Pristine: RVW's 1958 Symphony 9 première + Mitropoulos' "A London Symphony", NBC SO, 1945
Andrew Rose
VAUGHAN WILLIAMS Symphonies 2 and 9
Pristine Audio PASC 234
http://www.pristineclassical.com/LargeWorks/Orchestral/PASC234.php
Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent
NBC Symphony Orchestra
conducted by Dimitri Mitropoulos
Recorded in 1958 and 1945
Special thanks to Lewis Foreman for these transfers from his private
collection
XR remastering by Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio, February-June 2010
Cover artwork based on a photograph of Vaughan Williams
Total duration: 77:50
©2010 Pristine Audio.
* VAUGHAN WILLIAMS Symphony No. 9 in E minor (World Première)
Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent
Royal Festival Hall, 2nd April, 1958
Sample: http://tinyurl.com/PASC234 - First movement
* VAUGHAN WILLIAMS A London Symphony (Symphony No. 2)
NBC Symphony Orchestra
conducted by Dimitri Mitropoulos
Studio 8H, New York, 9th December, 1945
--
Andrew Rose
Pristine Classical: "The destination for people interested in historic
recordings..." (Gramophone)
Andrew Rose
All-Digital transfer of Sargent's RVW 9.. wrote:
> Newly released to-day!
>
> FREE WAV / FLAC files of:
>
> * VAUGHAN WILLIAMS Symphony No. 9 in E minor (World Première)
> Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
> conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent
> Royal Festival Hall, 2nd April, 1958
>
Ooops, missed this: "Direct digital CD transfer from MiniDisc" - so it's
compressed then. What's the point of offering it in WAV and FLAC?
And why not spend your time putting out something else, rather than
running spiteful spoilers? Wherein lies your grudge?
ansermetniac
<and...@pristineaudio.com> wrote:
>Ooops, missed this: "Direct digital CD transfer from MiniDisc" - so it's
>compressed then. What's the point of offering it in WAV and FLAC?
Yes , compress it some more. You sound like the morons in the Beatles
news group
Abbedd
Andrew Rose
> "Wherein lies your grudge?"
>
> Dunno - like to think of it as being an off-beat sense of humour!
> Anyway.....
> You see....
> As TheMusicParlour takes an interest in your output - it did occur
> that the 'tape' found in Mr Foreman's 'potting-shed' might not be too
> hot (and, likewise, could've been another *cassette* tape...one cannot
> fail to notice the 'source material' isn't properly specified..).
FWIW The Foreman material was open reel and included (a) the FM
rebroadcast, and (b) copies of the 1958 BBC transcription discs sent out
for overseas re-broadcasts. Both were supplied to me on uncompressed
CD-R. I gather Mr. Foreman's 'potting' shed, as you put it, is in fact
the store where he keeps a large collection of rare (and otherwise)
music recordings.
>
> Now - suggesting that there is 'no point' in offering (gratis) an
> 'uncompressed' FLAC / 16Bit WAV of an Atrac 3 (292kbps) MiniDisc is
> rather naughty..as those methods are far more accurate-to-the-source
> than offering an mp3 dubbing of the material.
> All in all - the MiniDisc - digitally transferred onto CDRW - then
> EAC'd onto Audacity - really is going to be 'more accurate' than what
> you offer.
Why? Your offering has an upper audio frequency ceiling of about 13k and
looks quote heavily digitally compressed, unlike the Foreman source
which is uncompressed and extends upwards a further 3kHz, includes the
original announcements, and is coupled with the Mitropoulos.
It strikes me that rushing to put this recording onto your blog within
minutes of its release on our site - which hadn't seen any new output
for nearly three weeks and is headed "no new posts for the time being",
was not exactly conceived as an act of pure philanthropic generosity
carried out in the more general interests of music lovers.
Your previous responses here to our release announcements leads me to
believe that you gain some kind of pleasure in pouring scorn over what
we do. Fair enough - though I don't personally appreciate it, you're not
the only person here who acts in this kind of way towards others who
post here. I just hope we're not going to see spoilers like this rushed
out whenever we issue a recording which just happens to exist in your
own collection, as I hope you have better things to do with your time.
ansermetniac
<and...@pristineaudio.com> wrote:
>
>Pristine Classical: "The destination for people interested in historic
>recordings..." (Gramophone)
A turd is not a turd if it is British
Gramophone
The SRO is a Community Orchestra
Gramophone
The oboe and clarinet in Mr. Klemps Gran Partita are not pathetically
hilarious
Gramophone
Andrew Rose is not the biggest charlatan in the business
Gramophone
The fortes in Andrew Roses's masterings will not deafen your dog ,
kill your plants and shred your drapes
Gramophone
There is not a parrot that will refuse to shit in his cage lined with
Gramophone
Gramophone
Gerard
> Hi There!!!
> It was YOU who described the RVW9 tape as being found in Mr Foreman's
> 'shed'......
>
> Re: the MD frequency-range/digital compression.....
> Your R2R copy (@ what speed/quality of tape condition/set-up?) comes,
> as mine, from the 'later FM' TX - which is a) limited to a max 15kHz
> b) is subject to 'Optimod' digital compression (not to mention other
> digital circuitry in the TX chain).
>
> If your "renowned writer, musicologist and expert on British classical
> music" was able to have supplied you a CD-R direct from the FM
> transmission it could be (ever-so..) slightly 'better' than my
> MiniDisc..(which, however, isn't limited to '13kHz..) *but it wasn't*.
> So: A Load of Old 'Eyewash' and Red-Herrings - **as per usual**.
>
> What you really don't like is 'competition' for your, invariably,
> over- priced (and over-processed) inflated-ego 'productions'.
> But..do you apologise to Decca for 'ripping-off' material that they've
> issued on CD just a few years previously (with claims that your
> dubbing from Geriatric LP is 'superior' to their master-tapes)??
>
> As to me 'pouring scorn' on your stuff...I'll point-out that I've
> 'pointed-out' a vast number of 'errors' in the claims/statements you
> make here/on your site - which I put down to your general lack of
> knowledge..
>
> I would also point out that, over a 20month blog period, my 'spoilers'
> have amounted to scarcely more than *50minutes* recording time...
> One side of Galliera/Respighi (you didn't include the other) Weldon's
> 'In the South' (most folks wouldn't want Ripley's 'Sea Pictures) + the
> EP 'Handel/Elgar (I also included the other side) - and That after my
> having previously uploaded the Weldon/German 10" LP...
>
> Then there's the Mengelberg/Beethoven (a claimed 'best seller' of
> yours - so, presumably, my 'popular' upload hardly diminished your
> 'earnings'..??) - when I had Already made some dubbings - but it was
> taking a long time to remedy the defects..which you then stated I
> hadn't attempted to do - and that my LP transfer was
> 'defective' (sounded f...ing better than your 224 mp3 'sample').
>
> "your blog..which hadn't seen any new output for nearly three weeks
> and is headed "no new posts for the time being"..
>
> That's right - I've decided to re-prioritize my time - so less of it
> iscurrently being devoted to the blog. However, if you read recent
> 'comments' I did mention I'd make the occasional upload before re-
> instating regular uploads..& the next is likely to be a delayed-from-
> last-year of the 'Chorale Populaire de Paris' ('Commies') founded in
> 1935 in 6 otherwise unavailable (?) 1936 recordings from superb pre-
> war French Odeon 78s - in time for Bastille Day.
>
> Any objections??
> You've got 10days to find them in someones 'potting shed' (or
> yours..)...and get-out your ambient stereo 'spoiler'..
Ah!
The good old days of St. Arthur and the Warlords of The Round Disc, fighting
against the Compressors and other Devils of the copying re-Masters!
Anna Bergqvist
> The SRO is a Community Orchestra
>
> Gramophone
Are not all orchestras community orchestras? The size of the community
does not matter.
ansermetniac
<sku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Are not all orchestras community orchestras?
No.
Abbedd
Gerard
Indeed.
Besides: "Uncle Ernie said the NBC was the best orchestra he ever conducted.",
wrote Ansimaniac earlier today.
Maybe, if one is used to a community orchestra like the SRO ....
Anna Bergqvist
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 04:50:30 -0700 (PDT), Anna Bergqvist
>
I'm sorry, I didn't ask my question very well. The OSR serves the
community of Geneva, yes? The New York Philharmonic Orchestra serves
the community of New York, and so on. I think to be a community
orchestra is not an insult.
ansermetniac
Community Orch has a connotation of its own. Non-paid . Poor
performance. Made up of those who are amateurs in the community
Abbedd
Anna Bergqvist
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see. But many amateur musicians are very good, aren't they? They
play because they love what they do, and not for money.
Gerard
I see. Something like Community Liberator, or Community Chief Engineer.
Anna Bergqvist
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think maybe I should wait and come back when I am a little older.
Gerard
You could also try to read in the archives about the best designer in The Music
World since the last 45 years who has revolutionized The Industry and The World.
Maybe you can even find the story "The Giant with a CV".
After reading that you are already "a little older" ;-)
Anna Bergqvist
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am thirteen. I think maybe I would be too old if I had to read all
that first :)
Hejdo
Rugby
>
> I am thirteen. I think maybe I would be too old if I had to read all
> that first :)
>
IF you were actually 13 , you should not be reading this ng at all,
and your parents would do well to place restrictions.Even most adults
in the World dont read this ng.
Rugby
Gerard
In that case it's a too long story to tell now.
It even could be wasting time, because you must have much more important things
to do at such an age.
To give a synopsis:
Ansimaniac is The Giant & Legend the World has been waiting for since the
invention of Musical Instruments.
After he has perfectionalized the World, he has spent all his "life" on
Liberating the Music from the Audio, resulting in some kind of CDs with
inaudible Music (of his Maestros of course) on it.
He says that it has been written in Stone. (I suppose he has a stone with his CV
on it.)
Gerard
As you read here, there are no restrictions for kids under 12?
Anna Bergqvist
My parents give me a lot of freedom but I didn't know about an age
limit. I shall go now.
Gerard
In that case - can we expect you back tomorrow ;-?
Anna Bergqvist
>
> - Show quoted text -
No.
Allen
or not you continue to red this ng, please continue your love for and
interest in serious music; it will reward you in many ways over the many
in front of you.
Allen
Gerard
> Anna Bergqvist wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 2:44 pm, Rugby <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 3, 8:31 am, Anna Bergqvist <skua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I am thirteen. I think maybe I would be too old if I had to
> > > > read all that first :)
> > > IF you were actually 13 , you should not be reading this ng at
> > > all, and your parents would do well to place restrictions.Even
> > > most adults in the World dont read this ng.
> > >
> > > Rugby
> >
> > My parents give me a lot of freedom but I didn't know about an age
> > limit. I shall go now.
> Anna, you have shown more maturity than either abbedd or Gerard.
Really?
If it is about "showing maturity" in this newsgroup, what's your point?
(As you have made clear: age does not count.)
Ward Hardman - why lobotomy is still legal in the USA
It's hard to take seriously a businessman who regards competition as
'spoilers'. I thought your big selling point was fake stereo and
patent-leather reprocessing with added vitamin K. So why are you
afraid that someone whose Megelberg you said would be noisier than
yours will 'spoil' your efforts?
Ward Hardman - why lobotomy is still legal in the USA
> Then there's the Mengelberg/Beethoven (a claimed 'best seller' of
> yours - so, presumably, my 'popular' upload hardly diminished your
> 'earnings'..??) - when I had Already made some dubbings - but it was
> taking a long time to remedy the defects..which you then stated I
> hadn't attempted to do - and that my LP transfer was
> 'defective' (sounded f...ing better than your 224 mp3 'sample').
This is true.
>
> "your blog..which hadn't seen any new output for nearly three weeks
> and is headed "no new posts for the time being"..
>
> That's right - I've decided to re-prioritize my time - so less of it
> iscurrently being devoted to the blog. However, if you read recent
> 'comments' I did mention I'd make the occasional upload before re-
> instating regular uploads..& the next is likely to be a delayed-from-
> last-year of the 'Chorale Populaire de Paris' ('Commies') founded in
> 1935 in 6 otherwise unavailable (?) 1936 recordings from superb pre-
> war French Odeon 78s - in time for Bastille Day.
>
> Any objections??
My only objection is to the suggestion that you may be doing less
uploads. Of course, it's your time and life and so on, but don't
suppose that your work is not appreciated. It is.
Anti-Troll-01
"lobotomy" and emailing from
<battyboyward(AT)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> [snip]So why are you
> afraid that someone whose Megelberg you said would be noisier
"Megelberg"???
ILLITERATE!!!
-Anti-Troll-01
ansermetniac
TheMusicParlour gives-away an All-Digital transfer of Sargent's RVW
9.." <tin...@ymail.com> wrote:
>Out of interest I've just run a frequency analysis of my uploaded
>MiniDisc recording of RVW9 (nearly 60 downloads, in under a day..).
>http://themusicparlour.blogspot.com/2010/07/malcolm-sargent-rpo-vaughan-williams.html#more
>
>Andrew Rose: "Your offering has an upper audio frequency ceiling of
>about 13k and
>looks quote heavily digitally compressed, unlike the Foreman source
>which is uncompressed and extends upwards a further 3kHz",
>
>I placed the cursor on (what might well not be the highest frequency
>recorded overthe 31minutes..) - which shows it reaches @ that point
>(04.30 - 04.45min) 14,376Hertz - with the T55's somewhat
>'unsuppressed' 19kHz pilot Tone seen in graphic detail (the graph is
>expandable to full screen size).
>
>This tends to suggest that the 'ancient' R2R recorder has some
>distortion components @ higher frequencies (in fact substantial
>distortion would be present throughout the range in various electrical/
>mechanical parts..) - thus I consider the MiniDisc to be more accurate
>(although the original recording is obviously compressed) to the
>frequency-range of the broadcast signal.
Whoever you a e, you talk a good show but you are as clueless as Rose.
Of course, I would know that.
Now everyone else does excluding the other clueless wanna be
acousticians of RMCR
Abbedd
Chief Acoustical Engineer of the most innovative corporation in the
History of the acoustic part of the Music Industry
Juan Rey
> On 02/07/2010 18:06, Quelle Surprise! TheMusicParlour gives-away an
> All-Digital transfer of Sargent's RVW 9.. wrote:
>
> > Newly released to-day!
>
> > FREE WAV / FLAC files of:
>
> > * VAUGHAN WILLIAMS Symphony No. 9 in E minor (World Première)
> > Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
> > conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent
> > Royal Festival Hall, 2nd April, 1958
>
> > @ http://themusicparlour.blogspot.com
>
> Ooops, missed this: "Direct digital CD transfer from MiniDisc" - so it's
> compressed then. What's the point of offering it in WAV and FLAC?
With that, all possibility of taking Rose seriously disappears. It
ought to have done when he was caught misrepresenting transfers on his
website, and it ought to have done simply because of his bs fake
stereo and ott marketing crap, but suggesting that compromised
transfers won't suffer by being compromised further shows him to be
not just lazy and unprincipled, but a complete ignoramus and idiot.
ansermetniac
Marketing can get you only so far
Abbedd
Christopher Webber
>"Radio 3 FM is bandwidth-limited to 15 kHz, with DC filtering applied.
>The FM signal has dynamic range compression applied via an Optimod
>processor. The signal is NICAM encoded at 676kbps and fed to the FM
>transmitters via the BBC's distribution network. No further bandwidth
>limiting is applied".
>.
>Yet Lewis Foreman's 'Holy Grail' R2R tape of the RVW9 allegedly is
>extending to, at least, 16kHz....
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see the point of quoting BBC
R3's (disgraceful!) bandwidth limitation for digital broadcasts, when Mr
Foreman's 1958 tape is by definition an analogue source - presumably (as
Mr Rose tells us) with a broader dynamic range.
Just about the only drawback about today's high-quality, hiss-free R3
broadcasts, is that we don't get the same dynamic clout and range that
we got with our good old FM tuners.
--
___________________________
Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK.
http://www.zarzuela.net
Kevin P. Mostyn
Actually, FM audio was not limited in upper frequencies until the
introduction of the Zenith/GE FM Stereo system in 1961. I have many
recordings made from FM in the 1950s, with frequency response
extending beyond 20 kHz.
Even when FM Stereo was introduced, the typical low pass filter in the
stereo generator was an analog filter with a hinge point at about 17
kHz, with sharp rolloff above that. Brick-wall filters were not cheap
to make in the analog days.
The Optimod is a popular audio processor used in many radio stations
around the world, designed by Bob Orban, who is based here in San
Francisco. I use dozens in my group of 50 radio stations. However,
Orban didn't invent the compressor/limiter. Such devices were in use
in the 1930s, even by the BBC, who designed their own.
There is a series of articles discussing the history of audio
processing (alas somewhat America-centric) beginning with:
http://www.thebdr.net/articles/audio/proc/proc-hist.pdf
Kevin Mostyn
(still in a career of more than 40 years in broadcast engineering)
___________
My real e-mail address is my first name at my last name dot com
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 00:54:12 -0700 (PDT), frankwm
<frankw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>FM has always been 'bandwith limited' to max 15kHz; the later
>Broadcasting House digital transmission chain didn't alter that
>parameter...as you can't have the FM frequency-range reaching the
>Pilot Tone (19kHz) itself - with it's associated sidebands (clearly
>seen on my graph).
<snip>
Christopher Webber
was going on frequency-wise with BBC transmissions in the 1950's and
beyond - fascinating stuff!
Kevin P. Mostyn
landlines, but I would imagine that they were very high.
In the U.S.A., the AT&T standards for stereo landlines were quite
good. The design specs required the individual channels be routed via
the same path, in order to minimize phase anomalies. The frquency
response was 50 to 15 kHz, within a tight range, and the channel to
channel difference was quite small. The final test involved summing
the two channels to mono, within again very tight specs, as this would
reveal any phase or frequency anomalies between channels. Signal to
noise ratio was good, yielding about a 70 dB dynamic range. Any
audible noise could not be coherent, i.e., no crosstalk perceivable as
speech or tones was permitted.
Kevin Mostyn
___________
My real e-mail address is my first name at my last name dot com
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 02:20:51 -0700 (PDT), frankwm
<frankw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yes - showing 'my age' by not recalling that the 19kHz Pilot Tone was
>associated with the introduction of stereo broadcasting !
>However, the BBC transmission chain (ie from the RFH) would, in those
>days, (and indeed when I began listening via a Leak Stereofetic FM
>tuner in Nov.71) be via GPO landline - which would be frequency-range
>limited (and subject to phase anomolies when needing two for stereo).
<snip>
Romy the Cat
>
> - Show quoted text -
Juan, it is difficult for me disagree with you. I was a vocal and
persistent supporter of an idea that the dirt like Rose shall be run
over by asphalt press. The idiots like him has been destroying the
industry for years.
weary flake
> On Jul 4, 12:29 pm, Juan Rey <bad_king_j...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 2 July, 23:32, Andrew Rose <and...@pristineaudio.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 02/07/2010 18:06, Quelle Surprise! TheMusicParlour gives-away an
> > > All-Digital transfer of Sargent's RVW 9.. wrote:
> >
> > > > Newly released to-day!
> >
> > > > FREE WAV / FLAC files of:
> >
> > > > * VAUGHAN WILLIAMS Symphony No. 9 in E minor (World Première)
> > > > Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
> > > > conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent
> > > > Royal Festival Hall, 2nd April, 1958
> >
> > > > @ http://themusicparlour.blogspot.com
> >
> > > Ooops, missed this: "Direct digital CD transfer from MiniDisc" - so it's
> > > compressed then. What's the point of offering it in WAV and FLAC?
> >
> > With that, all possibility of taking Rose seriously disappears. It
> > ought to have done when he was caught misrepresenting transfers on his
> > website, and it ought to have done simply because of his bs fake
> > stereo and ott marketing crap, but suggesting that compromised
> > transfers won't suffer by being compromised further shows him to be
> > not just lazy and unprincipled, but a complete ignoramus and idiot.- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> Juan, it is difficult for me disagree with you. I was a vocal and
> persistent supporter of an idea that the dirt like Rose shall be run
> over by asphalt press. The idiots like him has been destroying the
> industry for years.
Ganging up on him, eh? Well, what's so brilliant of the idea of
converting compressed MiniDisc music to flac or wav? I don't know
the data compression format of Minidisc, but it's not stupid to
point out that the lossy compression of Minidisc is inferior to
lossless.
ansermetniac
<weary...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Romy the Cat <Ro...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 4, 12:29�pm, Juan Rey <bad_king_j...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > On 2 July, 23:32, Andrew Rose <and...@pristineaudio.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 02/07/2010 18:06, Quelle Surprise! TheMusicParlour gives-away an
>> > > All-Digital transfer of Sargent's RVW 9.. wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Newly released to-day!
>> >
>> > > > FREE WAV / FLAC files of:
>> >
>> > > > * VAUGHAN WILLIAMS Symphony No. 9 in E minor (World Premi�re)
>> > > > � � � � Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
>> > > > � � � � conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent
>> > > > � � � � Royal Festival Hall, 2nd April, 1958
>> >
>> > > > @ �http://themusicparlour.blogspot.com
>> >
>> > > Ooops, missed this: "Direct digital CD transfer from MiniDisc" - so it's
>> > > compressed then. What's the point of offering it in WAV and FLAC?
>> >
>> > With that, all possibility of taking Rose seriously disappears. It
>> > ought to have done when he was caught misrepresenting transfers on his
>> > website, and it ought to have done simply because of his bs fake
>> > stereo and ott marketing crap, but suggesting that compromised
>> > transfers won't suffer by being compromised further shows him to be
>> > not just lazy and unprincipled, but a complete ignoramus and idiot.- Hide
>> > quoted text -
>>
>> Juan, it is difficult for me disagree with you. I was a vocal and
>> persistent supporter of an idea that the dirt like Rose shall be run
>> over by asphalt press. The idiots like him has been destroying the
>> industry for years.
>
>Ganging up on him, eh? Well, what's so brilliant of the idea of
>converting compressed MiniDisc music to flac or wav? I don't know
>the data compression format of Minidisc, but it's not stupid to
>point out that the lossy compression of Minidisc is inferior to
>lossless.
The point is that compressing it AGAIN is worse than not.
Abbedd
weary flake
> >I don't know (.....) the data compression format of Minidisc, but it's not
> >stupid to point out that the lossy compression of Minidisc is inferior to
> >lossless.
>
> Minidisc's ATRAC is a 5:1 compression - via complex algorithms.
So 5:1 compression of Minidisc is inferior to wav and flac. This
is a statement you find so objectionable?
> If you directly copied a Vinyl LP you would notice very little
> difference (and, indeed, might well prefer it to a CD-R copy - the
> system can be more 'lively') - and people who copy CD's onto MD report
> they are 'near indistinguishable'.
>
> MD records @ 20bit 44.1kHz (ie higher than redbook CD @16bit) and the
> MD recording, when outputted digitally (via optical or co-ax) as for
> the RVW9 on my MD, is also @ 20bit - to the CD Recorder.
20bit and then 5:1 compression versus 16bit uncompressed, I'll bet
I'd choose the latter as a better format.
> If you are willing to be Hoodwinked because you're Intellectually Lazy
> - or Cloth-Eared (have you compared the two 'transfers'?) ...or
> believe the Bullshitting that 'the other' transfer has '3kHz more
> frequency-range'..then that's your lookout..
The BS in this thread has nothing to do with any particular transfers.
ansermetniac
<frankw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The original recording is HEAVILY COMPRESSED
>The BBC Digital transcription will alter its 'character'.
>It is sent to the transmitters via a COMPRESSION system.
>The ANALOGUE R2R Tape deck will be FAR INFERIOR to a digital recorder
>(whether MD or CD) - with tape saturation/compression/imperfect
>frequency response/distortion in the electronics/wow and flutter/tape
>speed inconsistency.
>
>You really don't 'get it', do you...as you have no idea of what '5:1'
>MD compression actually does to a signal...whether good or bad
>sounding to start with.
>But,,it damages it far far far far less than the R2R recording
>would've done..
>Give Pristine your Stupid Money
Another clueless sod posing as an expert. Only could happen on the
Internet
Abbedd
ansermetniac
<frankw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>FLAC/WAV/CD (from a 16bit CD-R copy of whatever source) is
>'lossless' (but not 'perfect').
Tell us why, oh genius of the lamp
Abbedd
ansermetniac
<frankw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tell us why, oh genius of the lamp
>>
>> Abbedd
>
>Go F..yourself "O Genius Of The Mouthpiece" !!!
Alicia Silverstone is not the only one who is Clueless
Abbedd