[bob]

Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the
NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/fa...le&oref=slogin

It's not about sound quality; it's about cool.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles
section of the NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/fa...le&oref=slogin

It's not about sound quality; it's about cool.

Good insight. It is about time that the real cause for any attention at all
by younger listeners at all.

It sounds different, and that has been sufficient for a great many naive
listeners to presume that something that is new to them sounds better.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:06:58 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles
section of the NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/fa...f=style&oref=s
login

It's not about sound quality; it's about cool.

Good insight. It is about time that the real cause for any attention at all
by younger listeners at all.

It sounds different, and that has been sufficient for a great many naive
listeners to presume that something that is new to them sounds better.


Like I said. Look what they have been listening to: MP3's from iTunes. Of
course LPs sound better.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:32:38 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the
NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/fa...le&oref=slogin

It's not about sound quality; it's about cool.

bob

Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed popularity. However, one thing
is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than MP3s - at ANY
available data rate.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

snip

Good insight. It is about time that the real cause for any attention at
all
by younger listeners at all.

It sounds different, and that has been sufficient for a great many naive
listeners to presume that something that is new to them sounds better.

And you know this how? I and I am sure many others wish to know?

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 18:20:00 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

snip

Good insight. It is about time that the real cause for any attention at
all
by younger listeners at all.

It sounds different, and that has been sufficient for a great many naive
listeners to presume that something that is new to them sounds better.

And you know this how? I and I am sure many others wish to know?


"Sounds Better" is a relative term. Does a good LP "Sound Better" than the
average (or perhaps any) MP3? Well, it certainly sounds more musical, i.E.,
more real than an MP3, that's for sure. No as to whether or not that sounds
"better" is a matter of personal opinion. I certainly think so. I cannot
STAND MP3 at ANY data rate. IMHO, they make good recordings sound mediocre
and mediocre recordings sound dreadful. So, yeah, an LP sounds "better".

[[email protected]]

bob wrote:

Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the
NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl:

It's not about sound quality; it's about cool.


From the article:

"This year Capitol/EMI is in the process of reissuing its first substantial
vinyl catalog in decades. Some of those albums, like €œPet Sounds€� by the
Beach Boys, are classic rock leviathans aimed at nostalgic baby boomers..."


I agree...Pet Sounds, in compressed mono, probably sounds as good (if not
better) on records than CD. I know, since I've got more copies than I want
to think about--in both formats. But, if you really want to see what's
inside the mix, grab the Pet Sound Session box CDs. Here, the four track
tapes are preserved, and the sound quality from the old analog masters from
Western will literally floor you. All that wonderful sound mixed down into
mono for reproduction over a car radio, and the flip over styli suitcase
style record players we all were using in 1966. Unbelievable. Thank god
for SOA CD mastering, and the guys at Capitol who preserved it all.

Michael

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
...
bob wrote:

Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the
NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl:

It's not about sound quality; it's about cool.


From the article:

"This year Capitol/EMI is in the process of reissuing its first
substantial
vinyl catalog in decades. Some of those albums, like ?oPet Sounds?� by
the
Beach Boys, are classic rock leviathans aimed at nostalgic baby
boomers..."


I agree...Pet Sounds, in compressed mono, probably sounds as good (if not
better) on records than CD. I know, since I've got more copies than I
want
to think about--in both formats. But, if you really want to see what's
inside the mix, grab the Pet Sound Session box CDs. Here, the four track
tapes are preserved, and the sound quality from the old analog masters
from
Western will literally floor you. All that wonderful sound mixed down
into
mono for reproduction over a car radio, and the flip over styli suitcase
style record players we all were using in 1966. Unbelievable. Thank god
for SOA CD mastering, and the guys at Capitol who preserved it all.


In 1966 some of us were listening on Dyna systems feeding AR3A's using
Thorens turntables, ESL arms, and Moving Coil Cartridges.

In 2008 some of us listen to "Pet Sounds" in its DVD-A release version from
those mastertapes.

Where do CD's enter this picture?

[[email protected]]

Sonnova wrote:


Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed popularity. However, one thing
is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than MP3s - at ANY
available data rate.


That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference between
an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high enough
for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that an MP3 from
a good source will beat any LP.

A pristine LP from an audiophile source, played the first time
on a first rate setup, sound just fine. But it can never, ever,
be as good as a first rate digital recording. It's simply impossible,
because LPs simply cannot have the accuracy of digital.

Doug McDonald

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:49:01 -0700, lid wrote
(in article ) :

Sonnova wrote:


Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed popularity. However, one
thing
is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than MP3s - at ANY
available data rate.


That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference between
an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high enough
for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that an MP3 from
a good source will beat any LP.

I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of compression at any bit
rate. Granted they get worse as the bit rate is reduced, but they're always
there. Now, the question is, are they any worse than things like like ticks
and pops, inner-groove distortion, pinch effect, mistracking, vinyl rush,
etc? Possibly not, but they are worse TO ME. I grew up with the former and
learned to listen around those distortions. However, I cannot listen around
compression artifacts which, to my ears, are so non-musical and annoying that
they rob the music of any life or sense of reality.

A pristine LP from an audiophile source, played the first time
on a first rate setup, sound just fine. But it can never, ever,
be as good as a first rate digital recording. It's simply impossible,
because LPs simply cannot have the accuracy of digital.

But we aren't talking about a first-rate digital recording. We are talking
about an MP3 copy of a digital recording. Not the same thing at all.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 03:14:24 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message=20
...
bob wrote:
=20
Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the
NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl:
=20
It's not about sound quality; it's about cool.
=20
=20
From the article:
=20
"This year Capitol/EMI is in the process of reissuing its first=20
substantial
vinyl catalog in decades. Some of those albums, like =E2?oPet Sounds=E2=
?=9D by=20
the
Beach Boys, are classic rock leviathans aimed at nostalgic baby=20
boomers..."
=20
=20
I agree...Pet Sounds, in compressed mono, probably sounds as good (if =
not
better) on records than CD. I know, since I've got more copies than I=
=20
want
to think about--in both formats. But, if you really want to see what'=
s
inside the mix, grab the Pet Sound Session box CDs. Here, the four tr=
ack
tapes are preserved, and the sound quality from the old analog masters=
=20
from
Western will literally floor you. All that wonderful sound mixed down=
=20
into
mono for reproduction over a car radio, and the flip over styli suitca=
se
style record players we all were using in 1966. Unbelievable. Thank =
god
for SOA CD mastering, and the guys at Capitol who preserved it all.
=20
=20
In 1966 some of us were listening on Dyna systems feeding AR3A's using=20
Thorens turntables, ESL arms, and Moving Coil Cartridges.

Still not a bad setup - assuming that the AR3A's are still in first rate=20
operating condition - a tall order for these speakers as the cones tend t=
o=20
dry out and crack with age. But the Dyna tube stuff and the Thorens and t=
he=20
ESL arm will still make good music. (the vintage MC cartridge is another=20
matter, though. It would have to be replaced). :-)
=20
In 2008 some of us listen to "Pet Sounds" in its DVD-A release version =
from=20
those mastertapes.
=20
Where do CD's enter this picture?

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:

In 1966 some of us were listening on Dyna systems feeding AR3A's using
Thorens turntables, ESL arms, and Moving Coil Cartridges.

I wish I'd known you in '66, Harry. Back then, were you a teenager mowing
lawns in order to buy your gear? If so, you really worked harder than I
ever did. Or, was your old man rich? All I could ever talk pop into was
the suitcase hi-fi, with the detachable speaker. That is why I was mowing
lawns. A few years later I had a friend whose old man owned a Dual 1229,
but it would have been better for us teenagers if he'd caught us fooling
around with his wife than messing with the Dual.

BTW, what moving coil cartridges were you listening to, in 1966? Ortofon
SPUs? The MC scene really didn't take off until the mid 70s. At least in
my area.

Where do CD's enter this picture?

Beats me... But if you're going to listen to the original Western master
tapes that Brian used to mix it all down, and if you're not an engineer at
Capitol with some clout, then CDs are the only choice I know about.

Michael

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
news
Sonnova wrote:


Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed popularity. However, one
thing is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than MP3s - at
ANY available data rate.


That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference between
an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high enough
for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that an MP3 from
a good source will beat any LP.

A pristine LP from an audiophile source, played the first time
on a first rate setup, sound just fine. But it can never, ever,
be as good as a first rate digital recording. It's simply impossible,
because LPs simply cannot have the accuracy of digital.

Doug McDonald

Let's see:

First we have a claim "There is no audible difference...."

Then we have another claim that at a certain frequency, MP3 "from a good
source will BEAT any LP".

Then there is a third claim that no matter how good an audiophile LP is,
even the first time, it can "NEVER, EVER be as good as a first rate digital
recording..." (And note somewhere along the way MP3 has dissappeared.)

And finally, a fourth and fifth claim: "(four) it is simply impossible" and
"(five) ...LP's simply cannot have the accuracy of digital".

And implied in this latter, an assumption that "accuracy" is the yardstick
measure rather than subjective realism.

Mr. McDonald.....do you understand why this short and pithy message may not
convince those of us who don't necessarily agree with all of your
conclusions and assumptions? :-)

[bob]

On Sep 6, 11:35=A0am, Sonnova wrote:

I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of compression at any =
bit
rate.

So you have said. But have you tried to compare a CD to a 256 kbps
copy without knowing which is which? Do it sometime, and see if you
can pick out the MP3 consistently.

bob

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

In 1966 some of us were listening on Dyna systems feeding AR3A's using
Thorens turntables, ESL arms, and Moving Coil Cartridges.

I wish I'd known you in '66, Harry. Back then, were you a teenager mowing
lawns in order to buy your gear? If so, you really worked harder than I
ever did.

Actually, I'm a decade older. I worked my tail off through my Jr and Sr
year of high school to build the first system of my own, which went to
college with me. It consited of a Garrard RC-121 with a GE cartridge
feeding an EICO HF-20 feeding an EV-SP12B in an Argus cabinet that I later
rebuilt, all pulled together into a custom vertical enclosure I built to
reduce floor space. Later in college, I added a Sherwood tuner and replaced
the speaker with a home-built cabinart corner cabinet housing a 15" Jensen
tri-ax.

Or, was your old man rich?

Not at all rich in a monetary sense. But he did give me my love of music
(he had been a jazz drummer in college, and my first musical memories were
of me sitting on his lap in an arm chair, with him using my arms to beat out
time while listening to music.) I did physical work in high school, then
drafting work summers between college years, and did both physical work and
library work in college to get through.

My dad was an electrical engineer and for a time owned a recording studio
and an audio distributorship that put Magnacorders into radio stations all
over the Northeast. But he expanded too fast, lost control, and lost the
business. What money he made was put into a new house and car for the
family, to salvage his wounded pride, I think.

All I could ever talk pop into was
the suitcase hi-fi, with the detachable speaker. That is why I was mowing
lawns. A few years later I had a friend whose old man owned a Dual 1229,
but it would have been better for us teenagers if he'd caught us fooling
around with his wife than messing with the Dual.

I know that feeling! :-)

Seriously, the old VM suitcases et al were what most people grew up with for
music in the fifties. I was only "showing off". But given a real hi-gi
rig, Emory Cooks "Sounds of the Times" audiophile LP's and the red vinyl of
Audiphile Records showcasing Red Nichols and other jazz groups was pretty
impressive stuff in those days.


BTW, what moving coil cartridges were you listening to, in 1966? Ortofon
SPUs? The MC scene really didn't take off until the mid 70s. At least in
my area.

Ortofon SL-15...strong presence peak (actually double peak) centered on 10K.
I alternated it with a Stanton 681EE (most neutral) and my favorite, and ADC
25 (forrunner to the ADC XLM).


Where do CD's enter this picture?

Beats me... But if you're going to listen to the original Western master
tapes that Brian used to mix it all down, and if you're not an engineer at
Capitol with some clout, then CDs are the only choice I know about.

Actually, they were released on a DVD-A at the same time as the CD's...that
is what I was referring to. Again, I was just jiving.

[[email protected]]

Sonnova wrote:

Still not a bad setup - assuming that the AR3A's are still in first rate
operating condition - a tall order for these speakers as the cones tend to
dry out and crack with age.

By the time I started to earn enough money to actually afford my own gear
(early to mid 70s) the "average" or uneducated audiophile, of which I was a
typical example, usually thought of three speakers. First, the AR3a, then
the JBL L-100, and there was also the Bose speaker that was getting a ton
of favorable press at the time--at least in the mainstream publications.
The first two were like night and day--East v West coast sound. They both
had their advantages, but they both looked better than they sounded. At
the same time, knowledgable audiophiles (I knew a couple) were listening to
Quads. I wish I'd been more knowledgable, back then.

Michael

[Thomas R. Sareks]

bob wrote:
Nice hype-free article in the typically silly Styles section of the
NYT about the renewed popularity of vinyl:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/fa...le&oref=slogin

It's not about sound quality; it's about cool.

And Vinyl is not play-protected (i think the industries names it
"copy-protection").

greetings from germany,
-t.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:05:12 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ) :

On Sep 6, 11:35=A0am, Sonnova wrote:

I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of compression at any =
bit
rate.

So you have said. But have you tried to compare a CD to a 256 kbps
copy without knowing which is which? Do it sometime, and see if you
can pick out the MP3 consistently.

bob

Yes, I have and yes I can. Every time, and its not difficult either. The
degradation is NOT subtle in the least and in fact, to me seems glaring. So
much so, that I find it difficult to believe that others have convinced
themselves that you can throw parts of a musical performance away (as in
lossy compression) without noticing "the mechanism" that's doing it!

[Robert Peirce[_2_]]

In article ,
" wrote:

Sonnova wrote:

Still not a bad setup - assuming that the AR3A's are still in first rate
operating condition - a tall order for these speakers as the cones tend to
dry out and crack with age.

By the time I started to earn enough money to actually afford my own gear
(early to mid 70s) the "average" or uneducated audiophile, of which I was a
typical example, usually thought of three speakers. First, the AR3a, then
the JBL L-100, and there was also the Bose speaker that was getting a ton
of favorable press at the time--at least in the mainstream publications.
The first two were like night and day--East v West coast sound. They both
had their advantages, but they both looked better than they sounded. At
the same time, knowledgable audiophiles (I knew a couple) were listening to
Quads. I wish I'd been more knowledgable, back then.

My system has gone through many iterations since 1958, including ARs and
Advents, but around 1990 I heard the Apogee Divas and I still prefer
them to anything I have heard since at anywhere near the same price.
Electrostatics and planars are different but similar. They have many of
the same characteristics and are worth a listen for anybody who has the
space. They sure aren't mini-monitors but they do disappear in a most
convincing way.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

[[email protected]]

Robert Peirce wrote:

My system has gone through many iterations since 1958, including ARs and
Advents, but around 1990 I heard the Apogee Divas and I still prefer
them to anything I have heard since at anywhere near the same price.
Electrostatics and planars are different but similar. They have many of
the same characteristics and are worth a listen for anybody who has the
space. They sure aren't mini-monitors but they do disappear in a most
convincing way.

The idea of the speaker "disappearing" is the best description I've heard.
Many talk about it, few speakers reach this ideal. My mind reflects upon a
letter written some years ago to Mr. Aczel's Audio Critic, from S.
Linkwitz, who simply stated that the "box" was the primary limiting factor.
In his considered opinion, no box could, or would ever approach sonic
perfection. I am no expert, but I've never heard a traditional box speaker
that I really wanted to own, and I own box speakers.

How to get "outside the box." That's the question. The first time I ever
heard what I considered really worthwhile sound was listening to an
electrostatic speaker designed by Harold Beveridge. There were limitations
to his design, to be sure. Yet it was the first time I heard anything that
was truly exceptional. Since hearing this speaker I've never been
satisfied. I do not mean to denigrate other great designs, such as the
Quad, but there was something uncanny about the Beveridge. Other flat
panel speakers, ESL and otherwise, never had whatever it was they
possessed.

After I experienced the Beveridge I went out and bought Acoustats (it was
what I could afford). They were at best OK--not boxy, but nowhere and
nohow in the same class. Every Magneplaner speaker I ever heard was even
worse. I never understood how anyone could really enjoy their sound, but
to each his own. The Infinity EMIT/EMIM drivers seemed to have protential,
but nothing lasting ever came of this design. Sorry, I was never an Apogee
fan, although I never thought they sounded bad. They were just more of the
same, and I wanted more. Stupid me.

I'm fond of electrostatics; however for small rooms they are mostly
impractical. I've spent a lot of time with Dr. West's speaker, and for
what they are, they are very nice. With this type of speaker the room
becomes the obvious limiting factor--more so than with the box. Still,
even this great product never "wowed" me like the Beveridge (in spite of
the latter's real limitations). Maybe my memory is faulty, but it is what
I have to go with.

Forget about amps and preamps. They will not make your listening experience
wonderful. One day speakers will be what we want them to be. Whether I
will be around to experience it, who knows? But the time will come.

Michael

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:49:01 -0700, lid
wrote (in article
) :

Sonnova wrote:


Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed
popularity. However, one thing
is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than
MP3s - at ANY available data rate.


That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference
between
an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high
enough
for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that
an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP.

I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of
compression at any bit rate.

In a blind test?

DBTs of MP3-encoded files are among the easiest of all DBTs to perform.

(1) Select a *challenging* wav file.

(2) Encode it using the encoder of your choice. Lame is said by many to be a
very good one, and is free.

(3) Decode it back into a .wav file using the MP3 decoder of your choice.

(4) Compare the file from step (1) to the file from step (3) using one of
the DBT comparators around, such as the ones listed he

http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html

Or he

http://64.41.69.21/

[[email protected]]

The first time I ever
heard what I considered really worthwhile sound was listening to an
electrostatic speaker designed by Harold Beveridge. There were limitations
to his design, to be sure. Yet it was the first time I heard anything that
was truly exceptional. Since hearing this speaker I've never been
satisfied. I do not mean to denigrate other great designs, such as the
Quad, but there was something uncanny about the Beveridge. Other flat
panel speakers, ESL and otherwise, never had whatever it was they
possessed.

Some years ago his son started up production again, I don't know current
status. It was not a direct radiating flat panel but a form of horn
lens loaded electrostatic panel wich was intended to produce a diffuse
sound field. The listening position was between them with one speaker
at right angle to each ear somewhat like large headphones. It had a
sealed back and was placed against oppisite walls. Could it be the
diffuse sound field in place of the usual figure of eight pattern you
found attractive and different? A local dealer had a pair but I found
them unremarkable but having the usual elelectrostatic sound however
duffuse as advertised.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:38:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:49:01 -0700, lid
wrote (in article
) :

Sonnova wrote:


Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed
popularity. However, one thing
is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than
MP3s - at ANY available data rate.


That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference
between
an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high
enough
for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that
an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP.

I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of
compression at any bit rate.

In a blind test?

Absolutely.

DBTs of MP3-encoded files are among the easiest of all DBTs to perform.

And I have

(1) Select a *challenging* wav file.

(2) Encode it using the encoder of your choice. Lame is said by many to be a
very good one, and is free.

(3) Decode it back into a .wav file using the MP3 decoder of your choice.

(4) Compare the file from step (1) to the file from step (3) using one of
the DBT comparators around, such as the ones listed he

http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html

Or he

http://64.41.69.21/

Pop and rock is very difficult because these types of music have little
dynamic range. The changes in dynamics is where I hear the artifacts mostly,
although increased audible distortion is another side effect of lossy
compression. Since I don't listen to rock and pop, the fact that these types
of music fare better under MP3 compression is an "advantage" lost on me.

BTW, Sony's Minidisc compression algorithm, ATRAC3, sounds much better than
MP3. Too bad that it failed in the marketplace (not the Minidisc product, HDD
or SSM based players are a much better idea, Just the ATRAC system).

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 12:13:12 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
" wrote:

Sonnova wrote:

Still not a bad setup - assuming that the AR3A's are still in first rate
operating condition - a tall order for these speakers as the cones tend to
dry out and crack with age.

By the time I started to earn enough money to actually afford my own gear
(early to mid 70s) the "average" or uneducated audiophile, of which I was a
typical example, usually thought of three speakers. First, the AR3a, then
the JBL L-100, and there was also the Bose speaker that was getting a ton
of favorable press at the time--at least in the mainstream publications.
The first two were like night and day--East v West coast sound. They both
had their advantages, but they both looked better than they sounded. At
the same time, knowledgable audiophiles (I knew a couple) were listening to
Quads. I wish I'd been more knowledgable, back then.

My system has gone through many iterations since 1958, including ARs and
Advents, but around 1990 I heard the Apogee Divas and I still prefer
them to anything I have heard since at anywhere near the same price.
Electrostatics and planars are different but similar. They have many of
the same characteristics and are worth a listen for anybody who has the
space. They sure aren't mini-monitors but they do disappear in a most
convincing way.



I sure agree with you about the Martin-Logans. I love mine.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:01:54 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

The first time I ever
heard what I considered really worthwhile sound was listening to an
electrostatic speaker designed by Harold Beveridge. There were limitations
to his design, to be sure. Yet it was the first time I heard anything that
was truly exceptional. Since hearing this speaker I've never been
satisfied. I do not mean to denigrate other great designs, such as the
Quad, but there was something uncanny about the Beveridge. Other flat
panel speakers, ESL and otherwise, never had whatever it was they
possessed.

Some years ago his son started up production again, I don't know current
status. It was not a direct radiating flat panel but a form of horn
lens loaded electrostatic panel wich was intended to produce a diffuse
sound field. The listening position was between them with one speaker
at right angle to each ear somewhat like large headphones. It had a
sealed back and was placed against oppisite walls. Could it be the
diffuse sound field in place of the usual figure of eight pattern you
found attractive and different? A local dealer had a pair but I found
them unremarkable but having the usual elelectrostatic sound however
duffuse as advertised.

They also couldn't play very loud, as I remember and they lacked deep bass.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 13:56:38 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

Robert Peirce wrote:

My system has gone through many iterations since 1958, including ARs and
Advents, but around 1990 I heard the Apogee Divas and I still prefer
them to anything I have heard since at anywhere near the same price.
Electrostatics and planars are different but similar. They have many of
the same characteristics and are worth a listen for anybody who has the
space. They sure aren't mini-monitors but they do disappear in a most
convincing way.

The idea of the speaker "disappearing" is the best description I've heard.
Many talk about it, few speakers reach this ideal. My mind reflects upon a
letter written some years ago to Mr. Aczel's Audio Critic, from S.
Linkwitz, who simply stated that the "box" was the primary limiting factor.
In his considered opinion, no box could, or would ever approach sonic
perfection. I am no expert, but I've never heard a traditional box speaker
that I really wanted to own, and I own box speakers.

How to get "outside the box." That's the question. The first time I ever
heard what I considered really worthwhile sound was listening to an
electrostatic speaker designed by Harold Beveridge. There were limitations
to his design, to be sure. Yet it was the first time I heard anything that
was truly exceptional. Since hearing this speaker I've never been
satisfied. I do not mean to denigrate other great designs, such as the
Quad, but there was something uncanny about the Beveridge. Other flat
panel speakers, ESL and otherwise, never had whatever it was they
possessed.

After I experienced the Beveridge I went out and bought Acoustats (it was
what I could afford). They were at best OK--not boxy, but nowhere and
nohow in the same class. Every Magneplaner speaker I ever heard was even
worse. I never understood how anyone could really enjoy their sound, but
to each his own. The Infinity EMIT/EMIM drivers seemed to have protential,
but nothing lasting ever came of this design. Sorry, I was never an Apogee
fan, although I never thought they sounded bad. They were just more of the
same, and I wanted more. Stupid me.

I'm fond of electrostatics; however for small rooms they are mostly
impractical. I've spent a lot of time with Dr. West's speaker, and for
what they are, they are very nice. With this type of speaker the room
becomes the obvious limiting factor--more so than with the box. Still,
even this great product never "wowed" me like the Beveridge (in spite of
the latter's real limitations). Maybe my memory is faulty, but it is what
I have to go with.

Forget about amps and preamps. They will not make your listening experience
wonderful. One day speakers will be what we want them to be. Whether I
will be around to experience it, who knows? But the time will come.

Michael


I recently heard a pair of the cheap Magnaplanars (MMGs) at the house of an
acquaintance. These are the ones that cost US$595 a pair and must be ordered
directly from Magnepan. I was quite impressed. Nothing else I've heard
sounds as good for even three times the MMG's $600.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:38:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article
):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:49:01 -0700, lid
wrote (in article
) :

Sonnova wrote:


Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed
popularity. However, one thing
is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than
MP3s - at ANY available data rate.


That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference
between
an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high
enough
for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that
an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP.

I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of
compression at any bit rate.

In a blind test?

Absolutely.

DBTs of MP3-encoded files are among the easiest of all
DBTs to perform.

And I have.

Your results are contrary to the results of professionally-run tests and
tests done by others.

Once the bitrates are well above 128 kbps, the differences are generally not
startling. 192 is around the general consensus of where a good MP3 encoder
becomes pretty much transparent. By 320 kbps, even mediocre coders are good
enough.

(1) Select a *challenging* wav file.

(2) Encode it using the encoder of your choice. Lame is
said by many to be a very good one, and is free.

(3) Decode it back into a .wav file using the MP3
decoder of your choice.

(4) Compare the file from step (1) to the file from step
(3) using one of the DBT comparators around, such as the
ones listed he

http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html

Or he

http://64.41.69.21/

Pop and rock is very difficult because these types of
music have little dynamic range.

Difficult? In general, instantaneous dynamic range is one of those things
that mediocre coders, or good coders running at low bitrates, find to be
more difficult.

The changes in dynamics
is where I hear the artifacts mostly, although increased
audible distortion is another side effect of lossy
compression. Since I don't listen to rock and pop, the
fact that these types of music fare better under MP3
compression is an "advantage" lost on me.

A lot of the professional and semi-pro testing that has been done was based
on *all* kinds of music.

BTW, Sony's Minidisc compression algorithm, ATRAC3,
sounds much better than MP3.

Again, this is adverse to general wisdom among those who have done many
tests. A coding method needs to be rated strongly based on its ability to
provide good results with low bitrates. Being based on positively ancient
technology, older techniques like ATRAC and to a lesser degree Dolby Digital
are relatively speaking, bandwidth hogs.

Too bad that it failed in
the marketplace (not the Minidisc product, HDD or SSM
based players are a much better idea, Just the ATRAC
system).

If you've got the space, nothing can possibly beat files that are 44/16,
either uncompressed or losslessly compressed.

I just noticed that a co-worker's iPod said something about 80 GB on its
front panel. He said he used the space to pack in about 18,000 songs. This
is just the usual genesis of hard drive sizes over the life of the product.

My last portable hard drive based digital player (a Nomad Jukebox) had only
20 GB, but was almost entirely loaded with .wav files. I still had 100s of
songs on it, which is all I have the time to listen to in those days.

These days I mostly only have time to listen to what I produce, with
occasional listening sessions on the road. With appropriate tone control
adjustments (scarily extreme but hey it works) the base system in my Milan
is really pretty good, if not a little short of dynamic range.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:


I sure agree with you about the Martin-Logans. I love mine.

Which ones do you have? I had the Sequel IIs some years ago and loved
them.

[Thomas R. Sareks]

Robert Peirce wrote:
My system has gone through many iterations since 1958, including ARs
and Advents, but around 1990 I heard the Apogee Divas and I still
prefer them to anything I have heard since at anywhere near the same
price. Electrostatics and planars are different but similar. They
have many of the same characteristics and are worth a listen for
anybody who has the space. They sure aren't mini-monitors but they
do disappear in a most convincing way.

Absolutely rigth, theres nothing which can beat the pure sound of a planar,
here is it a Magnepan.



-t.

[[email protected]]

wrote:


Some years ago his son started up production again, I don't know current
status. It was not a direct radiating flat panel but a form of horn
lens loaded electrostatic panel wich was intended to produce a diffuse
sound field. The listening position was between them with one speaker
at right angle to each ear somewhat like large headphones. It had a
sealed back and was placed against oppisite walls. Could it be the
diffuse sound field in place of the usual figure of eight pattern you
found attractive and different? A local dealer had a pair but I found
them unremarkable but having the usual elelectrostatic sound however
duffuse as advertised.


I would not like to hang everything on my memories of a 30 year old speaker,
but at the time I was impressed. I heard the Bang and Olufson speaker and
it was very good--certainly not boxy. Expensive, but you get an amplifier
with it, and DSP. Linkwitz's speaker is by all measure something to
consider, but I'll likely never hear a pair.

Michael

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 06:26:34 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:


I sure agree with you about the Martin-Logans. I love mine.

Which ones do you have? I had the Sequel IIs some years ago and loved
them.


Aeon-i. I replaced a pair of Magnepan MG3.6's with them and have never looked
back. Love to have a pair of the new CLXs, but, alas $25,000 might as well be
$25 million now that I'm mostly retired.

[C. Leeds]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Once the bitrates are well above 128 kbps, the differences are generally not
startling. 192 is around the general consensus of where a good MP3 encoder
becomes pretty much transparent. By 320 kbps, even mediocre coders are good
enough.

These are all value judgments: "not startling" "pretty much transparent"
"good enough." So, perhaps, mp3 is "good enough" for you. But the high
end not about "good enough." High end is about high performance. And -
for many listeners - mp3 is not "good enough."

If you've got the space, nothing can possibly beat files that are 44/16,
either uncompressed or losslessly compressed.

Actually, there is higher performance available than 44/16. Of course,
if mp3 is "good enough," then 44/16 is a dream-come-true. Still, some
listeners demand more.


I just noticed that a co-worker's iPod said something about 80 GB on its
front panel. He said he used the space to pack in about 18,000 songs. This
is just the usual genesis of hard drive sizes over the life of the product.

My last portable hard drive based digital player (a Nomad Jukebox) had only
20 GB, but was almost entirely loaded with .wav files. I still had 100s of
songs on it, which is all I have the time to listen to in those days.

These days I mostly only have time to listen to what I produce, with
occasional listening sessions on the road. With appropriate tone control
adjustments (scarily extreme but hey it works) the base system in my Milan
is really pretty good, if not a little short of dynamic range.

[Lord Vetinari]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:38:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:49:01 -0700, lid
wrote (in article
) :

Sonnova wrote:


Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed
popularity. However, one thing
is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than
MP3s - at ANY available data rate.


That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference
between
an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high
enough
for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that
an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP.

I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of
compression at any bit rate.

In a blind test?

Absolutely.

DBTs of MP3-encoded files are among the easiest of all DBTs to perform.

And I have

(1) Select a *challenging* wav file.

(2) Encode it using the encoder of your choice. Lame is said by many to
be a
very good one, and is free.

(3) Decode it back into a .wav file using the MP3 decoder of your choice.

(4) Compare the file from step (1) to the file from step (3) using one of
the DBT comparators around, such as the ones listed he

http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html

Or he

http://64.41.69.21/

Pop and rock is very difficult because these types of music have little
dynamic range.

I feel so sorry for you, for having such a narrow view of music. "Pop" is
not a genre in and of itself. It's an abbreviation of "popular", which can
refer to any number of different genres - all at the same time. Rock
contains within itself such a huge range of modalities, that it is not
especially an useful term as you've used it. Without much effort, I could
give you a stack of rock music with serious dynamic range, just out of my
own small collection, that you couldn't lift.

The changes in dynamics is where I hear the artifacts mostly,
although increased audible distortion is another side effect of lossy
compression. Since I don't listen to rock and pop, the fact that these
types
of music fare better under MP3 compression is an "advantage" lost on me.

I'd be interested in learning under what conditions you've listened to MP3s,
and how said MP3s were produced.

The majority of the MP3s floating around are made by individuals with little
to no understanding of the technology that they're abusing, resulting in
truly pathetic MP3s. With proper equipment & software, one can achieve a
level of quality that I can guarantee that _you_ would be hard-pressed to
distinguish from source. However, anyone serious about portable music at
this point will likely be producing AAC(LC) files, which play rather nicely
on the iPod, and are far superior to MP3s.

BTW, Sony's Minidisc compression algorithm, ATRAC3, sounds much better
than
MP3. Too bad that it failed in the marketplace (not the Minidisc product,
HDD
or SSM based players are a much better idea, Just the ATRAC system).

You've not looked in the marketplace, nor yet Googled, either. Take a look,
it may just cheer you up a bit.

[Steven Sullivan]

C. Leeds wrote:
Actually, there is higher performance available than 44/16. Of course,
if mp3 is "good enough," then 44/16 is a dream-come-true. Still, some
listeners demand more.

Some people 'demand' gold plate on a watch, but it doesn't improve its
time-keeping function.

Is it possible the 'demands' of some listeners aren't based on truly
audibly difference, but an imaginary one?

The known limits of human hearing, as well as noise characteristics of
typical listening environments,
as well as noise characteristics of typical recording sources (e.g., tape)
all point to 16/44 being enough for a delivery medium.
If it was inadequate, surely there would be a sustantial body of well-controlled
experimental data pointing the other way by now, some 25 years since the introduction
of CD?

Instead we have: format change driven by marketing and anecdotes.


--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:08:15 -0700, Lord Vetinari wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:38:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:49:01 -0700, lid
wrote (in article
) :

Sonnova wrote:


Interesting. Hard to account for such renewed
popularity. However, one thing
is for sure. Records certainly sound more musical than
MP3s - at ANY available data rate.


That is simply FALSE. There is no audible difference
between
an original and an MP3 at a high bitrate. 320K is high
enough
for any listening purpose, and 256K is high enough that
an MP3 from a good source will beat any LP.

I'm sorry. You are wrong. I can hear the artifacts of
compression at any bit rate.

In a blind test?

Absolutely.

DBTs of MP3-encoded files are among the easiest of all DBTs to perform.

And I have

(1) Select a *challenging* wav file.

(2) Encode it using the encoder of your choice. Lame is said by many to
be a
very good one, and is free.

(3) Decode it back into a .wav file using the MP3 decoder of your choice.

(4) Compare the file from step (1) to the file from step (3) using one of
the DBT comparators around, such as the ones listed he

http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html

Or he

http://64.41.69.21/

Pop and rock is very difficult because these types of music have little
dynamic range.

I feel so sorry for you, for having such a narrow view of music. "Pop" is
not a genre in and of itself. It's an abbreviation of "popular", which can
refer to any number of different genres - all at the same time.

Don't you think I'm aware of that? I use the word "pop" on purpose. In my
usage, the word "rock" refers to all forms of rock-n-roll (which I despise)
and "pop" means everything else in that broad gen reggea, country &
western, rap, hip-hop, salsa, so called "world music" etc. (none of which do
I wish to spend one moment listening to). And don't feel sorry for me, the
"narrow view of music" which you seem to find so pitiful is merely a
shorthand view used to express a point in this conversation. A point which,
in spite of your sorrow, you seem to have "gotten" anyway. :-)

Rock contains within itself such a huge range of modalities, that it is not
especially an useful term as you've used it.

I use it only asa general term for music employing electric guitars and
people screaming while someone hammers on a drum set. I HATE the sound of
electric guitars and find them one of the ugliest sounding instruments ever
devised. Therefore, I naturally eschew any musical form that uses them. I
also hate "oversinging" from either males of females, and since that seems to
be the modern style of pop singing, I try to avoid that too.

Without much effort, I could
give you a stack of rock music with serious dynamic range, just out of my
own small collection, that you couldn't lift.

I DID say that my exposure to rock is limited. What I know of it is always
loud, all the time. Since I have never heard, either on purpose or by
happenstance, any rock music that I didn't dislike intently, my exposure is,
understandably, somewhat limited.

The changes in dynamics is where I hear the artifacts mostly,
although increased audible distortion is another side effect of lossy
compression. Since I don't listen to rock and pop, the fact that these
types
of music fare better under MP3 compression is an "advantage" lost on me.

I'd be interested in learning under what conditions you've listened to MP3s,
and how said MP3s were produced.

The majority of the MP3s floating around are made by individuals with little
to no understanding of the technology that they're abusing, resulting in
truly pathetic MP3s. With proper equipment & software, one can achieve a
level of quality that I can guarantee that _you_ would be hard-pressed to
distinguish from source. However, anyone serious about portable music at
this point will likely be producing AAC(LC) files, which play rather nicely
on the iPod, and are far superior to MP3s.

That's what I use, lossless compression.

BTW, Sony's Minidisc compression algorithm, ATRAC3, sounds much better
than
MP3. Too bad that it failed in the marketplace (not the Minidisc product,
HDD
or SSM based players are a much better idea, Just the ATRAC system).

You've not looked in the marketplace, nor yet Googled, either. Take a look,
it may just cheer you up a bit.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 10, 7:04 pm, "C. Leeds" wrote:
These are all value judgments: "not startling" "pretty much
transparent", "good enough." So, perhaps, mp3 is "good
enough" for you. But the high end not about "good enough."
High end is about high performance.

And that, in and of itself, is a value judgement, based
on your particualr prejudices, agendae, preconceived
notions and all the rest. Just like the rest of the world.

Since audio prefection is a provably impossible endpoint,
high-end audio is all about "good enough." If you want to
assert that different people have different opinions about
what "good enough" means, fine. But to claim otherwise
is to succumb to religious absurdities.

And, in fact MUCH of high end audio has nothing
to do with "high performance." There are any number
of so-called high-end products and principles that are
the antithesis of high performance. Consider expensive
cables that have no provable advantage in performance,
a very expensive Mark Levinson DAC that was classed
as "high-end" which had among the most incompetent
mixed-signal design, passive preamps which audibly
and measurably degrade performance, high-end wooden
pucks and bricks and dots for which there is not the
slightest evidence of any performance improvement.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:13:00 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

C. Leeds wrote:
Actually, there is higher performance available than 44/16. Of course,
if mp3 is "good enough," then 44/16 is a dream-come-true. Still, some
listeners demand more.

Some people 'demand' gold plate on a watch, but it doesn't improve its
time-keeping function.

Is it possible the 'demands' of some listeners aren't based on truly
audibly difference, but an imaginary one?

The known limits of human hearing, as well as noise characteristics of
typical listening environments,
as well as noise characteristics of typical recording sources (e.g., tape)
all point to 16/44 being enough for a delivery medium.
If it was inadequate, surely there would be a sustantial body of
well-controlled
experimental data pointing the other way by now, some 25 years since the
introduction
of CD?

Instead we have: format change driven by marketing and anecdotes.




Well put. This stuff is difficult to quantify, though, and whenever that's
the case, it's easy to fall into the "more is always better" mindset and
mythology. I've noticed that on modern recordings mastered in DSD, that any
difference between the SACD and the RedBook presentations of the material ON
THE SAME DISC is undetectable. Nobody who has ever listened to my system has
ever been able to tell one from the other through my Sony SCD777ES player.
Often, on these hybrid discs, I'll forget to press the SACD button and the
player will start playing the RedBook layer. I usually won't even notice
unless I happen to look at the player and see that the green light on the
front panel that designates that the SACD layer is being played is not lit.
Certainly, nothing that I'm hearing gives away such a difference. That tells
me that long term listening between SACD and RedBook CD won't reveal any
difference either. My dad used to say that "a difference that makes no
difference, is no difference at all." IOW, there is nothing about SACD that
sounds any different from the same recording in RedBook so that anyone would
notice. While SACD and high-resolution PCM (24-Bits, 96/192KHz sampling)
certainly look superior on paper, I've concluded that the difference isn't
really audible - to anyone.

I do a lot of recording of live music. I have the capability of recording at
192KHz and 32-bits floating point. Naturally, when I first obtained this
ability, I recorded everything at the highest sampling rate (192KHz) and bit
depth (32-bit floating point). Listening to the masters (through a suitable
D/A) and listening to the 16/44.1 CD copies made from these high-resolution
masters has convinced me that the high sample rate is a waste of hard-disk
space. There is simply no audible difference between them, double-blind
tested or otherwise. I do still record at 32-bit floating point for the
simple reason that it affords me more recording head room than does 16-bit
(IOW, using 32-bit floating point format, I don't have to worry about
exceeding "0-Vu" like one has to do with 16-Bit.) When the DAW application
outputs the 32-bit recording as a 16-bit WAVE file, it automatically
down-converts the 32-bit recording to fit in the 16-bit space. This is very
useful for the type of field recording that I do where I cannot rely on being
able to set recording levels before the performance.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:19:32 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 10, 7:04 pm, "C. Leeds" wrote:
These are all value judgments: "not startling" "pretty much
transparent", "good enough." So, perhaps, mp3 is "good
enough" for you. But the high end not about "good enough."
High end is about high performance.

And that, in and of itself, is a value judgement, based
on your particualr prejudices, agendae, preconceived
notions and all the rest. Just like the rest of the world.

Since audio prefection is a provably impossible endpoint,
high-end audio is all about "good enough." If you want to
assert that different people have different opinions about
what "good enough" means, fine. But to claim otherwise
is to succumb to religious absurdities.

In effect, that is what he is saying. Good enough for some isn't good enough
for him. The reasons aren't all that important.

And, in fact MUCH of high end audio has nothing
to do with "high performance." There are any number
of so-called high-end products and principles that are
the antithesis of high performance. Consider expensive
cables that have no provable advantage in performance,

But , by the same token, they don't do any harm either. IOW, a system will
surely sound no better with a $4000 pair of interconnects than it does with a
$30 pair, but it won't sound any worse, either.

a very expensive Mark Levinson DAC that was classed
as "high-end" which had among the most incompetent
mixed-signal design, passive preamps which audibly
and measurably degrade performance, high-end wooden
pucks and bricks and dots for which there is not the
slightest evidence of any performance improvement.

While the insertion loss of passive "preamps" can degrade performance and any
incompetently designed piece of electronic gear such as a DAC can do the
same. Myrtlewood (or whatever) bricks and pucks, OTOH, like interconnects, do
neither good nor harm, they do nothing.

[C. Leeds]

I wrote (in response to Arny):

These are all value judgments: "not startling" "pretty much
transparent", "good enough." So, perhaps, mp3 is "good
enough" for you. But the high end not about "good enough."
High end is about high performance.

answers:

And that, in and of itself, is a value judgement, based
on your particualr prejudices, agendae, preconceived
notions and all the rest...

No, I am not making a value judgement. High-end - by definition - is
about high performance. If it is not high performance, it is not high end.

Since audio prefection is a provably impossible endpoint,
high-end audio is all about "good enough."

No, it isn't. This is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. High
end is about high performance.

If you want to
assert that different people have different opinions about
what "good enough" means, fine.

That is exactly what I said. For some, "good enough" is not "good
enough. Unlike Arny, I don't pretend to tell others what constitutes
"good enough" for them. Do you see the difference?

And, in fact MUCH of high end audio has nothing
to do with "high performance." There are any number
of so-called high-end products and principles that are
the antithesis of high performance.

This is the logical fallacy known as begging the question. if it is not
high performance, it is not high end.

Consider expensive
cables that have no provable advantage in performance...

So?

[C. Leeds]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Some people 'demand' gold plate on a watch, but it doesn't improve its
time-keeping function.

So what? Accuracy is but one measure of a watch's quality. Perhaps it is
the only measure that matters to you. Obviously, it is not the only
standard for everyone. Does that trouble you?

Is it possible the 'demands' of some listeners aren't based on truly
audibly difference, but an imaginary one?

Audio quality is but one measure of audio equipment. Other factors -
features and construction quality, for example - are important to
others. Does that trouble you?

The known limits of human hearing, as well as noise characteristics of
typical listening environments,
as well as noise characteristics of typical recording sources...

.....are only a few factors involved in the selection of audio equipment,
for some listeners. Does that trouble you?


Instead we have: format change driven by marketing and anecdotes.

That's true, in part. What does that have to do with gold watches?