Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Once again, more false information from the guy is supposed to be against false information posted by Analog Scott on April 17, 2017 at 11:47:01
Prove I'm wrong.
Then 'lossy' means what it says. The entire industry knows how poor analog recording is, why they gave it up...
"Prove I'm wrong."
Fine. since you made extreme assertion of "none" in each of your claims I will provide you with and example of 1 for each. There are more than that but 1 is all I need to prove you wrong.
"Then 'lossy' means what it says."
It says "lossy" here is what it means as applied to audio. "relating to data compression in which unnecessary information is discarded." absolutely inapplicable to vinyl.
"The entire industry knows how poor analog recording is, why they gave it up..."
You don't get to speak for the entire industry. Your steady stream of "false information" is quite ironic though given your original post.
These are not recording labels. There are a thousand labels in the world.
Analog recording is LOSSY -meaning the copies sound worse than the master, esp. LP !!
"These are not recording labels."
I only showed you one and yes it is a recording label. Again you assert "false Information.
"There are a thousand labels in the world."
There may be. I don't have a count and I bet neither do you. But what does that have to do with your assertion that is plainly "false information" that "no" classical labels record in analog? And this is just i by the way. There are others too. You asked me to prove you wrong and I did. Case closed.
Oh and did you read up on Abby Road Mastering? Proved you wrong there too. And they are the norm not the exception.
"Analog recording is LOSSY -meaning the copies sound worse than the master, esp. LP !!"
Sorry but you don't get to redefine the meaning of technical terms in audio. Once again you assert "false information."
Are you trying to be ironic? It's hard to imagine one being so ironic without doing it on purpose.
Analog Scott: One (unheard of) label is the same as none. Classical recording engineers know better.
Analog recording is lossy -ask any engineer. Been known for 100 years.
and it's getting boring.
an intelligent conversation with someone who consistently demonstrates a profoundly poor ability to understand the written word?
With (presumably a straight face?), he says this:
But then, LP seems to struggle (mechanically) with frequencies over 10 kHz (other link).
When the very next sentence in his reference clearly explains the highly qualified nature of the original statement. An earlier statement (which obviously he speed read over) even clearly refutes his ridiculous assertion before the quoted text was ever presented.
Why would anyone take this guy seriously?
Please, clear English..
"I" never said such thing, that was the *reference* I cited. It's a brief study but a study nonetheless.
You quote one sentence of a source out of context when the very next one refutes the conclusion you attempt to make!
It is the reference itself which refutes your ridiculous claim. Yet another painfully obvious point which continues to elude your *keen* senses.
Suggestion: When you read a source, read ALL the sentences. And then read them again. Especially the ones that follow to see if you've (yet again) clearly missed important information!
McFly? Hello! Is anyone home?
Get a life. The source I cited states that LP has mechanical issues with signals over 10 kHz. And that it's very hard for the format to reproduce over 20 kHz.
The other source was a pressing site that said 16 kHz should be the max. Yet we're told by Fremer, etc. that LP goes to 35-40 kHz. False information, the point of the thread.
You have certainly achieved that "point" over and over again. Well done...I guess........
I don't understand your reading challenge. Your conclusion:
The source I cited states that LP has mechanical issues with signals over 10 kHz
What you really find stated in the reference:
"Mechanically then, LPs cannot record much beyond 10 kHz without using a smaller-than-standard stylus .
May I suggest you consult a dictionary to understand the meaning of the word "without"? That references conical styli, not multi-radial ones. Why did you ignore the sentence that immediately follows to clarify the assertion?
In fact the cutoff of frequencies recorded today is around 24 kHz."
Do you really not understand the words presented?
Right -and I'll keep saying the same thing. It MUST have issues if we "need a smaller than standard stylus". Which many may not have. Can one stylus retrieve all frequencies without adding noise and distortion ?
Probably not -and that's why pickup is going optical. The old cartridges were no good.
The scarier thing was Sanders white-paper and the pressing site I linked. Too much noise and distortion over 15-16 kHz.
It MUST have issues if we "need a smaller than standard stylus".
You don't have the remotest idea what you're talking about. When all else fails, just make $hit up, right?
Multi-radials have been available for almost fifty years. I purchased my first, a Sonus Blue, in 1975.
The scarier thing was Sanders white-paper ...
It is scary. You likely don't have the remotest clue as to why his interconnect test I linked to is utterly bogus. He must be plain deaf if he cannot hear the difference between a 192kbs MP3 and CD quality. And claims that CD quality is like a mic feed!
Only your irrational posts are funnier. :)
Does everyone have multi-radial ? Then the article's conclusion (which you avoided): "frequency response varies drastically across the record".
As for Sanders, his interconnect-test was not bogus, only you say it is. And just listen to 192kbs and then CD. NO DIFFERENCE in sound quality.
His points on analog recording and digital playback were the reasons I cited it. But like the styli study, you avoid the big points and pick on the small ones.
you demonstrate more lack of understanding and dig yourself deeper with more untruths.
Does everyone have multi-radial ?
That question is irrelevant when discussing its performance envelope.
Then the article's conclusion (which you avoided): "frequency response varies drastically across the record".
Let's make $hit up, part deux! The words "varies" and "drastically" are nowhere to be found in Roger's unsubstantiated opinion piece . Most browsers have a built in search which can be quickly accessed using the CTRL F accelerator keys. Try it! Better still, try it the next time you get the impulse to post the next outright lie.
As for Sanders, his interconnect-test was not bogus, only you say it is.
And the reason I say that is that I have measured what happens when you attempt such as setup. As opposed to uninformed speculation on your part. The concept of a comparison is to be able to evaluate one DUT vs another independently and determine if either results in a difference. When you use a simple capacitance meter, what you find is that attaching two interconnects via a Y-adapter as the test requires sums the values of both cables as measured at the end of either one. Result? You end up "comparing" cables A+B at one end and, not surprisingly cables A+B at the other end. This - no comparison at all!
Here's cable A measuring 544 pF:
Here's cable B measuring 50 pF:
Here's cable B with the Y-adapter attached now at 88 pF:
Now what happens when you attach cable A to the other end of the Y-adapter, while continuing to measure the leads attached to cable B? You get 597 pF!
Since electrical interaction is beyond your level of understanding, think of comparing glasses of wine or soft drinks. This test is equivalent to pouring equal amounts of Wine A and Wine B in each of the two cups for evaluation. Why would anyone expect a perceived difference? His smug conclusion:
"After doing this test, you will discover that all the hype surrounding interconnects is just that. The fact is that all well-designed interconnects sound identical. Only poorly designed interconnects will reveal differences in sound."
only demonstrates ignorance, not insight.
And just listen to 192kbs and then CD. NO DIFFERENCE in sound quality.
I have several albums on LP, CD and 24/96 (or better) and have compared them extensively. While it may be true that you and Roger don't hear any difference, I'm along with countless others including many professionals who do.
Is vinyl perfect? No, it isn't. I find that digital offers better and more extended bass response vs Redbook. On the other hand, it excels at the top where the 1980 CD resolution fails.
Maybe one of these days, you'll begin to actually comprehend the technologies in question, what is truly written about them and avoid fabricating outright lies as to what folks are alleged to have said. Such pathological behavior is not missed by others here.
You said "multi-radials have been out for 50 years". But the majority don't have one. So it's VERY relevant -esp when discussing performance.
And it wasn't Sanders that said "response varies drastically", my other link did !!
You're dead wrong on 192kbs. Chat rooms are loaded with opinions *right in line* with mine and Sanders.
Your cable study is ignored because it's a red herring. Trying to get off topic. The measured performance of LP, not cables, is what scares the hell out of me.
and the technology.
And it wasn't Sanders that said "response varies drastically", my other link did !!
Fair enough. Let's look at the entirety of the assumptions made and the conclusions.
the frequency response varies drastically across the record, with much better response on the outer diameter (the start of the recording) than on the inner diameter (end of the recording)
That doesn't occur with linear arms and the amount necessarily varies depending upon the arm length and design. What is the assumed length?
Obviously, one will never know. Uninformed speculation applied to all designs by Norbert Schuch who is not a recording industry professional. Fail.
A couple of other things worth noting: if you have a stylus with a finer tip, you will get lower distortion at the expense of much higher pressure between the stylus and the record;
Now, we find that he assumes we're using a crude stylus shape. It's really easy to burn Straw Men, isn't it?
Chat rooms are loaded with opinions *right in line* with mine and Sanders.
I am in no way challenging your inability to hear what others do. :)
..."this doesn't occur (with this)", "if we use (that)". You're proving my point, LP is a mess. Improve one thing and harm another.
Common styli as noted.
this doesn't occur (with this)", "if we use (that)".
Aka, what is commonly used by experienced vinyl enthusiasts which you clearly are not.
We're not talking about one of these. :)
Common styli as noted
You had to look that up?
I've been using turntables for fifty years and have owned examples of every type. The difference being that I actually understand what all of that means. :)
So by your logic that means the CD format suffers from low dynamic range. Objective proof that vinyl is objectively superior. Well reasoned. Glad you finally saw the light of day on this subject.
Classical labels have a LOT MORE than that!!
But throw out the 'range' for a second, it's the sound quality of LP that scares me. This piece says CD can be 'compressed', but no audiophile label commits this crime.
The majority of CDs are not classical. By your logic that can't be ignored so CD suffers from poor dynamic range. "Common *CD* as noted." Thank you for making my point
If you're an audiophile, then you don't *care* about most CDs. Audiophile labels like Hyperion and Naxos have more dynamic range than LP, that is pure-fact.
There are thousands of CDs like this, 'classics today' (online) is a good place to start. You can get JRiver software to show the dynamic range.
This doesn't have to be hard (or confusing). It's guys like you and E-Stat that *make it* that way, with ad hominem attacks and red herrings. 'Ralph' completes the picture with pyscho-babble.
Like Jon Valin and Michael Fremer, trying to trick people into thinking that digital is flawed and LP is better.
"But the majority" aren't audiophiles. "So it's (common CDs) VERY relevant -esp when discussing performance." and common CDs have very limited dynamic range. So CDs perform poorly. LPs are superior. Your logic. Thank you for conceding the point
First, let's see the evidence that the "majority of CDs have 5db of dynamic range". It should count all releases since 1982.
But it doesn't matter anyway -as audiophiles, we have a choice of many thousands of albums with dynamic range of 70 to 90db.
Of course, you won't talk about LPs problems, but it's all over the internet. Here's another piece.
prove Im wrong.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: