Page 1 of 2
Congrats On The Opening Of Your Forum !
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:10 am
by Ed
Luke,
Congratulations on the opening of your forum. I have no doubt this will be a fun place to share ideas and learn new things as well. I also like the idea of a less "heavily handed" moderating style where the members are allowed to speak a bit more freely without the fear of unwanted editing and post / thread deletion.
Best of Luck, Ed
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2003 9:28 am
by lukpac
Thanks Ed. Although I'd prefer to get away from "let's all praise the Forum and its Members", if you know what I mean...
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2003 4:36 pm
by Ed
Ha ! I know exactly what you mean.
Best, Ed
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2003 9:41 am
by Ed Bishop
lukpac wrote:Thanks Ed. Although I'd prefer to get away from "let's all praise the Forum and its Members", if you know what I mean...
Okay....so how about "Luke, you're a real pain in the ass but you're my kind of pain in the ass" and glad to be here anyway?
ED
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2003 9:59 am
by britre
Luke,
A very nice job on this. I plan to read often as I always enjoyed our audio discussions on a certain other board.
I am not sure how much postin I will do, but always interested in any opinions on audio....Thanks for creating a forum with a subject that seems to be a dying art among the younger MP3 128k generation.
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:41 pm
by Patrick M
lukpac wrote:Thanks Ed. Although I'd prefer to get away from "let's all praise the Forum and its Members", if you know what I mean...
Might I suggest a 'no ass kissing' rule?
And can I now suspend Eddie L?
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2003 11:04 pm
by Ed
Ouch Patrick ! And I didn't even mention religion, the war, politics and the 97 other taboo topics that should never be brought up on an internet music forum. We don't want to start giving Luke a bad public image (as it's his forum with his name on it) and thus ruin any chances he may have in seeking gainful employment by potential clients who may frequent this forum.
Best, Ed
P.S. Can I be a moderator too since I listen to Cee Dee's ?
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2003 1:33 am
by lukpac
How about Cee Dee - Are's?
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2003 2:46 am
by Ed
Luke, discussing Cee Dee Are's, which are commonly associated with the copying and distributing of illegal bootleg recordings is a violation of international music forum law. Feel free to go ahead and suspend yourself for a week until you can abide by the guidelines that have been established. This is not open for discussion.
Warmest Regards, Ed
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2003 11:26 am
by Patrick M
Ed Lansing wrote:We don't want to start giving Luke a bad public image (as it's his forum with his name on it) and thus ruin any chances he may have in seeking gainful employment by potential clients who may frequent this forum.
Indeed, we must all remember that we are at lukpac's virtual dinner table, and he is serving fried chicken.
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2003 11:30 am
by Patrick M
Ed Lansing wrote:Luke, discussing Cee Dee Are's, which are commonly associated with the copying and distributing of illegal bootleg recordings is a violation of international music forum law. Feel free to go ahead and suspend yourself for a week until you can abide by the guidelines that have been established. This is not open for discussion.
Luke, all you need to do to come back here is say two simple words: "I will." See how easy?
I would also like to point out that not only are Cee Dee Are's a tool of the Devil(tm) for the reason Ed stated, but they are also commonly used to trade illegal copies of OOP recordings, which is bad and evil. Additionally, I personally find Cee Dee Are's unlistenable because of the added 1/2 dB at 10 kHz.
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2003 4:20 pm
by britre
Patrick M wrote:Ed Lansing wrote: Additionally, I personally find Cee Dee Are's unlistenable because of the added 1/2 dB at 10 kHz.
Interesting, as a newbee I would be curious to see the facts supporting this statement. It occurs to me if you make a direct copy of a digital signal, nothing is added or gained until the transfer from digital to analog which occurs in your CD player, not in the computer, CDR recorder or the disposable medium used for storage of said digital signal.
Does your CD Player add a .5db at 10khz on burned discs and not factory discs? if so, time for a new player
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2003 6:38 pm
by lukpac
britre wrote:Interesting, as a newbee I would be curious to see the facts supporting this statement. It occurs to me if you make a direct copy of a digital signal, nothing is added or gained until the transfer from digital to analog which occurs in your CD player, not in the computer, CDR recorder or the disposable medium used for storage of said digital signal.
Does your CD Player add a .5db at 10khz on burned discs and not factory discs? if so, time for a new player
Methinks we need a "tongue in cheek" option here.
FWIW, digital clones are just that - digital clones. No EQ is added. The issue seems to be that some players read some discs better than others, and audible differences can show up between different burns/pressings, even if the data is 100% identical.
Certain people tried to imply that this difference was due to some type of EQ boost, which isn't true.
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:06 pm
by britre
lukpac wrote:britre wrote:Interesting, as a newbee I would be curious to see the facts supporting this statement. It occurs to me if you make a direct copy of a digital signal, nothing is added or gained until the transfer from digital to analog which occurs in your CD player, not in the computer, CDR recorder or the disposable medium used for storage of said digital signal.
Does your CD Player add a .5db at 10khz on burned discs and not factory discs? if so, time for a new player
Methinks we need a "tongue in cheek" option here.
FWIW, digital clones are just that - digital clones. No EQ is added. The issue seems to be that some players read some discs better than others, and audible differences can show up between different burns/pressings, even if the data is 100% identical.
Certain people tried to imply that this difference was due to some type of EQ boost, which isn't true.
Interesting. I am of the thought this must occur due to error correction in the D/A converter, or pinholes in the disc coatings causing errors. I never noticed the frequency defect though, just missing info in the content.
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2003 10:06 pm
by lukpac
britre wrote:Interesting. I am of the thought this must occur due to error correction in the D/A converter, or pinholes in the disc coatings causing errors. I never noticed the frequency defect though, just missing info in the content.
Well, it's not so much a problem with the information being incorrect - it's all there, in correct form. The problem (apparently) is in the *way* it is written. Some CD burners seem to burn the data more evenly, more "cleanly" if you will. I believe it has to do with the spacing of the data on the disc. While time-based errors shouldn't be an issue, apparently they are.