good laymans explanation of recording quality.. [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : good laymans explanation of recording quality..



bubbagump
06-28-2006, 01:15 PM
http://www.xanga.com/sonickGQ/501878133/item.html

JoeE SP9
06-28-2006, 03:54 PM
The question is, who mastered the CD version and where is he buried. Can I give the LP engineer a prize?:prrr:

emorphien
06-28-2006, 04:10 PM
That's the first time I've seen anything about that written so clearly. That is truly nice to see someone take the time.

This problem isn't usually present or as bad if you stumble away from the big labels and bands.

royphil345
06-29-2006, 04:56 AM
I admittedly don't have a copy of the CD in question... But I have never seen a CD with a waveform that flat. I have to suspect that this experiment may be slightly flawed somehow.

Here's the most compressed part I could find on an MP3 of disc 1. MP3 should look worse if anything, right?

http://www.picturepuppy.com/images/royphil345/rhcpcopy.jpg

...And this "average" section where the waveform looks heavily clipped / compressed on the wide view, looks like this when zoomed in.

http://www.picturepuppy.com/images/royphil345/rhcp22.jpg

Think it's just a limitation of the software's "wide view" showing in the experiment and the fact that this recording seems to have some serious dynamics happening. Not evidence of heavy clipping / compression on the recording. They may have been able to make a better sounding recording if they lowered the levels just a bit. Although, there would have been the tradeoff of lower resolution on the quieter passages.

markw
06-29-2006, 06:29 AM
http://www.xanga.com/sonickGQ/501878133/item.html"A CD CAN SOUND AS GOOD, IF NOT BETTER THAN VINYL. IT IS THE QUALITY OF THE MASTER THAT IS KEY TO GOOD SOUND"

Although I'd say the engineers, and their goals, have a hand in the overall process. I.e. they can make a recording as dynamic as they choose or as flat as they choose, depending on their target market.

Is it possible that the recording companies are realizing that people who buy vinyl just might actually WANT better sound than those who buy CD's and download?

royphil345
06-29-2006, 08:55 AM
And Mark...

This is just another fine example of people on the internet saying that the folks who make CDs for a living don't know what they're doing. Or that the manufacturers of high-end speaker cables don't know what they're doing through statements like... " speaker cables with dangerously low inductance, which seem to be all the rage lately."...

The fact is... These people DO know what they're doing. You people don't even have enough understanding of the subjects to argue with them. Only faulty evidence, links to internet garbage... and in your case... even a "tall tale".

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-29-2006, 09:48 AM
"A CD CAN SOUND AS GOOD, IF NOT BETTER THAN VINYL. IT IS THE QUALITY OF THE MASTER THAT IS KEY TO GOOD SOUND"

Although I'd say the engineers, and their goals, have a hand in the overall process. I.e. they can make a recording as dynamic as they choose or as flat as they choose, depending on their target market.

Is it possible that the recording companies are realizing that people who buy vinyl just might actually WANT better sound than those who buy CD's and download?

Mark,
That is not really why they master CD so high. It all boils down to airplay of which the LP is no longer used for. The CD has to be mastered to playback on a variety of playback systems (mono, stereo etc)and radio and television. The LP is specifically for DJ and vinyl lovers and can be more "normally" mastered for better sound quality.

In spite of what the marketing departments of the record companies think, pushing volumes up does not give a CD more pop when played over the radio. It does the exactly the opposite. All radio station have compressors and limiters of their own to keep signals from over modulating over the air. Mostly all radio stations have equipment that is designed to make the volume of all CD exactly the same, the FCC requires it. So there is absolutely no advantage to raising overall levels in the first place. All raising the level does is make the product sound really bad, that is it.

markw
06-29-2006, 10:02 AM
Mark,
That is not really why they master CD so high. It all boils down to airplay of which the LP is no longer used for. The CD has to be mastered to playback on a variety of playback systems (mono, stereo etc)and radio and television. The LP is specifically for DJ and vinyl lovers and can be more "normally" mastered for better sound quality.That's what I think I said here, although not in as much detail as you did.

"I'd say the engineers, and their goals, have a hand in the overall process. I.e. they can make a recording as dynamic as they choose or as flat as they choose, depending on their target market."

And, for most people, louder equates to better. And, to most people, a constant level is louder. Not us here, but Joe Sixpack and his kids, who make up the bulk of $$ spent on CD's, think so. Vinyl is still a niche market and will continue as such, if we're lucky.

markw
06-29-2006, 10:07 AM
And Mark...

This is just another fine example of people on the internet saying that the folks who make CDs for a living don't know what they're doing. Or that the manufacturers of high-end speaker cables don't know what they're doing through statements like... " speaker cables with dangerously low inductance, which seem to be all the rage lately."...

The fact is... These people DO know what they're doing. You people don't even have enough understanding of the subjects to argue with them. Only faulty evidence, links to internet garbage... and in your case... even a "tall tale".Exactly just how does this fit in with what I said here? Where did I ever say they don't know what theyare doing?

Since you saw fit to try to respond to me here when what I said had nothing at all to do with whatever you said, I can only guess that you're still a little tender from out previous encounter. Relax, a little learning can do a lot to take the sting away.

Oh, one other thing to consider... just because you read something on the internet doesn't mean you can automatically discount it as wrong if it presents new concepts and/or goes against what you believe. Investigation is usually called for, not simple denial.

royphil345
06-29-2006, 10:25 AM
Blah... blaah... blahh... again.

OK, I've had enough of you... I quit...

You can automatically discount something as wrong if if goes against the facts.

What was your point here? They make vinyl with the best sound quality possible, but not CDs? I prefer the sound of vinyl, but I don't think the vinyl version would have the dynamic range of even the MP3 shown here. It's all about different. Not better or worse.

markw
06-29-2006, 11:11 AM
Blah... blaah... blahh... again.

OK, I've had enough of you... I quit...

You can automatically discount something as wrong if if goes against the facts.

What was your point here? They make vinyl with the best sound quality possible, but not CDs? I prefer the sound of vinyl, but I don't think the vinyl version would have the dynamic range of even the MP3 shown here. It's all about different. Not better or worse.Don't be an idiot and try to put words in my mouth. It makes you look desperate. Either media can be made to sound better or worse than the other. All I said was that in this case it appears that the vinyl was produced with a greater dynamic range than the CD. And, to most people here, a wider dynamic ranges translates to "better" sound. Now, if you prefer the compressed sound well, then the CD would sound "better" to you.

Boy, you do like to argue about nothing, don't you?

And, unless you are the supreme being, there are always facts that are unknown to you. It's a wise person who, when presented with as yet unlearned facts, investigates them, weighs them and, when necessary, expands their repertoire of facts and becomes wiser.

It's a fool who assumes they already know all the facts they need to know and disregards any possibilities of expanding their education.

Now, unless you have something relevant to say, bug off, kid, you bother me.

royphil345
06-29-2006, 11:27 AM
"All I said was that in this case it appears that the vinyl was produced with a greater dynamic range than the CD."

That's not what you said at all. Another lie. The proof is right here in this thread!!! Have you no control at all over the obvious crap that comes out of your (virtual) mouth?

The statement you just made I have already proven false. The waveform they showed using the "wide" view on their software was not accurate. I do alot of recording and honestly don't think the vinyl version would show a dynamic range as wide as the one shown on the ACCURATE waveform.

So... HELLO... Anybody home in there???

markw
06-29-2006, 11:34 AM
"All I said was that in this case it appears that the vinyl was produced with a greater dynamic range than the CD."

That's not what you said at all. Another lie. The proof is right here in this thread!!!

The statement you just made I have already proven false. The waveform they showed using the "wide" view on their software was not accurate. I do alot of recording and honestly don't think the vinyl version would show a dynamic range as wide as the one shown on the ACCURATE waveform.

So... HELLO... Anybody home in there???Boy, you really ARE desparate,aren't ya? What you "think" obviously has no relation to reality, as our conversations lately have shown. Really like that blue pill, eh?

royphil345
06-29-2006, 11:57 AM
"All I said was that in this case it appears that the vinyl was produced with a greater dynamic range than the CD."

You want to talk about fantasy land... Where is there anything in this thread that supports your statement above?

You would need an ACCURATE waveform of the CD and vinyl versions to compare side by side. Just not here!!! Did the voices tell you that the dynamic range appears to be better on the vinyl version? You really need to get that checked out. I'll be praying for you.

markw
06-29-2006, 12:06 PM
And, of course, the "little voices" told you those graphs were wrong, right?

royphil345
06-29-2006, 12:12 PM
No... I have PROVEN it. Have you been following the thread or just spouting trash?

The "wide view" on their software and mine (top of the pic) is only a rough representation of the ACTUAL waveform (bottom of pic) which you can see in my link. Hardly anything that should be posted on the internet as "proof "of poor recording quality or the recording being heavily compressed!!! This experiment used inaccurate, meaningless data. Any conclusions drawn from this flawed experiment are, of course, inaccurate and meaningless also.

http://www.picturepuppy.com/images/royphil345/rhcp22.jpg

Check out the awesome dynamic range on that recording. Heavy compression? Where?

markw
06-29-2006, 12:29 PM
I assume you've heard and measured both of the examples he's working with, right? If not, then you're shooting blanks.

Sorry, using different sources as examples to try and prove he's wrong is not valid. For you, maybe you see it as a victory but, again, in the real world, you've provren nothing except that you simply won't be a man and admit you'e got nothing except bravado on your side..

And again, had you read his words, he says the vinyl will sound "better", or have more dynamics, than the CD. Do you disagree with that?

You're constant whining is starting to become tedious. Funny and a but pathetic, but tedious.

royphil345
06-29-2006, 12:37 PM
I have absoulutely proven that the view of the waveform he showed as "proof" is NOT ACCURATE. FACT

"he says the vinyl will sound "better", or have more dynamics, than the CD. Do you disagree with that?"

By looking at what he was looking at... He really had nothing to base his statements on. FACT

You have lost. Everything you say is just further BSing, wriggling and talking trash.

You're a pretty good BSer. Just because you say something, just doesn't make it true though. Your entertainment value is short-lived.

I'm out... Bye bye freak...

markw
06-29-2006, 12:47 PM
I have absoulutely proven that the view of the waveform he showed as "proof" is NOT ACCURATE. FACT

"he says the vinyl will sound "better", or have more dynamics, than the CD. Do you disagree with that?"

By looking at what he was looking at... He really had nothing to base his statements on. FACT

You have lost. Everything you say is just further BSing, wriggling and talking trash.

You're a pretty good BSer. Just because you say something, just doesn't make it true though.

I'm out... Bye bye freak...Enjoy your "victory" id you see it as such.

I'll see ya in a week or so. Tomorrow we're off to Memphis and Nashville for some fun in the "real" music world. That's one of the benefits of being a grown up and having a life.

Enjoy your computer and waveforms, kid. You deserve each other. Hell, that's all you've got, geek.

royphil345
06-29-2006, 12:50 PM
Yee Haww!!!... That should be (yawn) fun for you!!!

Surprised you can even get up after stepping on your d'ck so much!!!

markw
06-29-2006, 01:41 PM
Surprised you can even get up after stepping on your d'ck so much!!!Why, thank you for noticing, although guys staring at me there give me the creeps. Being blessed with such a wonderful piece, that's a problem I've learned to live with, usually by wrapping it around one of my legs. It's been a sore spot ever since women started noticing me. They just can't leave me alone! Of course I just couldn't help teasing them a little. I'd just sit in the corner licking my eyebrows and boy, would they go ca-ra-zee!

Thank G_d the perfect woman saved me from this life of debauchery and married me and presented me with three great boys, all of whom have grown into fine men, and who, in turn, gave us five wunnerful grandkids. Life is good...

Of course, that's something you'll never have to worry about. Your biggest problem is not wetting your fingers when urinating. Try tweezers.

Now, what you tell your "partners", should you ever get so lucky, is another story. You could always try for sympathy and say you were a doner for a woman who wanted a sex change operation. If they buy what you sell here, they should have no problems buying that. If that works, break out the rubber coated tweezers. Your life is about to change.

But, don't worry kid. By hiding behind the computer, nobody will notice. ...just keep both hands on the keyboard. The way you keep staring at me is creepin' me out.

emorphien
06-29-2006, 01:56 PM
I don't know a lot about mastering CDs, but this definitely makes sense when I think about a lot of the modern/pop CDs I've heard. That graph seems extreme, but I suspect the truth is somewhere between what he shows as the CD graph and the LP.

I do equate preserved dynamics to having good sound, and from his description that CD sounds like it will sound similar to a lot of other modern pop CDs. Bad... congested, flat, loud and noisy.

royphil345
06-29-2006, 02:19 PM
Some of my Chili Peppers CDs sound mighty fine...

sonick
06-29-2006, 03:22 PM
Thanks for taking the time to check out my article and comment on it.

First of all, I would like to clarify:

The article was in no way, shape, or form a comparison between Vinyl and CD as a medium. I am comparing the master of the vinyl of the album Stadium Arcadium and the master of the CD of the same album.

When I speak of "the vinyl" in the article, (mention its THE vinyl, not VINYL) I did not mean "ALL VINYL", and same with CD. I meant THIS PARTICULAR VINYL and THIS PARTICULAR CD.

The only reason I used Vinyl and CD is because this was a perfect graphical representation of two different masters, one of which is compressed heavily. If the master of the upcoming Stadium Arcadium LP had been on a CD, I still would have written this article, but with all references to "the vinyl" replaced with "the new CD."

I regret not making it clear that this was not a Vinyl VS CD comparison, and that I am not saying that Vinyl (in general) is better than CD.

When I first authored it, it was merely for the intention of my friends. I decided to submit it to digg.com on a whim, I did not expect to get this many visitors.

royphil345
06-29-2006, 04:53 PM
Again, since the facts probably got lost in that mess...

The "wide view" on your software and mine (top of the pic) is only a rough representation of the ACTUAL waveform (bottom of pic) which you can see in my link. Hardly anything that should be posted on the internet as "proof "of poor recording quality or the recording being heavily compressed!!! This experiment used inaccurate, meaningless data. Any conclusions drawn from this flawed experiment are, of course, inaccurate and meaningless also.

http://www.picturepuppy.com/images/royphil345/rhcp22.jpg

Check out the awesome dynamic range on that recording. Heavy compression? Where?

emorphien
06-29-2006, 06:37 PM
Some of my Chili Peppers CDs sound mighty fine...
Yes, most of them do. Haven't heard this new one.

sonick
06-29-2006, 09:18 PM
Okay, I just ripped a WAV of Dani California, here it is:

http://x94.xanga.com/0d8a26031143363373904/w42480873.gif

Also, you can clearly see that it is clipping in the sound meter in the bottom-left corner. If the artist's intent was to have poor dynamics, then fine with me. But I highly doubt any of them think clipping is something pleasant to listen to (especially comparing the LP waveform to the CD waveform in Steve Hoffman's screenshot, which, by the way, was time-synced and thus at the same scale, so your argument that the horizontal scale on the CD waveform was different than the LP waveform is debunked.)

Now compare this to the waveform of Give It Away, off Blood Sugar Sex Magik. I chose this because (1) It is one of their consistently louder songs (it would have been cheating to choose something like "Under the Bridge"), (2) its almost exactly the same length as Dani California (give or take a handful of milliseconds), so this way I can get a pretty much 1:1 comparative horizontal scale (Note the time range where it says "viewed" in the bottom-right corner, both are a few fractions of a second from 4:42) and (3) it is also produced by Rick Rubin.

http://x58.xanga.com/a82a5b370853563373908/w42480876.gif

This looks more like a porcupine, as compared to the flat board of Dani California... at the same scale, even at a WIDE view.

But wait, there's more! As a bonus, here's a cap of the spectrographs of both 'Dani' and 'Give' (on top and bottom, respectively) just to show the amount of clipping in each (red = clipping):

http://xd9.xanga.com/d75a273b1163363373914/w42480881.gif

royphil345
06-30-2006, 05:37 AM
OK...

Now I have to say it...

Dude... You are a moron!!!

The waveform looks like this http://www.picturepuppy.com/images/royphil345/rhcp22.jpg and NOT like what you are seeing. That is a FACT.

The Nero Wave Editor you are using as a "reference" is consumer grade software. It does what it does quite well, but it just isn't suited for the task you're putting it to. The views you are showing of the waveform are not accurate. Yet, you insist that the people who make CDs for a living don't know what they're doing... and you do... Use your freakin' head man!!!

The way you're looking at the waveform... A recording with MORE and LARGER dynamic peaks will appear as a more soild block when the waveform is pushed together for viewing at a LOW RESOLUTION (top of pic in link). Viewing the waveform at a higher resolution (bottom of pic in link), you would see that the recording has good dynamics. http://www.picturepuppy.com/images/royphil345/rhcp22.jpg FACT

You don't even have the understanding required to use the software correctly. Do you see the "zero" at the top of the Nero recording meter? Anything OVER that would be clipping. Why is there no indicator over "zero"? Because the meter can't show clipping on a digital recording that's already been made. The waveform display can't show clipping on a digital recording that's already been made. It's NOT POSSIBLE. They can only show what was digitally recorded. In digital, there's either a number for a sound or the information is MISSING. These tools are to help with CONSUMER LEVEL RECORDING. They are NOT reference quality. If you don't even understand these basics... Who the heck are you to put up a whole web-site criticizing a professionally made recording? FACT

Recording levels are set high in digital for better resolution (wider range of numbers used to digitally recreate the source). FACT

I feel sorry for anyone who could read anything written by this boisterous moron who's shown here that he knows NOTHING about digital audio, not even the very basics, and actually think they've learned something!!!

There's one born every minute I guess...

If you don't like the CD, take it back to the store... Putting up a web-site with all sorts of misleading "proof" that a commercial product lacks qualities that it does indeed have... is maybe not the best idea.

BRANDONH
06-30-2006, 07:29 AM
Thanks for taking the time to check out my article and comment on it.

First of all, I would like to clarify:

The article was in no way, shape, or form a comparison between Vinyl and CD as a medium. I am comparing the master of the vinyl of the album Stadium Arcadium and the master of the CD of the same album.

When I speak of "the vinyl" in the article, (mention its THE vinyl, not VINYL) I did not mean "ALL VINYL", and same with CD. I meant THIS PARTICULAR VINYL and THIS PARTICULAR CD.

The only reason I used Vinyl and CD is because this was a perfect graphical representation of two different masters, one of which is compressed heavily. If the master of the upcoming Stadium Arcadium LP had been on a CD, I still would have written this article, but with all references to "the vinyl" replaced with "the new CD."

I regret not making it clear that this was not a Vinyl VS CD comparison, and that I am not saying that Vinyl (in general) is better than CD.

When I first authored it, it was merely for the intention of my friends. I decided to submit it to digg.com on a whim, I did not expect to get this many visitors.

I think understand what your trying to get across here, it is only a Vinyl Master Vs. CD Master and has nothing to do with the final production medium, be it Vinyl or CD

And that all the other posters here will only have store bought CD copies to compare to until the vinyl version comes out and then they will only have copies of each medium to compare to each other and then those are still just copies not masters.

As I understand the MASTER intended to be produced on to Vinyl may sound as good or better than the MASTER intended to be produced for the CD.

Therefore if the Original Master intended for Vinyl production was lets say produced instead on CD regardless of what medium it it was originally intended for could possibly sound sound closer to what the artist originally intended it to sound like as opposed to the Original Master for CD production.

sonick
06-30-2006, 07:48 AM
I think understand what your trying to get across here, it is only a Vinyl Master Vs. CD Master and has nothing to do with the final production medium, be it Vinyl or CD

And that all the other posters here will only have store bought CD copies to compare to until the vinyl version comes out and then they will only have copies of each medium to compare to each other and then those are still just copies not masters.

As I understand the MASTER intended to be produced on to Vinyl may sound as good or better than the MASTER intended to be produced for the CD.

Therefore if the Original Master intended for Vinyl production was lets say produced instead on CD regardless of what medium it it was originally intended for could possibly sound sound closer to what the artist originally intended it to sound like as opposed to the Original Master for CD production.
Exactly, you hit the nail on the head.

royphil345
06-30-2006, 07:59 AM
"The only reason I used Vinyl and CD is because this was a perfect graphical representation of two different masters, one of which is compressed heavily."

But unfortunately, the recording you think is "compressed heavily" is probably quite the opposite, going by the evidence presented by you in your "scrunched together" waveform. And pretty much everything you said was absolute rubbish!!!

BRANDONH
06-30-2006, 08:11 AM
"The only reason I used Vinyl and CD is because this was a perfect graphical representation of two different masters, one of which is compressed heavily."

But unfortunately, the recording you think is "compressed heavily" is probably quite the opposite, going by the evidence presented by you in your "scrunched together" waveform. And pretty much everything you said was absolute rubbish!!!

I am not sure I understand this comment?
Do you have the original masters for both mediums for your test and is that how you have drawn your conclusion here?

royphil345
06-30-2006, 08:40 AM
Obviously, the "master" for the CD is digital and exactly the same as of the CDs made from it!!!

I understand he was saying that there are differences in how a master recording is re-recorded to CD or vinyl. True. Who doesn't know that?
Other than that, this guy is just talking out of his butt!!! Everything he has to say in his faulty and juvenile analysis of the two recordings is completely false and a complete waste of time.

Again, The bottom line...

The way you're looking at the waveform... A recording with MORE and LARGER dynamic peaks will appear as a more soild block when the waveform is pushed together for viewing at a LOW RESOLUTION (top of pic in link). Viewing the waveform at a higher resolution (bottom of pic in link), you would see that the recording has good dynamics. http://www.picturepuppy.com/images/r...345/rhcp22.jpg FACT

You don't even have the understanding required to use the software correctly. Do you see the "zero" at the top of the Nero recording meter? Anything OVER that would be clipping. Why is there no indicator over "zero"? Because the meter can't show clipping on a digital recording that's already been made. The waveform display can't show clipping on a digital recording that's already been made. It's NOT POSSIBLE. They can only show what was digitally recorded. In digital, there's either a number for a sound or the information is MISSING. These tools are to help with CONSUMER LEVEL RECORDING. They are NOT reference quality. If you don't even understand these basics... Who the heck are you to put up a whole web-site criticizing a professionally made recording? FACT

Recording levels are set high in digital for better resolution (wider range of numbers used to digitally recreate the source). FACT

I feel sorry for anyone who could read anything written by this boisterous moron who's shown here that he knows NOTHING about digital audio, not even the very basics, and actually think they've learned something!!!

There's one born every minute I guess...

BRANDONH
06-30-2006, 09:16 AM
Obviously, the "master" for the CD is digital and exactly the same as of the CDs made from it!!!

This guy is just talking out of his butt!!!

I feel sorry for anyone who could read anything written by this moron who's shown here that he knows NOTHING about digital recording, not even the very basics, and actually think they've learned something!!!

There's one born every minute I guess...

Usually I agree with you in most cases but in this case a CD is not truly a Master.

I have a friend that creates his own music (DJ stuff) and does his own masters on some kind of high dollar computer program.
A while back he came to visit me and brought his computer with his music masters on the hard drive were they were created through this program not copied to the hard drive but made to it.
He also had the same CD he made directly from that Master off the hard drive.
He gave one of the original CD's to me for keeps.
In a since that and every CD made from the hard drive could be considered a Master.
But when he plugged his computer directly into my Stereo and played the Master I was blown away at the sound that came from the Master.
My CD transport is connected to my system via optical digital cable.
We then played back the CD made directly from the master on my system it sounded really good but there was no comparison to the master.
I just couldn't believe the detail the master produced compared to the CD.
So yeah the CD may be a direct duplicate, but playing back the CD through a transport player somewhere in between the system there can be some differences.
Laser pickup, wires, different transports, D/A Converters etc.

royphil345
06-30-2006, 09:29 AM
Well..

Whatever he is calling a "master" is already in CD form and an exact duplicate of anything made from it. Any errors would be far less likely on a "real" CD than on a CD-R... The true master recording (which I can guarantee you he doesn't have) is of course on a different media, recorded at a higher bitrate...

So...

I really don't know what to say anymore...

Bunch of scamps that wanna' argue about nonsense...

Think I've had enough of this site for a few more years...

Been real...

BRANDONH
06-30-2006, 09:57 AM
Well..

Whatever he is calling a "master" is already in CD form. Any errors would be far less likely on a "real" CD than on a CD-R...

So...

I really don't know what to say anymore...

Bunch of scamps that wanna' argue about nonsense...

Think I've had enough of this site for a few more years...

Been real...

dude I still lov ya
And like most of what you have to say on this board.
And if indeed his analysis is full of bs and he has made his test from CDs then they truly are flawed.
I can only go on his word that his test were from masters not from a CD.
I only wanted to state that after hearing for my self a real master I could easly say there is a difference in sound quality between the Master and the Cd made from it directly.

Hey this is only for fun some learn some dont I can only bring to this board my experience.

To show how skewed my thinking is I believe that Pro Audio equipment out preforms Audiophile Audio equipment and that always starts an argument on this board every time.

So yeah chill dude and stay with us.
no bigi
Tonight I will go home open a cold one throw on a System of a Down LP on my trusty Technics and crank up my 4800 watt system with 2000 watts sub base and disturb the peace.
Oh yeah I live in the sticks no one to disturb out there.
later man

royphil345
06-30-2006, 10:13 AM
OK... Sorry... BRANDONH!!!

Have taken alot of crap here the last couple days!!!

Sounds like an awesome setup out there in the sticks!!! When can I come over and jam out with you???.. LOL!!!

I guess our friction was only caused by him calling something else a "master"... when I KNOW he doesn't have THE master... and there wouldn't be a different one for vinyl or CD...

My brother worked in the CD industry for awhile, so I know there are different levels of "masters"... CDs used for duplicating others etc... (ended up with a few) which I'm sure is what he has. Shouldn't be any difference between something like that and the finished product.

BRANDONH
06-30-2006, 10:30 AM
OK... Sorry... BRANDONH...

Have taken alot of crap here the last couple days!!!

Sounds like an awesome setup out there in the sticks!!! When can I come over and jam out with you???.. LOL!!!

I guess our friction was only caused by him calling something else a "master"... when I KNOW he doesn't have THE master... and there wouldn't be a different one for vinyl or CD...

My brother worked in the CD industry for awhile, so I know there are different levels of "masters"... CDs used for duplicating others etc... (ended up with a few) which I'm sure is what he has. Shouldn't be any difference between something like that and the finished product.

Yeah it rocks
I built it for power but it sounds good at any volume any kind of music.
Its powerful but yet articulate guaranteed to cause brain damage.
here is a link to my gallery
http://gallery.audioreview.com/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=239881
honestly my system gets real close to live sound.
The next time your in Texas email me I dont have my email blocked on this site.
Bring Vinyl at high volume thats what really sounds best on my system Cd's sound good too but Vinyl just sounds right on my setup.