[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Jenn wrote:

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more right
than any CD that I've heard.

Jenn,

I've always been intruiged by this.

I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit depths)
and then compare the files you created ?

Just an idea.

It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really believes that there is a
snowball's chance in San Diego that a LP could provide a more realistic
sound than than any CD.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Jenn wrote:

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more right
than any CD that I've heard.

Jenn,

I've always been intruiged by this.

I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit depths)
and then compare the files you created ?

Just an idea.

It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really believes that there is a
snowball's chance in San Diego that a LP could provide a more realistic
sound than than any CD.

No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to what sounds better to
her for any given performance of a piece of music.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"wayne" wrote in
message
ups.com

I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this
Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can
hear the pitch instability.

Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with the
vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.

If one can detect speed variations with a modern TT,
either the TT or the source is defective.

In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to
the usual digital equivalents.

I know that that is true in a variety of ways. Too
bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
digital.

That's technically imposible if the recordings are
properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that were
improperly made.

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more right
than any CD that I've heard.

That must be due to the added audible vibrato distortion
in the LP.

That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do have.

I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that it's
true for my ears.

Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when her TT adds it to her
LPs.

1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and flutter? Why do you
make things up?
2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't realize this.

To her, it is more real than real.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"wayne" wrote in
message
ups.com

I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this
Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can
hear the pitch instability.

Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with
the vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.

If one can detect speed variations with a modern
TT, either the TT or the source is defective.

In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to
the usual digital equivalents.

I know that that is true in a variety of ways. Too
bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
digital.

That's technically imposible if the recordings are
properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that
were improperly made.

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
right than any CD that I've heard.

That must be due to the added audible vibrato
distortion in the LP.

That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do have.

I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that it's
true for my ears.

Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when
her TT adds it to her LPs.

1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and
flutter?

Your comments about perceptions of realistic reproduction in the face of
audible quantities of it.

Why do you make things up?

No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so clearly, Jenn. Take
the recent case where you confused a rhetorical question with one that
deserves an answer. You obviously did not think it was a rhetorical
question, no doubt due to your lack of understanding of a common
abbreviation contained therein.

2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't
realize this.


Why do you make things up, Jenn?

To her, it is more real than real.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Simple Jenn - you find a sonically perfect medium to be less-realistic
sounding than a medium with rather obvious audible imperfections. You must
not hear the imperfections. Arguably, the most audible imperfection of the
LP format is the flutter and wow.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
message
Jenn wrote:

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
right than any CD that I've heard.

Jenn,

I've always been intruiged by this.

I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit
depths) and then compare the files you created ?

Just an idea.

It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really
believes that there is a snowball's chance in San Diego
that a LP could provide a more realistic sound than than
any CD.

No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to what
sounds better to her for any given performance of a piece
of music.

In Jenn's case, better must mean loaded with audible noise and distortion.
That's a pretty strange situation, but she indicts herself with it at every
turn.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
message
Jenn wrote:

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
right than any CD that I've heard.

Jenn,

I've always been intruiged by this.

I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit
depths) and then compare the files you created ?

Just an idea.

It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really
believes that there is a snowball's chance in San Diego
that a LP could provide a more realistic sound than than
any CD.

No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to what
sounds better to her for any given performance of a piece
of music.

In Jenn's case, better must mean loaded with audible noise and distortion.
That's a pretty strange situation, but she indicts herself with it at every
turn.

No, better means just what I said. CD is often the best available.
Sometimes it's not. Arny thinks that people should listen to something
that they hear as less than the best. It's a pretty strange situation.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

od
ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"wayne" wrote in
message
ups.com

I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this
Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can
hear the pitch instability.

Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with
the vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.

If one can detect speed variations with a modern
TT, either the TT or the source is defective.

In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to
the usual digital equivalents.

I know that that is true in a variety of ways. Too
bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
digital.

That's technically imposible if the recordings are
properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that
were improperly made.

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
right than any CD that I've heard.

That must be due to the added audible vibrato
distortion in the LP.

That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do have.

I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that it's
true for my ears.

Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when
her TT adds it to her LPs.

1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and
flutter?

Your comments about perceptions of realistic reproduction in the face of
audible quantities of it.

I repeat: If you are getting audible quantities of wow and flutter on
good recordings, you're using an old, worn out, or defective turntable.


Why do you make things up?

No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so clearly, Jenn. Take
the recent case where you confused a rhetorical question with one that
deserves an answer. You obviously did not think it was a rhetorical
question, no doubt due to your lack of understanding of a common
abbreviation contained therein.

That you didn't see the correlation between hearing FM distortion and
good pitch discrimination shows that it wasn't a rhetorical question. At
any rate, you're trying to distract away from the question yet again.
Why do you make things up? Who said that I can't hear W&F?


2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't
realize this.


Why do you make things up, Jenn?

You certainly haven't shown that you realize it. Let's say that I hear
W&F on the LPs that I listen to. Perhaps this is less important to me
than the negative things that I hear on CDs. Everything is a trade off.


To her, it is more real than real.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Simple Jenn - you find a sonically perfect medium to be less-realistic
sounding than a medium with rather obvious audible imperfections. You must
not hear the imperfections. Arguably, the most audible imperfection of the
LP format is the flutter and wow.

You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically perfect medium. Bully
for you. Enjoy them.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

od
ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"wayne" wrote in
message
ups.com

I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing
this Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN
but I can hear the pitch instability.

Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with
the vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.

If one can detect speed variations with a modern
TT, either the TT or the source is defective.

In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared
to the usual digital equivalents.

I know that that is true in a variety of ways.
Too bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
digital.

That's technically imposible if the recordings are
properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that
were improperly made.

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
right than any CD that I've heard.

That must be due to the added audible vibrato
distortion in the LP.

That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do
have.

I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that
it's true for my ears.

Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when
her TT adds it to her LPs.

1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and
flutter?

Your comments about perceptions of realistic
reproduction in the face of audible quantities of it.

I repeat: If you are getting audible quantities of wow
and flutter on good recordings, you're using an old, worn
out, or defective turntable.


Why do you make things up?

No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so
clearly, Jenn. Take the recent case where you confused a
rhetorical question with one that deserves an answer.
You obviously did not think it was a rhetorical
question, no doubt due to your lack of understanding of
a common abbreviation contained therein.

That you didn't see the correlation between hearing FM
distortion and good pitch discrimination shows that it
wasn't a rhetorical question.

There was no such absence of seeing. Have fun in your little personal
universe, Jenn.

At any rate, you're trying
to distract away from the question yet again.

No, the issue is settled.

Why do you make things up?

Asked and answered.

Who said that I can't hear W&F?

You did, Jenn.


2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't
realize this.

Why do you make things up, Jenn?

You certainly haven't shown that you realize it.

There was no such absence of realizing. Have fun in your little personal
universe, Jenn.

Let's say that I hear W&F on the LPs that I listen to.

I see no evidence to support that claim. I see evidence that denies it.

Perhaps
this is less important to me than the negative things
that I hear on CDs.

There is nothing negative to hear. The music coming off a CD is sonically
indistinguishable from the music that went onto it.

Everything is a trade off.

In general yes, but in this case no. Sure the CD format involved trade-offs,
but not any in terms of sonic accuracy. In contrast the LP format is chock
full of sonic trade-offs. Anybody who can't hear that has to be lost in
wishfulness and illusion.

To her, it is more real than real.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Simple Jenn - you find a sonically perfect medium to be
less-realistic sounding than a medium with rather
obvious audible imperfections. You must not hear the
imperfections. Arguably, the most audible imperfection
of the LP format is the flutter and wow.

You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically perfect
medium.

It's a scientifically demonstrable fact.

Bully for you.

Me, and anybody who is interested in reliable truth.

Enjoy them.

Me and several billion other music lovers...

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
message
Jenn wrote:

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
right than any CD that I've heard.

Jenn,

I've always been intruiged by this.

I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit
depths) and then compare the files you created ?

Just an idea.

It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really
believes that there is a snowball's chance in San Diego
that a LP could provide a more realistic sound than
than any CD.

No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to what
sounds better to her for any given performance of a
piece of music.

In Jenn's case, better must mean loaded with audible
noise and distortion. That's a pretty strange situation,
but she indicts herself with it at every turn.

No, better means just what I said.

Then enjoy life in your little private universe, Jenn.


CD is often the best available.

As formats go, it is always a more sonically transparent format than the LP,
and that isn't saying much for the CD format because the LP format is full
of audible failings.

Sometimes it's not.

Confusion with recording formats and odd pathological recordings noted.
It's safe to say that any LP that sounds better than the corresponding CD is
due to some specific pathological situation.

Arny thinks that people
should listen to something that they hear as less than
the best.

Why do you make things like this up, Jenn?

It's a pretty strange situation.

No, its pretty strange to not be grossed out with the audible flaws that are
inherent in the LP format. Billions of music lovers have made their choice
of formats, and it is not the LP.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
message
Jenn wrote:

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
right than any CD that I've heard.

Jenn,

I've always been intruiged by this.

I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit
depths) and then compare the files you created ?

Just an idea.

It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really
believes that there is a snowball's chance in San Diego
that a LP could provide a more realistic sound than
than any CD.

No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to what
sounds better to her for any given performance of a
piece of music.

In Jenn's case, better must mean loaded with audible
noise and distortion. That's a pretty strange situation,
but she indicts herself with it at every turn.

No, better means just what I said.

Then enjoy life in your little private universe, Jenn.


CD is often the best available.

As formats go, it is always a more sonically transparent format than the LP,
and that isn't saying much for the CD format because the LP format is full
of audible failings.

Sometimes it's not.

Confusion with recording formats and odd pathological recordings noted.
It's safe to say that any LP that sounds better than the corresponding CD is
due to some specific pathological situation.

Arny thinks that people
should listen to something that they hear as less than
the best.

Why do you make things like this up, Jenn?

You seem to be trying to convince me that CDs sound better. I think
that this is sometimes not the case. Therefore you are trying to
convince me to listen to something that my ears find inferior.


It's a pretty strange situation.

No, its pretty strange to not be grossed out with the audible flaws that are
inherent in the LP format.

I think that it's pretty strange not to be put off by the odd timbres
present on many CDs. But if you like it, fine.

Billions of music lovers have made their choice
of formats, and it is not the LP.

Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs over LPs, and
billions of music lovers aren't as picky as I am about timbre.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

od
ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message
.
pr
od
ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"wayne" wrote in
message
ups.com

I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing
this Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN
but I can hear the pitch instability.

Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with
the vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.

If one can detect speed variations with a modern
TT, either the TT or the source is defective.

In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared
to the usual digital equivalents.

I know that that is true in a variety of ways.
Too bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
digital.

That's technically imposible if the recordings are
properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that
were improperly made.

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
right than any CD that I've heard.

That must be due to the added audible vibrato
distortion in the LP.

That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do
have.

I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that
it's true for my ears.

Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when
her TT adds it to her LPs.

1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and
flutter?

Your comments about perceptions of realistic
reproduction in the face of audible quantities of it.

I repeat: If you are getting audible quantities of wow
and flutter on good recordings, you're using an old, worn
out, or defective turntable.


Why do you make things up?

No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so
clearly, Jenn. Take the recent case where you confused a
rhetorical question with one that deserves an answer.
You obviously did not think it was a rhetorical
question, no doubt due to your lack of understanding of
a common abbreviation contained therein.

That you didn't see the correlation between hearing FM
distortion and good pitch discrimination shows that it
wasn't a rhetorical question.

There was no such absence of seeing. Have fun in your little personal
universe, Jenn.

At any rate, you're trying
to distract away from the question yet again.

No, the issue is settled.

Why do you make things up?

Asked and answered.

Who said that I can't hear W&F?

You did, Jenn.

No I didn't. Provide a quote or stop revealing yourself to be a liar.



2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't
realize this.

Why do you make things up, Jenn?

You certainly haven't shown that you realize it.

There was no such absence of realizing. Have fun in your little personal
universe, Jenn.

Let's say that I hear W&F on the LPs that I listen to.

I see no evidence to support that claim. I see evidence that denies it.

Perhaps
this is less important to me than the negative things
that I hear on CDs.

There is nothing negative to hear. The music coming off a CD is sonically
indistinguishable from the music that went onto it.

Everything is a trade off.

In general yes, but in this case no. Sure the CD format involved trade-offs,
but not any in terms of sonic accuracy. In contrast the LP format is chock
full of sonic trade-offs. Anybody who can't hear that has to be lost in
wishfulness and illusion.

To her, it is more real than real.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Simple Jenn - you find a sonically perfect medium to be
less-realistic sounding than a medium with rather
obvious audible imperfections. You must not hear the
imperfections. Arguably, the most audible imperfection
of the LP format is the flutter and wow.

You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically perfect
medium.

It's a scientifically demonstrable fact.

Bully for you.

Me, and anybody who is interested in reliable truth.

Enjoy them.

Me and several billion other music lovers...

Great. I'm happy for you.

[[email protected]]

On May 30, 10:40 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in






In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

od
ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"wayne" wrote in
message
news:1180313020.627569.169010@j4g2000p rf.googlegroups.com

I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing
this Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN
but I can hear the pitch instability.

Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with
the vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.

If one can detect speed variations with a modern
TT, either the TT or the source is defective.

In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared
to the usual digital equivalents.

I know that that is true in a variety of ways.
Too bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
digital.

That's technically imposible if the recordings are
properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that
were improperly made.

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
right than any CD that I've heard.

That must be due to the added audible vibrato
distortion in the LP.

That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do
have.

I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that
it's true for my ears.

Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when
her TT adds it to her LPs.

1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and
flutter?

Your comments about perceptions of realistic
reproduction in the face of audible quantities of it.

I repeat: If you are getting audible quantities of wow
and flutter on good recordings, you're using an old, worn
out, or defective turntable.

Why do you make things up?

No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so
clearly, Jenn. Take the recent case where you confused a
rhetorical question with one that deserves an answer.
You obviously did not think it was a rhetorical
question, no doubt due to your lack of understanding of
a common abbreviation contained therein.
That you didn't see the correlation between hearing FM
distortion and good pitch discrimination shows that it
wasn't a rhetorical question.

There was no such absence of seeing. Have fun in your little personal
universe, Jenn.

At any rate, you're trying
to distract away from the question yet again.

No, the issue is settled.

Why do you make things up?

Asked and answered.

Who said that I can't hear W&F?

You did, Jenn.

2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't
realize this.

Why do you make things up, Jenn?
You certainly haven't shown that you realize it.

There was no such absence of realizing. Have fun in your little personal
universe, Jenn.

Let's say that I hear W&F on the LPs that I listen to.

I see no evidence to support that claim. I see evidence that denies it.

Perhaps
this is less important to me than the negative things
that I hear on CDs.

There is nothing negative to hear. The music coming off a CD is sonically
indistinguishable from the music that went onto it.

Everything is a trade off.

In general yes, but in this case no. Sure the CD format involved trade-offs,
but not any in terms of sonic accuracy. In contrast the LP format is chock
full of sonic trade-offs. Anybody who can't hear that has to be lost in
wishfulness and illusion.

To her, it is more real than real.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Simple Jenn - you find a sonically perfect medium to be
less-realistic sounding than a medium with rather
obvious audible imperfections. You must not hear the
imperfections. Arguably, the most audible imperfection
of the LP format is the flutter and wow.
You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically perfect
medium.

It's a scientifically demonstrable fact.

Bully for you.

================================

Krueger answers Jenn:
"You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically
perfect medium".

"It's a scientifically demonstrable fact"

If he proclaimed it once he said it a hundred times
before-(Whatever "sonically transparent" means.)

He insists on reconfirming that the
experience of hearing to real life musicians playing
a real-life quartet or a symphony on real-life
music instruments is meaningless to him.

One wonders why anyone should talk oranges to an
apple man who knows only loudspeakers, amps. and
cd. players.

Leave him to it I say. Having nothing to ignorantly
spout about will be punishment enough.
Ludovic Mirabel


Me, and anybody who is interested in reliable truth.

Enjoy them.

Me and several billion other music lovers...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

Jenn really believes that there is a
snowball's chance in San Diego that a LP could provide a more realistic
sound than than any CD.

No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to what sounds better to
her for any given performance of a piece of music.

So you're refusing to sign up for Krooger's religion? It's your own soul
at risk.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

"You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically
perfect medium".

"It's a scientifically demonstrable fact"

If he proclaimed it once he said it a hundred times
before-(Whatever "sonically transparent" means.)


Produce your evidence that contradicts.

He insists on reconfirming that the
experience of hearing to real life musicians playing
a real-life quartet or a symphony on real-life
music instruments is meaningless to him.

A grotesque lie.

One wonders why anyone should talk oranges to an
apple man who knows only loudspeakers, amps. and
cd. players.

Mirabel, in your rush to spew, you forgot about a vast array of live voices
and acoustic instruments.

I recorded over 200 live choral performances in the past 8 weeks. What did
you do?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore"
wrote in
message
Jenn wrote:

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
right than any CD that I've heard.

Jenn,

I've always been intruiged by this.

I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit
depths) and then compare the files you created ?

Just an idea.

It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really
believes that there is a snowball's chance in San
Diego that a LP could provide a more realistic sound
than than any CD.

No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to
what sounds better to her for any given performance
of a piece of music.

In Jenn's case, better must mean loaded with audible
noise and distortion. That's a pretty strange
situation, but she indicts herself with it at every
turn.

No, better means just what I said.

Then enjoy life in your little private universe, Jenn.


CD is often the best available.

As formats go, it is always a more sonically transparent
format than the LP, and that isn't saying much for the
CD format because the LP format is full of audible
failings.

Sometimes it's not.

Confusion with recording formats and odd pathological
recordings noted. It's safe to say that any LP that
sounds better than the corresponding CD is due to some
specific pathological situation.

Arny thinks that people
should listen to something that they hear as less than
the best.

Why do you make things like this up, Jenn?

You seem to be trying to convince me that CDs sound
better.

Wrong.

I can only use logical arguments with people who appreciate rational
thought. That's clearly not you, Jenn.

I think that this is sometimes not the case.


Jenn, your inability to read and comprehend and think rationally is
demonstrated by your confusion of individial CDs (which are what they are
made to be) and the CD format (which is what I am talking about).

Therefore you are trying to convince me to listen to
something that my ears find inferior.

Therefore Jenn you are too reading skills and logical thinking - challenged
to be worth discussing audio topics with.

End of discussion.

[Bill Riel]

In article jennconductsREMOVETHIS-6EB1FB.11500630052007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
says...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

[...]

Billions of music lovers have made their choice
of formats, and it is not the LP.

Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs over LPs, and
billions of music lovers aren't as picky as I am about timbre.

For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of music lovers
have chosen lossy compressed formats over CD. As you note, convenience
seems to be the overall driver of popularity, not sound quality or
realistic timbre.

--
Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
In article jennconductsREMOVETHIS-6EB1FB.11500630052007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
says...
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

[...]

Billions of music lovers have made their choice
of formats, and it is not the LP.

Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs
over LPs, and billions of music lovers aren't as picky
as I am about timbre.

For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
CD.

Which supports my claim that the CD format is an "overkill" format, and
so-called hi-rez formats were effectively stacking overkill on top of
overkill.

As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic timbre.

I notice the implicit blanked condemnation of every lossy-compressed format
that currently exists, or will ever exist. Perhaps you want to be a bit more
specific?

[Jenn]

In article ,
Bill Riel wrote:

In article jennconductsREMOVETHIS-6EB1FB.11500630052007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
says...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

[...]

Billions of music lovers have made their choice
of formats, and it is not the LP.

Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs over LPs, and
billions of music lovers aren't as picky as I am about timbre.

For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of music lovers
have chosen lossy compressed formats over CD. As you note, convenience
seems to be the overall driver of popularity, not sound quality or
realistic timbre.

--
Bill

Exactly.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, Bill
Riel wrote:

In article jennconductsREMOVETHIS-6EB1FB.11500630052007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
says...
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

[...]

Billions of music lovers have made their choice
of formats, and it is not the LP.

Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs
over LPs, and billions of music lovers aren't as picky
as I am about timbre.

For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
CD. As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic
timbre.

The myth is that lossy compressed formats necessarily diminish sound quality
or realistic timbre.

Exactly.

Exactly fitting Jenn's prejudices and beliefs in common audio myths.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, Bill
Riel wrote:

In article jennconductsREMOVETHIS-6EB1FB.11500630052007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
says...
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

[...]

Billions of music lovers have made their choice
of formats, and it is not the LP.

Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs
over LPs, and billions of music lovers aren't as picky
as I am about timbre.

For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
CD. As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic
timbre.

The myth is that lossy compressed formats necessarily diminish sound quality
or realistic timbre.

He didn't say that they all do. Some, however, clearly do.


Exactly.

Exactly fitting Jenn's prejudices and beliefs in common audio myths.

Are you denying that some loosy formats sound bad? Or are you just
picking a fight?

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore"
wrote in
message
Jenn wrote:

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
right than any CD that I've heard.

Jenn,

I've always been intruiged by this.

I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit
depths) and then compare the files you created ?

Just an idea.

It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really
believes that there is a snowball's chance in San
Diego that a LP could provide a more realistic sound
than than any CD.

No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to
what sounds better to her for any given performance
of a piece of music.

In Jenn's case, better must mean loaded with audible
noise and distortion. That's a pretty strange
situation, but she indicts herself with it at every
turn.

No, better means just what I said.

Then enjoy life in your little private universe, Jenn.


CD is often the best available.

As formats go, it is always a more sonically transparent
format than the LP, and that isn't saying much for the
CD format because the LP format is full of audible
failings.

Sometimes it's not.

Confusion with recording formats and odd pathological
recordings noted. It's safe to say that any LP that
sounds better than the corresponding CD is due to some
specific pathological situation.

Arny thinks that people
should listen to something that they hear as less than
the best.

Why do you make things like this up, Jenn?

You seem to be trying to convince me that CDs sound
better.

Wrong.

I can only use logical arguments with people who appreciate rational
thought. That's clearly not you, Jenn.

It's not rational or logical to argue with a person about how she hears
things. You don't hear with my ears/brain.


I think that this is sometimes not the case.


Jenn, your inability to read and comprehend and think rationally is
demonstrated by your confusion of individial CDs (which are what they are
made to be) and the CD format (which is what I am talking about).

Incorrect yet again. I've praised several CDs for their sonic quality.


Therefore you are trying to convince me to listen to
something that my ears find inferior.

Therefore Jenn you are too reading skills and logical thinking - challenged
to be worth discussing audio topics with.

LOL Great sentence there, Arny.

[Jenn]

In article . com,
" wrote:

On May 30, 10:40 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in

odigy.com





In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

.com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

gy.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

dig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

rod
ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

.pr
od
ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"wayne" wrote in
message
news:1180313020.627569.169010@j4g2000p rf.googlegroups.com

I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing
this Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN
but I can hear the pitch instability.

Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with
the vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.

If one can detect speed variations with a modern
TT, either the TT or the source is defective.

In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared
to the usual digital equivalents.

I know that that is true in a variety of ways.
Too bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
digital.

That's technically imposible if the recordings are
properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that
were improperly made.

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
right than any CD that I've heard.

That must be due to the added audible vibrato
distortion in the LP.

That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do
have.

I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that
it's true for my ears.

Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when
her TT adds it to her LPs.

1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and
flutter?

Your comments about perceptions of realistic
reproduction in the face of audible quantities of it.

I repeat: If you are getting audible quantities of wow
and flutter on good recordings, you're using an old, worn
out, or defective turntable.

Why do you make things up?

No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so
clearly, Jenn. Take the recent case where you confused a
rhetorical question with one that deserves an answer.
You obviously did not think it was a rhetorical
question, no doubt due to your lack of understanding of
a common abbreviation contained therein.
That you didn't see the correlation between hearing FM
distortion and good pitch discrimination shows that it
wasn't a rhetorical question.

There was no such absence of seeing. Have fun in your little personal
universe, Jenn.

At any rate, you're trying
to distract away from the question yet again.

No, the issue is settled.

Why do you make things up?

Asked and answered.

Who said that I can't hear W&F?

You did, Jenn.

2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't
realize this.

Why do you make things up, Jenn?
You certainly haven't shown that you realize it.

There was no such absence of realizing. Have fun in your little personal
universe, Jenn.

Let's say that I hear W&F on the LPs that I listen to.

I see no evidence to support that claim. I see evidence that denies it.

Perhaps
this is less important to me than the negative things
that I hear on CDs.

There is nothing negative to hear. The music coming off a CD is sonically
indistinguishable from the music that went onto it.

Everything is a trade off.

In general yes, but in this case no. Sure the CD format involved
trade-offs,
but not any in terms of sonic accuracy. In contrast the LP format is chock
full of sonic trade-offs. Anybody who can't hear that has to be lost in
wishfulness and illusion.

To her, it is more real than real.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Simple Jenn - you find a sonically perfect medium to be
less-realistic sounding than a medium with rather
obvious audible imperfections. You must not hear the
imperfections. Arguably, the most audible imperfection
of the LP format is the flutter and wow.
You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically perfect
medium.

It's a scientifically demonstrable fact.

Bully for you.

================================

Krueger answers Jenn:
"You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically
perfect medium".

"It's a scientifically demonstrable fact"

If he proclaimed it once he said it a hundred times
before-(Whatever "sonically transparent" means.)

He insists on reconfirming that the
experience of hearing to real life musicians playing
a real-life quartet or a symphony on real-life
music instruments is meaningless to him.

One wonders why anyone should talk oranges to an
apple man who knows only loudspeakers, amps. and
cd. players.

Leave him to it I say. Having nothing to ignorantly
spout about will be punishment enough.
Ludovic Mirabel

I know. I don't challenge him on his statements as much as I used to.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com

"You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically
perfect medium".

"It's a scientifically demonstrable fact"

If he proclaimed it once he said it a hundred times
before-(Whatever "sonically transparent" means.)


Produce your evidence that contradicts.

He insists on reconfirming that the
experience of hearing to real life musicians playing
a real-life quartet or a symphony on real-life
music instruments is meaningless to him.

A grotesque lie.

One wonders why anyone should talk oranges to an
apple man who knows only loudspeakers, amps. and
cd. players.

Mirabel, in your rush to spew, you forgot about a vast array of live voices
and acoustic instruments.

I recorded over 200 live choral performances in the past 8 weeks. What did
you do?

Just a point: you don't mean 200 concert-length performances, right?
You mean mostly 1/2 hour festival-type performances, correct? Just in
the interest of clarity...

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
says...
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t

[...]

For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
CD.

Which supports my claim that the CD format is an "overkill" format, and
so-called hi-rez formats were effectively stacking overkill on top of
overkill.

As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic timbre.

I notice the implicit blanked condemnation of every lossy-compressed format
that currently exists, or will ever exist. Perhaps you want to be a bit more
specific?

I don't know how you can see a "blanked condemnation of every lossy-
compressed format that currently exists, or will ever exist" in my
statement.

I said *nothing* to that effect, and in fact, believe that there are
some very good compression algorithms that can produce excellent
results.

However, my point is that much of what is purchased on line IS inferior
in sound quality to CD, yet people are buying anyway. IOW, sound quality
is not what drives the popularity of a format, convenience is. Hell, in
their day, cassettes sold well!

--
Bill

[Bill Riel]

In article jennconductsREMOVETHIS-F50F52.13110330052007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
says...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, Bill
Riel wrote:

In article jennconductsREMOVETHIS-6EB1FB.11500630052007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
says...
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

[...]

Billions of music lovers have made their choice
of formats, and it is not the LP.

Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs
over LPs, and billions of music lovers aren't as picky
as I am about timbre.

For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
CD. As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic
timbre.

The myth is that lossy compressed formats necessarily diminish sound quality
or realistic timbre.

He didn't say that they all do. Some, however, clearly do.

Thank-you!

I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to everyone...

--
Bill

[Jenn]

In article ,
Bill Riel wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t

[...]

For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
CD.

Which supports my claim that the CD format is an "overkill" format, and
so-called hi-rez formats were effectively stacking overkill on top of
overkill.

As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic timbre.

I notice the implicit blanked condemnation of every lossy-compressed format
that currently exists, or will ever exist. Perhaps you want to be a bit
more
specific?

I don't know how you can see a "blanked condemnation of every lossy-
compressed format that currently exists, or will ever exist" in my
statement.

Welcome to the "debating trade" as practiced by AK.


I said *nothing* to that effect, and in fact, believe that there are
some very good compression algorithms that can produce excellent
results.

However, my point is that much of what is purchased on line IS inferior
in sound quality to CD, yet people are buying anyway. IOW, sound quality
is not what drives the popularity of a format, convenience is. Hell, in
their day, cassettes sold well!

--
Bill

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 30, 11:47 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so clearly, Jenn.

What is the charge, Arns? Heresy? Treason? Making terroristic threats?

Off to Gitmo with her!

[George M. Middius]

Bill Riel said:

Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs over LPs, and
billions of music lovers aren't as picky as I am about timbre.

For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of music lovers
have chosen lossy compressed formats over CD. As you note, convenience
seems to be the overall driver of popularity, not sound quality or
realistic timbre.

Nice attempt to flout "debating trade" rules. Drawing unacceptable
conclusions from available evidence is likely to ignite the Krooborg's
snotware.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to Snottyborg:

Exactly fitting Jenn's prejudices and beliefs in common audio myths.

Are you denying that some loosy formats sound bad? Or are you just
picking a fight?

Krooger is now under the control of his "debating trade" module. Truth
and falsity are irrelevant. All that matters to the Beast is continuing
to argue for the sake of arguing.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 30, 2:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
"Jenn" wrote

Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs
over LPs, and billions of music lovers aren't as picky
as I am about timbre.
For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
CD.

Which supports my claim that the CD format is an "overkill" format, and
so-called hi-rez formats were effectively stacking overkill on top of
overkill.

Or it supports a claim that the vast majority of people to not care
about sound quality and make their decisions based on transportability
and convenience.

That would be as opposed to people who make their decisions based on
measurements. You know, people like you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 30, 11:49 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

That's a pretty strange situation, but she indicts herself with it at every
turn.

Stranger still: A disappointed-by-life, not-very-well-liked, insane
elderly man in Detroit who can't seem to come to grips with the fact
that some people's preferences are different than his and obsesses
about it.

Isn't that almost stranger than fiction?

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t

I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
everyone...

Your back-pedaling was clear.

[[email protected]]

On May 30, 12:36 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com

"You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically
perfect medium".

"It's a scientifically demonstrable fact"

If he proclaimed it once he said it a hundred times
before-(Whatever "sonically transparent" means.)

Produce your evidence that contradicts.

He insists on reconfirming that the
experience of hearing to real life musicians playing
a real-life quartet or a symphony on real-life
music instruments is meaningless to him.

A grotesque lie.

One wonders why anyone should talk oranges to an
apple man who knows only loudspeakers, amps. and
cd. players.

Mirabel, in your rush to spew, you forgot about a vast array of live voices
and acoustic instruments.

I recorded over 200 live choral performances in the past 8 weeks. What did
you do?

------------------------------------------------
Krueger asks:
"I recorded over 200 live choral performances in the past 8 weeks.
What did you do?"
I recorded on cassette tapes what 200 patients had to say to me about
their pains and aches. But I have to humbly confess: Not much
commercial success so far.
But you explained how to measure artistic success. As you said:
"Billions of music lovers have made their choice of formats, and it is
not the LP"
That proves something, no? Billions bought your recordings of your
church choir singing their favourite hymns. You're greater than
Mozart. Tphoo- who cares about silly old Mozart? You're greater than
the Beatles.
Regards Ludovic Mirabel

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
says...
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t

I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
everyone...

Your back-pedaling was clear.

Absolutely - provided you define 'back-pedaling' as correcting the
erroneous statement you attributed to me.

--
Bill

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 30, 7:12 pm, Bill Riel wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Bill Riel" wrote in message
et

I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
everyone...

Your back-pedaling was clear.

Absolutely - provided you define 'back-pedaling' as correcting the
erroneous statement you attributed to me.

i don't know how to break this to you, but the person you're talking
to is insane.

Just an FYI...

[John Atkinson]

On May 30, 8:14 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On May 30, 7:12 pm, Bill Riel wrote:
In article ,
says...
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
et
I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
everyone...

Your back-pedaling was clear.

Absolutely - provided you define 'back-pedaling' as correcting the
erroneous statement you attributed to me.

i don't know how to break this to you, but the person you're talking
to is insane.

More on the Arny Kruegers of the on-line world, from a reformed troll:
http://www.drewspeak.com/?p=53

Money quote: "the Internet troll exists by the grace of those who give
him a voice; without that, he is nothing."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
On May 30, 8:14 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On May 30, 7:12 pm, Bill Riel wrote:
In article
,
says...
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
everyone...

Your back-pedaling was clear.

Absolutely - provided you define 'back-pedaling' as
correcting the erroneous statement you attributed to me.

i don't know how to break this to you, but the person
you're talking to is insane.

More on the Arny Kruegers of the on-line world, from a
reformed troll: http://www.drewspeak.com/?p=53

As usual, the cited article says nothing about me or people like me. It does
however describe a number of other RAO regulars, past and present.

Money quote: "the Internet troll exists by the grace of
those who give him a voice; without that, he is nothing."

Not bad as it stands, but it does not include the fact that one gives a
troll an added voice by responding to him. IME, this is a critical piece of
wisdom.

The article itself shows quite a bit of wisdom, some of which John would do
well to put into practice. Maybe in his next life... ;-)

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

More on the Arny Kruegers of the on-line world, from a reformed troll:
http://www.drewspeak.com/?p=53

An edifying essay, to be sure, but nary a mention of feces. The Krooborg
is thus certain to klaim the author is not referring to him.

Money quote: "the Internet troll exists by the grace of those who give
him a voice; without that, he is nothing."

Agreed.™ I hope Jenn will take note.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Bill Riel]

In article . com,
says...
On May 30, 7:12 pm, Bill Riel wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Bill Riel" wrote in message
et

I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
everyone...

Your back-pedaling was clear.

Absolutely - provided you define 'back-pedaling' as correcting the
erroneous statement you attributed to me.

i don't know how to break this to you, but the person you're talking
to is insane.

Just an FYI...

Heh, thanks. I can see that I am in error attempting any sort of
rational conversation with said person, so I'll refrain from doing so.

--
Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
In article ,
says...
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t

[...]

For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
CD.

Which supports my claim that the CD format is an
"overkill" format, and so-called hi-rez formats were
effectively stacking overkill on top of overkill.

As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic
timbre.

I notice the implicit blanked condemnation of every
lossy-compressed format that currently exists, or will
ever exist. Perhaps you want to be a bit more specific?

I don't know how you can see a "blanked condemnation of
every lossy- compressed format that currently exists, or
will ever exist" in my statement.

Something about the absence of any qualifiers at all. For example, if you
would have said "low bitrate lossy compressed formats", then you wouldn't
have made a blanket condemnation.