Originally Posted by gregmp
krabapple, by your definition my own hearing has no relevance.
Nope. Stop right there. What's not particularly relevant as regards REPORTS OF SOUND QUALITY, is your 'hearing' when it's really not just your hearing ; it's being contaminated with other senses. If you were to report what you heard during a bias controlled session, that would be quite relevant.
I'm a logical engineer that has never believd in snake oil crap. Why do you defend CD's so much?
Pardon, why do you erect straw men?
CD is a technically superior format to LP, in terms of the how accurate it CAN be. Even NIN and I agree on that. We also agree that CAN does not necessarily mean IS; the technical superiority may also be mitigated by modern mastering practices, such as 'hypercompression'.
I have said this in a number of ways a number of times on a number of threads. So, why do you suggest otherwise?
They are not even close to being an optimal format for archiving masters, so why would they be optimal for someone who can hear their deficiencies.
What deteremines the optimal format for archiving masters? Is it purely sound quality? I think not.
You know what, the difference are not fantastic, but they are there. Now shut up on your godlike judgements. Things that are missing from the music, thus you cannot hear, detract from the enjoyment.
If you mean, substractions that ARE audible, can detract from enjoyment, I agree. But of course, it's not necessarily true. When someone in the mastering suite cuts a few dB of upper midrange, they're trying to increase enjoyment. Do you find this impossible?
16bits looses info. in the convertion, so you are missing something. You are a KRABapple.
16 bits doesn't loose any audible info, unless the recording had an audible dynamic range in excess of 16 bits, or unless you perform some serious digital processing and introduce audible rounding errors.