Ashley & JC's assorted musings

[Ashley James]

Could I have a six month Ban instead?

Ash

[Filterlab]

Nope.

[WikiBoy]

Richard (and I hope Marco will indulge me here) you're extremely rude and you should know better if you are an electronic engineer. If you understand the description, you more than others, should know that there is substance to the claim.

I'm not a Marketing and it wouldn't be relevant if I was.

What is more relevant is that I'm struggling to engage in a debate here with some extremely sympathetic people who agree with very little that I've said and, apart from Mr C, who's a dealer, all have been kind patient and tolerant except you. Why don't you bugger off or make an effort to contribute to the debate.

Ash

So you are a techy now are you? you actually know what you are talking about and not just getting half baked words from your techy to peddle around the magazines and forums. I think not. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt, please tell us which AVI product you designed and how you did it.

You are basically known for one thing within the industry and that is to be the most irritating marketing man of the lot, and that is a seroius claim and takes a level of skill and thick hide beyond any of us poor mortals.

Basically an Ivor without the money making skills.

[Marco]

Just remove the remark and stop acting like an arse



Marco.

[Ashley James]

I'm serious! I've had enough, if people are just going to insulting in a way that suggests they're not dealing from a full pack, I'm off.

There are some really nice and tolerant people on here, but Mr C and Richard are muddying the waters and will drag things down to their level.

Goodbye

Ash

[Marco]

Well I'm sorry to see you go, Ashley. I thought you were made of sterner stuff.

Marco.

[Ashley James]

I am too but before I do, I thought you might be interested to see what I've just been me sent by a Nashville producer foolish enough to have bought ADM9s and love them.

I think it's poignant: http://nowhearthisblog.blogspot.com/

If Mr C and Richard apologise I might consider coming back, but I've had enough of their sort of behaviour, they're why people are so critical of Forums. They say it's like people shouting insults from their Motorcars, knowing they can drive off and avoid the consequences.

[sastusbulbas]

Vinyl has its place as do all forms of audio reproduction, but to say one is better than another is a bit silly as it can never be proven one way or another. It's all to do with what the individual looks for and enjoys in sound, some like a crazy musical ride, some like infinitesimal detail and some like it loud. Therefore no particular format can be 'better', it can only be more suitable.

Saying that....

...trying to argue with completely false facts is another thing. The approximate dynamic range of vinyl is around 65dB whereas the limit in the digital domain is only limited by bit depth; i.e. mathematically it's 6 x bit-depth which for CD is 96dB, being digital the value increases in a linear fashion with word length. Therefore dynamic range is far far greater in the digital domain than analogue replay equipment could ever get near.

Then again sound is not judged on dynamic range, or at least not solely so that negates digital being 'better' than analogue or vice versa.

Regarding dynamic range,

Well that's why I posted the link. CD is not all it's cracked up to be, paper specification does not always show the facts, and the link did seem to substantiate the opinions of some who preferred LP some time back in some long ago forum discussion.

As for fact? I was under the impression that digital still has some way to go before having the same resolution as analogue? Many still see even 24/192 as rather basic and still behind? CD and digital have not progressed far enough to provide the quality and improvement claimed other analogue. It has been handicapped for years, and further progression handicapped more by accepted standards in high fidelity and modern recording techniques.

Personally I did not intend to state any as better or my preference, only that CD and digital is not perfect, does not yet approach high fidelity analogue recordings, and is not as dynamically capable in real life as stated on paper.

From what I can gather .

[Filterlab]

As for fact? I was under the impression that digital still has some way to go before having the same resolution as analogue?

Indeed you may be correct, but I am not disputing that, simply in certain circumstances digital is superior to analogue and in others analogue is superior to digital. The debate will always remain as to if either one is 'better'.

Personally I did not intend to state any as better or my preference, only that CD and digital is not perfect, does not yet approach high fidelity analogue recordings, and is not as dynamically capable in real life as stated on paper...

There is no 'perfect' way to reproduce sound, it's simply not possible. Yes it's possible to get damn close, damn damn close in fact, but neither digital or analogue will ever be perfect - unfortunately.

I can understand that digital will never be as dynamically capable as it is on paper, nothing is as good as its theory generally, but it is certain that digital is more dynamically capable than analogue. Essentially analogue should be infinitely dynamic (as sound itself is) but there's far too much resistance from the laws of physics to make analogue reproduction infinitely dynamic, less so with digital but at the end of the chain there has to be analogue (or physical) stages regardless of source - i.e. loudspeakers.

[sastusbulbas]

Mr. C. The vast majority of recordings (and most video and film) are made on computers and have been for twenty years or so. Likewise most records have been made using 6.5" two way speakers as Monitors (mostly Active) and most of the hi fi market is for two-way speakers of a similar size. Professionals make records to suit the systems they are most likely to be heard on and we make Studio Monitor/hi fi speakers the same size but with a better performance than most.

You should also that we've cracked the Sub issue of integration and we offer a seriously powerful one to make them full range. This means customers get closer to the original performance. I'm sorry if this doesn't constitute the "real world" for you.

Ash

I disagree with the mast majority of music and film being done by computer only, though no doubt a hell of a lot of cheap rubbish is done this way.
We still have vast amounts of analogue material to enjoy. Not all of it is limited in its fidelity by being mixed via digital or computer on piddling small two way monitors either

As for cracking the sub issue, with the sub having it's LF cut off at 30hz, claiming full range is debatable

High quality open-reel tape frequency response can extend from 10 Hz to well above 200 kHz.

LP player might be 30 Hz - 20 kHz +/- 3 dB. Unlike the audio CD, vinyl records do not require a cut-off in response above 20 kHz, but of course depends on the quality of the pressing and replay chain, I am sure an SME 20 with Series V is quite tolerant of a Rohmann carts frequency responce, with a suitable phono stage..
(Frequency range at - 3dB 20-55.000 Hz, Frequency response 20-20.000 Hz ± 2 dB)
CD on the other hand is limited by the implementation of said player, can be any thing from low hertz to a brick wall at 20khz. SACD and DVD-A better.



Steve