The great LP vs CD debate/war. BUT...how about analog vs digital masters?
Peter
gritty....analog masters and analog sourced cd's.
LP's seemed to have been lumped with "analog".
Are digitally recorded CD's really better than analog
recorded CD's?
I think that when digital recorders came out, everyone
assumed "digital is perfect". In the early days of digital
recording, most of those "masters" were yech. Newer stuff
is much better.
And still, the multichannel session recorder has to be mixed
and butchered with the digital mixer.
Sheffield Labs two channel analog masters were (the ones I
hear) are outstanding, and better than 99.9% of the digital
crud. The Mercury Living Presence CD's sound outstanding
too. Those three channel recordings are fantastic. Some
have the "characteristic sound" of an old recording, but
overall are fantastic. Then you listen to a prime Deutch
Gramophon recording (digital) or CBS Masterworks...and you
have to go to the bathroom to retch.
You don't need a DVD 5 channel audio system to get "good"
sound. Just a decent session recording and mix and master.
You hear the old Mercury recordings on CD and wonder what
the engineers of today are thinking (or listening to).
But I don't know much about the recording part of music,
just the listening. And that's what it is all for.
Arny Krüger
"Peter" <dances_w...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:382cbf37....@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> Are digitally recorded CD's really better than analog
> recorded CD's?
IMO, as a rule no. In fact what are to me some of the cleanest and
most natural CD's I have claim they were made from analog masters.
> I think that when digital recorders came out, everyone
> assumed "digital is perfect". In the early days of digital
> recording, most of those "masters" were yech. Newer stuff
> is much better.
It's possible to make a good sounding recording with analog
mastering or with digital mastering. I heard absolutely stunning
digital masters long (several years) before CD was introduced, so
making a good-sounding CD from a digital master could be done. It is
just that not everybody managed to come up with good-sounding CD's
all the time. "There is many a slip between the cup and the lip"
> And still, the multichannel session recorder has to be mixed
> and butchered with the digital mixer.
Fine steaks and the grossest, sleeziest hamburger can come from the
same butcher shop.
> Sheffield Labs two channel analog masters were (the ones I
> hear) are outstanding, and better than 99.9% of the digital
> crud.
If there is a label that can be cited for making some of the best
and worst-sounding CD's around, it might be Sheffield.
>The Mercury Living Presence CD's sound outstanding
> too. Those three channel recordings are fantastic. Some
> have the "characteristic sound" of an old recording, but
> overall are fantastic. Then you listen to a prime Deutch
> Gramophon recording (digital) or CBS Masterworks...and you
> have to go to the bathroom to retch.
Give a crescent wrench to good mechanic and he most likely will fix
your car. Give the same wrench to a tyro and he will strip the head
off every bolt in sight.
> You don't need a DVD 5 channel audio system to get "good" sound.
Agreed. All the 5.1 systems I am familiar have a switch to go back
to stereo. Maybe it should be exercised from time to time?
>Just a decent session recording and mix and master.
> You hear the old Mercury recordings on CD and wonder what
> the engineers of today are thinking (or listening to).
Some engineers of today are doing gorgeous work. Other's are not.
However, if you get a buch of audiophiles togeher, there will
probably be some disagreement about which work fits in which
category.
> But I don't know much about the recording part of music,
> just the listening. And that's what it is all for.
Yeah, enjoyment and emotional satisfaction. Even if it is not
recorded at all.
The Devil
>"There is many a slip between the cup and the lip"
Isn't that supposed to be, 'There is many a shit in my head,
but it all comes out of my lips'?
--
The Devil. Remove ZZ for reply.
trotsky
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> "Peter" <dances_w...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:382cbf37....@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
>
> > Are digitally recorded CD's really better than analog
> > recorded CD's?
>
> IMO, as a rule no. In fact what are to me some of the cleanest and
> most natural CD's I have claim they were made from analog masters.
>
> > I think that when digital recorders came out, everyone
> > assumed "digital is perfect". In the early days of digital
> > recording, most of those "masters" were yech. Newer stuff
> > is much better.
>
> It's possible to make a good sounding recording with analog
> mastering or with digital mastering. I heard absolutely stunning
> digital masters long (several years) before CD was introduced, so
> making a good-sounding CD from a digital master could be done. It is
> just that not everybody managed to come up with good-sounding CD's
> all the time. "There is many a slip between the cup and the lip"
Arnii, you have your terms confused. A "digital master" refers to a digital
master tape. "Digital mastering" refers to taking digitized information and
mastering it to an analog or digital format. "Analog mastering" is only
possible with an analog format, i.e. LP. You might want to consider excusing
yourself from the discussion now.
Rick Gardner
dances_w...@my-deja.com (Peter) wrote:
> Let's peel off the lp label, and get to the nitty
> gritty....analog masters and analog sourced cd's.
> LP's seemed to have been lumped with "analog".
> recorded CD's?
> assumed "digital is perfect". In the early days of digital
> recording, most of those "masters" were yech. Newer stuff
> is much better.
> and butchered with the digital mixer.
> hear) are outstanding, and better than 99.9% of the digital
> too. Those three channel recordings are fantastic. Some
> have the "characteristic sound" of an old recording, but
> overall are fantastic. Then you listen to a prime Deutch
> Gramophon recording (digital) or CBS Masterworks...and you
> have to go to the bathroom to retch.
> You hear the old Mercury recordings on CD and wonder what
> the engineers of today are thinking (or listening to).
> just the listening. And that's what it is all for.
I recently had the opportunity to have the SONY SACD-1 in my system,
with a mix of old analogue mastered and DSD mastered issues. My
preferences lie with the subject matter. What was clear, is that both
red book cds and vinyl don't give us the master tape. I think SACD is
as close as we can currently come.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Arny Krüger
"Rick Gardner" <RickLGX...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0b2fea80.a08f6463@usw-ex0106-
>
> I recently had the opportunity to have the SONY SACD-1 in my
system,
> with a mix of old analogue mastered and DSD mastered issues. My
> preferences lie with the subject matter. What was clear, is that
both
> red book cds and vinyl don't give us the master tape. I think SACD
is
> as close as we can currently come.
So you had some master tapes to compare to?
Rick Gardner
including comparing DSD to live mic feed. Their response was the same
as mine. As close as we currently get to the master.
Arny Krüger
"Rick Gardner" <RickLGX...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
> Actually no, but other PF staffers have had that specific
experience,
> including comparing DSD to live mic feed. Their response was the
same
> as mine. As close as we currently get to the master.
>
I'm getting the picture. What a setting for max placebo effects!
Rick Gardner
Engineers who are doing the masters, monitoring the mic feed while
doing so and listening to the results . . . yeah, this is certainly
the best place for placebo effects to take place. . . they weren't
blindfolded, right?
Geez, what a twisted cruller.
Ok, how about this? You haven't heard it. You don't know what you are
talking about. Does this suit the RAO ethos a little better?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Rick Gardner <RickLGX...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>Hum, let's see.
>Engineers who are doing the masters, monitoring the mic feed while
>doing so and listening to the results . . . yeah, this is certainly
>the best place for placebo effects to take place. . . they weren't
>blindfolded, right?
I see we have a new troll. 1) nobody wears a blindfold. 2) differences
in mic feeds and mixes are VERY different on the scale of things
we're talking about for DBT's. 3) Nearly everyone who's evermixed
can tell you about that "ghost fader" or that "out-of-loop equalizer" that
they spent 20 minutes adjusting.
>Geez, what a twisted cruller.
It's nice to know you have an open mind.
In the future, I would suggest learning a bit more about the discussion
before you jump in with a personal attack or three, along with some
handy spreading of nonsensical propaganda.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Sander deWaal
>3) Nearly everyone who's evermixed
>can tell you about that "ghost fader" or that "out-of-loop equalizer" that
>they spent 20 minutes adjusting.
*grin*
--
Sander deWaal- c...@wxs.nl
"Le meilleur son du monde!"
Arny Krüger
> Hum, let's see.
>
> Engineers who are doing the masters, monitoring the mic feed while
> doing so and listening to the results . . . yeah, this is
certainly
> the best place for placebo effects to take place. . . they weren't
> blindfolded, right?
>
...or someone who understands a little something about experimental
design involving human subjects...
Stewart Pinkerton
>j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) said:
>
>>3) Nearly everyone who's evermixed
>>can tell you about that "ghost fader" or that "out-of-loop equalizer" that
>>they spent 20 minutes adjusting.
>
>*grin*
Big grin! Or is it a grimace? :-(
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
trotsky
Dr. Kroomacher, you mean?
Paul Dormer
>3) Nearly everyone who's evermixed
>can tell you about that "ghost fader" or that "out-of-loop equalizer" that
>they spent 20 minutes adjusting.
Hmmff.. aint that the truth!
It's a great trick to play on an egotistical vocalist who wants you to
turn them up too high in the mix.. reach for a null fader and push it
up a notch.. man, do they love that! ;-)
Paul Dormer Me...@clara.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sound Design, Editing, Mastering
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Paul Dormer <me...@clara.net> wrote:
>It's a great trick to play on an egotistical vocalist who wants you to
>turn them up too high in the mix.. reach for a null fader and push it
>up a notch.. man, do they love that! ;-)
But it does work with loud drummers and pushy lead brass players, too.
Paul Dormer
>>It's a great trick to play on an egotistical vocalist who wants you to
>>turn them up too high in the mix.. reach for a null fader and push it
>>up a notch.. man, do they love that! ;-)
>Shhhh!
>
>But it does work with loud drummers and pushy lead brass players, too.
Sometimes the whole band, no less.
Firebug
>I recently had the opportunity to have the SONY SACD-1 in my system,
>with a mix of old analogue mastered and DSD mastered issues. My
>preferences lie with the subject matter. What was clear, is that both
>red book cds and vinyl don't give us the master tape.
Vinyl certainly does not, but I find it highly unlikely that anyone could tell
the difference between a master tape and a *properly made* Red Book-standard
CD in a scientific ABX comparison. Of course, any format can sound bad if the
people producing the software for it are incompetent or poorly trained.
>I think SACD is
>as close as we can currently come.
SACD is an answer to a nonexistent problem. As for DVD-Audio, I suspect the
primary real reason it is being pushed is to deprive consumers of their right
to make perfect digital copies.
Paul Frindle
Sandman
Paul Frindle <pfri...@free-online.net> wrote in message
news:38629B23...@free-online.net...
You mean I got it right by keeping my DAT deck and not buying a DVD player?
Sandman
Arny Krüger
"Sandman" <sand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:obD84.362$Ev3....@cmnws01.we.mediaone.net...
No, but you managed to march in place rather than going backwards.
One problem, though. The rest of the world is marching forward
(CD-R) so you are falling behind anyway.
viz...@bellatlantic.net
<pfri...@free-online.net> wrote:
>> SACD is an answer to a nonexistent problem. As for DVD-Audio, I suspect the
>> primary real reason it is being pushed is to deprive consumers of their right
>> to make perfect digital copies.
>
>
> Firebug. You got it in one go!! Thanks for pointing this out.
>
>Firebug wrote:
>
>>
>>
I'd add this thought: there's no inherent consumer right to
making perfect copies. If DVD-Audio really *is* superior to red book
that's a gain for all of us regardless. There's nothing to prevent us
from making analogue or slightly lower copies of the material for use
in portables, cars etc. These copies would, presumably, be perfectly
suitable and serviceable for the applications they would be put to.
The issue in my mind is whether we are forced to accept a new
format which is no better that we have presently simply to prevent us
from making copies. That idea gets my dander up.
Since I've not heard either SACD or DVD-A, I've no idea
whether they're superior or not. I'm intrigued by early reports.
However, up to this point it's still difficult to make truly valid
comparisons since apparently we have no identical material recorded in
two or more formats to allow legitimate comparison (i.e. red book,
SACD and DVD-A). I love the idea of an improved digital playback
system. Whether I can copy such material *perfectly* is not much of an
issue for me and, I suspect, most other consumers. We are all used to
buying the original material, whether LP, CD, SACD etc.
Whether these formats are truly superior is THE question.
Ed
Arny Krüger
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:gfn66scocf65j99mf...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 21:59:00 +0000, Paul Frindle
> <pfri...@free-online.net> wrote:
>
> >> SACD is an answer to a nonexistent problem. As for DVD-Audio, I
suspect the
> >> primary real reason it is being pushed is to deprive consumers
of their right
> >> to make perfect digital copies.
> >
> >
> > Firebug. You got it in one go!! Thanks for pointing this out.
> >
> >Firebug wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> I'd add this thought: there's no inherent consumer right to
> making perfect copies.
Actually, if technically possible, there is generally thought to be
one, for backup or archive purposes, under the fair use doctrine.
> If DVD-Audio really *is* superior to red book
> that's a gain for all of us regardless. There's nothing to prevent
us
> from making analogue or slightly lower copies of the material for
use
> in portables, cars etc. These copies would, presumably, be
perfectly
> suitable and serviceable for the applications they would be put
to.
And, it is a matter of time until someone figures out how to do it.
> The issue in my mind is whether we are forced to accept a new
> format which is no better that we have presently simply to prevent
us
> from making copies. That idea gets my dander up.
Totally agreed!
> Since I've not heard either SACD or DVD-A, I've no idea
> whether they're superior or not. I'm intrigued by early reports.
> However, up to this point it's still difficult to make truly valid
> comparisons since apparently we have no identical material
recorded in
> two or more formats to allow legitimate comparison (i.e. red book,
> SACD and DVD-A). I love the idea of an improved digital playback
> system. Whether I can copy such material *perfectly* is not much
of an
> issue for me and, I suspect, most other consumers. We are all used
to
> buying the original material, whether LP, CD, SACD etc.
>
> Whether these formats are truly superior is THE question.
Strong hints as to whether or not that is even possible can be found
at www.pcabx.com. Of course, only those lucky enough to have a
windows PC with an excellent sound card and audio system attaches
will really know "for sure".
Nousaine
<The issue in my mind is whether we are <forced to accept a new
<format which is no better that we have <presently simply to prevent us
<from making copies. That idea gets my <dander up.
We are never forced to accept a format or anything else we don't want. The
correct response is simply--- don't buy it.
viz...@bellatlantic.net
Really? My goodness, what an insight!
Explain, Tom, why most people must buy CDs or nothing at all?
'Splain me again about Beta vs. VHS? NTSC vs. Pal/Secam? Pan-and-scan?
For those of us in Manhatan, cable tv rather than satellite?
Ed
Wolfgang Goldberg
>>We are never forced to accept a format or anything else we don't want. The
>>correct response is simply--- don't buy it.
>
So nu, Nousaine? A nice Yiddish word for shit is 'drek', you should know, but
what you spew here does not even deserve Yiddish already because it is SUCH
shit yet!
Maybe you did know one of the many ways distributors made sure LPs would
disappear from stores? You know what is a 'Return Policy'? Used to be, before
CDs, if a store bought say 10 of the same LP, they could return 4 in a few
months if they were unsold. When CDs came out, some nice little distributors
made a new rule: If you order 10 CDs and they don't sell, you can return 9. If
you order 10 LPs and they don't sell, you can return NONE. So nu? What do you
think the stores were forced to stock?
You should please take your dishonest agenda, and your ferblundgit non-science
science and stick it right back up your tuchis where it came from.
Wolfgang Goldberg Ph.D.
Arny Krüger
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:1rk76s45iuj0ds530...@4ax.com...
> Explain, Tom, why most people must buy CDs or nothing at all?
Because of choices made by people not buy any of the other
alternatives that have been marketed,
Vinyl, cassette, Minidisc have all been ignored in the marketplace
to the point where they are no longer commercially viable except as
niche products.
OTOH, people are buying (or at least obtaining) web-based digital
music formats in quantities that have slightly dented CD's sales
volumes.
> 'Splain me again about Beta vs. VHS?
The market had a choice of both and abandoned Beta.
>NTSC vs. Pal/Secam?
In the US PAL/SECAM never had a chance. Remember, the "N" in NTSC
stands for "National".
In Europe, NTSC never had a chance. Something about NTSC= "Never The
Same Color (Twice)".
Both formats are partially related to the power line frequency
standards in the respective countries which are different.
>Pan-and-scan?
I don't think a quorum even showed up to vote on that one.
> For those of us in Manhattan, cable TV rather than satellite?
A big technical play. Something about tall buildings having lots of
living space and not much roof.
Nousaine
>On 24 Dec 1999 19:00:54 GMT, nous...@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
>
>>Ed Shain wrote:
>>
>><The issue in my mind is whether we are <forced to accept a new
>><format which is no better that we have <presently simply to prevent us
>><from making copies. That idea gets my <dander up.
>>
>>
>>correct response is simply--- don't buy it.
>
>
>For those of us in Manhatan, cable tv rather than satellite?
>
> Ed
People can buy lps, used lps, cassettes, DVD, VHS, Beta, minidsic, laser disc,
make Mp3 or buy an instrument, sheet music or concert tickets instead. They can
also listen to broadcast radio or broadcast satellite. There are plenty of
formats to ignore. Go ahead. I ignore many of them on a daily basis.
I think your argument is really a plea for availability of more formats. I
would agree with that. The more the better. If we find one that is unsuitable
we don't buy it and either it goes away, gets changed or, if enough others find
it suitable stays the course. The success of cd is a tribute to the quality of
that format. Same for DVD.
What I want is HDTV with AC-3 quality audio.
George M. Middius
> >>We are never forced to accept a format or anything else we don't want. The
> >>correct response is simply--- don't buy it.
> > Explain, Tom, why most people must buy CDs or nothing at all?
> >'Splain me again about Beta vs. VHS? NTSC vs. Pal/Secam? Pan-and-scan?
> >For those of us in Manhatan, cable tv rather than satellite?
> People can buy lps, used lps, cassettes, DVD, VHS, Beta, minidsic, laser disc,
> make Mp3 or buy an instrument, sheet music or concert tickets instead. They can
> also listen to broadcast radio or broadcast satellite. There are plenty of
> formats to ignore. Go ahead. I ignore many of them on a daily basis.
You're quite expert at missing the point, you know. In fact,
no adult who possesses the skills to operate a computer and
post on Usenet could possibly be this obtuse.
Or could one? I used to think the same thing about Krooger,
and look how wrong I was there. :-(
Just to lay out a 9000-watt display of runway lights that even
a paragon of obtundity like yourself cannot possibly avoid,
the reference was not to the oddments of technology that
consumers can scrounge in the byways and less-traveled corners
of the marketplace. You gigantic ninny you.
The point of this discussion is the availability of new and
re-released software on various formats. For music, every
title in the U.S. market is released on CD, and only a tiny
number are released on vinyl. Beta is dead as a doornail for
new releases. (Personally, I think the contest of VHS vs. Beta
is meaningless in 1999.) The other important software
distinction is, as Ed pointed out, letterbox vs. pan-and-scan
for movies. You retarded lunkhead 'borg you.
> What I want is HDTV with AC-3 quality audio.
Yes, Nousiane, there is a Santa Clause.
George M. Middius
Paul Frindle
Not sure that keeping a DAT is really the answer? Anyway the issue seems to be
that the new formats do have some technical advantage but that is not the main
reason they are being pushed. The issue is to provide a new format to renew the
expiring CD royalties and if possible to suppress the ability to make digital
clones of the material. It is true that in reality we have no written right to
clone CDs for personal use even if we have bought them legitimately. But there
is a fair amount of lost revenue due to this on a large scale in the eastern
block and China etc.. Of course you can make a perfectly acceptable copy by
other means and they have tried hard without total success to even trace
analogue copies etc.. The main reason that DVD-A has been help up is the
failure of their copy protection system. The SACD system is (at the moment)
still secure, but we all know that this can only be a temporary security. One
could argue that the industry makes enough money already and are being greedy
but I cannot comment on that. I would however say that the main occupation of
the large players in the music industry is the avoidance of the level playing
field that is being produced by the explosion of computer music delivery
methods. However in my view this so far unregulated music delivery will
eventually swamp them and resistance is futile, this is the future and they
know it - but they won't go down without a fight!! The current mark up for CDs
in the UK high street outlets is around 400% above trade, so there is much at
stake.
Another worrying trend in the UK is the suppression of home recording of
broadcast video. This means that in some (increasing number of) cases you can't
record a program for later viewing. They do this by messing up the video sync
in ways that affect the video recorder but pass unaffected by TV. I suspect
that the reason for this is not primarily to stop production of bootleg video
films, but more likely to prevent people from fast forwarding the ever
increasing advertising periods during program. For instance I will never watch
a film live from commercial channels since the advertising has become too
disruptive. I record it and watch it without the commercials at a later date.
Sandman wrote:
> Paul Frindle <pfri...@free-online.net> wrote in message
> news:38629B23...@free-online.net...
> > Firebug. You got it in one go!! Thanks for pointing this out.
> >
> > Firebug wrote:
>
> > > SACD is an answer to a nonexistent problem. As for DVD-Audio, I suspect
> the
> > > primary real reason it is being pushed is to deprive consumers of their
> right
> > > to make perfect digital copies.
>
> You mean I got it right by keeping my DAT deck and not buying a DVD player?
>
> Sandman
Paul Frindle
are mostly due to outlet incentives of one kind or another that result in the
previous format not being available any more. However computer music delivery
has changed all that. The big players are quaking since whatever they do they
simply cannot control the Web. MP3 players are now sitting in the windows of
the high street stores along side CD and Minidisc players. I cannot imagine
that any digital method can ever give them the control they once had over the
delivery chain, since any attempt to restrict access can and will eventually
be busted by the hacker and proliferate in no time at all. Any system that can
play the audio must at some point present the information as digital data.
Nousaine wrote:
> Ed Shain wrote:
>
> <The issue in my mind is whether we are <forced to accept a new
> <format which is no better that we have <presently simply to prevent us
> <from making copies. That idea gets my <dander up.
>
Paul Wagner
> As for DVD-Audio, I suspect the
> primary real reason it is being pushed is to deprive consumers of their right
> to make perfect digital copies.
Could you explain this?
viz...@bellatlantic.net
wrote:
>
><viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
>news:1rk76s45iuj0ds530...@4ax.com...
>
>> Explain, Tom, why most people must buy CDs or nothing at all?
>
>Because of choices made by people not buy any of the other
>alternatives that have been marketed,
Yes, Arnold. We *know* that. That's not the point.
The point is that no alternative then remains. It's either
play ball or don't play at all. That's *not* a choice. If DVD-A or
SACD become the norm, people will eventually be forced to buy that
format or nothing at all.
That's all I have to say about this.
>Vinyl, cassette, Minidisc have all been ignored in the marketplace
>to the point where they are no longer commercially viable except as
>niche products.
>
>OTOH, people are buying (or at least obtaining) web-based digital
>music formats in quantities that have slightly dented CD's sales
>volumes.
>
>> 'Splain me again about Beta vs. VHS?
>
>The market had a choice of both and abandoned Beta.
You can't be this obtuse, can you Arnold? That's my point.
Once a format wins the war there is *no* choice. If the music
companies can force the acceptance of DVD-A and SACD, it will then be
a fait accompli. Get it now?
>
>>NTSC vs. Pal/Secam?
>
>In the US PAL/SECAM never had a chance. Remember, the "N" in NTSC
>stands for "National".
Damn, but you're dumb. You're off on a tangent that is
irrelevant.
>
>In Europe, NTSC never had a chance. Something about NTSC= "Never The
>Same Color (Twice)".
>
>Both formats are partially related to the power line frequency
>standards in the respective countries which are different.
Again, Arnold, bolstering my point. One doesn't have the
choice of *not* buying other than not watching TV at all. That's some
choice.......
>
>>Pan-and-scan?
>
>I don't think a quorum even showed up to vote on that one.
Exactly. If the consumer doesn't like it, he or she's got no
place to go with it. That's not a complaint. It's just the way it is.
Tom, therefore, was speaking nonsense.
>
>> For those of us in Manhattan, cable TV rather than satellite?
>
>A big technical play. Something about tall buildings having lots of
>living space and not much roof.
Wrong, Arnold. It has to do with contracts between landlords
and owners with cable companies prohibiting placement of competitive
dishes and other systems. If you ever looked at the ads for DSS in NY,
you'd know that. Of course, you can't because you live in Detroit, but
that doesn't stop you from OSAFing anyway. The ads specifically
address themselves to homeowners. In fact, the ads specifically
exclude renters. Why do you think that is?
Do you make this up as you go along?
>
Ed
viz...@bellatlantic.net
>>
>>On 24 Dec 1999 19:00:54 GMT, nous...@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
>>
>>>Ed Shain wrote:
>>>
>>><The issue in my mind is whether we are <forced to accept a new
>>><format which is no better that we have <presently simply to prevent us
>>><from making copies. That idea gets my <dander up.
>>>
>>>
>>>We are never forced to accept a format or anything else we don't want. The
>>>correct response is simply--- don't buy it.
>>
>> Really? My goodness, what an insight!
>>
>> Explain, Tom, why most people must buy CDs or nothing at all?
>>'Splain me again about Beta vs. VHS? NTSC vs. Pal/Secam? Pan-and-scan?
>>For those of us in Manhatan, cable tv rather than satellite?
>>
>> Ed
>
>People can buy lps, used lps, cassettes, DVD, VHS, Beta, minidsic, laser disc,
>make Mp3 or buy an instrument, sheet music or concert tickets instead. They can
>also listen to broadcast radio or broadcast satellite. There are plenty of
>formats to ignore. Go ahead. I ignore many of them on a daily basis.
>
>I think your argument is really a plea for availability of more formats. I
>would agree with that. The more the better. If we find one that is unsuitable
>we don't buy it and either it goes away, gets changed or, if enough others find
>it suitable stays the course. The success of cd is a tribute to the quality of
>that format. Same for DVD.
>
>What I want is HDTV with AC-3 quality audio.
Actually, Tom, that's not my argument. I don't believe
consumers have an inherent right to perfect copies, nor an inherent
right to any commercial product.
I'm happy to have a wide assortment of formats, but all that
really matters to me is that the formats available work properly. My
point was that I don't relish having a potentially equal or perhaps
lesser format forced on me without some equal benefit being provided,
in this case better quality. Accepting lesser or similar quality at
the expense of convenience and economics I enjoy presently doesn't
interest me much
HDTV is a good case in point. The superior quality is a good
trade-off for other issues that attend it: greater expenditures on
hardware, possible higher software costs, etc. If it weren't better,
though, I would be one unhappy puppy if I were forced to buy a
different tv just to watch what I already have.
Ed
Nousaine
>>> 'Splain me again about Beta vs. VHS?
>>
>>The market had a choice of both and abandoned Beta.
>
> You can't be this obtuse, can you Arnold? That's my point.
>Once a format wins the war there is *no* choice. If the music
>companies can force the acceptance of DVD-A and SACD, it will then be
>a fait accompli. Get it now?
Once a format wins it has done so with market acceptance. BTW you can still use
Beta if you want. It works as well as it ever did. What I see is the argument
that any techology that becomes obsolete leaves people crying is the dust.
Progress is good. I don't lament the loss of new releases in Beta. My laser
disc blew video tapes away anyhow. The fprmat died eventually because it was
ignored by the market. That's the way it's supposed to work.
.
> Again, Arnold, bolstering my point. One doesn't have the
>choice of *not* buying other than not watching TV at all. That's some
>choice......
A pretty good one I might add. Get some lps for entertainment instead. I think
we all forget how important those standards become for economical distribution.
NTSC made for great competition in equipment and great price competition...its
the best way.
>>
>>>Pan-and-scan?
>>
>>I don't think a quorum even showed up to vote on that one.
>
> Exactly. If the consumer doesn't like it, he or she's got no
>place to go with it. That's not a complaint. It's just the way it is.
>Tom, therefore, was speaking nonsense.
No I dont think so. I am for progress and if DVD-A and SACD doesn't mean an
improvement I will just stay away. That's why DTS is dead. It wasn't an
improvement.
>>> For those of us in Manhattan, cable TV rather than satellite?
>>
>>A big technical play. Something about tall buildings having lots of
>>living space and not much roof.
>
> Wrong, Arnold. It has to do with contracts between landlords
>and owners with cable companies prohibiting placement of competitive
>dishes and other systems. If you ever looked at the ads for DSS in NY,
>you'd know that. Of course, you can't because you live in Detroit, but
>that doesn't stop you from OSAFing anyway. The ads specifically
>address themselves to homeowners. In fact, the ads specifically
>exclude renters. Why do you think that is?
So the complaint here is local agreements that restrain trade. It's not really
about the forcing of formats but the RESTRICTION of availability. If all the
tenants stopped subscribing to cable you would get instant abatement. But the
programming is more important than the delivery vehicle to them.
It's too bad but I don't see that SACD will ever prosper. It just ain't good
enough. Unless they bring the cost down. I'm prepared to ignore it. And all my
existing software will continue to work as well as it ever did.
DVD-A is a different question. It already has stiff competiton with the current
defacto standard DVD format AC-3. If it offers better programs it has a chance
but frankly I can't see why anyone would want a new format that didn't handle
video.
What I really hear in this format argument is the standard consumer fretting
over whether someone is now or may make money and whether companies have a
'right' to protect their intellectual property.
I think they do but often do so poorly (remember ON and IT direct broadcast
systems...poor protection so everybody stole the service and the industry just
evaporated) or cut of thier nose to spite their face and artifically reduce
distribution.
All the fretting over cassette simply ignored that copying increased the
sampling of product and actually promoted sales.
Anyway this is the end of my time in this forum. Again if customers don't want
SACD and DVD-A they will not buy it and it will go away. In the meantime if
you don't think that will happen guard yourself by stockpiling existing formats
or get with alternative ones.
We all think we are being dragged kicking and screaming into progress when we
actually embrace it. We had these same arguments with CD...and look how well
that turned out. Better quality product, lower price (considering inflation and
durability and storage space and the drastic fall in LP prices) and wider
availability. Everybody wins.
Arny Krüger
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:rgd86sc7fd3qet38e...@4ax.com...
> The point is that no alternative then remains. It's either
> play ball or don't play at all. That's *not* a choice. If DVD-A or
> SACD become the norm, people will eventually be forced to buy that
> format or nothing at all.
You seem to be having problems with the idea that market decisions
can have lasting consequences.
This "no alternative remains" thinking reminds me of someone who:
(1) Goes to a cafeteria
(2) Chooses chicken instead of hamburger, both are equally available
(3) Pays for the food.
(4) Sits down to eat
(5) Starts complaining that he has "no choice" because there is only
chicken on his tray.
Yes, making choices has consequences, some of which might even be
lasting.
Or how about this one:
(1) A resturant in Podunk, IL puts Haggis on their menu and
publicises its availbility to the whole town and surrounding
countryside.
(2) Nobody ever orders Haggis.
(3) The resturant takes the Haggis off their menu a month later.
(4) Did the people in Podunk, IL have the "choice" to eat Haggis?
> >> 'Splain me again about Beta vs. VHS?
> >
> >The market had a choice of both and abandoned Beta.
> You can't be this obtuse, can you Arnold? That's my point.
Your point seems to be low on pragmatism and understanding of the
ways of the world.
> Once a format wins the war there is *no* choice.
That of course depends on how thoroughly the war is won. Beta hung
on for years even though every market analyst worth his salt knew
what the outcome of the Beta/VHS battle was.
It's not a matter of being obtuse. It's a matter of the time when
choice is availble passing because of the way the market exercised
the power of choice when it was available.
>If the music
> companies can force the acceptance of DVD-A and SACD, it will then
be
> a fait accompli. Get it now?
I think we have finally wandered to the core of the controversy.
Can companies force the acceptance of anything in a world where so
many options exist?
I think that any realistic analysis says that the concept that
companies forcing acceptance is at best a "maybe" in the current
context.
Options always exist. Resources always exist to promote them. For
every winner there is an up-and-coming challenger. If you are not
the government or have the government's total backing, you can't
"force" anything. Most governments are too diverse and too rational
to force anything over everybody's dead body. If they kill
everybody, then they have nobody to govern!
I'm sure that the music companies would like to force the
non-existence of the current MP3 standard. However, do you seriously
think that anybody thinks they could be sucessful at doing such a
thing?
> >>NTSC vs. Pal/Secam?
> >
> >In the US PAL/SECAM never had a chance. Remember, the "N" in NTSC
> >stands for "National".
> Damn, but you're dumb. You're off on a tangent that is
irrelevant.
NTSC did have government backing. It never came up as a market
choice. That was then. This is now.
The government can no longer can make these kinds of rules and hope
that they will determine the outcome of what the marketplace
chooses.
The FCC CAN say: "All TV broadcast transmission will be NTSC" But
then the cable and satellite guys (over whom the government has
limited control because they are based on private property rights
that the governent has already granted) can do something else. I'm
not making this up, It is not a supposition. This is what is
happening now.
> >In Europe, NTSC never had a chance. Something about NTSC= "Never
The
> >Same Color (Twice)".
>
> >Both formats are partially related to the power line frequency
> >standards in the respective countries which are different.
> Again, Arnold, bolstering my point. One doesn't have the
> choice of *not* buying other than not watching TV at all. That's
some
> choice.......
That was then. This is now. In 1954 when NTSC became the accepted
standard without the decision being left up to the marketplace,
there were no technically-viable alternatives. We have over-the-air
video transmission to consumers and NOTHING else. No cable. No
satellites. No consumer video tapes. No DVD's. No video CD's.
That was then. This is now. Now we have a proliferation of
technically-viable alternatives, some of which are in widespread
use.
> >>Pan-and-scan?
> >
> >I don't think a quorum even showed up to vote on that one.
> Exactly. If the consumer doesn't like it, he or she's got no
> place to go with it.
Have you ever been part of an organization that is in any sense
democratic? I'm begining to seriously wonder.
A question exists.
A meeting is called.
A quorum shows up.
A discussion takes place
A vote is taken.
All of a sudden it becomes quite a bit harder to go the othe way.
> That's not a complaint. It's just the way it is.
The choice seems to have been so trivial that nobody even called for
a meeting to vote.
> Tom, therefore, was speaking nonsense.
Tom was talking about practical realities.
> >> For those of us in Manhattan, cable TV rather than satellite?
> >A big technical play. Something about tall buildings having lots
of
> >living space and not much roof.
> Wrong, Arnold. It has to do with contracts between landlords
> and owners with cable companies prohibiting placement of
competitive
> dishes and other systems.
Who pointed a gun at the landlord's heads forcing them to sign?
>If you ever looked at the ads for DSS in NY, you'd know that.
I think that there are just a few practical considerations that you
are not giving a lot of consideration to.
>Of course, you can't because you live in Detroit, but
> that doesn't stop you from OSAFing anyway. The ads specifically
> address themselves to homeowners. In fact, the ads specifically
> exclude renters. Why do you think that is?
Practical realities. BTW, when the web becomes fast enough to
support real-time video transmission, what do you think will be the
value of those contracts between cable companies and landlords?
> Do you make this up as you go along?
No, but I live in the real world and have long understood that
making a choice means making a choice and that making what seems to
be a trivial choice can have amazing lasting consequences. I also
know that in this world, nothing is forever. And as irrevocable as a
choice may seem, if you hang around long enough, it will again come
up for a "vote".
If you don't like New York (which I don't happen to like) you could
become as smart and flexible as I am, and simply live somewhere else
(and then notice that you have to suffer with the slings and arrows
of that choice!)
Arny Krüger
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:p4e86so5snsq5d2q0...@4ax.com...
>
> Actually, Tom, that's not my argument. I don't believe
> consumers have an inherent right to perfect copies, nor an
inherent
> right to any commercial product.
Once you buy property you pick up a large number of legal and
de-facto rights. Once you license the use of property, you pick up a
large number of legal and de-facto rights. In the current context of
rights to private individual action, the right to go into your home
and make a private "perfect" copy for your own private and
individual purposes inside that home seems to be a "right" that is
gaining strength.
> I'm happy to have a wide assortment of formats, but all that
> really matters to me is that the formats available work properly.
This would be idenpendent of whether or not you can make "perfect"
copies of works in any given format, no?
> My point was that I don't relish having a potentially equal or
perhaps
> lesser format forced on me without some equal benefit being
provided,
> in this case better quality.
Works for me!
> Accepting lesser or similar quality at the expense of convenience
and economics I enjoy presently doesn't interest me much
Works for me!
> HDTV is a good case in point. The superior quality is a good
> trade-off for other issues that attend it: greater expenditures on
> hardware, possible higher software costs, etc. If it weren't
better,
> though, I would be one unhappy puppy if I were forced to buy a
> different tv just to watch what I already have.
At this point there seems to be no way for this to be forced on
people in a market-oriented society that is as unfettered as the one
in the US.
30 years ago if broadcast TV went away, I would have perceived a
hardship.
Today, if broadcast TV went away I'd just spend a little more time
on the web.
Of course, cable is not broadcast TV. If ABC, NBC, WD, CBS, and UPN
went away, would our lives change that much? Naah. We'd just watch m
ore of the cable channels.
I don't think I've taken a broadcast TV weather report very
seriously since we got cable modem.
All reasonable extrapolations of that statement seem to apply, as
well.
We've got options and we will exploit them. Turning back seems very
difficult.
No major producer will abandon making CD players if 100's of
millions want to buy them.
No major record label will abandon releasing music on CD's if 100's
of millions of people want to buy them.
There are two problems with CD technology:
(1) A really pretty good CD player can be sold for <$40.
(2) Anybody reasonably handy person with a fairly recent PC (>100
million people) can become a producer of music CD's in useful
quantities with an investment of < $200 for capital goods, a
materials cost of < $1 per CD, and less than 10 minutes (<$1 dollar
at minimum wage) per CD labor costs.
>100 million people can thus compete with the major music companies
if they are willing to accept about $2 less than the retail price of
a CD for gross per-unit profit.
No matter what the vinylphiles around here say, CD does not sound
bad enough to overcome these kinds of economics. The record business
as we know it is like a walking dead man. The genie is out of the
bottle.
Arny Krüger
"Paul Wagner" <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:386258...@earthlink.net...
The answer lies in the CURRENT relative states of CD-R technology
and DVD technology, right?
Audio CD's can now be digitally copied with a very high level of
perfection, and quite economically.
DVD-A's cannot now be digitally copied with as high level of a
relative level of perfection nearly as economically.
Come back in 6 months! ;-)
viz...@bellatlantic.net
wrote:
>
><viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
>news:p4e86so5snsq5d2q0...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Actually, Tom, that's not my argument. I don't believe
>> consumers have an inherent right to perfect copies, nor an
>inherent
>> right to any commercial product.
>
>Once you buy property you pick up a large number of legal and
>de-facto rights. Once you license the use of property, you pick up a
>large number of legal and de-facto rights. In the current context of
>rights to private individual action, the right to go into your home
>and make a private "perfect" copy for your own private and
>individual purposes inside that home seems to be a "right" that is
>gaining strength.
Arnold, you don't have this right. There is no law against
"copy protection." There is no inherent right to a "perfect" copy.
Please try to use words correctly.
I don't particularly care one way or the other. I rarely
record anything. If I need two copies, I usually buy two copies. This
is not because I'm so *rich* but because the time and effort required
to make copies is usually too much of a bother for the few times I
ever do it. Others, I fully recognize, make much more of this
capability than I ever have or will.
>
>> I'm happy to have a wide assortment of formats, but all that
>> really matters to me is that the formats available work properly.
>
>This would be idenpendent of whether or not you can make "perfect"
>copies of works in any given format, no?
Yes, you dummy!! How many times must I say something before
you grasp it?
I am NOT complaining about SACD or DVD-A!!!!! I welcome them
as formats if they offer something better. I'm not even cynical about
the process. All I said - and I don't understand what the fuss is
about this - is that I would NOT welcome them if those formats became
dominant without offering some benefit to me greater than I now enjoy.
>
>> My point was that I don't relish having a potentially equal or
>perhaps
>> lesser format forced on me without some equal benefit being
>provided,
>> in this case better quality.
>
>Works for me!
If it does, Arnold, why the hell are you arguing with me
instead of supporting the argument?
>
>> Accepting lesser or similar quality at the expense of convenience
>and economics I enjoy presently doesn't interest me much
>
>Works for me!
>
>> HDTV is a good case in point. The superior quality is a good
>> trade-off for other issues that attend it: greater expenditures on
>> hardware, possible higher software costs, etc. If it weren't
>better,
>> though, I would be one unhappy puppy if I were forced to buy a
>> different tv just to watch what I already have.
>
>At this point there seems to be no way for this to be forced on
>people in a market-oriented society that is as unfettered as the one
>in the US.
Actually, Arnold, it's the obverse. We are very likely to be
forced to accept inferior quality to what might be possible. Even as
this thread meanders on, Cable tv companies are strenuously trying to
use the extra bandwidth for more channels rather than better visual
quality.
Ed
George M. Middius
> >Works for me!
> If it does, Arnold, why the hell are you arguing with me
> instead of supporting the argument?
Very concise, Ed. I'd guess the list of normal humans who
have posed that question may number several hundred by now.
George M. Middius
Nousaine
> Actually, Tom, that's not my argument. I don't believe
>consumers have an inherent right to perfect copies, nor an inherent
>right to any commercial product.
>
> I'm happy to have a wide assortment of formats, but all that
>really matters to me is that the formats available work properly. My
>point was that I don't relish having a potentially equal or perhaps
>lesser format forced on me without some equal benefit being provided,
>in this case better quality. Accepting lesser or similar quality at
>the expense of convenience and economics I enjoy presently doesn't
>interest me much
Well if it costs more and offers no increase in quality it will fail. It must
also serve a need. If that isn't improved quality it will also fail.
The big example is DCC and minidisc. They both offered superior quality to
cassette and with DCC equivalent quality to cd. But both were too expensive to
compete with cassette which, like VHS and Beta, served primarily a lesser
quality convenience tool.
CD-R shows that cost, convenince and quality, or perhaps 2 out of 3, are
necessary for format replacement.
> HDTV is a good case in point. The superior quality is a good
>trade-off for other issues that attend it: greater expenditures on
>hardware, possible higher software costs, etc. If it weren't better,
>though, I would be one unhappy puppy if I were forced to buy a
>different tv just to watch what I already have.
> Ed
But you won't have to buy a new player to play your cds. Just as you weren't
forced to buy a cd player when cd was introduced. You did that happily because
it offered a useful blend of utility.
Neil Brown
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:1rk76s45iuj0ds530...@4ax.com...
> On 24 Dec 1999 19:00:54 GMT, nous...@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
>
> >Ed Shain wrote:
> >
> ><The issue in my mind is whether we are <forced to accept a new
> ><format which is no better that we have <presently simply to prevent us
> ><from making copies. That idea gets my <dander up.
> >
> >
> >We are never forced to accept a format or anything else we don't want.
The
> >correct response is simply--- don't buy it.
Is this true? Do you think if the MARKET had not started releasing music CD
only (or nasty inferior wear out quickly cassette) the LP would've faded.
Most people ie the mass market cant really tell the difference they bought
what they were programmed to buy.
VHS didnt win because of quality or the market sense it won because of some
excellent marketing and when the format supportewr invested in movie studios
that owned the liscence to movies it enabled a "coup" on released movies in
VHS only format!
> Really? My goodness, what an insight!
>
> Explain, Tom, why most people must buy CDs or nothing at all?
> 'Splain me again about Beta vs. VHS? NTSC vs. Pal/Secam? Pan-and-scan?
> For those of us in Manhatan, cable tv rather than satellite?
>
> Ed
>
FUn discussion guys!
merry xmas
Neil
Neil Brown
anyone notice how some of the older stuff is now readily available on CD. If
CDs dissapear we will be forced to buy new releases in the new format and
eventually we'll retire the CDs and rebuy. Not better neccesarily audibly to
most people but it'll re cash in on everything again!
Neil
Firebug
>Dear Sandman.
>
>Not sure that keeping a DAT is really the answer? Anyway the issue seems to be
>that the new formats do have some technical advantage but that is not the main
>reason they are being pushed. The issue is to provide a new format to renew the
>expiring CD royalties and if possible to suppress the ability to make digital
>clones of the material. It is true that in reality we have no written right to
>clone CDs for personal use even if we have bought them legitimately.
Oh yes we do! The Audio Home Recording Act specifically gives consumers the
right to make first-generation digital copies of audio for personal use, in
exchange for a tax on digital audio recording media and mandating SCMS on all
consumer digital audio recorders.
>But there
>is a fair amount of lost revenue due to this on a large scale in the eastern
>block and China etc..
These are professional bootleggers. They are going to make copies no matter
what protection scheme is in place.
>Another worrying trend in the UK is the suppression of home recording of
>broadcast video. This means that in some (increasing number of) cases you can't
>record a program for later viewing. They do this by messing up the video sync
>in ways that affect the video recorder but pass unaffected by TV.
Sounds like Macrovision to me. You might want to check out devices like the
Sima CopyMaster or Sima SCC.
>I suspect
>that the reason for this is not primarily to stop production of bootleg video
>films, but more likely to prevent people from fast forwarding the ever
>increasing advertising periods during program. For instance I will never watch
>a film live from commercial channels since the advertising has become too
>disruptive. I record it and watch it without the commercials at a later date.
I certainly hope this never catches on in the U.S. I know it's done on
Pay-Per-View films on some cable networks, but it would anger a lot of people
(me certainly included) if it happened on broadcast or basic cable.
Wolfgang Goldberg
>Just as you weren't
>forced to buy a cd player when cd was introduced. You did that happily
>because
>it offered a useful blend of utility.
>
Oy! So how much does someone pay you to spread this ferblundgit drek? Most
audiophiles I know, way back then, bought CD players because they could no
longer get much or any new music on LP. None of them were 'happy' about it at
the time, you putz! Enough already Nousaine! So tell? Have you no shame about
telling such lies or do you really believe this nonsense?
Wolfang Goldberg Ph.D.
Firebug
> Since I've not heard either SACD or DVD-A, I've no idea
>whether they're superior or not. I'm intrigued by early reports.
>However, up to this point it's still difficult to make truly valid
>comparisons since apparently we have no identical material recorded in
>two or more formats to allow legitimate comparison (i.e. red book,
>SACD and DVD-A). I love the idea of an improved digital playback
>system. Whether I can copy such material *perfectly* is not much of an
>issue for me and, I suspect, most other consumers. We are all used to
>buying the original material, whether LP, CD, SACD etc.
The reason why making copies concerns me with music is because of
compilations. I often find myself buying a CD for only one song, and it would
be very clumsy to carry around a stack of them. With a CD recorder, it's a
relatively simple matter to grab the few songs I want from a dozen or so of my
CDs and put them onto one. This is especially important for car or portable
use.
Firebug
>Firebug wrote:
>
>> As for DVD-Audio, I suspect the
>> primary real reason it is being pushed is to deprive consumers of their right
>> to make perfect digital copies.
>
>Could you explain this?
Copy protection is specifically included in the DVD-A standard. The CD
standard, on the other hand, requires unencrypted PCM that can be read by any
PC CD-ROM drive.
DVD-R drives capable of making real DVDs (which at this point means the
Pioneer DVR-S101 and -S201) currently cost over $5000, and the discs about
$40. CD-R drives capable of making real CDs cost less than $200 and the discs
about $1. (Thus, even without copy protection, it is currently much harder for
consumers to make copies of DVD content than CD content.) It is likely that
these prices will go down in the future, of course.
viz...@bellatlantic.net
wrote:
Of course. That makes sense. Does it matter, however, whether
your copy is at 16 bit 44hz or at 24 bit 96 or 192 hz?
My point related to "perfect" copies, not to the matter of
*any* copies.
Ed
Arny Krüger
"George M. Middius" <Glan...@ipo.net> wrote in message
news:q3q96s4iseepmbnb0...@4ax.com...
Just sitting here laughing my butt off at a couple of guys who can't
post even one reply without getting uncivil.
Brian L. McCarty
viz...@bellatlantic.net at viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote on 26/12/99 5:54:
> Of course. That makes sense. Does it matter, however, whether
> your copy is at 16 bit 44hz or at 24 bit 96 or 192 hz?
If it's a "perfect" copy, it can only be 16/44.1.
A "copy" at anything else is just made up bits.
---
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) is a proven:
Zipser is a liar http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=369217967
Zipser is a scammer http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=368363274
Zipser is a cheater http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
Zipser is a THIEF http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=509980240
George M. Middius
exceptional stupidity.
> Just sitting here laughing my butt off at a couple of guys who can't
> post even one reply without getting uncivil.
You moronic sack of shit, do you think I'm trying to be "uncivil"
to a turd like you? This is as close to "uncivil" as it gets,
Fecesborg. Go flush yourself.
George M. Middius
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
>
> Rubbish the real reason is to make us all buy our music all over again!
BINGO!!! 100% correct!!!
Zip''
Has
> anyone notice how some of the older stuff is now readily available on CD. If
> CDs dissapear we will be forced to buy new releases in the new format and
> eventually we'll retire the CDs and rebuy. Not better neccesarily audibly to
> most people but it'll re cash in on everything again!
>
> Neil
>
> Paul Wagner <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:386258...@earthlink.net...
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
>
> in article qq7a6sg2bsptikl8m...@4ax.com,
> viz...@bellatlantic.net at viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote on 26/12/99 5:54:
>
> > Of course. That makes sense. Does it matter, however, whether
> > your copy is at 16 bit 44hz or at 24 bit 96 or 192 hz?
>
> If it's a "perfect" copy, it can only be 16/44.1.
>
> A "copy" at anything else is just made up bits.
McCarty:
You are a moron the likes of which has never stomped the earth since the
Mezozoic period. You are the modern day answer to Diplodocus in both
size and intelligence.
ALL DIGITAL COPIES ARE JUST MADE OF BITS, YOU DUMB FUCK!
Arny Krüger
"Brian L. McCarty" <opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote in message
news:B48B6577.6969%opera...@worldjazz.com...
> in article qq7a6sg2bsptikl8m...@4ax.com,
> viz...@bellatlantic.net at viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote on
26/12/99 5:54:
>
> > Of course. That makes sense. Does it matter, however, whether
> > your copy is at 16 bit 44hz or at 24 bit 96 or 192 hz?
>
> If it's a "perfect" copy, it can only be 16/44.1.
>
> A "copy" at anything else is just made up bits.
>
..unless the original is something other than 16/44.
Given that DVD-A and SACD were on the agenda, operation at other
than 16/44 would be a distinct possibility.
Arny Krüger
> XtremelyStupidBorg is celebrating Xmas with a grand bout of
> exceptional stupidity.
>
> > Just sitting here laughing my butt off at a couple of guys who
can't
> > post even one reply without getting uncivil.
>
> You moronic sack of shit, do you think I'm trying to be "uncivil"
> to a turd like you?
I don't think you are trying.
I think your uncivil behavior comes to you perfectly naturally.
viz...@bellatlantic.net
Paul Wagner
>
> "Paul Wagner" <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >
> > > As for DVD-Audio, I suspect the
> > > primary real reason it is being pushed is to deprive consumers
> of their right
> > > to make perfect digital copies.
> >
> > Could you explain this?
>
> and DVD technology, right?
>
> Audio CD's can now be digitally copied with a very high level of
> perfection, and quite economically.
>
> DVD-A's cannot now be digitally copied with as high level of a
> relative level of perfection nearly as economically.
Ah! The double-bind: better tech, more control --
seen that one before!
Thanks for the explanation....
Stewart Pinkerton
Och, ye muckle tumshie, hae ye nae sense avah? Way back when CD was
introduced, and for several *years* after, there was *much* more vinyl
in the stores than CD. The public voted with their plastic, and LP
went the way of the 78.
The first arena where LP vanished for new releases was classical
music, where subtle nuances and tonal accuracy of reproduction are
more important to most listeners.................
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
trotsky
Which is why the classical music business has been in a state of decline since
the introduction of the cd.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
previous decade, and they saw CD as their saviour - so almost
immediately they started issuing recordings on CD only. There was
clearly an egenda to FORCE the public to the new medium. Whilst they
claimed better sound and perfect sound forever, it was the small size,
convenience, instant track access, and quiet background that sold the
system initially - then the record companies forced the issue by
selective releasing policy.
Zip
> Och, ye muckle tumshie, hae ye nae sense avah? Way back when CD was
> introduced, and for several *years* after, there was *much* more vinyl
> in the stores than CD. The public voted with their plastic, and LP
> went the way of the 78.
>
> The first arena where LP vanished for new releases was classical
> music, where subtle nuances and tonal accuracy of reproduction are
> more important to most listeners.................
>
trotsky
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" wrote:
>
> Actually Stewart, the recording industry was in dire straits for all the
> previous decade, and they saw CD as their saviour - so almost
> immediately they started issuing recordings on CD only. There was
> clearly an egenda to FORCE the public to the new medium. Whilst they
> claimed better sound and perfect sound forever, it was the small size,
> convenience, instant track access, and quiet background that sold the
> system initially - then the record companies forced the issue by
> selective releasing policy.
Wow, Steve, that was very succinct. I think I might be starting to "buy off on"
George's theory that Gigi writes some of your posts for you. That said, with
classical music specifically, it was the lack of record noise that made it
popular on cd. Unfortunately, it was accompanied with a lack of low level
ambience for about ten years, until cd player manufacturers came to realize what
the term "least significant bit" meant. My rule of thumb: the more complex the
waveform, the more awful the 16/44 format is.
Arny Krüger
There already is a "back door". CD ROM's can be written with any
format data file that can be created on a computer, and read back on
any other computer that can handle that file format. In this mode of
operation, there is no need for the audio format to appear in any
industry standard document or be handled by the CD writer or reader.
This includes an incredible variety of multitrack and computer
platform file formats.
CD's made this way can use a very wide range of sample rates, sample
sizes, multitrack configuration, and coding techniques ranging from
oversampling to native sampling to downsampling to non-lossy and
lossy data compression.
The downside is that not many people have computers that are capable
of playing audio files with true CD quality. For those of us who do,
this is a wonderful point of flexibility that remains largely
unexploited.
About 18 months ago I received an ad from someone who wanted to
develop a market for selling audio discs made this way.
Recent posts have made it very clear to me that outside of people
doing production, few audiophiles understand the range of quality
that can be obtained from a computer with a really good sound card.
The emotional and "don't confuse me with the facts" comments we are
seeing suggest to me that many, particularly those in the high end
audio business, find the whole issue threatening and/or confusing.
In my book, it's yet another educational and market development
failure of the specialty audio press, which seems oriented toward
protecting traditional turf. and runs away from breaking new ground
with jerking knees.
Arny Krüger
"trotsky" <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message
news:3865F7A4...@mc.net...
>
Stewart Pinkerton wrote.
> > The first arena where LP vanished for new releases was classical
> > music, where subtle nuances and tonal accuracy of reproduction
are
> > more important to most listeners.................
> Which is why the classical music business has been in a state of
decline since
> the introduction of the cd.
The decline of the classical music market was well under way before
the CD was introduced.
Right now, many of the younger generation think of the Beatles and
Elvis if you mention classical music.
Interestingly enough http://www.riaa.com/stats/st_cp.htm shows a
dramatic > 21% rise in Classical music sales in 1998 (The last year
for which full stats are posted).
Corresponding trends in other sales demographic and product
categories are:
A drop in sales to 15-19 year olds, a rise in sales to people over
the age of 41, increasing sales of CD's and flat sales of LP's.
trotsky
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> "trotsky" <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message
> news:3865F7A4...@mc.net...
> >
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote.
>
> > > The first arena where LP vanished for new releases was classical
> > > music, where subtle nuances and tonal accuracy of reproduction
> are
> > > more important to most listeners.................
>
> > Which is why the classical music business has been in a state of
> decline since
> > the introduction of the cd.
>
> The decline of the classical music market was well under way before
> the CD was introduced.
And the statistics for this false claim are where, exactly?
>
> Right now, many of the younger generation think of the Beatles and
> Elvis if you mention classical music.
Please leave your NAMBLA experiences out of the discussion. ;-(
>
> Interestingly enough http://www.riaa.com/stats/st_cp.htm shows a
> dramatic > 21% rise in Classical music sales in 1998 (The last year
> for which full stats are posted).
Hm, could be explained by less awful sounding cds and cd players, exactly as I
predicted, right?
>
> Corresponding trends in other sales demographic and product
> categories are:
>
> A drop in sales to 15-19 year olds, a rise in sales to people over
> the age of 41, increasing sales of CD's and flat sales of LP's.
Of course, the "flat sales of LP's (sic)" corresponds to LPs selling strictly to
people who get it, right?
Arny Krüger
>
>
> "Arny Krüger" wrote:
> >
> > "trotsky" <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message
> > news:3865F7A4...@mc.net...
> > >
> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote.
> >
> > > > The first arena where LP vanished for new releases was
classical
> > > > music, where subtle nuances and tonal accuracy of
reproduction
> > are
> > > > more important to most listeners.................
> >
> > > Which is why the classical music business has been in a state
of
> > decline since
> > > the introduction of the cd.
> >
> > The decline of the classical music market was well under way
before
> > the CD was introduced.
> And the statistics for this false claim are where, exactly?
People who were aware of music industry statistics when the LP's
were undergoing rapid death.
I could not easily find an online source. All the stats I did find
were from after the period after LP had suffered the most.
> > Right now, many of the younger generation think of the Beatles
and
> > Elvis if you mention classical music.
> >
> > Interestingly enough http://www.riaa.com/stats/st_cp.htm shows a
> > dramatic > 21% rise in Classical music sales in 1998 (The last
year
> > for which full stats are posted).
> Hm, could be explained by less awful sounding cds and cd players,
exactly as I predicted, right?
And the statistics for this claim are where, exactly?
> > Corresponding trends in other sales demographic and product
> > categories are:
>
> > A drop in sales to 15-19 year olds, a rise in sales to people
over
> > the age of 41, increasing sales of CD's and flat sales of LP's.
> Of course, the "flat sales of LP's (sic)" corresponds to LPs
selling strictly to people who get it, right?
If by "it" you mean their daily minimum requirements of noise and
distortion, then yes.
trotsky
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> "trotsky" <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message
> news:386644D3...@mc.net...
> >
> >
> > "Arny Krüger" wrote:
> > >
> > > "trotsky" <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3865F7A4...@mc.net...
> > > >
> > > Stewart Pinkerton wrote.
> > >
> > > > > The first arena where LP vanished for new releases was
> classical
> > > > > music, where subtle nuances and tonal accuracy of
> reproduction
> > > are
> > > > > more important to most listeners.................
> > >
> > > > Which is why the classical music business has been in a state
> of
> > > decline since
> > > > the introduction of the cd.
> > >
> > > The decline of the classical music market was well under way
> before
> > > the CD was introduced.
>
> > And the statistics for this false claim are where, exactly?
>
> People who were aware of music industry statistics when the LP's
> were undergoing rapid death.
I see. The statistics are "in people" then. The Krooglish has reached a very
advanced state, apparently.
>
> I could not easily find an online source. All the stats I did find
> were from after the period after LP had suffered the most.
By "suffering the most" you mean when LP sales had declined the most rapidly
then? It sounds like you are describing a cancer patient, Arnii, which isn't a
good analogy, or even a simile, because the sound of LPs and associated
equipment is better than it ever has been in history. You aren't subtly trying
to attack preference again, are you, you tricky dicky?
>
> > > Right now, many of the younger generation think of the Beatles
> and
> > > Elvis if you mention classical music.
(Editor's note: Clever NAMBLA reference cut out by Kroogier, who hates
cleverness of all types.) (And similes.)
>
> > >
> > > Interestingly enough http://www.riaa.com/stats/st_cp.htm shows a
> > > dramatic > 21% rise in Classical music sales in 1998 (The last
> year
> > > for which full stats are posted).
>
> > Hm, could be explained by less awful sounding cds and cd players,
> exactly as I predicted, right?
>
> And the statistics for this claim are where, exactly?
Hm, the statistics for less awful sounding cds and cd players. Oh, I don't
know. I'd bet even Pinkie would back me on this subjective claim, though. Then
again, Pinkie isn't exactly on your side when it comes to backing your
scintillating scientific arguments, is he? ;-)
>
> > > Corresponding trends in other sales demographic and product
> > > categories are:
> >
> > > A drop in sales to 15-19 year olds, a rise in sales to people
> over
> > > the age of 41, increasing sales of CD's and flat sales of LP's.
>
> > Of course, the "flat sales of LP's (sic)" corresponds to LPs
> selling strictly to people who get it, right?
>
> If by "it" you mean their daily minimum requirements of noise and
> distortion, then yes.
More attacks of personal preference, in Arnii's typical dogmatic posturing™
style--this has really gotten stale.
Marc Phillips
>> > Right now, many of the younger generation think of the Beatles
>and
>> > Elvis if you mention classical music.
They do not, you old fart. Many of the baby boomer generation, unfortunately,
think of John Tesh and Yanni, however.
Boon
Stephen McElroy
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> Recent posts have made it very clear to me that outside of people
> doing production, few audiophiles understand the range of quality
> that can be obtained from a computer with a really good sound card.
I would have been skeptical of using hard drives as sources before I did
some casual work on a Sonic System. Even with a really cheap jitter buster
and DAC, the sound quality was high end quality.
The well-designed room didn't hurt.
However, since most computer audio is played on beyond cheap sound cards
with bad DACs and RFI interference from internal analog sections, I can't
blame an audiophile for being suspicious.
Stephen
Paul Wagner
> There already is a "back door". CD ROM's can be written with any
> unexploited.
I, for one, intend to exploit it!
> About 18 months ago I received an ad from someone who wanted to
> develop a market for selling audio discs made this way.
Sounds like a smart person.
>
> Recent posts have made it very clear to me that outside of people
> doing production, few audiophiles understand the range of quality
> that can be obtained from a computer with a really good sound card.
It's true. You, John Atkinson, Glenn Z, and George Cardas are the only
people I know who are fully exploiting this; the local studios and
enthusiasts
I know haven't a whit of an idea. Btw, I highly recommend that everyone
on every side of these debates listen to Cardas' releases -- I have
never
heard anything as fully live and sonically uncolored in my listening
life!
> The emotional and "don't confuse me with the facts" comments we are
> seeing suggest to me that many, particularly those in the high end
> audio business, find the whole issue threatening and/or confusing.
> In my book, it's yet another educational and market development
> failure of the specialty audio press, which seems oriented toward
> protecting traditional turf. and runs away from breaking new ground
> with jerking knees.
When entire fields react this way,
it tends, in my experience, to repre-
sent deep cultural assumptions rooted
for a long, long time. We've now
lived with an assumption that Utility
(a function of work and discipline, and
therefore Good) and Beauty (a function
of indulgence, and therefore Bad) are
separate things; attending many
institutional gatherings from highly
conservative church services to
leftist organizing meetings shows that
duality still very much, unconsciously,
in operation.
Ken has some interesting things to say
about how that functions to make it difficult
for many of us to even think about enjoying
entertainment at the same physical place
as doing his daily work, and I think he
might be right...
--PW--
Trevor Wilson
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3865e913....@news.dircon.co.uk...
> wolf...@aol.commune (Wolfgang Goldberg ) writes:
>
> >>From: nous...@aol.com
> >
> >>Just as you weren't
> >>forced to buy a cd player when cd was introduced. You did that happily
> >>because
> >>it offered a useful blend of utility.
> >>
> >
> >Oy! So how much does someone pay you to spread this ferblundgit drek?
Most
> >audiophiles I know, way back then, bought CD players because they could
no
> >longer get much or any new music on LP. None of them were 'happy' about
it at
> >the time, you putz! Enough already Nousaine! So tell? Have you no shame
about
> >telling such lies or do you really believe this nonsense?
>
> introduced, and for several *years* after, there was *much* more vinyl
> in the stores than CD. The public voted with their plastic, and LP
> went the way of the 78.
>
> music, where subtle nuances and tonal accuracy of reproduction are
> more important to most listeners.................
>
**I dissagree. The absence of surface noise, was the major reason, for the
dominance of CD's in the classical music business. As you are well aware,
most classical music enjoys a much greater dynamic range, over rock, or
jazz. Tonal accuracy, in modern turntables, is excellent, as is the
frequency response of a properly set up, modestly priced cartridge. The lack
of noise, convenience and zero wear, are the major factors.
--
Trevor Wilson
http://www.hutch.com.au/~rage
--
Trevor Wilson
http://www.hutch.com.au/~rage
Mike Bates
<9Yu94.2845$oJ5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...news:386625F9...@mc.net...
CD's.
> As the complexity increases (say, an orchestra in full flight), the CD
> system sounds a little rough around the edges.
I agree.. but..
Try an upsampling convertor like the Bel Canto DAC-1, it locks it all
together better than my SOTA analog setup. Truly remarkable. : )
Happy Holidays,
Mike Bates
Alvin Bloom
>> There already is a "back door".
>I, for one, intend to exploit it!
I am on record as a staunch supporter of those who find pleasure in practices
condemned by bible-thumping fundamentalists. Nevertheless, one wonders whether
public pronoucements of same aren't just a bit outre'.
Thank you
Alvin Bloom
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
>
> > There already is a "back door".
Paul Wagner wrote:
> I, for one, intend to exploit it!
Paul:
This is the wrong newsgroup for that kind of thing.
Zip
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
>
> Trevor Wilson <ra...@hutch.com.au> wrote in article
> <9Yu94.2845$oJ5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> >
> > "trotsky" <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message
> news:386625F9...@mc.net...
> > >
> > >
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" wrote:
> > Actually Stewart, the recording industry was in dire straits
> > for all the previous decade, and they saw CD as their saviour
> > - so almost immediately they started issuing recordings on CD
> > only. There was clearly an egenda to FORCE the public to the
> > new medium. Whilst they claimed better sound and perfect sound
> > forever, it was the small size, convenience, instant track
> > access, and quiet background that sold the system initially -
> > then the record companies forced the issue by selective
> > releasing policy.
> Wow, Steve, that was very succinct.
Thank you. It was factual and accurate, therefor it is totally
unpalateable for the borg dipshits like Steinborg, Krooborg and
Ultraborg.
> I think I might be starting to "buy off on" George's theory
> that Gigi writes some of your posts for you.
Actually Greg, you just wish you wrote the above post instead of me, but
you are incapable of saying anything that salient and precise, because
you are a raving little asshole and your ego won't allow you to just
say, 'nice post, Zip'. But let's get back on track because this is
basically a topic we're in agreement on and we shouldn't let your maddog
Chihuahua rabid antics to get in the way.
> That said, with classical music specifically, it was the lack of record
> noise that made it popular on cd.
Nope - it was the selective release policies of the major labels that
caused this, Greg. Let me point out something. The first companies to
cease releasing classical performances on LP were SONY/CBS, and the
Parlaphone labels which owns DECCA/LONDON/ARGO and Deutche Gramophone,
and PHILLIPS. Now what are the companies that own the rights to CD and
license CD's? SONY AND PHILLIPS! Do you see some agenda there??????
> Unfortunately, it was accompanied with a lack of low level
> ambience
as well as screachy violins, spitty flutes, and emasculated bass.
> for about ten years, until cd player manufacturers
> came to realize what the term "least significant bit" meant.
> My rule of thumb: the more complex the waveform, the more
> awful the 16/44 format is.
And on this we agre.
Zip
Firebug
>
>"Paul Wagner" <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> Firebug wrote:
>>
>> > As for DVD-Audio, I suspect the
>> > primary real reason it is being pushed is to deprive consumers
>of their right
>> > to make perfect digital copies.
>>
>> Could you explain this?
>
>The answer lies in the CURRENT relative states of CD-R technology
>and DVD technology, right?
Exactly.
>Audio CD's can now be digitally copied with a very high level of
>perfection, and quite economically.
>
>DVD-A's cannot now be digitally copied with as high level of a
>relative level of perfection nearly as economically.
Basic summary:
CD: no protection, $200 recorder, $1 blank discs
DVD-Audio: CSS2 protection, >$5000 recorder, >$40 blank discs
Any questions?
trotsky
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" wrote:
>
> Mike Bates wrote:
> >
> > Trevor Wilson <ra...@hutch.com.au> wrote in article
> > <9Yu94.2845$oJ5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> > >
> > > "trotsky" <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message
> > news:386625F9...@mc.net...
> > > >
> > > >
>
> "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" wrote:
> > > Actually Stewart, the recording industry was in dire straits
> > > for all the previous decade, and they saw CD as their saviour
> > > - so almost immediately they started issuing recordings on CD
> > > only. There was clearly an egenda to FORCE the public to the
> > > new medium. Whilst they claimed better sound and perfect sound
> > > forever, it was the small size, convenience, instant track
> > > access, and quiet background that sold the system initially -
> > > then the record companies forced the issue by selective
> > > releasing policy.
>
> > Wow, Steve, that was very succinct.
>
> Thank you. It was factual and accurate, therefor it is totally
> unpalateable for the borg dipshits like Steinborg, Krooborg and
> Ultraborg.
Are you thanking me or Mike Bates?
>
> > I think I might be starting to "buy off on" George's theory
> > that Gigi writes some of your posts for you.
>
> Actually Greg, you just wish you wrote the above post instead of me, but
> you are incapable of saying anything that salient and precise, because
> you are a raving little asshole and your ego won't allow you to just
> say, 'nice post, Zip'. But let's get back on track because this is
> basically a topic we're in agreement on and we shouldn't let your maddog
> Chihuahua rabid antics to get in the way.
And you think most of your posts are succinct and don't look like the work of a
madman then? How are your power grids coming along?
>
> > That said, with classical music specifically, it was the lack of record
> > noise that made it popular on cd.
>
> Nope - it was the selective release policies of the major labels that
> caused this, Greg. Let me point out something. The first companies to
> cease releasing classical performances on LP were SONY/CBS, and the
> Parlaphone labels which owns DECCA/LONDON/ARGO and Deutche Gramophone,
> and PHILLIPS. Now what are the companies that own the rights to CD and
> license CD's? SONY AND PHILLIPS! Do you see some agenda there??????
Maybe you need to tell us which labels were the *last* to issue cds then,
because you mentioned most of them.
>
> > Unfortunately, it was accompanied with a lack of low level
> > ambience
>
> as well as screachy violins, spitty flutes, and emasculated bass.
Yep, it definitely wasn't Gigi writing this one!
>
> > for about ten years, until cd player manufacturers
> > came to realize what the term "least significant bit" meant.
> > My rule of thumb: the more complex the waveform, the more
> > awful the 16/44 format is.
>
> And on this we agre.
Oka.
Trevor Wilson
"trotsky" <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message news:386625F9...@mc.net...
>
>
> "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" wrote:
> >
> > Actually Stewart, the recording industry was in dire straits for all the
> > previous decade, and they saw CD as their saviour - so almost
> > immediately they started issuing recordings on CD only. There was
> > clearly an egenda to FORCE the public to the new medium. Whilst they
> > claimed better sound and perfect sound forever, it was the small size,
> > convenience, instant track access, and quiet background that sold the
> > system initially - then the record companies forced the issue by
> > selective releasing policy.
>
>
>
>
>
off on"
> George's theory that Gigi writes some of your posts for you. That said,
with
> classical music specifically, it was the lack of record noise that made it
> ambience for about ten years, until cd player manufacturers came to
realize what
> the term "least significant bit" meant. My rule of thumb: the more
complex the
> waveform, the more awful the 16/44 format is.
>
**Agreed. 'Simple' music can be reproduced with convincing reality, on CD's.
Brian L. McCarty
Inc.) at z...@sunshinestereo.com wrote on 27/12/99 0:12:
> Actually Stewart, the recording industry was in dire straits for all the
> previous decade, and they saw CD as their saviour - so almost
> immediately they started issuing recordings on CD only. There was
> clearly an egenda to FORCE the public to the new medium.
The SALESHACK moron rewrites history again. The U.S. record companies were
for the most part vehemently opposed to CD's. . . the ramp up period was
extraordinarly long. For over a year I remember the only CD's in L.A. were
in a shoebox under the counter at Tower Records. It was the massive drop in
price of the players that got the system to catch fire.
But, Zippie was too busy trying to sell crapola at the time. . .his ONLY
AGENDA!
---
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) is a proven:
Zipser is a liar http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=369217967
Zipser is a scammer http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=368363274
Zipser is a cheater http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
Zipser is a THIEF http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=509980240
Arny Krüger
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:19991226135431...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
> Arny said:
>
>
>
> >> > Right now, many of the younger generation think of the
Beatles
> >> > and Elvis if you mention classical music.
> They do not, you old fart.
Really? How do you know for sure?
> Many of the baby boomer generation, unfortunately, think of John
Tesh and Yanni, however.
Whatever.
Arny Krüger
> > > > >
> > > > Stewart Pinkerton wrote.
> > > >
> > > > > > The first arena where LP vanished for new releases was
> > classical
> > > > > > music, where subtle nuances and tonal accuracy of
> > reproduction
> > > > are
> > > > > > more important to most listeners.................
> > > >
Beatles
> > and
> > > > Elvis if you mention classical music.
>
>
>
posturingT
> style--this has really gotten stale.
Given that you brought up the issue of scientific proof, where is
your scientific evidence that the noise and distortion I mentioned
isn't there? I've certainly posted enough scientific evidence that
it IS there.
Paul Wagner
> (2) Anybody reasonably handy person with a fairly recent PC (>100
> million people) can become a producer of music CD's in useful
> quantities... can thus compete with the major music companies...
See:
It's a group of 18 South Central LA rap and hiphop artists
who've formed a production collective, Afterlife Entertainment LLC,
which does exactly that -- record, mix, master and produce
their own CD's -- including labels -- in-house.
Great people, btw; good values, lots of generosity to newcomers
from their artistic area, committed to the highest production and
sonic quality possible; had the pleasure of talking to them
in the last couple of weeks...
Paul Wagner
Arny Krüger
Relevant quote:
"The company now has a recording studio, office and studio
computers, printers, a scanner and a CD burner, which allows
AfterLife the capability of producing their product all in-house.
This company has been running on very little capital yet producing
musical masterpieces."
This claim seems totally believable to me.
I think that the decline of the major media companies is going to
going to be like "Murder on the Orient Express": Everybody did it.
viz...@bellatlantic.net
Oui.
What's your point, Paul? The language was clear.
Ed
Stewart Pinkerton
>"trotsky" <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message news:386625F9...@mc.net...
>>
>> "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" wrote:
>> > Actually Stewart, the recording industry was in dire straits for all the
>> > previous decade, and they saw CD as their saviour - so almost
>> > immediately they started issuing recordings on CD only. There was
>> > clearly an egenda to FORCE the public to the new medium. Whilst they
>> > claimed better sound and perfect sound forever, it was the small size,
>> > convenience, instant track access, and quiet background that sold the
>> > system initially - then the record companies forced the issue by
>> > selective releasing policy.
Still trying to rewrite history, Steve? :-)
CD was dead in the water for the first couple of years - it had a
*very* slow takeup until players began to get cheaper, and it took
more than five years before CD really began to dominate with 'Joe
Sixpack'.
>> Wow, Steve, that was very succinct. I think I might be starting to "buy off on"
>> George's theory that Gigi writes some of your posts for you. That said, with
>> classical music specifically, it was the lack of record noise that made it
>> popular on cd. Unfortunately, it was accompanied with a lack of low level
>> ambience for about ten years, until cd player manufacturers came to realize what
>> the term "least significant bit" meant. My rule of thumb: the more complex the
>> waveform, the more awful the 16/44 format is.
>>
>**Agreed. 'Simple' music can be reproduced with convincing reality, on CD's.
>As the complexity increases (say, an orchestra in full flight), the CD
>system sounds a little rough around the edges.
But not so rough as LP..........
As even Trots has dimly realised, CD in 1999 can extract detail even
below the -93dB noise floor of CD, let alone the -70dB or so of LP.
Those 'low level detail' and 'microdynamics' arguments viz-a-viz LP
went out of the window from day 1 on the Philips/Marantz gear at least
(on a decent recording), and CD replay has steadily improved to a
point where in the last couple of years, we really are converging on
what is basically the sound of the master disc.
Stewart Pinkerton
>
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3865e913....@news.dircon.co.uk...
>> wolf...@aol.commune (Wolfgang Goldberg ) writes:
>>
>> >>From: nous...@aol.com
>> >
>> >>Just as you weren't
>> >>forced to buy a cd player when cd was introduced. You did that happily
>> >>because
>> >>it offered a useful blend of utility.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Oy! So how much does someone pay you to spread this ferblundgit drek?
>Most
>> >audiophiles I know, way back then, bought CD players because they could
>no
>> >longer get much or any new music on LP. None of them were 'happy' about
>it at
>> >the time, you putz! Enough already Nousaine! So tell? Have you no shame
>about
>> >telling such lies or do you really believe this nonsense?
>>
>> Och, ye muckle tumshie, hae ye nae sense avah? Way back when CD was
>> introduced, and for several *years* after, there was *much* more vinyl
>> in the stores than CD. The public voted with their plastic, and LP
>> went the way of the 78.
>>
>> The first arena where LP vanished for new releases was classical
>> music, where subtle nuances and tonal accuracy of reproduction are
>> more important to most listeners.................
>>
>**I dissagree. The absence of surface noise, was the major reason, for the
>dominance of CD's in the classical music business. As you are well aware,
>most classical music enjoys a much greater dynamic range, over rock, or
>jazz. Tonal accuracy, in modern turntables, is excellent, as is the
>frequency response of a properly set up, modestly priced cartridge. The lack
>of noise, convenience and zero wear, are the major factors.
If you listen to a lot of solo piano, the wow and flutter which is
common to many LPs, even on an excellent turntable, is a major pain
which magically vanishes with CD. Also, the bass foundation of the
music is rock-solid and stable with CD, as opposed to the wooliness of
LP bass (leaving aside the horrid swoosh of surface noise that you've
already mentioned - which kinda makes subtle nuances hard to
distinguish).
No surprise at all that classical music vanished first from the LP
shelves.
Marc Phillips
>> >> > Right now, many of the younger generation think of the
>Beatles
>> >> > and Elvis if you mention classical music.
>
>> They do not, you old fart.
>
>Really? How do you know for sure?
Well, unless by "many" you mean "more than one," I would say that this is just
another case of too much credit being given to the Baby Boomers, and not enough
credit being given to Gen X-ers.
You're the type of person they laugh at and despise. They may not know in
which order the Beatles albums were released, but they certainly know what
classical music is.
>> Many of the baby boomer generation, unfortunately, think of John
>Tesh and Yanni, however.
>
>Whatever.
I read a poll where EXACTLY those results were obtained. And isn't "whatever"
a Kroogerism for "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'll never let
anyone know"?
Boon
Arny Krüger
From: "Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The great LP vs. CD debate/war. BUT...how about
analog vs. digital masters?
Date: Monday, December 27, 1999 12:44 PM
"Trevor Wilson" <ra...@hutch.com.au> writes:
>"trotsky" <gsi...@mc.net> wrote in message
news:386625F9...@mc.net...
>>
>> "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" wrote:
>> > Actually Stewart, the recording industry was in dire straits
for all the
>> > previous decade, and they saw CD as their saviour - so almost
>> > immediately they started issuing recordings on CD only. There
was
>> > clearly an egenda to FORCE the public to the new medium.
Whilst they
>> > claimed better sound and perfect sound forever, it was the
small size,
>> > convenience, instant track access, and quiet background that
sold the
>> > system initially - then the record companies forced the issue
by
>> > selective releasing policy.
>Still trying to rewrite history, Steve? :-)
>CD was dead in the water for the first couple of years - it had a
*very* slow takeup until players began to get cheaper, and it took
more than five years before CD really began to dominate with 'Joe
Sixpack'.
CD was introduced in the US in about May (midyear) of 1983.
According to http://www.riaa.com/stats/st_usrs.htm in 1989 (about
5.5 years later) US CD sales were 207.2 million pieces worth
$2,587,000.000, while LP sales were 34.6 million pieces worth
$220,000,000. Statistics for earlier years don't seem to be readily
available.
http://www.riaa.com/stats/st_usrs.htm shows that 5 and a half years
after introduction to the US, 6 CD's were sold for every LP that was
sold, and $9 was spent for CD for every $1 spent on LP's.
This does not strike me as CD dominance, it strikes me as CD being
overwhelmingly superior (in terms of sales).
In 1989 CD's were still selling for an approximate 50% piece price
premium, which blows the "McDonalds" argument right out of the
water.
I believe you've pointed this out in the past and these statistics
prove that you are right.
Arny Krüger
>
> If you listen to a lot of solo piano, the wow and flutter which is
> common to many LPs, even on an excellent turntable, is a major
pain
> which magically vanishes with CD. Also, the bass foundation of the
> music is rock-solid and stable with CD, as opposed to the
wooliness of
> LP bass (leaving aside the horrid swoosh of surface noise that
you've
> already mentioned - which kinda makes subtle nuances hard to
> distinguish).
>
> No surprise at all that classical music vanished first from the LP
> shelves.
Basically the reasons why I was eager to switch to digital, and in
the right order!
Arny Krüger
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> Arny said:
>
>>>>>> Right now, many of the younger generation think of the
Beatles
>>>>>> and Elvis if you mention classical music.
> >> They do not, you old fart.
> >Really? How do you know for sure?
> Well, unless by "many" you mean "more than one," I would say that
this is just
> another case of too much credit being given to the Baby Boomers,
and not enough
> credit being given to Gen X-ers.
So you would say, but you would say many things to pat yourself on
the back.
> You're the type of person they laugh at and despise.
Really? Just because you titillate yourself by being that way?
> They may not know in
> which order the Beatles albums were released, but they certainly
know what
> classical music is.
Some do, some don't.
> >> Many of the baby boomer generation, unfortunately, think of
John
> >Tesh and Yanni, however.
> >Whatever.
> I read a poll where EXACTLY those results were obtained.
Why don't you cite it so that we know you aren't making this all up?
> And isn't "whatever" a Kroogerism for "I don't know what I'm
talking about, but I'll never let anyone know"?
No its a common expression that means "have it your way as if I
should give a whit".
George M. Middius
> You're the type of person [Gen X-ers] laugh at and despise.
I'm sure normals of all ages laugh and despise a filthy, lying
sack of shit such as Krooturd.
George M. Middius
Arny Krüger
"George M. Middius" <Glan...@ipo.net> wrote in message
news:rjef6s837gute5nvn...@4ax.com...
Seems like most of the laughter is headed your way, lately.
When is Kommandant Klink, going to inform you about your "new
direction"?
Firebug
>in article qq7a6sg2bsptikl8m...@4ax.com,
>viz...@bellatlantic.net at viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote on 26/12/99 5:54:
>
>> Of course. That makes sense. Does it matter, however, whether
>> your copy is at 16 bit 44hz or at 24 bit 96 or 192 hz?
>
>If it's a "perfect" copy, it can only be 16/44.1.
>
>A "copy" at anything else is just made up bits.
If the source is a Red Book-standard audio CD, this is true. However, the
issue at question involved the new SACD and proposed DVD-Audio formats, which
do allow higher sampling and word lengths.
Paul Wagner
And fun.
That was the point.
viz...@bellatlantic.net
<paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 05:45:46 +0800, Paul Wagner
>> <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> Exactly so.
>> >
>> >AKA "Quite," n'est-ce pas?
>>
>> Oui.
>>
>> What's your point, Paul? The language was clear.
>
>And fun.
>
>That was the point.
No. Sorry. Fun is not allowed on rao.
Er......guess I misunderstood. I thought you were making some
sort of obscure point. ::sigh::
Ed
greg pavlov
Inc.)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>Brian L. McCarty wrote:
>>
>> If it's a "perfect" copy, it can only be 16/44.1.
>> A "copy" at anything else is just made up bits.
>
>McCarty:
>You are a moron the likes of which has never stomped the earth since the
>Mezozoic period. You are the modern day answer to Diplodocus in both
>size and intelligence.
>
>ALL DIGITAL COPIES ARE JUST MADE OF BITS, YOU DUMB FUCK!
His answer was correct; yours is only obscene.
greg pavlov
[not affiliated with DFCI or Harvard]
**************************************************************************
For the definitive intro guide to rao, see:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/
**************************************************************************
Steve Zipser
says...
> On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 19:07:33 -0500, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo,
> Inc.)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>
> >Brian L. McCarty wrote:
> >>
> >> If it's a "perfect" copy, it can only be 16/44.1.
> >> A "copy" at anything else is just made up bits.
> >McCarty:
> >ALL DIGITAL COPIES ARE JUST MADE OF BITS, YOU DUMB FUCK!
> His answer was correct; yours is only obscene.
>
No, Pavlov read this again you stupid ass
ALL DIGITAL COPIES ARE JUST MADE OF BITS,
ALL DIGITAL COPIES ARE JUST MADE OF BITS,
Do you understand it? Obviously not.
Go back to making inane comments, Pavlov
Zip
greg pavlov
Inc.) <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>
>No, Pavlov read this again you stupid ass
>
>ALL DIGITAL COPIES ARE JUST MADE OF BITS,
>ALL DIGITAL COPIES ARE JUST MADE OF BITS,
>
That is not what he said.
The problem here is that you are so obsessed
with Brian - who is little more than a mirror
image of your own personality - that you aren't
really reading what he says. It's just something
else for you to flame about.
Peter Corey
Hang in there Greg...
| ^ ^ |
[ 0 = ] _ _____
(~~~~~~-oOOo-(_)-oOOo-~~~~~~)_ _ _ _ _(_\_____o /_/_ |
( P.Corey@The Hi-End Haven™ ) >-----._/_/__]>
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~) `0 |
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/hiendhaven.html
<>
Distributors of the "Hi-End Haven Capsule™ "
The "Double Deaf Audio Comparator™ " &
The powerful "Powerless Power Cord™ ".
Paul Wagner
> <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> >>What's your point, Paul? The language was clear.
> >
> >And fun. That was the point.
>
> No. Sorry. Fun is not allowed on rao.
>
> Er......guess I misunderstood. I thought you were making some
> sort of obscure point. ::sigh::
No, I leave that to Joe Duffy!