On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 2:52:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/23/2022 11:09 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 7:54:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 8/23/2022 10:48 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 5:45:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>> On 8/23/2022 7:12 PM, Peter wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the migration to CD, it looks
> >>>> like all bluff. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> >>>
> >>> What is the "bluff" you are referring to?
> >>
> >> Did you read it? What did you think?
> >
> > Of course I read it. This is the plain
> > truth. No bluff at all. Anyone who
> > believes digital recordings are in
> > general "better" than analog ones
> > not only has no ears, but also no
> > brains and no understanding of
> > Physics and Acoustics. One can
> > indeed find counter-examples in
> > both directions, however Ivor is
> > right on the spot. Remember he
> > is someone who actually designs
> > and builds both analogue and
> > digital audio products for 50
> > years (Linn was founded in
> > 1972).
> >
> > Digital recording is clearly more
> > convenient, more expedient and
> > more economical. The artifacts
> > are easier to store, package and
> > market, etc... The industry has
> > done a phenomenal job of
> > brainwashing customers.
> > What else is new?
>
> OK. So the source of their "audiophilia"
> is that that record in analogue and only
> then convert to digital (and that they do
> it well). Correct?

Almost. There are more nuances to consider.

The first one is wether the maste recording is
an analog tape or a digital tape or disk. In one
starts from an analog tape, the recording must
be first digitized.

Processing is commonly done in the digital
domain, as it is easier and more convenient.
Most important, digital processing can be
performed without introducing additional
noise. Pitch can be fixed/changed without
affecting temp, and viceversa. Whether the
end result qualifies as "audiophile" quality
is always an open question, as the answer
depends on the listener.

> I can understand analogue recording having
> more detail than digital (even audiably), but
> is this detail not lost or degraded when you
> slap the recording on a CD?

It depends on pretty everything in the audio
processing chain. It also depends on what
kind of "detail" one has in mind. Dynamic
range? Frequncy range? Reverberation?
Depending on the type of processing
some aspects may be affected more
than others.

One thing one can always be sure of,
whatever one hears through one's
speakers or headphones is miles
away from how things sound in
the actual performance venue.

dk

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 7:07:56 PM UTC-7, randy wolfgang wrote:
>
> Actually they do more than just digitize and slap
> on a CD - they do something to the sound that
> gives more air around the performance, brings
> out details and often sounds so much improved
> from the original mono sound that its hard to
> believe.

Unless one has acess to the recording studio and
to the original tapes, one cannot really know what
was the orginal mono sound.

dk

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 11:33:30 PM UTC-4, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 7:07:56 PM UTC-7, randy wolfgang wrote:
> >
> > Actually they do more than just digitize and slap
> > on a CD - they do something to the sound that
> > gives more air around the performance, brings
> > out details and often sounds so much improved
> > from the original mono sound that its hard to
> > believe.
> Unless one has acess to the recording studio and
> to the original tapes, one cannot really know what
> was the orginal mono sound.
>
> dk
Perhaps the original LPs sound closest to the original tapes??? - I know in the Callas material often the original LPs have the best sound. Many CD reissues state that the source for the Cd is the original tape but if you say that the CD automatically degrades the sound, then what is the best way to get closest to the original sound?? Or is it impossible This is interesting (at least to me) Randy

In article <010e3379-9d8e-45ef-991e-5816e283d0d0n@googlegroups.com>,
randy wolfgang <meyersimon530@gmail.com> wrote:
>... but if you say that the CD automatically degrades the sound,
>then what is the best way to get closest to the original sound??
>Or is it impossible

Did no one read to the next paragraph on that page where Linn wants
to sell you better-than-CD quality digital downloads, called studio
masters???

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:05:01 PM UTC-7, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <010e3379-9d8e-45ef...@googlegroups.com>,
> randy wolfgang <meyers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >... but if you say that the CD automatically degrades the sound,
> >then what is the best way to get closest to the original sound??
> >Or is it impossible
> Did no one read to the next paragraph on that page where Linn wants
> to sell you better-than-CD quality digital downloads, called studio
> masters???

Digital studio masters can indeed be in higher
quality than CDs, which are limited to 16-bit
sampling at 44,100 Hz. Studio masters can
be recorded at up to 24 bits sampling at
384 kHz. Whether that translates into
audible differences to anyone other
than Melmoth is still an open question.

dk

On 8/25/2022 3:01 AM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:05:01 PM UTC-7, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>> In article <010e3379-9d8e-45ef...@googlegroups.com>,
>> randy wolfgang <meyers...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ... but if you say that the CD automatically degrades the sound,
>>> then what is the best way to get closest to the original sound??
>>> Or is it impossible
>> Did no one read to the next paragraph on that page where Linn wants
>> to sell you better-than-CD quality digital downloads, called studio
>> masters???
>
> Digital studio masters can indeed be in higher
> quality than CDs, which are limited to 16-bit
> sampling at 44,100 Hz. Studio masters can
> be recorded at up to 24 bits sampling at
> 384 kHz. Whether that translates into
> audible differences to anyone other
> than Melmoth is still an open question.
>
> dk

One could ask whether most humans can perceive the better sound of an analog recording compared to a digital one, regardless of how it is delivered to one's ears. Or, how much better is it, and if it is worth the complication of playing LPS. I think the market has answered that one long ago.

Frank Berger a exposé le 24/08/2022 :
> I can understand analogue recording having more detail than digital

???...
Absolutely *stupid* !...

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 12:08:20 AM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/25/2022 3:01 AM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:05:01 PM UTC-7, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> >> In article <010e3379-9d8e-45ef...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> randy wolfgang <meyers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> ... but if you say that the CD automatically degrades the sound,
> >>> then what is the best way to get closest to the original sound??
> >>> Or is it impossible
> >> Did no one read to the next paragraph on that page where Linn wants
> >> to sell you better-than-CD quality digital downloads, called studio
> >> masters???
> >
> > Digital studio masters can indeed be in higher
> > quality than CDs, which are limited to 16-bit
> > sampling at 44,100 Hz. Studio masters can
> > be recorded at up to 24 bits sampling at
> > 384 kHz. Whether that translates into
> > audible differences to anyone other
> > than Melmoth is still an open question.
>
> One could ask whether most humans can
> perceive the better sound of an analog
> recording compared to a digital one,
> regardless of how it is delivered to
> one's ears.

?!? Non-sense! How could one possibly
compare sounds that are not delivered
to one's ears? And how possibly could
the results of the comparisons not
depend on how sound was delivered
to the ears comparing the sounds ?!?

> Or, how much better is it, and if it is
> worth the complication of playing
> LPS.

Clearly a matter of individual taste and
preferences.

> I think the market has answered that
> one long ago.

Only in aggregate. That is meaningful
to bean counters, and meaningless to
individual listeners. Just ask Melmoth.

dk

In article <95693fd7-2d95-461f-9e2a-be8094efc92dn@googlegroups.com>,
Dan Koren <dan.koren@gmail.com> wrote:
>Studio masters can be recorded at up to 24 bits sampling at 384
>kHz. Whether that translates into audible differences to anyone
>other than Melmoth is still an open question.

Yes, there's no guarantee that higher bandwidth yields a better
recording. Some are noticeably better though.

On 8/25/2022 3:18 AM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 12:08:20 AM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 8/25/2022 3:01 AM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:05:01 PM UTC-7, Todd M. McComb wrote:
>>>> In article <010e3379-9d8e-45ef...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> randy wolfgang <meyers...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ... but if you say that the CD automatically degrades the sound,
>>>>> then what is the best way to get closest to the original sound??
>>>>> Or is it impossible
>>>> Did no one read to the next paragraph on that page where Linn wants
>>>> to sell you better-than-CD quality digital downloads, called studio
>>>> masters???
>>>
>>> Digital studio masters can indeed be in higher
>>> quality than CDs, which are limited to 16-bit
>>> sampling at 44,100 Hz. Studio masters can
>>> be recorded at up to 24 bits sampling at
>>> 384 kHz. Whether that translates into
>>> audible differences to anyone other
>>> than Melmoth is still an open question.
>>
>> One could ask whether most humans can
>> perceive the better sound of an analog
>> recording compared to a digital one,
>> regardless of how it is delivered to
>> one's ears.
>
> ?!? Non-sense! How could one possibly
> compare sounds that are not delivered
> to one's ears? And how possibly could
> the results of the comparisons not
> depend on how sound was delivered
> to the ears comparing the sounds ?!?
>

Deliberate obfuscation, I think.

>> Or, how much better is it, and if it is
>> worth the complication of playing
>> LPS.
>
> Clearly a matter of individual taste and
> preferences.
>

Duh.

>> I think the market has answered that
>> one long ago.
>
> Only in aggregate.

That is exactly what is meant by the word "market."

That is meaningful
> to bean counters, and meaningless to
> individual listeners. Just ask Melmoth.

The marketplace determines what you can buy, how hard it is to find, and how much it costs. Show me an individual to whom none of that matters.

>
> dk