R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 51   Go Down

Author Topic: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz  (Read 89893 times)

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2008, 03:13:59 PM »

mgod wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 11:45

No question the CD can't come close to giving the correct info. DS
mgod wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 11:38

This is a highly subjective assertion, unprovable and not remotely accurate.
DS

Context.

RSettee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6796
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2008, 03:37:33 PM »

Heh, the good 'ol peanut butter vs. chocolate thread....

I think that alot of people are just looking for ways to validate or de-validate the reasons for music theft nowadays. As I pointed out in another thread, I like the slightly wilder sound of vinyl--more background noise so that fades (and the background noise in the recordings--tape hiss, room noise, etc) seem to emanate a bit more naturally than from the noiseless and clear cd bottom floor. Plus, it's more of an experience--better liner notes, better art, etc.

But I have an old Pioneer cd recorder from about 1999 in which I paid $1000 at the time, and it's much better sounding than even my higher end JVC home stereo bookshelf system from the same year. And I think that it's a fair assessment to say that it's an anomaly in the digital realm, in that i've never had errors or complaints or breakdowns or crap sound. But it could be because it's a recording cd player in that Pioneer had to overbuild in which to not have recording errors, but I think that it's a great case of what great build quality will impart on a cd. Clearer, bass is tighter, and here's another test that people don't seem to be acknowledging--on the JVC (high quality and above average components used, or at worse, a quality of built that the majority of consumers would play back their cds on), there's cds in my collection that skip. BUT, on the Pioneer, they never skip. Never. I've never once had a skip, even on problematic cds that seem to have reading problems in the JVC (Sloan's "Never Hear The End Of It" has serious problems in the JVC, however, NONE in the Pioneer). Some burnt cds have problems being read in the JVC as well, and no problem on the Pioneer.

I monitored all my mixes on it, as well, all the cd mixes i've done have been cut on it. Never a problem. 100 percent. 10 years. No failures. It's always exactly the way that I mixed it, because the whole point of digital/ optical connectors was to transfer your exact sound, whereas (and I still have to get the finished vinyl records back to get the proper vinyl back) with vinyl, even other bands' recordings that I have on both cd and vinyl, the vinyl is a bit warmer, but it's not the exact sound of the cd. I don't know what mechanism they put in the PDR-509 was--or if I lucked out with one of the best of their best runs. It's so damn good in fact, that now that cd players and cd technology is being declared junk, that i'm now going to stock up on them as an example of what people will be after as gold in 10-15 years.

Here's a wee test that would disprove the fact that cd players are all created equal, in that people think that they buy a crap low end cd player and are immediately imparted great sound:

The Flaming Lips released "Zaireeka", and this is in the liners:

Quote:

"So anyway....I got a couple of CD players together and played some tracks that I had on two separate cds. You know, the same song but on two different discs, like say a track off an album and a track off a single....anyway--I played them together simply by pressing the play buttons at the same time. To my surprise they played relatively in synch for the first minute or so....but even more of a surprise was that they would wobble in and out of synch sort of arbitrarily. From what I can tell, cd players will not play in synch with each other. They get close, depending on the quality of the players, but for the most part it can be pretty random. It was this part that excited me, the fact that they played close enough together that you could tell what was going on, but also played unpredictably in front of or behind the other, making it confusing. Sometimes one would start behind and catch up to the other, other times the opposite"


Which was the whole reason that they released the four disc "Zaireeka", in which to play simultaneously on four different stereos with different sounds on each disc--the recording is slightly out, you're never getting the same exact sound twice because the tracks float in and out of synch with each other. I've also experienced this when synching up a drum machine--non-MIDI-- with the same tempo and it being on the beat at the beginning of the song and for a few minutes afterwards.....then it floats off time!!

Here's the problem--when you listen to the same music on different stereos or different listening environments, it changes the way the music sounds. That also has an effect of how people see the release, doesn't matter whether it's vinyl or cd, you often get one or two listens before someone derives an opinion....no matter if it was on vinyl or cd or listened to in an improper listening environment, they've drawn their conclusion. I was listening to the masters of my new album in a friends basement on a really, really haphazard setup--the speakers were all mixed and matched, different systems, not equidistant, we weren't in the middle of the speakers (closer to one channel than another) and there's, you know, a bunch of stuff in the rafters and stuff strewn around here and there. And the mixes sounded weird....the guitars weren't loud enough for part of the album. But on the Pioneer in my studio and on my headphones and even in my own living room setup, the guitars were sounding fine...I listened to it on several systems, with proper monitoring systems, and I know that they were fine. As my friend remarked, "well, what do you expect from a 7 dollar thrift shop find?".

Quote:

But when it comes to portable music, people stuff their iPods with tunes of far worse quality than either CDs or LPs. MP3s are compressed files that cut as much as 90 percent of the sound from the original recording


I totally agree with this. When people complain about cd quality being crap, they're often listening to the MP3 versions with inferior rip quality. 128 KBPS should be banned, and anything below 192 KBPS should be banned. I listened to certain same songs in varying KBPS and indeed, they were having a reduced emotional/ subconscious effect on me. That's the best I can describe it.

Quote:

by using computer models of human hearing and removing subtle sounds that most of us don’t realize we’re missing. A compressed recording of a French horn, for example, might lack the slight reverberations from the concert hall.

Instead of filling his digital music player with thousands of songs of crummy sound quality, Grammy Award–winning producer Jim Anderson keeps his iPod stocked with just 55 songs in an uncompressed format, including jazz pianist Keith Jarrett’s epic live solo concerts in Germany. (Anderson prefers the lossless AIFF format, in which one minute of stereo audio occupies 10 megabytes.) “If I were to cut the CD down to an MP3, I’d be throwing out all the stuff in the room that makes the piano sound as full as it does,” says Anderson, who is also chair of the department of recorded music at New York University. “I hear the piano exactly as it was at the concert.”


No doubt. And as i've mentioned before, there's more gadgetry than ever on stereos to enhance the finished cd. Wasn't that the whole point of production? At work, there was a reverb sound on the stereo---there was a bunch of classic songs that were playing that I knew for a fact didn't have that much reverb on them. Sure enough, the "surround" (i'm guessing reverb surround) was activated. Factor in expanders, EQ's, bass boosts, the aforementioned reverb surround, and how do you know what exactly cd sound is? It's like if people say "well, I really don't like orange flavour". I've tasted an actual orange, and then i've tasted cheap, $.50 cent orange drinks--it's NOT orange. It's a poor, harsh facsimile, but what people should realize with cd audio as well, don't claim that you want true orange flavour and then shell out for the cheap orange flavoured drinks and claim that you don't like the orange experience. There's a whole pile of additives in anything that are anything but pure--you could say that high fructose corn syrup or phosphoric acid could be the equivalent of playing cds on inferior cheap equipment, or engineers using extreme brickwall limiting or extreme EQ to get the most out of the cd format.

Going back to the early 90's, with Andy Wallace/ John Agnello/ Brian Paulson/ J Mascis technical help, with George Marino/ Bob Ludwig/ Howie Weinberg mastering sounded amazing--the levels were great, the sound was great--powerful, clear, concise, sharp, defined, rich. A guy like Andy Wallace really truly knew how to mix--everything sounded great, was compressed (esp drums) a bit to even it out a bit more to get it punchier, but guys like that were just trying to get everything to cut through the mix with each other, but the mixes still breathed. Now, the problem is that the industry and volume wars have helped to pitch in to ruin the sound of the actual recordings by trying to all outdo each other on cd changers (no one wanted the lower cd on your 10 disc changer in, say, 1998 or so).

So it's probably a combination of the techniques used to extract the loudest possible sound on cd (possible in cds without any errors but clipping, as opposed to vinyl which would skip with levels cut too hot), inferior MP3 ripping or downloading rates in order to maximize space on their IPod or hard drive, and then you also have all the aforementioned stereo gadgetry to "improve" the apparently inferior sound that we've worked so hard to get right. I mean, hell, why even mix or master the thing with all those stereo gadgets? Why not just get the audience to do it?
Logged

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2008, 03:50:35 PM »

What I  find interesting is no one is questioning Stanley Lipshitz' qualifications to make a de facto statement.  We push back and forth amongst ourselves but no one has considered the source who set this off.  What agenda does he have?
Logged

John Bailey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2008, 05:07:04 PM »

Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 15:50

What I  find interesting is no one is questioning Stanley Lipshitz' qualifications to make a de facto statement.  We push back and forth amongst ourselves but no one has considered the source who set this off.  What agenda does he have?


Not jumping into the debate here, but Lipshitz and Vanderkooy were pioneers in developing and examining the effect of 'Dither' on digital audio signals, a little thing we take for granted these days...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither

Cheers,
JB
Logged
---------------------------
John Bailey
Toronto, Canada
http://johnbeetlebailey.com
http://thedriveshed.com

MDM,

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2305
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2008, 05:54:23 PM »

CD may resemble the original signal better than vinyl from a technical point of view, but vinyl has the advantage of being analog.. and therefore resembling sound waves better than CD.

if the whole path is analog.
Logged
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy .. in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry and music.
John Adams (1735-1826) 2nd President, United States

Bill Mueller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4502
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2008, 06:09:02 PM »

MDM, wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 17:54

CD may resemble the original signal better than vinyl from a technical point of view, but vinyl has the advantage of being analog.. and therefore resembling sound waves better than CD.

if the whole path is analog.


Max and Dan,

This thread started out so positive. With honest descriptions of the differences between vinyl and CD audio quality. And then you guys jump in with your declarations of authority  and subjective opinion, and the thread will die because no one else has the energy to argue with your unsubstantiated bluster.

This DOES NOT further an intelligent discussion or further the development of audio in any way.

And another thing. The CD did not kill the record. The CASSETTE killed the record.

And Max. Quit with the analog crap. Yes, a vinyl record is analog in the strict sense of the word. However there are as many transduction differences between the millions of unique magnetic domains holding their individual bits of a magnetic waveform on an analog tape and the mechanical squiggles scratched into the surface of a platter, as between magnet analog and magnetic digital. It ALL gets converted into digital signals in the inner ear and transmitted to the brain as discrete (digital?) neurochemical events anyway. Don't even try to describe THAT as "analog".

Best Regards,

Bill

Logged
"Don't take it personally. But this shit is a science." J.J.Blair

“The Internet is only a means of communication,” he wrote. “It is not an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights. There is nothing in the criminal or civil law which legalizes that which is otherwise illegal simply because the transaction takes place over the Internet.” Irish judge, Peter Charleton

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2008, 07:20:39 PM »

Thanks JB for the Wiki link.  I've known of Lipshitz and Vanderkooy for years - as you say about dither and Lipshitz' criticism of 1 bit Sigma-Delta (as opposed to PCM).  As a digital fellow then does he have an agenda I wonder.

I also know, that at least in the past, when using a stereo microphone technique, Mr. Lipshitz was known to drag out a protractor to measure the angle very precisely.  To each his own of course.

So I wonder...

Logged

PaulyD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 867
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #22 on: July 06, 2008, 12:11:56 AM »

There's something I find ironic about the digital vs analog delivery medium debate: It doesn't seem to exist in the video world, at least with consumer formats. After watching well authored DVD's, I find it painful to watch VHS tapes. No one seems to mind the advance of digital flat screen TV's or digital broadcasting, either. Even at the high end though, the days of the mighty 35 mm and 70 mm formats may be numbered, if you've been paying attention to Red. Red 4K DV is jaw-dropping. Combine that with Blu-ray and look out!

But analog vs digital audio? The debate continues...

Now, sorry to keep hammering on the DSD thing, but...after getting a Korg MR-1000, I suddenly found myself very interested in the 1-bit format. I mean, what comes out of the Korg MR-1000 sounds just like what went into it, provided you're relying on your own pre-amp(s). When I first got it, I remember thinking "Wow! Too bad this isn't a consumer format!" Oh, but wait...it is. It's called SA-CD. However, read this post from Bob O on Bruno's forum. I found it saddening. I can't help but wonder if we didn't miss the turn. Y'know, the promise of digital audio finally fulfilled. Nevertheless, I may brave an SA-CD player, the limited titles available, and hope it gains traction over time.

Advances in digital video and digital photography are greeted with open arms, but digital audio? meh...trashy downloaded mp3's are "good enough"... Sad

Paul

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2008, 01:21:44 AM »

PaulyD wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 21:11

There's something I find ironic about the digital vs analog delivery medium debate: It doesn't seem to exist in the video world, at least with consumer formats. After watching well authored DVD's, I find it painful to watch VHS tapes. No one seems to mind the advance of digital flat screen TV's or digital broadcasting, either.

Paul

Actually, not everyone regards digital video in the form it arrives in a home as an advance. I can't find any form of flat screen TV that looks as good a my 19-year-old 32" Proton. Moreover, the image that arrives via satellite TV or TW cable is considerably more cartoonish than my old cable used to be. Technically it may be an advancement in some areas, in the same way that digital audio makes a few improvements, but for overall image quality I regard it as a drop in quality. The one truly noticeable improvement is in large areas of red, where the chroma noise is way reduced.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2008, 02:25:25 AM »

Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 15:09


Max and Dan,

This thread started out so positive. With honest descriptions of the differences between vinyl and CD audio quality. And then you guys jump in with your declarations of authority  and subjective opinion, and the thread will die because no one else has the energy to argue with your unsubstantiated bluster.

This DOES NOT further an intelligent discussion or further the development of audio in any way.

And another thing. The CD did not kill the record. The CASSETTE killed the record.

Best Regards,

Bill

This statement is an act precisely the kind of which you're accusing me. Any assertion, as if it is authoritative and unquestionable, that the CD is an "accurate" medium, more accurate than vinyl, is in my view dismissive of the advancements in digital audio and in understanding the problems of error correction which the CD is stuck with, and with which music has been stuck for two decades. Just as we're finally escaping it, you come up with this reactionary opinion of "bluster" to  shut me up. Nice!

The attempt to spin objections to that assertion the way you are Bill is an attempt, in the form of condescending politeness, to perform a little slight of hand so no one notices the authoritatively stated flaws in the assumption made here, that its simply just a given that the CD is more accurate. Its not a given, and continuing to make that argument now, and to accuse me the way you have, is trying to turn the clock back. This DOES NOT further an intelligent discussion or further the development of audio in any way. It stands in the way. Observation is the beginning of science. You've spent more than a year trying to argue that observation is subjective and therefor dismissible. You continue to do that by calling it unsubstantiated bluster. I regard that as poor science. However, fortunately for the state of audio, this kind of accusation doesn't prevent genuine advancement which continues outside this discussion by folks willing to do the observation and experimentation that derives from it.

But I agree the CD did not kill the record. The record is not dead. The CD is. Good riddance. What a piece of crap technology. It slowed us down for years.

One of the things we have going on here over and over again is people making authoritative assertions about the state of vinyl who ultimately reveal to us that they really don't try very hard to know how good it can be - they use crap turntables, and talk about how noisy vinyl is, with no awareness of how noisy shit turntables are. How do I know records aren't accurate? My Garrard/Philips/Dual turntable from the 70s/80s with my $50 cartridge sounds like it! How do I know CDs are accurate? They sound good in my car! If you haven't really done the observation, bent over backwards to know both media, then you aren't capable of speaking with any authority on the subject, Lipshitz included. And part of observation is knowing your own biases intimately.

And further, Bill you and I have had enough private conversation for you to know how hard I've worked at observation, for more than 25 years, how much care I've put into it. Enough for Jim Johnsten at AT&T Labs to use me as an observer in the development of AAC, as you know. You don't want to be challenged when authoritative statements are made? Then change the subject. You keep trying to shut me up by labeling me "subjective". But go get yourself a nice well-built $10k or $20k turntable and some of the good modern vinyl and spend a couple years with it and the best cd player you can find, and I'll meet you at the Subjective Corral for a balanced discussion.

CDs, like LPs, have to be judged by the absolute best, not by the average, or by the minimum. And CDs at their absolute best are pretty good, as is a well-recorded cassette on a well-aligned Nakamichi. But not near as good as good vinyl as a carrier of music. This is not about digital vs. analog, this is about the CD and its "accuracy". Its not. At this moment, to get the best out of the music on a CD, you have to get rid of the basic design of its playback and offload the music data to another medium, bypassing the R-S action. At that point its simply a carrier of information with a lot of space wasted on something that's antiquated and always limited the accuracy of the format. If you can't play back the audio that's put on it with accuracy, its not accurate. Some may call it good enough. Some may not. But "good enough" is not accuracy. Both vinyl and CDs distort the information, but in very different ways. In my ongoing years of observation, vinyl gets more of it through. Vinyl distortion has to be pretty bad to hear it, and we often do (although I encounter very little of it anymore). But the CD's distortion is very different, and it subverts much of the music, essentially smearing it and throwing it away. I've spent 25 years trying to learn to listen to CDs - the closest I can get at the best is very minimal recordings encoded HDCD.

Things are getting better in digital playback finally, but its because the CD is over.

Anyway, your insults have wasted an hour of my time. I don't like this any more than you do.

Best regards,

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2008, 02:33:43 AM »

Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 12:13

mgod wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 11:45

No question the CD can't come close to giving the correct info. DS
mgod wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 11:38

This is a highly subjective assertion, unprovable and not remotely accurate.
DS

Context.


Right. Repeat - the CD is a massively flawed medium. Context. One may choose to tolerate its inaccuracy and flaws, but that doesn't make assertions about its accuracy anything but opinion.
Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 12:50

What I  find interesting is no one is questioning Stanley Lipshitz' qualifications to make a de facto statement.  We push back and forth amongst ourselves but no one has considered the source who set this off.  What agenda does he have?

As you can see, I'm questioning his qualifications and it garners me insults. Have you ever watched Lipshitz foaming and spitting  out of control while shouting people down at an AES? I have. All bread gets buttered by someone.

BTW, I wouldn't blame Lipshitz for that junk, I'd blame the article's authors and the publisher - its pure sneering condesencion.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

J.J. Blair

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12809
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2008, 02:40:26 AM »

Although your days were numbered with a 'zero' and a 'one'
I've seen the stylus and the damage done

Goodbye to all your cracks and skips
Goodbye to all your pops and hiss

"Vinyl
Logged
studio info

They say the heart of Rock & Roll is still beating, which is amazing if you consider all the blow it's done over the years.

"The Internet enables pompous blowhards to interact with other pompous blowhards in a big circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

"The negative aspects of this business, not only will continue to prevail, but will continue to accelerate in madness. Conditions aren't going to get better, because the economics of rock and roll are getting closer and closer to the economics of Big Business America." - Bill Graham

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2008, 03:55:54 AM »

Red is a bit of a trick, not really "true 4K."

And not really "true 35mm."

But you are right, it is quite impressive, as are a couple of 2/3" HD's as well.
Logged

RSettee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6796
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2008, 03:57:01 AM »

mgod wrote on Sun, 06 July 2008 01:33


Right. Repeat - the CD is a massively flawed medium. Context. One may choose to tolerate its inaccuracy and flaws, but that doesn't make assertions about its accuracy anything but opinion.



Dan,

Having worked extensively with digital recorders for the last ten years--and experimented on different bit rates and sampling rates, i'd say that you have a case.....but only when things dip below 16/44.1. Trust me, I can hear the digital artifacts, or the top end of acoustic guitars being lost by bouncing to inferior digital rates. I've heard how the sound changes when it's sampled at 32 kHz and a/b'd the same sound recorded at the same levels on the same equipment at 44.1 kHz....and in that case, yes, digital would then be inferior at something like 32 kHz sampling.

To my ears, 16/44.1 gets the exact same frequencies that i'm hearing through the monitors. When i've dumped or recorded the mixes onto a cd recorder, it changed the sound absolutely none. Or if it did, it was so very minute that any technical or mathematical equations never changed it enough to make a difference to my ears.

Now, i'm not qualified enough to give a dissertion on how much better vinyl can be than cd--and I certainly don't have a super high end playback system--but when i'm working on my mixes from digital hard drive to the cd player--and it's losing no fidelity--how much better can vinyl be? If it's "better", then it would again be coloring the signal--for example, if it deems more bass as "better", then that's altering what I put into it. I don't want the machine's version of what it wants to impart, I like to monitor things and then know that it's going to the recording just like that. One could say that digital is inferior....but in my experience, if the system is good enough, what it does is capture the exact same signals that you're hearing through the monitors, no frequency changes. And if you've got to the point where it's the exact same signal as what you're hearing through the monitors, then technically, I think that you're at as pure an audio level as you can be.
Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: If You Prefer Vinyl Then Stanley Says You're Full Of Lipshitz
« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2008, 05:43:19 AM »

mgod wrote on Sun, 06 July 2008 07:25

Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 15:09


Max and Dan,

This thread started out so positive. With honest descriptions of the differences between vinyl and CD audio quality. And then you guys jump in with your declarations of authority  and subjective opinion, and the thread will die because no one else has the energy to argue with your unsubstantiated bluster.

This DOES NOT further an intelligent discussion or further the development of audio in any way.

And another thing. The CD did not kill the record. The CASSETTE killed the record.

Best Regards,

Bill

This statement is an act precisely the kind of which you're accusing me. Any assertion, as if it is authoritative and unquestionable, that the CD is an "accurate" medium, more accurate than vinyl, is in my view dismissive of the advancements in digital audio and in understanding the problems of error correction which the CD is stuck with, and with which music has been stuck for two decades. Just as we're finally escaping it, you come up with this reactionary opinion of "bluster" to  shut me up. Nice!


Dan, I'm going to say something you're not going to like, and you're almost certainly not going to believe, but it really needs to be said.

I've read what the Nova Physics Group have to say on their website, and I say with total confidence that in my professional opinion it is complete unadulterated PROVABLY bullshit. Their claims fall apart on multiple levels to anyone who has even fairly rudimentary understanding of how all this stuff works. Whoever came up with it would seem to have to be either stupid, insane, or dishonest. Now all reports are that they make well built nice sounding stuff, so they're apparantly decent engineers, therefore not stupid, which leaves two options.

You heard one of their units and it sounded good to you... fine... but the reason they claimed it sounded good is not and CAN NOT be the reason.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 51   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 19 queries.