IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Scale the Summit's "Master" Fail, Ths is what we can expect now, I guess.
greynol
post Feb 25 2013, 01:57
Post #51





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (saratoga @ Feb 24 2013, 16:40) *
Given your premise, seems like you've got your means right there. Just show that its uncommon for records to contain a lower frequency range then CDs.

I'm not so sure it's that simple since >22.05 kHz content could have been added during the cutting and/or playback process (OT: as well as the appearance of increased dynamic range).

This post has been edited by greynol: Feb 25 2013, 01:58


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Feb 25 2013, 02:46
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 24 2013, 18:52) *
...
QUOTE
It could have been a CD that was less dynamically compressed though.

If so then it was still a CD, but all of a sudden it doesn't seem so bad now, does it?


I was just stating that it "could" have been a CD.

My entire thing is that IMO there's no reason not to use higher than Redbook until it goes to Redbook.

OT: I agree that DRC is a far more important than my complaints about using a Redbook CD-R to cut vinyl. I miss the Longbox-Days when purchase of a CD almost certainly guaranteed you got the best possible version of a current recording.


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Feb 25 2013, 02:59
Post #53





Group: Members
Posts: 4849
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 24 2013, 19:57) *
QUOTE (saratoga @ Feb 24 2013, 16:40) *
Given your premise, seems like you've got your means right there. Just show that its uncommon for records to contain a lower frequency range then CDs.

I'm not so sure it's that simple since >22.05 kHz content could have been added during the cutting and/or playback process (OT: as well as the appearance of increased dynamic range).


I don't know much about cutting, but wouldn't it be straightforward to check if the higher frequency content was:

1) Correlated with lower frequency content (e.g. harmonics of it, envelop tracks lower frequency, etc)
2) Not digitally filtered around the usual 19-21khz limit
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Feb 25 2013, 03:06
Post #54





Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



...this is all above my pay-grade laugh.gif

I couldn't be of any help with that but I'd be happy to know the findings regardless of whether I like them or not.


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Feb 25 2013, 04:24
Post #55





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 24 2013, 17:46) *
My entire thing is that IMO there's no reason not to use higher than Redbook until it goes to Redbook.

If feasible then sure, I can go with that. There may be simple reasons why vinyl may have been sourced from 44.1/16, like that was how the master was created or just "that's what we were given". If it comes to light that some vinyl title was sourced from redbook then I really must question how this is worthy of crying foul. Unless the vinyl is being sold as having been sourced from a higher resolution digital master, I don't see the harm.

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 24 2013, 17:46) *
I miss the Longbox-Days when purchase of a CD almost certainly guaranteed you got the best possible version of a current recording.

If I am to believe the most prevalent opinion on the matter I would not be so quick to assume that there was much care given to choosing the highest quality analog recordings for digitization back then.

This post has been edited by greynol: Feb 25 2013, 06:41


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Feb 25 2013, 12:44
Post #56


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5059
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (db1989 @ Feb 22 2013, 22:59) *
If you’re referring to the admitted shortcomings of CDDA on the level of format (not quality), those are very unlikely to matter anyway with a very recently created disk that has been treated carefully. I can’t imagine any other problem with this, other than perhaps a purely aesthetic perception that it’s weird to have to rip a CD in order to create a template from which to press other CDs.
I'm sure it happens. I recall some band releasing a compilation of rare tracks where the ripping errors were very audible, and having to go back and fix it. I'm sure many digital streams are/were created by ripping CDs (sometimes badly).

However, it is not what I would deliver, and not what I would want to take delivery of. Why put your faith in a somewhat error-prone process, when more robust processes exist, and can be delivered on the same 10p medium?! I'll tell you why: because some of the people involved are clueless. It would be naive to think they were clueless about this, but knowledgeable about every other step of the process, don't you think?


No harm in wishing the recording industry would be more careful than it really is.


As for 16/44.1 not being enough to master vinyl - there was a great discussion on the Steve Hoffman forums with the guy who mastered the new Beatles vinyl from 24/44.1 masters, saying why they didn't go back to the 24/96 versions (those versions hadn't been "fixed" and approved by the Beatles/partners), and why there was no need to (can't cut those higher frequencies anyway).

Here's a question though: knowing that the master is 16/44.1, 24/48, 24/96 whatever, and having some belief that "formats numerically better than 16/44.1 are audibly superior", why the heck would you be badgering the recording company about how it releases the vinyl? Surely far better to badger the record company to just sell you the digital master.

Cheers,
David.

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Feb 25 2013, 17:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Feb 25 2013, 13:42
Post #57





Group: Members
Posts: 3647
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 24 2013, 19:19) *
QUOTE (GeSomeone @ Feb 24 2013, 18:09) *
QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 23 2013, 01:22) *
@greynol: I know you'd love to hear that records are cut with CDs.

This actually happens all the time. And so much for those who say the vinyl sounds better. (well it may sound different, but that's another subject).


Please attempt to demonstrate this. Cite some examples or tell us of your credentials or whatever.


+1 to greynol's comments and qualifications.

Thanks for snubbing me stubby and trying to cherry pick experts. I happen to be a professional recordist who has been working with church and educational groups for decades. I still remember the days of vinyl. I've been in and out of mastering and vinyl cutting facilities since the days when vinyl is all we had. You are clearly inconvenienced by my personal knowledge of this matter.

Historically, LP's have been cut from the best recordable media available which has outperformed LPs technically for decades. Before digital it was 2 track 15 ips analog tape which is very definitely a sub-CD, near-CD format.

Anybody who has hands-on technical experience with vinyl knows what a technical POS it is compared to the CD format. Just buy the best test LPs ever made and play them on a SOTA or near-SOTA playback system. Measure the performance of the signal you get off of the vinyl, pulling every technical string you know how to pull. Everybody's results are in the same ball park. Vinyl is pretty nasty.

Compared to any old CD you randomly or intentionally burn, the LP format is pi$$. It's got relatively massive amounts of just about every kind of distortion known to man. If you think that jitter is problem with digital, you ain't seen nuttin' until you see what LPs do. It's about 3 orders of magnitude worse. There is a reason why nobody does technical tests on LP playback systems, and that's because the results are so horrific as numbers.

Frankly, most of us techies who had to live with it for decades have been mystified about how bad the LP was and it still sounded pretty good. It wasn't until we learned about masking, and what you could get away with in perceptual coders (e.g. MP3) that it became clear that as bad as the LP format's technical failings are, the ear is generally accepting of them because of their nature. We similarly demsytified the widespread angst with SS and digital with DBTs. We basically found that decades of familiarity with vinyl had made us believe that everything had a characteristic sound (vinyl playback equipment strongly tends to be this way) and audibly corrupts sound quality (vinyl playback equipment strongly tends to be this way). This was also true of analog tape and tubed equipment. It is still true of loudpeakers and rooms, but not amplifiers and digital players. All that becomes clear when you control natural systematic and human bias in listening tests.

This post has been edited by Arnold B. Krueger: Feb 25 2013, 13:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Feb 25 2013, 14:07
Post #58





Group: Members
Posts: 3647
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (saratoga @ Feb 24 2013, 20:59) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 24 2013, 19:57) *
QUOTE (saratoga @ Feb 24 2013, 16:40) *
Given your premise, seems like you've got your means right there. Just show that its uncommon for records to contain a lower frequency range then CDs.

I'm not so sure it's that simple since >22.05 kHz content could have been added during the cutting and/or playback process (OT: as well as the appearance of increased dynamic range).


I don't know much about cutting, but wouldn't it be straightforward to check if the higher frequency content was:

1) Correlated with lower frequency content (e.g. harmonics of it, envelop tracks lower frequency, etc)


Some of it is, but that doesn't answer the question of whether it was added by the massive nonlinear distortion that is inherent in vinyl production and playback or was there in the original source. Vinyl playback at high frequency has a number of inherent sources of nonlinear distortion. The largest and most intractable source of this distortion is geometric, and due to differences in the operation and geometry of cutting styli (which are sharp edged) and playback styli (which are round or at least rounded). Deflection of the vinyl as it attempts to overcome the effective mass of the stylus tip is a probably the next major source of both linear and nonlinear distortion.

Interestingly enough laser playback was reasonably well perfected by ELP and avoids some aspects of these problems but turned out not to take the vinyl world by storm even as a tool for professional transcription technicians. Two of its problems were its inability to clear dust from the groove and distort the groove like a playback stylus would. In the latter days of vinyl cutting analog computers were sometimes used to pre-distort the cutting waveform to linearize the playback process. The inherent problem with that is that any such predistortion technique had to presume a standardizes playback stylus which never actually came to be.

QUOTE
2) Not digitally filtered around the usual 19-21khz limit


Most LP's from the days before digital mastering and production became the rule were made by playing back a 2-track 15 ips analog tape. The playback of most such tapes have a fairly gritty ca. 24 KHz brick wall filter that is due to the width of the gap of the playback machine. This cut-off takes the form of a deep null at the frequency where an entire wave fits across the playback head's tape head gap which is between the pole pieces and usually about as narrow as it can be reliably made and kept clean enough to function. The null repeats every so many Hz as integer wavelengths span it. Obviously the amplitude and phase irregularities due to this process reflect downward into the audio range but no more than an octave.

While analog tape can be far more accurate than LP playback, it too is a very nasty land compared to the much-maligned Redbook CD.

This post has been edited by Arnold B. Krueger: Feb 25 2013, 14:17
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
almostmitch
post Feb 25 2013, 16:28
Post #59





Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 27-November 12
From: Cincinnati
Member No.: 104798



but I like Scale The Summit..
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Feb 26 2013, 04:00
Post #60





Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Feb 25 2013, 06:42) *
...
Thanks for snubbing me stubby and trying to cherry pick experts. I happen to be a professional recordist who has been working with church and educational groups for decades. I still remember the days of vinyl. I've been in and out of mastering and vinyl cutting facilities since the days when vinyl is all we had. You are clearly inconvenienced by my personal knowledge of this matter.
...


I can assure you that, in spite of those little "dot,dot,dots" I used to shorten the quotation, I read your postings in their entirety.

Regarding your first sentence that I quoted; I have no idea what that even means. Was I cherry-picking experts? The only "expert statement" I had to quote was that of the record company in question. Seems appropriate to me.

I am not "clearly inconvenienced by (your) personal knowledge of this matter." I was inconvenienced by the completely uncalled for and condescending manner in which you replied. I'm past that now...it's ok.

Speaking of your personal knowledge (heretofore unknown to me) where in all of that irrelevant and immaterial reply about how bad you think vinyl is can I find your anecdotes about how often a Redbook CD-R has been used for pressing vinyl?

You even quoted another member saying with regards to pressing from such a source "This actually happens all the time. And so much for those who say the vinyl sounds better. (well it may sound different, but that's another subject)."

"This actually happens all the time" is a pretty sweeping statement and I called bullshit. You can +1 Google-style all day long but until someone can back such a statement up it remains in the realm of bullshit from someone who said it always happens as if they know. I reasonably asked for any credible indication that this is true in the face of what little I have from just one record co. that claims otherwise. Nobody has even attempted to back it up. ...until such time as one can reasonably demonstrate this then bullshit it is.


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Feb 26 2013, 04:21
Post #61





Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Feb 25 2013, 05:44) *
...
As for 16/44.1 not being enough to master vinyl - there was a great discussion on the Steve Hoffman forums with the guy who mastered the new Beatles vinyl from 24/44.1 masters, saying why they didn't go back to the 24/96 versions (those versions hadn't been "fixed" and approved by the Beatles/partners), and why there was no need to (can't cut those higher frequencies anyway).

Here's a question though: knowing that the master is 16/44.1, 24/48, 24/96 whatever, and having some belief that "formats numerically better than 16/44.1 are audibly superior", why the heck would you be badgering the recording company about how it releases the vinyl? Surely far better to badger the record company to just sell you the digital master.
...


Hi, David.

You raise some good points and I would love to read the discussion on the Beatles vinyl. I don't really read the Hoffman forums unless a Google-search sends me there for something. I wouldn't have crapped myself if they said they were mastered from 24/44.1. I'm surprised they even told anyone that. To me it just seems amateurish and lazily inept to not do the best we can. If that's the best they had then people should accept it. It would be better than constantly rolling out some really old master tapes that have probably degraded quite a bit by now. Digital is great and I don't sit around pining for the days when I couldn't clean up a needle-drop with such precision as I can on my computer now smile.gif I would really hate to go back to taping records to play in my Walkman or car.

I would badger record companies to sell me the digital master for certain albums. I think that would be fruitless and they would find such a request strange TBH. ...especially in the days of file-sharing and such I think they'd be hesitant to release "more" than CD or vinyl versions. (Whatever "more" means...could be 24/48 or "less-limited" rather than post DRC. Whatever.)

Remember the Woods of Ypres sample I uploaded in that last thread I posted about Vinyl vs. CD masters? I love that album and would love the master for it but it would be nearly impossible to get as the singer/mastermind has sadly passed on. The gatefold 2 x LP is literally the best version you can get. I own three copies of it on vinyl (one unopened) plus the CD (which I donated to my daughter's collection. I actually discouraged her from getting into vinyl because I felt it would be a bigger pain in the arse than what she'd be willing to deal with.) I digitized it and it sounds fantastic "even" as a Redbook CD-R. biggrin.gifI kept it at 24/96 in case I want to dick around with it some more in iZotope RX2 or Audition.

...anyway my point is I highly value a great-sounding edition of any album I think highly of. And I will pay sometimes more than once smile.gif OTOH: I can often settle for the CD or iTunes release if it's not available on vinyl or I just don't care as much. (Edit: and yes I sometimes get a really bad LP that sends me after the CD to replace it. Bad-pressings are nearly non-existent on CD. No IGD either if the company was too cheap to put an album over forty minutes or so on more than one vinyl.)

This post has been edited by Engelsstaub: Feb 26 2013, 04:27


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Feb 26 2013, 06:31
Post #62





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Reminds me of a boss I had, VP of Marketing and International Sales (I was a project engineer with design responsibilities), he would often beligerently say to my team, "I don't understand it, but I don't like it." This reminds me of him.

If he wasn't responsible for my job, I would have never bothered to explain anything to him; I wouldn't have bothered with him at all. It's pointless trying to explain something to someone who has his fingers in his ears because he doesn't like what you have to say. Truth, for some, can be an inconvenient thing.

The final word about the masters for this most recent Beatles release on vinyl by those responsible was that it doesn't matter. It would appear that they can't be asked to concern themselves with people who feel that viewing spectral graphs enhances their listening pleasure.

This post has been edited by greynol: Feb 26 2013, 08:38


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Feb 26 2013, 10:55
Post #63


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5059
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 26 2013, 03:21) *
To me it just seems amateurish and lazily inept to not do the best we can.
In cases where there's a chance of creating an audible improvement, or avoiding an audible degradation, I agree with you. But where do you stop? 192kHz? 384kHz? 1MHz? DSD? DSD-Wide? Even more bits and samples per second?

Not to mention wink.gif that all this obsession with sample rates can be used as an excuse to get everything else wrong and still claim you've done a really great job.

I can still remember the day when most people accepted CD as the peak of audio reproduction. I have plenty of CDs from back in the day, and honestly some of them are still about as good an example of 2-channel audio reproduction as you could wish for.

I'm willing to accept that in some circumstances there just might be some audible failing with 16/44.1, but good grief, at the very worst the magnitude of this hypothetical failing is orders of magnitude less than what so many people claim it to be.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Feb 26 2013, 13:13
Post #64





Group: Members
Posts: 3647
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 25 2013, 22:00) *
"This actually happens all the time" is a pretty sweeping statement and I called bullshit.


Call it what you will.

It is clear that you have even less reliable information to share than we have.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Feb 26 2013, 15:37
Post #65


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5059
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



These samples...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=685550

...first posted here...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=683458

...include very high quality transfers of vinyl, which (to some extent) let you evaluate their source during/before the vinyl cutting process. As I said in that thread...
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jan 26 2010, 13:17) *
...on the Enya one, you can clearly see it was mastered from a 44.1kHz digital recording, because there's nothing above 22kHz.

...even more interesting when you consider that at least some Enya recordings were recorded and mixed in 24/48 (not 44.1).

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Feb 26 2013, 21:41
Post #66





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



FWIW, I just updated this post with an example of audible distortion on an lp digitization not present on a digital download from the same section of audio.


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Feb 26 2013, 23:43
Post #67





Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Feb 26 2013, 06:13) *
QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 25 2013, 22:00) *
"This actually happens all the time" is a pretty sweeping statement and I called bullshit.


Call it what you will.

It is clear that you have even less reliable information to share than we have.


Again, sir I beseech thee: Where. Is. Your. Information?!

"It's clear" that I have some response from record labels. The only thing you've made clear was your OT-musings on how bad vinyl is. Paragraphs upon paragraphs of it (...per usual.) Only David has recently attempted to offer even one example of a record probably sourced from 44.1.

Maybe a record label's response on what they do could be unreliable...it's possible. The sweeping unchecked bullshit about how pressing from 16/44.1 "happens all the time" (followed by "because vinyl sucks!") went completely unqualified. ...by the poster, by you, and anyone else. Now you're just talking crap for the sake of argumentation and "the last word." Give me your examples.


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Feb 26 2013, 23:48
Post #68





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 24 2013, 20:40) *
AFAIC, opinions about what constitutes professionalism from a non-professional should be dismissed.


As a general statement? C'mon.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Feb 26 2013, 23:50
Post #69





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Yawn.


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Feb 27 2013, 03:44
Post #70





Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



QUOTE (Porcus @ Feb 26 2013, 16:48) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 24 2013, 20:40) *
AFAIC, opinions about what constitutes professionalism from a non-professional should be dismissed.


As a general statement? C'mon.


The same could be said for a member posting tripe about how something "happens all the time" in the professional music industry...while never citing their own credentials or any indication that it ever does.

That's acceptable, but a response from a a professional at a record company is not wink.gif Then we resort to "if I only had a nickel for every person in the record business who didn't understand digital audio as well as the average HA contributor..." ...in the same post even.

Apparently nobody's an authority on this matter unless the conclusion is "vinyl sucks anyway!" (...or the aforementioned "average HA contributor.")

This post has been edited by Engelsstaub: Feb 27 2013, 03:47


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Feb 27 2013, 04:04
Post #71





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 26 2013, 18:44) *
The same could be said for a member posting tripe about how something "happens all the time" in the professional music industry...while never citing their own credentials or any indication that it ever does.

Arny has a long history as a professional in the audio industry. He doesn't owe you anything.

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 26 2013, 18:44) *
That's acceptable, but a response from a a professional at a record company is not wink.gif

According to whom?

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 26 2013, 18:44) *
Then we resort to "if I only had a nickel for every person in the record business who didn't understand digital audio as well as the average HA contributor..." ...in the same post even.

In the same post?!? Now I know you're just making shit up.

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 26 2013, 18:44) *
Apparently nobody's an authority on this matter unless the conclusion is "vinyl sucks anyway!" (...or the aforementioned "average HA contributor.")

No, the point is that redbook is more than an adequate delivery format for standard two-channel vinyl from the only standpoint that matters: an audible one. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

This post has been edited by greynol: Feb 27 2013, 04:06


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Feb 27 2013, 04:48
Post #72





Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 26 2013, 21:04) *
QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 26 2013, 18:44) *
The same could be said for a member posting tripe about how something "happens all the time" in the professional music industry...while never citing their own credentials or any indication that it ever does.

Arny has a long history as a professional in the audio industry. He doesn't owe you anything.

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 26 2013, 18:44) *
That's acceptable, but a response from a a professional at a record company is not wink.gif

According to whom?

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 26 2013, 18:44) *
Then we resort to "if I only had a nickel for every person in the record business who didn't understand digital audio as well as the average HA contributor..." ...in the same post even.

In the same post?!? Now I know you're just making shit up.

QUOTE (Engelsstaub @ Feb 26 2013, 18:44) *
Apparently nobody's an authority on this matter unless the conclusion is "vinyl sucks anyway!" (...or the aforementioned "average HA contributor.")

No, the point is that redbook is more than an adequate delivery format for standard two-channel vinyl from the only standpoint that matters: an audible one. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.


I can not properly quote all this so please read my responses to each of your answers above as indicated point-by-point each indicated numerically.

1. Of course he doesn't owe me anything but he surely does if he wants to participate in the discussion without just being a flamer with nothing on-topic to contribute but how bad vinyl is at reproduction. He hasn't given me anything so it's a moot point. If he's an industry professional he very well could have regaled me with all the times he saw a record pressed from a CD. He chose not to. Needs to STFU if he's not going to do anything but argue off-topic. You're a mod FFS. You could start acting like one again even if you don't wike me or wike vinyl.

2. According to you. See the next point.

3. You again. I'll quote you in full with my own emphasis: "AFAIC, opinions about what constitutes professionalism from a non-professional should be dismissed. The final point that audio CDs must be ultimately sourced from 44.1/16 is self-evident, though one could and should argue that HDCD should be sourced from something with a higher bit-depth assuming a red-book cd-r submission wasn't already encoded this way (realistically it won't be, though I doubt this even applies to this specific instance).

Lastly, (and this isn't addressed at anyone in particular other than the OP who I know is still reading this discussion) if I only had a nickel for every person in the record business who didn't understand digital audio as well as the average HA contributor... "


Now I know, even though you constantly edit your posts long after non-mod users can, you can't remember anything you previously spouted when you start getting blinded by your nerd-rage saying people are "making shit up." You can't even be bothered to review your comments anymore.

4. Feel free to demonstrate that CD-R is used to press vinyl all the time, as you let agreeable members bullshittingly post unmoderated due to the fact that you reek of bias and lose all of your objectivity when it comes to a subject like this.

I started the topic and know what the point is...and it's not "Redbook is Good Enough (or Not.") My question was (now read carefully lest you think I'm making shit up again) is this the norm for pressing vinyl in the recording industry?

...seriously greynol: consider stepping down if you can't moderate this forum without prejudice. You're seriously slipping below even the most obnoxious non-mod posters here (and yes I can be obnoxious.)


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LithosZA
post Feb 27 2013, 06:18
Post #73





Group: Members
Posts: 186
Joined: 26-February 11
Member No.: 88525



Personally I don't care if anything was sourced from 16bit/44.1Khz. It doesn't make any difference in audible sound quality so why worry?
What I DO care about is the DRC. If the music is mastered at high dynamic range compression then...that is unprofessional which means I think most music today is done unprofesionally biggrin.gif
Even 24bit/96Khz won't help that. Sadly some people think 24bit/96Khz is better, but it will sound just as sh**.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Feb 27 2013, 06:25
Post #74





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



@OP:

Sigh.

My comment that the record industry has some people who are even more kooky than you appear to be is hardly unfounded. But to misconstrue this as meaning nothing offered up in this thread by people in the business is nothing short of laughable, and I mean of the snorting variety.

So I'll ask you again, plainly, who said a response from a professional at a record company was not acceptable? You've rattled off on this more than once and now it's time for you to get called out on it. What will come next from you, that it was said but magically edited away as if it never happened? Yes, it's a great conspiracy.

Until you can demonstrate the audible harm of creating vinyl from redbook, your entire premise is essentially based on nothing. Records may or may not have been pressed from redbook, even redbook from audio cd-r. Aside from your hollow belief that it shouldn't be this way, please explain why anyone interested in audible sound quality should care.

This post has been edited by greynol: Feb 27 2013, 07:54
Reason for edit: Added "@OP:". Feel free to pretend I said or didn't say all sorts of other stuff for whatever may or may not be convenient for your narrative.


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engelsstaub
post Feb 27 2013, 07:35
Post #75





Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 16-February 10
Member No.: 78200



QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 26 2013, 23:25) *
Sigh.

My comment that the record industry has some people who are even more kooky than you appear to be is hardly unfounded. But to misconstrue this as meaning nothing offered up in this thread by people in the business is nothing short of laughable, and I mean of the snorting variety.

So I'll ask you again, plainly, who said a response from a professional at a record company was not acceptable? You've rattled off on this more than once and now it's time for you to get called out on it. What will come next from you, that it was said but magically edited away as if it never happened? Yes, it's a great conspiracy.

Until you can demonstrate the audible harm of creating vinyl from redbook, your entire premise is essentially based on nothing. Records may or may not have been pressed from redbook, even redbook from audio cd-r. Aside from your hollow belief that it shouldn't be this way, please explain why anyone interested in audible sound quality should care.


Seriously greynol: I think it's admin intervention-time or something. Get a different mod in here because as I already amply demonstrated, you absolutely reek of an irrationally one-sided bias and confrontational attitude that defies the definition of moderator.

What's "laughable" is that you proclaimed that I was "making shit up" and I demonstrated that I was not and now you're playing more games.

Me: (Speaking of sweeping BS statements you refuse to moderate) That's acceptable, but a response from a a professional at a record company is not wink.gif Then we resort to "if I only had a nickel for every person in the record business who didn't understand digital audio as well as the average HA contributor..." ...in the same post even.

You: In the same post?!? Now I know you're just making shit up.

Me quoting you from the same post: "AFAIC, opinions about what constitutes professionalism from a non-professional should be dismissed...if I only had a nickel for every person in the record business who didn't understand digital audio as well as the average HA contributor... "

...very plain who's full of shit before you made me quote it two or three times. But hey: my times of no value either wink.gif

Yeah, you can keep playing it like this wasn't your cheap-assed way of trying to discredit an actual quote from an actual insider in the business because it's the only one in the entire thread. Nobody else has crap except for "This happens all the time and BTW vinyl sucks anyway!" IS THIS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? You and Arny here are backing it up as truth. Demonstrate or go home.

I do not have to explain to you why you should care about whether LPs are cut from CD-Rs or not. If you don't care than f___ off and let me speak to anyone that does. Your incessant need to butt in and bully regular posters, through typical snark and condescension, on topics in which you admit you lack interest is ridiculous. ALL of it. ...especially in light of the fact that you can't even moderate the most obvious BS statements because, even though they're ridiculously over-the-top and untrue, they agree with your own prejudices. You've made it perfectly clear to me and everyone else here in the past few years that you don't like vinyl. Cool. I even accept that yours and Arny's are good reasons not to like it. What's not cool is that you're such a zealot that you feel this need to keep harassing people about a medium you despise even after you've very plainly shown yourself to be full of ten times the very "shit" you accuse someone else (not even a GD moderator) being ful of.

As to whether I should demonstrate whether there is audible harm creating vinyl from CD: IRRELEVANT. There may be no harm in it but I, and the one professional I've spoken to thus far in the recording industry, would like it done from a better source since it's more than feasible. Now go ahead and pick at the word "better" instead of keeping this on my topic (because Lord Greynol has license to shit in others' threads if he doesn't like the subject matter.) Why don't you go ahead and demonstrate it since you're the one hung up on it? I just wanted to know what the norm is...but hey: tell me what I can talk about. Better yet, have a conversation with yourself and I'll just read.


--------------------
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2014 - 19:26