"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote
in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


Choices that are made in the absence of significantly
different alternatives, which is what all this history
is,
aren't really choices at all.

You keep insisting on history, Arny. Let's talk about
today.
We have significantly different alternatives today, don't
we?
One of them produces exceptional, sweetest-sounding,
sonically
most pleasing results far more consistently than the
other(s).

That would be your opinion, Predrag. Guess what, not
everybody agrees with you or I.



I'm glad you realize that we're discussing opinions here.




I believe that's what makes it the prevalent choice of
audio
professionals in pursue of the ultimate in overall sound
quality. Not the historic reasons as you're trying to
dismiss
it.

Well, anything that starts out "I believe" without any hard
data to back it up is like a religious belief. Far be it
from me to criticize your religion, Predrag.



Just because you don't start your sentences with "I believe" does not make
it any more factual.



Now you can call the reasons for that "historic" or even
"nostalgic". I'd personally rather use the terms
"pragmatic"
and "esthetic".

The pragmatism lies in the fact that so many of the
modern
alternatives were simply not available, or in many cases
not
even thought of when the recordings in question were
made.

I think we are all fortunate for that.

But that's history. We have alternatives now.

Alternatives are good. If nothing else they lead to choice
and choice is good.

And yet most of the RNSA (Really Nice
Sounding Albums) are still produced using essentially the
same
technology as 20 years ago, using the combination of
analog
and digital equipment and mixing through an analog
console.

And your independently-audited survey results are where,
Predrag?



Several threads below, for starters. I'm sure they won't be independent
enough or blind enough or sufficiently scientific for your tastes, but who
cares. It's all about opinions anyway, as you correctly noticed at the
beginning of your reply (and then conveniently forgot about it).



In spite of ever-increasing pressure on recording budgets
and the
presence of already mature, widely-accepted, less costly
and
more maintenance-friendly "in-the-box" alternative, the
one
you so passionately promote.

Predrag, do you know the difference between an unfounded
assertion and a reliable fact, or do I need to help you
clarify that in your mind?



Oh, and a moment ago you said you wouldn't "criticize my religion". Ts,
ts...

Nevertheless, I can't refuse your generous offer. Please help me clarify the
difference between an unfounded assertion and a reliable fact. Let me
suggest an example. It's a recent claim by the great pro audio thinker A.
Krueger. When asked: "(Should I have a mixer connected to my computer and
have all plug-in's on a recording program) or is it better to set every
thing up, and have a room full of racks?" he promptly delivered one of his
anthological replies:

"Most people who have that, do so for historic reasons."

Now everybody knows all to well that A. Krueger would never spit out an
unfounded assertion. After all, he's the one who constantly accuses others
of doing exactly that. He himself deals exclusively with Hard Facts, doesn't
he? So please tell me where exactly the factual wisdom lies hidden in these
ten words and a comma.



Contemplate what would have happened if a PC with an
onboard
sound card and modern recording software had showed up in
1948.

Music would have probably been the playground/battlefield
of
objectivists, subjectivists, DBT-ists and other scientific
types. As an art form it would have been as exclusive and
exciting as reading the telephone book.

I think this is a far better predictor of your religious
beliefs Predrag, than it is a prediction of what would
actually happen.

Even if there would have been such thing as rec.audio.pro
there's no way I would have been here today. But you
surely
would have. Probably a much happier person too.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

I feel your pain.

Then you feel very little, Predrag. Just because modern
technology is against your particular religion, doesn't mean
that we all agree.


Modern technology is not against my particular religion, on the contrary,
but just because your premises are wrong, Arny, doesn't mean that you can't
draw a correct conclusion. Isn't logic beautiful?

Predrag