subject to, and flawed by immeasurable variables and compromises. For the third time, FROM BEGINNING TO END! "It never ceases to amaze me the reluctance in todays people to acknowledge the superiority of old technology. In this case 100 years old." What is wrong with this statement, it is most certainly true? Today's media driven culture, in general frowns upon anything that isn't new and improved, digital or new millennium. I was simply trying to point out how vociferous and frenzied many people today react when confronted with the prospect that just because something is "old" it need not be suspect and in need of upgrade or replacement with the new and better incarnation, and that my friend is naive. That is all. WCF

---------------- On 12/8/2004 1:17:22 PM sfogg wrote: "but that is not a scientific basis on which to make the ridiculous statement that the format is fundamentally less accurate." How about the interchannel phase errors in the format? What about the need for the music to be dramatically EQed (20x the power at some points) for the format to store the music and then have the inverse of that EQ applied on playback to overcome fundamental limitations in the storage ability of the format? What about the inability from most playback to track stereo bass properly? This is so bad most mixers took to mixing bass in mono to work around this limitation. Etc..etc... "Much study and testing was done a few years back to answer the question, do record club discs sound as good as store bought. The results were very interesting and proved yet again that the widely held belief that bits is bits is unfounded and naive." You are arguing for preference which is not the question at hand. If a CD spits out the bits that were put into it it is an accurate delivery system. Period... end of story. You are stuck in the common audiophile supposition/myth that just because you like/prefer something it therefor *must* be the most 'accurate' or have the 'least distortion.' That simply isn't the case. Some of what gives vinyl its pleasant playback isn't in spite of its inaccuracys... it is directly because of them. There have been tests done where an A/D and D/A stage were put into the middle of an analog playback system and very outspoken analog supporters were tested to see if they could determine when the 'digital' was in the middle of the chain vs. when it was bypassed. That they failed to be able to hear the difference again points to the accuracy of digital. Shawn ---------------- One can not dismiss the damage done from the very beginning of the chain, simply to support an over simplified view of the virtues of what is obviously your preference. I clearly acknowledged that both are merely facsimiles of the real time event and are both therefore flawed. I understood the debate to be to what degree. Now you are extolling the strenghs of the mechanism encountered by the end user, but in fact, you are merely defining the differences between digital and analog, ie: the LP vs. CD. I am not stuck in any supposition/myth. I am merely making observations of fact. If I am, and I am not, arguing my preference as you accuse, then what exactly is your point? You said, "That they failed to be able to hear the difference again points to the accuracy of digital", you also state,"some of what gives vinyl its pleasant playback isn't in spite of its inaccuracys... it is directly because of them". You can't be serious, anecdotal subjectivity is science when it supports your obvious bias but in the other incident is used to explain away those sort of fuzzy thinking LP fans as conosseurs of impulse noise and even order distortions. You are the one that sounds like the "audiophile". It is beyond me to imagine how anyone can be so pretentious as to base points of debate upon what other people said they did or did not hear, and expect to be taken seriously. WCF

---------------- On 12/8/2004 11:03:48 AM Allan Songer wrote: Give your brain a chance! It can filter out most of those pops and clicks! ---------------- You are right about that. Impulse noise inherent in the medium may obscure information on some discs or when played with certain cartridges for example, but that is not a scientific basis on which to make the ridiculous statement that the format is fundamentally less accurate. Much study and testing was done a few years back to answer the question, do record club discs sound as good as store bought. The results were very interesting and proved yet again that the widely held belief that bits is bits is unfounded and naive. I will try and locate my print copy of this and will post. WCF

As a delivery format CD is far more accurate then vinyl. A person may not like what is being delivered but like I said earlier that is another issue entirely. Shawn Delivery format? They are both a rotating disc encoded with data. Far more accurate? According to and measured against what, the live event, the all powerful master tape? One methodology suffers only electro- mechanical limitations, the other the damage derived by at least two deconstruction reconstructions of only a sample of the real time event. All improvements in digital are made after the fact , not unlike tone controls with regard to flaws in frequency response.It never ceases to amaze me the reluctance in todays people to acknowledge the superiority of old technology. In this case 100 years old. WCF

---------------- On 12/7/2004 2:40:55 PM paulparrot wrote: We're well acquainted with the concept of tens of thousands of errors per CD, albeit corrected before we hear them. With easy digital analysis tools, one can check errors of a burned CDR against its source. Because of the nature of analog, particularly the LP, it seems to me that it gets a free pass on this score. But if we'd consider it an error whenever a stylus in a groove is not tracking absolutely precisely perfectly and failing to recreate the changes of the waveform absolutely precisely perfectly, wouldn't it be fair to say that there might be millions of small errors per side? Depending on what degree of approximate perfection you're shooting for, it seems like it'd be fair to say that the entire side of a record is a continuous error! When playing a record we're listening to an approximation of the recording, analogous to it, not a perfect display of it. Based solely on accuracy, it seems to me that a quality digital recording must win hands down. ---------------- The digital is a not so perfect display, as well as merely a sample, of a not so perfect display. The LP is at least a complete not so perfect display. There is no real accuracy with either, if you think about it, but the LP trumps digital as it is more complete by definition to begin with. If you think digital beats LP hands down even in theory you must be deaf. WCF