Are records really better than CD's?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So tell us details of the resolution of the recording made by that no name label. And cite where you discovered that information.

Best of luck to you.

In twisting this around, can you detail the points in the link that are wrong. And can YOU site an instance where the mastering process reduced the resolution on either the vinyl or the CD?

[StevenSurprenant]

Vinyl Mastering

1) Does vinyl intrinsically require a superior master than CD?
2) How many different ways can a CD master differ from a vinyl master?
3) How do you know if a vinyl master is audibly superior than the CD master?
4) Is less compressed music always of a superior quality?
5) Some known examples: Vinyl releases with a different master than the CD
6) Some known counterexamples: Vinyl releases with same/similar hypercompressed master as on CD
7) Vinyl releases suspected of being of different masters than the CD
8) Vinyl releases suspected of being the same master as the CD

Vinyl Mastering - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase

[E-Stat]

In twisting this around, can you detail the points in the link that are wrong.

You are speculating in the absence of information.

[E-Stat]

This is a pretty generalized statement. Can you identify what is incorrect.

Regarding repeated vinyl play, the "authoritative" answer is simply:

"This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes. "

Experience free speculation as believed by exactly whom?

"No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever."

That they know of. Give me a break.

"there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22 kHz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people, or that such frequencies affect anyone's perception of the audible range."

Too funny. You agree, right?

"Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, "

Except of course at the very top.

"Bent styli cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage. "

Yes. Myth?

"Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives. "

While that may be true about *tolerances*, it completely avoids all questions of audibility due to far more relevant factors. Shallow, non-experiential conclusion based upon simple metrics.

You're projecting here

What I'm *projecting* is the collective belief of those you find there.

"There's no point to distributing music in 24 bit/192 kHz".

"192kHz digital music files offer no benefits...

Sampling rates over 48kHz are irrelevant to high fidelity audio data...

here 24 bit audio is as useless as 192kHz sampling"...

Obviously, they think you're wasting your time.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Regarding repeated vinyl play, the "authoritative" answer is simply:

"This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes. "

Experience free speculation as believed by exactly whom?

"No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever."

That they know of. Give me a break.

Can you name a record that plays back with zero pops and clicks?

"there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22 kHz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people, or that such frequencies affect anyone's perception of the audible range."

Too funny. You agree, right?

Yes and No. Yes I agree to the audibility of ultrasonic frequencies, but that misses the point entirely. Removing in audible effects of the reconstruction filters is one of the purposes. The other is capture the smaller interaural time differences that occur at higher sampling rates. It improves imaging.

[quote}"Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, "

Except of course at the very top.[/quote]

Yes, beyond the red book standard of 22.5khz. You are right. Within the Rebook standard, the article is correct.

"Bent styli cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases they can cause record damage. "

Yes. Myth?

"Well built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well built belt drives. "

While that may be true about *tolerances*, it completely avoids all questions of audibility due to far more relevant factors. Shallow, non-experiential conclusion based upon simple metrics.

But correct though...

What I'm *projecting* is the collective belief of those you find there.

I believe the word "some" should be in place of those.

"There's no point to distributing music in 24 bit/192 kHz".

"192kHz digital music files offer no benefits...

Sampling rates over 48kHz are irrelevant to high fidelity audio data...

here 24 bit audio is as useless as 192kHz sampling"...

Obviously, they think you're wasting your time.

There is always going to be two sides to everything right? I have seen all of this before, I visit that site quite often. There arguments are based on high frequency audibility, not better imaging or avoiding the effects of reconstruction filters.

[E-Stat]

Can you name a record that plays back with zero pops and clicks?

A record? I have plenty. Friends have plenty. You aren't in touch with the vinyl world who uses RCMs and doesn't replay a disc in a short period of time.

Yes, beyond the red book standard of 22.5khz. You are right. Within the Rebook standard, the article is correct.

I guess if phase errors aren't important to you, then you are correct. Redbook top end sucks.

But correct though...

Perhaps you care about largely meaningless metrics. We who listen to music really don't.

There is always going to be two sides to everything right? .

And some is quite funny!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A record? I have plenty. Friends have plenty. You aren't in touch with the vinyl world who uses RCMs and doesn't replay a disc in a short period of time.

You are right, I have no interest in vinyl.

I guess if phase errors aren't important to you, then you are correct. Redbook top end sucks.

I think we were discussing dynamic range, not phase errors. There is a difference you know.

Perhaps you care about largely meaningless metrics. We who listen to music really don't.

Whether you think it is meaningless or not, it is correct and you cannot deny that.

And some is quite funny!

Agreed.

[E-Stat]

I think we were discussing dynamic range, not phase errors. There is a difference you know.

Yeah, who cares about fidelity?

IWhether you think it is meaningless or not, it is correct and you cannot deny that.

And crappy pro amps have the same distortion specs as far more musical ones. Who gives a crap about those metrics? Do you really think a Technics SL1200 is the equivalent of a Clearaudio Statement? Are you serious?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yeah, who cares about fidelity?

We weren't discussing fidelity(which is a subjective metric), but dynamic range. It helps to keep the mud out of fresh water.

And crappy pro amps have the same distortion specs as far more musical ones. Who gives a crap about those metrics? Do you really think a Technics SL1200 is the equivalent of a Clearaudio Statement? Are you serious?

Putting words in peoples mouth is a sign of a weakness in your comments. Read and comprehend the words I post, not what you think I should post.

[E-Stat]

We weren't discussing fidelity(which is a subjective metric), but dynamic range. It helps to keep the mud out of fresh water.

Fine. More dynamic range of a rolled off signal full of phase errors. If that's what you fond more musical, then more power to you!

I'll repeat the question you dodged. Do you really think a Technics SL1200 (the only direct drive available) is even remotely in the same class as a Clearaudio Reference? By all means, do state your point about direct drives if you think they are wonderful. We're talking about the real world.

Do two metrics drive your assessment of the quality of a source?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Fine. More dynamic range of a rolled off signal full of phase errors. If that's what you fond more musical, then more power to you!

More mud. I guess this is a weakness.

Let's flip it then. Vinyl does not do bass very well below 50hz. It is no match for CD at that ffrequency and below, so lets trade poison okay. Both formats have compromises and different areas of their spectrum. There is no way you can treat the 1812 overture the same way on vinyl as you can on CD.

I'll repeat the question you dodged. Do you really think a Technics SL1200 (the only direct drive available) is even remotely in the same class as a Clearaudio Reference? By all means, do state your point about direct drives if you think they are wonderful. We're talking about the real world.

I don't give a flying.....well I hope you get the point. This is irrelevant to me. It is not as much the playback system as it is the format itself, and its characteristics.

Do two metrics drive your assessment of the quality of a source?

No, but fortunately there are more than two metrics in this case.

[E-Stat]

More mud. I guess this is a weakness....No, but fortunately there are more than two metrics in this case.

I see. You've quietly moved away from defending Hydrogen Audio's brilliant assertion that only speed and rumble tolerances determine turntable performance.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I see. You've quietly moved away from defending Hydrogen Audio's brilliant assertion that only speed and rumble tolerances determine turntable performance.

I can't quietly move away from something I have never said or done. Don't know what you are drinking, or what drugs you are taking...but you are imagining things.

[E-Stat]

I can't quietly move away from something I have never said or done.

Only too happy to refresh your memory. You began by suggesting we read the *fact sheet* (what a joke) in this post:

"Vinyl myths"

I respond that most of the opinions there were sophomoric at best. You ask to point out the obvious flaws (of which there were many)

My analysis

When I later observe that the two metrics of rumble and speed control are largely meaningless, your reply was:

"Whether you think it is meaningless or not, it is correct and you cannot deny that. "

Fine. I'll let you worry about all the metrics for which the differences have little bearing on overall sound quality. Which has nothing at all to do with myths.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Only too happy to refresh your memory. You began by suggesting we read the *fact sheet* (what a joke) in this post:

"Vinyl myths"

I respond that most of the opinions there were sophomoric at best. You ask to point out the obvious flaws (of which there were many)

My analysis

When I later observe that the two metrics of rumble and speed control are largely meaningless, your reply was:

"Whether you think it is meaningless or not, it is correct and you cannot deny that. "

Fine. I'll let you worry about all the metrics for which the differences have little bearing on overall sound quality. Which has nothing at all to do with myths.

You have stated YOUR OPINION, and that is great. Of all those myths(it was a page of them) you picked out one point and tried to use that to discount the whole page. I am not buying that. Whether you think something is important or meaningless is a matter of subjective opinion, and that does not interest me one bit in the context of this discussion.

[E-Stat]

you picked out one point and tried to use that to discount the whole page

I picked out six (actually seven since two are redundant) of ten. I agree with the first one. The others are insignificant.

Whether you think something is important or meaningless is a matter of subjective opinion, and that does not interest me one bit in the context of this discussion.

So you really think that anyone on the planet really thinks a Technics SL1200 is equivalent in performance to a Clearaudio Reference?

Too funny.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I picked out six (actually seven since two are redundant) of ten. I agree with the first one. The others are insignificant.


So you really think that anyone on the planet really thinks a Technics SL1200 is equivalent in performance to a Clearaudio Reference?

Too funny.

This is minutia Ralph. Sorry, but I have no time to argue meaningless points with you. Been there, done that, and over it.

[E-Stat]

This is minutia Ralph.

So it was 7 out of 10, not 1. Just minutia for those who have trouble counting their fingers.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So it was 7 out of 10, not 1. Just minutia for those who have trouble counting their fingers.

Ralph, I didn't know you had this problem.....Good for you for sharing this news with all of us.

[E-Stat]

Ralph, I didn't know you had this problem....

Sorry, it's one of my foibles.

For those like yourself who struggle understanding the difference between 1 and 7, I feel the need to assist.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry, it's one of my foibles.

For those like yourself who struggle understanding the difference between 1 and 7, I feel the need to assist.

I assure you I have done very well in my life without your input. So output this $hit it to somebody else.

[E-Stat]

I assure you I have done very well in my life without your input.

Bad memory AND grumpy today. Must not have had a good weekend.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Bad memory AND grumpy today. Must not have had a good weekend.

Majoring in minors because you have run out of talking points. You must be having a bad life.....

[E-Stat]

You must be having a bad life.....

Wow, what's up the Mr Negativity thing?

But thanks for asking because I had a great weekend. Listened to more of my new 24/96 music, closed the pool, wife and I had a nice 10k walk and took a long spin in her new Boxster.

Life's good here.