[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I said:
I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment D'Agostino.and
Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage) to say that they hope one
day to equal the quality of tube and vinyl. .

Mr. Eeyore responds;

That's utterly absurd.

Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.

Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham

There you are : Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell on one
side the RAO distinguished chapel members Eeyore and Krivis on the
other. What is a poor nontechnical audiophile to think and do?
Ludovic Mirabel.

Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell are clearly mentally defective. I
imagine they can't hear very well too either in order to make such a statement.


I wonder how good Meitner and D'Agostino sound?

With apologies to Art Dudley and Stereophile:

That said, I do wish you all could have heard how utterly amazing the
live Hot Rize album So Long of a Journey (CD, Sugar Hill SUG-CD 3943)
sounded through my system with the Ed Meitner in place. The sheer
presence of the performers went up a notch, even compared with the
superb Dan D'Agostino, as did the sense of force behind the musical
sounds. An example: A little way into the concert, when bassist Nick
Forster is introducing the members of the group, banjoist Pete Wernick
taps his fingers on the head of his instrument—and the sound was
startlingly real. The Meitner also demonstrated an excellent sense of
scale on this recording: I don't believe that stereo designers can
impart a better or worse sense of "height" per se, but the Meitner
resolved some or another kind of information that was responsible for
letting me hear when one of the performers was holding his instrument
up a bit closer to the microphone.

:-)

The level of deception ( including self-deception no doubt ) suggested here is truly
magnificent.

presence
force
scale
height

Since I can't measure these I guess I can't *prove* it wrong either !

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Stuart Krivis wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I said:
I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment
D'Agostino.and Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage)
to say that they hope one day to equal the quality of tube and
vinyl. .

Mr. Eeyore responds;

That's utterly absurd.

Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.

Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham

There you are : Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell on
one side the RAO distinguished chapel members Eeyore and Krivis on
the other. What is a poor nontechnical audiophile to think and do?
Ludovic Mirabel.

Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell are clearly mentally
defective. I imagine they can't hear very well too either in order
to make such a statement.


I wonder how good Meitner and D'Agostino sound?

With apologies to Art Dudley and Stereophile:

That said, I do wish you all could have heard how utterly amazing the
live Hot Rize album So Long of a Journey (CD, Sugar Hill SUG-CD 3943)
sounded through my system with the Ed Meitner in place. The sheer
presence of the performers went up a notch, even compared with the
superb Dan D'Agostino, as did the sense of force behind the musical
sounds. An example: A little way into the concert, when bassist Nick
Forster is introducing the members of the group, banjoist Pete
Wernick taps his fingers on the head of his instrument—and the sound
was startlingly real. The Meitner also demonstrated an excellent
sense of scale on this recording: I don't believe that stereo
designers can impart a better or worse sense of "height" per se, but
the Meitner resolved some or another kind of information that was
responsible for letting me hear when one of the performers was
holding his instrument up a bit closer to the microphone.

:-)

The level of deception ( including self-deception no doubt ) suggested
here is truly magnificent.

presence
force
scale
height

Since I can't measure these I guess I can't *prove* it wrong either !


netkkkop



bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Stuart Krivis wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

Frank Van Alstine and Peter Moncrieff, independently. I
also asked a friend of my father's who was quite familiar
with the engineering of digitial circuitry. He dug into
it and then agreed.

I think you may have misuderstood some details.

Perhaps, although it looks pretty straightforward.

I just found some quotes from Frank Van Alstine:

"If you don't do the math to divide the clock frequency of a CD
player by the frequency of interest, you will not gain the
knowledge that a 1-bit CD player cannot retrieve all of the
information from a CD until the crystal clock gets up to about
1,320,000,000 Hz (1.3 GHz, a speed Cray would kill for). With the
fastest 1 bit converters out there now, running at 90,000,000 Hz,
all one can retrieve is 4,500 of the 66,000 samples per cycle
available on the CD at high frequencies. That is not high
fidelity. In baseball it would be a batting average of .068, not
even enough to make the little league. Don't talk to me about how
wonderful your 1 bit DAC sounds, when its sounds have nothing to
do with the information content of the source disc."

He's barking mad.

Why? Arny seemed to have a reason why, but another explanation is
always welcome.

Van Alsine's quote is simply rambling nonsense.



netkkkoping ****

bertie

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

The point is that Jenn is now trying to turn around the fact that she has
again been hung out to dry on her own petard.

*On* a petard ? That's unusual !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:54:11 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message


Frank Van Alstine and Peter Moncrieff, independently. I
also asked a friend of my father's who was quite
familiar with the engineering of digitial circuitry. He
dug into it and then agreed.

I think you may have misuderstood some details.

Perhaps, although it looks pretty straightforward.

I just found some quotes from Frank Van Alstine:

"If you don't do the math to divide the clock frequency
of a CD player by the frequency of interest, you will not
gain the knowledge that a 1-bit CD player cannot retrieve
all of the information from a CD until the crystal clock
gets up to about 1,320,000,000 Hz (1.3 GHz, a speed Cray
would kill for).

I think I know where he is headed.

Given that we live in a world where highly complex math is done routinely at
4.2 GHZ with cheap general-purpose, use-programmed microporcessors, it turns
out that doing really simple math on a 1.3 GHz special-purpose processor has
been feasible for a number of years.

It turns out that the higher resolution converters are also multi-bit,
internally so that that sort of clock speeds are not necessary. He alludes
to some of this, in the second half of quotes in your post.

""The wonders of technology are bringing us 8 bit resolution bit-stream
CD players to replace the 16 bit units that previously could retrieve
the data better."

I believe that building an 8 bit direct (not oversampled) converter with
high speed silicon is entirely feasible. This knocks your 1.3 GHz down by a
ratio of 256. This leads to a clock frequency of merely 5 MHz if my
back-of-envelope calculations are right. This is what he alludes to in the
other paragraphs in the lower portion of your post.

With the fastest 1 bit converters out
there now, running at 90,000,000 Hz, all one can retrieve
is 4,500 of the 66,000 samples per cycle available on the
CD at high frequencies.

If any necesary data were being thrown out, there would be a loss of dynamic
range above say 10 KHz, which is not happening with good-quality CD and DVD
playaer converters. IOW, the ones you find today in players costing about
$50.

And of course you don't use general purpose CPUs for audio. 56 bit DSP chips
capable of 120-150 MIPS ( that's millions of instructions per second and in DSPs
that includes complictated stuff like multiplication in a single cycle ! ) cost
as little as £5 these days.

Graham

[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


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
every CD. Some are much better than others; none
are good to my ears.

C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle
part of the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all
harmonics for all notes C6 and above played back
via the LP format are in doubt if the RIAA curve
is not precisely implmented. Imprecuise
implementation of the RIAA curve is endemic in LP
production and playback. In contrast CD playback
inherently plays them back with in the same
perspective as recorded, within the audible range.

I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs
- they are too consistent and accurate for her
preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an
audible differences junkie.

Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated
my complaints with CDs.

Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not
convincing. Especially true given your inability to
own up to errors that you have clearly made and also
denied.

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.

So what? If you have hysterical problems with CDs, not
my fault and nothing I want to try to cure.

If you hear it differently, that's fine.

No Jenn your problem is separating hysteria from art
from technical facts.

The technical fact is that CDs can be indistinguishable
from the master recordings they were made from and LPs
can't.

I already know that you hear it that way, thanks.

Just me any everybody else who gives it a serious try.

Oh, I give it a "serious try". I own many CDs, have
listened to many more, and I listen carefully.


Many of us had it up to here (patting air over my head)
with the vinyl artifacts that you deny, Jenn.

I don't deny them at all, Arny.


Now since I met your demand for a post about the mood
and cheese, be a good little girl

LOL

and show us where you had the candor to talk about some
of the
nastier vinyl artifacts, like pre and post echo.

I don't need to talk about them. It is clear that they
exist, and it is clear that I consider other aspects of
sound to be more important.

Given Jenn what you dismiss and what you have said that you can't hear, its
not clear what subtle aspects of sound remain.

What have I said I can't hear, Arny?

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

I see it uses a Burr-Brown PCM1732 converter which is now
obsolete. I'd consider using an external converter. I
assume the transport works fine ?

No guarantees. Given how bad she says it sounds it could be broken in lots
of ways. Bad tracking is just one of them.

Odd that there's no mention at all of the PCM1732 on TI's site at all though
yet the ancient PCM56 is still there ! Ouch. Look at the price too.

http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/pcm56.html

Graham

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

Graham

Just as how anyone can pretend that the sound of violins
(for example) on CD is hi-fi is beyond me.

Nice global technical claim that we'll be able to get Jenn to start denying
any day now.

Incorrect; I'm quite consistent with that statement and I'll continue to
be.


My opinion on
that was reinforced again at Disney Hall.

Yup, any CD that doesn't sound like some violin being played by someone at
Disney Hall, is obviously not real enough.

Strawman. They don't have to sound like the LA Philharmonic sounded
yesterday, but they DO need to sound like some possible violin in some
possible space.


But YMMV, and that's fine, in my opinion.

Letsee, we now have evidence that Jenn couldn't hear faint sounds below -60
dB without prompting,

No we don't, Arny. You shouldn't make things up.

and apparently couldn't hear pre-echo and post-echo on
LPs without more of the same.

Incorrect, Arny. You shouldn't make things up.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

MiNe 109 said:

Who can actually say a McClaren or Koenigsegg or Bugatti is really a better
car than say a Merc or Lexus or Cadillac ?

People who have them.

Poopie has his fingers in his ears now, and he's ululating "LALALA I can't
hear you! LALALALALA!"

LMAO ! None of the above actually appeal to me much but they do appeal to those who like to appear
swanky I guess. I'm quite happy with my Saab.

Graham

[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:

"Eeyore"
wrote in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior
to plain old CD, so I don't see why you would
be supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO,
is because it is the only digital system for
home use that produces natural-sounding
transient response, as opposed to pcm which
produces transients with pre-echo. The latter
exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
ear-brain complex is highly oriented to
transient information and very sensitive to
*any* type of sound that is "un-natural" (our
heriditary self-preservation instinct, I
suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody
has ever provided a shred of proof that it's
true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so
low lin level that it's swamped by the noise
floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at
all produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is
it therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl
give pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos
easy to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions
all the time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them,
Jenn.

SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that
moon isn't made of cheese, Arny.

There are about 20 posts of mine related to that, the
earliest of which seems to be:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a2d3d82815cb18

Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:

"Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of
green cheese, and anybody with a few simple tools and
a good understanding of Newtonian Physics (and a
sample of green cheese) has been able to do so for
maybe 100 years or so."

OK, Jenn now put up or admit that you're wrong!

Yep, I was wrong; you posted about the moon and cheese.

Here's you're latest lie and/or deception, Jenn - you
have now refused to admit that you are either deaf to or
in denial of pre- and post- echo on LPs.

Incorrect yet again. I'm clearly not deaf, and I'm not
in denial.

But, you lack proof that you knew about pre- and post- echo on LPs until we
pointed it out to you,

You lack proof that I know how to drink milk as well.

just like the supposedly missing data in my triangle
file.

The data wasn't in the file. I offered to send you a screen shot. But
you mistrust me for some reason (I guess because I disagree with you
about how things sound) so you won't accept that. You are free to come
to my house and see it if you wish.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If
you hear it differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any
historic discussions about this, would you run those
by me pls ?

Graham

It was recently done again: everything above about C6
sounds wrong to me IRT the timbre of instruments and
voices. These frequencies sound more real to me on
good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.

Either the CD player is broken or this is just more anti-digital hysteria.

It's neither, thanks.



What's your CD player btw ?

Rotel RCD 1070.

I see it uses a Burr-Brown PCM1732 converter which is now
obsolete. I'd consider using an external converter. I
assume the transport works fine ?

No guarantees. Given how bad she says it sounds it could be broken in lots
of ways. Bad tracking is just one of them.

Since what I hear is universal to every CD player I heard (n=many), my
CD players are not the problem.

[Mr Fox]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:05:34 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

be a good little girl

Arny !

Can it pls.


Somethiing bad must of happened on his holiday. He retuns more screwed
in the head.
Withdrawel symptoms?

[Mr Fox]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:16:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham


Agreed.

Cool.... more used records available for me.

More evidence of ear damage.

Completely no justification for that comment
- the badmouthed idiot cannot STFU.

[Mr Fox]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:17:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


No wonder klutzes like you went running toward the CD
when it came out.

Alternative - caught in a loop running to the record store hoping for
improved replacements for the very many flawed LPs that were sold.


They must have seen you coming and took advantage of you.
Unlucky.

[Jenn]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear it
differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any historic
discussions
about this, would you run those by me pls ?

Graham

It was recently done again: everything above about C6 sounds wrong to
me IRT the timbre of instruments and voices. These frequencies sound
more real to me on good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.

Really just that ?

Not JUST that; it's my biggest complaint, as I said. But the JUST
is VERY important to me. I understand that it's not too important to
others.

Other things specifically ?

The rest can be laid on the doorstep of bad recording I suppose, since
I've heard some CDs that almost get it right, i.e. lack of "air" in the
room, screechy high frequencies.



What's your CD player btw ?

Rotel RCD 1070.

I see it uses a Burr-Brown PCM1732 converter which is now obsolete.

When did that happen?

I'd
consider
using an external converter.

I've listened to several; none solves the problem to my ears. I wish
they did.

I assume the transport works fine ?

Yep.



I also have an Arcam on loan.

Model number ?

CD192

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

Incorrect, Arny. You shouldn't make things up.

I presume your reference for the moral value inherent in your use of
"should" is human society. Sorry to tell you that the Krooborg's wetware
is oriented differently. Arnii's prime directive is to be as obstreperous,
argumentative, and assholish as possible at all times.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear it
differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any historic
discussions about this, would you run those by me pls ?

Graham

It was recently done again: everything above about C6 sounds wrong to
me IRT the timbre of instruments and voices. These frequencies sound
more real to me on good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.

Really just that ?

Not JUST that; it's my biggest complaint, as I said. But the JUST
is VERY important to me. I understand that it's not too important to
others.

Other things specifically ?

The rest can be laid on the doorstep of bad recording I suppose, since
I've heard some CDs that almost get it right, i.e. lack of "air" in the
room, screechy high frequencies.

Very likely the case. Orchestral recording by its very nature is subject to many
production related issues but these should certainly be equally present on vinyl.


What's your CD player btw ?

Rotel RCD 1070.

I see it uses a Burr-Brown PCM1732 converter which is now obsolete.

When did that happen?

Impossible to say since there is no trace of it at all anymore on the TI ( who own
Burr Brown ) website.


I'd consider using an external converter.

I've listened to several; none solves the problem to my ears. I wish
they did.

Which have you listened to ?


I assume the transport works fine ?

Yep.

I also have an Arcam on loan.

Model number ?

CD192

I'll take a peek just out of interest.

Incidentally, I've just been comparing my 1989 Denon DCD-1700 to my 2004 ? Pioneer
DV-360 DVD player playing CD.

I expected the Pioneer ( a quite respectable unit ) perhaps to match the Denon (
an award winner in its day ) but initial results show the Denon to totally have
the upper hand.

Graham

[Jenn]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear
it
differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any historic
discussions about this, would you run those by me pls ?

Graham

It was recently done again: everything above about C6 sounds wrong
to
me IRT the timbre of instruments and voices. These frequencies
sound
more real to me on good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.

Really just that ?

Not JUST that; it's my biggest complaint, as I said. But the JUST
is VERY important to me. I understand that it's not too important to
others.

Other things specifically ?

The rest can be laid on the doorstep of bad recording I suppose, since
I've heard some CDs that almost get it right, i.e. lack of "air" in the
room, screechy high frequencies.

Very likely the case. Orchestral recording by its very nature is subject to
many
production related issues but these should certainly be equally present on
vinyl.


What's your CD player btw ?

Rotel RCD 1070.

I see it uses a Burr-Brown PCM1732 converter which is now obsolete.

When did that happen?

Impossible to say since there is no trace of it at all anymore on the TI (
who own
Burr Brown ) website.


I'd consider using an external converter.

I've listened to several; none solves the problem to my ears. I wish
they did.

Which have you listened to ?

The Benchmark, Musical Fidelity, two others I don't recall (I'll look
them up).



I assume the transport works fine ?

Yep.

I also have an Arcam on loan.

Model number ?

CD192

I'll take a peek just out of interest.

Incidentally, I've just been comparing my 1989 Denon DCD-1700 to my 2004 ?
Pioneer
DV-360 DVD player playing CD.

I expected the Pioneer ( a quite respectable unit ) perhaps to match the
Denon (
an award winner in its day ) but initial results show the Denon to totally
have
the upper hand.

Graham

[paul packer]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:22:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every
CD. Some are much better than others; none are good to
my ears.


It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music
(from a fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the
Sydney Opera House) I was shocked to find that I didn't
actually like the sound.

It's like Paul believes that all musical performances in every concert hall
should sound the same, or at least should have sonics that fit some
preconceived profile that exists in his mind.

How is it inferred from my comments that I expect every hall to sound
the same, Arnie? I was simply remarking that in previous experience
live music had had "sweetness" about it that here appeared to be
missing. If a "pre-conceived profile" exists, it was constructed from
previous experience, as all our pre-conceptions are.

There was an absence of treble
and the mid-range sounded hard.

Rather highly dependent on all sorts of things, elitist comments from Jenn
notwitstanding.

I detected no elitist comments from Jenn.

Had it been my system I'd
have been doing some major upgrading.

I think you need to get out more, Paul.

Lack of connection of reply to original comment noted.

Was it because I was used to listening via the medium of headphones?

Could be, but that wouldn't be the whole story.

I knew that much.

Don't think so, as I still listen to speakers occasionally. Is
there a problem with the acoustics? Should I not have
being sitting in the high seats?

That might explain a lack of treble, and bass, or not.

I was just about to thank you for the info. Then you added "or not."

I'm confused.

As a general rule, yes you are quite confused Paul, vain attempts at
sounding expert notwitstanding.

Cheap shot, given free this once. However, I never attempt to "sound
expert". I leave that to you.

I only know that I could not happily have listened to that sound
at home.

Given some time you might (heaven forbid!) adjust your tastes to this
reality.

Or.....sit in different seats next time, giving me a sound closer to
my home hi-fi.

It certainly wasn't euphonic.

How do you know that for sure?

Because it wasn't "an agreeable sound" to my ears.

In fact, apart from the dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.

Spoken like one of the brainwashed ones, Paul. Your programming is coming
along splendidly - you're changing from being damaged goods to being totally
ruined.

Damaged goods? Are you suggesting I may have been earning my living on
the streets at night, Arnie?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

Straw man noted.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Just as how anyone can pretend that the sound of violins (for example)
on CD is hi-fi is beyond me. My opinion on that was reinforced again at
Disney Hall. But YMMV, and that's fine, in my opinion.


It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital domain more
than most instruments.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:22:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
every CD. Some are much better than others; none are
good to my ears.


It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music
(from a fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the
Sydney Opera House) I was shocked to find that I didn't
actually like the sound.

It's like Paul believes that all musical performances in
every concert hall should sound the same, or at least
should have sonics that fit some preconceived profile
that exists in his mind.

How is it inferred from my comments that I expect every
hall to sound the same, Arnie?

You seem to think that you are shocked when you find a hall that sounds so
different that you don't like it.

I was simply remarking
that in previous experience live music had had
"sweetness" about it that here appeared to be missing.

No, you said "I was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound."

If a "pre-conceived profile" exists, it was constructed
from previous experience, as all our pre-conceptions are.

Where is it written that we must form any pre-conceptions at all, especially
about concert halls?

There was an absence of treble
and the mid-range sounded hard.

Rather highly dependent on all sorts of things, elitist
comments from Jenn notwitstanding.

I detected no elitist comments from Jenn.

Of course not. That would take discernment that you obviously lack, Paul.

Had it been my system I'd
have been doing some major upgrading.

I think you need to get out more, Paul.

Lack of connection of reply to original comment noted.

The connection is obvious - if you got out more you might have known better
than to think what you did.

Was it because I was used to listening via the medium
of headphones?

Could be, but that wouldn't be the whole story.

I knew that much.

Really?

Don't think so, as I still listen to speakers
occasionally. Is there a problem with the acoustics?
Should I not have
being sitting in the high seats?

That might explain a lack of treble, and bass, or not.

I was just about to thank you for the info. Then you
added "or not."

I'm confused.

As a general rule, yes you are quite confused Paul, vain
attempts at sounding expert notwitstanding.

Cheap shot, given free this once. However, I never
attempt to "sound expert". I leave that to you.

Me an expert? LOL!

I only know that I could not happily have listened to
that sound
at home.

Given some time you might (heaven forbid!) adjust your
tastes to this reality.

Or.....sit in different seats next time, giving me a
sound closer to my home hi-fi.

Seems like a questionable standard.

It certainly wasn't euphonic.

How do you know that for sure?

Because it wasn't "an agreeable sound" to my ears.

But you admit that a lot of people might have found it euphonic?

In fact, apart from the dull treble, it sounded rather
CD-like.

Spoken like one of the brainwashed ones, Paul. Your
programming is coming along splendidly - you're changing
from being damaged goods to being totally ruined.

Damaged goods? Are you suggesting I may have been earning
my living on the streets at night, Arnie?

No, I'm suggesting that you are learning how to take cheap shots at CD
players. Jenn would be proud.

[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:

"Eeyore"
wrote in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is
inferior to plain old CD, so I don't see why
you would be supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason,
IMO, is because it is the only digital system
for home use that produces natural-sounding
transient response, as opposed to pcm which
produces transients with pre-echo. The latter
exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
ear-brain complex is highly oriented to
transient information and very sensitive to
*any* type of sound that is "un-natural" (our
heriditary self-preservation instinct, I
suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody
has ever provided a shred of proof that it's
true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so
low lin level that it's swamped by the noise
floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at
all produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and
is it therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl
give pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos
easy to measure (I see them in vinyl
transcriptions all the time), they are easy to
hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned
them, Jenn.

SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that
moon isn't made of cheese, Arny.

There are about 20 posts of mine related to that, the
earliest of which seems to be:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a2d3d82815cb18

Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:

"Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of
green cheese, and anybody with a few simple tools and
a good understanding of Newtonian Physics (and a
sample of green cheese) has been able to do so for
maybe 100 years or so."

OK, Jenn now put up or admit that you're wrong!

Yep, I was wrong; you posted about the moon and
cheese.

Here's you're latest lie and/or deception, Jenn - you
have now refused to admit that you are either deaf to
or in denial of pre- and post- echo on LPs.

Incorrect yet again. I'm clearly not deaf, and I'm not
in denial.

But, you lack proof that you knew about pre- and post-
echo on LPs until we pointed it out to you,

You lack proof that I know how to drink milk as well.

Show how that relates to your knowlege of the audible failings of LPs, Jenn/

just like the supposedly missing data in my triangle
file.

The data wasn't in the file.

It is in all other of the versions that have ever been reported to me to be
downloaded by anybody.

I offered to send you a screen shot. But you mistrust me for some reason
(I
guess because I disagree with you about how things sound)

It's something about your inability to accept that you have made any
mistakes ever, Jenn when it is so obvious that you have.

so you won't accept that. You are free to come to my
house and see it if you wish.

That is another false claim. There is no free means by which I can see your
house. Every known way for me to see your house would cost time and/or
money.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Just as how anyone can pretend that the sound of violins
(for example) on CD is hi-fi is beyond me. My opinion
on that was reinforced again at Disney Hall. But YMMV,
and that's fine, in my opinion.


It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital
domain more than most instruments.

Name a real reason why that might be, if you can rise above idle
speculation.

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:54:11 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message


Frank Van Alstine and Peter Moncrieff, independently. I
also asked a friend of my father's who was quite familiar
with the engineering of digitial circuitry. He dug into
it and then agreed.

I think you may have misuderstood some details.

Perhaps, although it looks pretty straightforward.

I just found some quotes from Frank Van Alstine:

"If you don't do the math to divide the clock frequency of a CD player
by the frequency of interest, you will not gain the knowledge that a
1-bit CD player cannot retrieve all of the information from a CD until
the crystal clock gets up to about 1,320,000,000 Hz (1.3 GHz, a speed
Cray would kill for). With the fastest 1 bit converters out there now,
running at 90,000,000 Hz, all one can retrieve is 4,500 of the 66,000
samples per cycle available on the CD at high frequencies. That is not
high fidelity. In baseball it would be a batting average of .068, not
even enough to make the little league. Don't talk to me about how
wonderful your 1 bit DAC sounds, when its sounds have nothing to do
with the information content of the source disc."

And: (I included some extra text just because it's so pithy. :-)


"The wonders of technology are bringing us 8 bit resolution bit-stream
CD players to replace the 16 bit units that previously could retrieve
the data better. It also supplies 4-bit resolution DCC and Mini-Discs
to enhance our life-style even more. It gives us overload prone
wireless microphones to make live performances sound just like our
Mini-Disc player, and provides multitudes of computer controlled
electronic synthesizers to eliminate the musician completely. We are
encouraged to buy little swivel mounted plastic speakers that will
kill a chicken at 50 paces and to go into the speaker design business
for ourselves by getting a top and midrange speaker from here and
sub-woofer from there and getting them matched up all by ourselves.
All along the way to better living through more electronic gadgets the
technophile reassures us that it all tests just fine and thus sounds
just fine too.

Meanwhile, the association of audiotweaks has brought us the joys of
$500 per foot speaker leads, interconnect cables full of water, $300
each thumbnail sized dots to enhance your listening room, panty-hose
for your speaker wires, $5000 20 watt tube amps, $10,000 external DACS
(to replace a part the size of your fingertip that costs $20), digital
clocks to make your electricity all better, gadgets to "break-in" your
cables (gotta plug them in for a few days before you dare use them or
the sound will be all ruined), and freezer pouches, marking pens, and
a variety of clamps, weights, and elixirs to subjugate your CDs to.

In addition we are exposed to the sage advice that we really need two
sets of $500 per foot speaker wires per channel, that we really need
to eliminate almost all that nasty and bad sounding $500 per foot
speaker wire and use a half a mile of much more wonderful sounding
$1000 per foot interconnect cable instead, that we really need two
amplifiers per speaker, that we really need eight channels - not two,
that we need little IC bass boost boxes to make our $5000/pair
speakers work right, that we need to destroy our floors and shelves
with railroad spikes sticking out the bottom of most all our
components, and that we need to subsidize the electric company and aid
the coal miners and OPEC by leaving everything turned on all the time
(this may work for our blenders and microwaves too). We are encouraged
to risk electrocution with huge metal external speaker terminals and
by plugging our exotic amplifiers into US 240V lines (putting 120V AC
live on the chassis).

You can easily spend your entire hi-fi budget on all the life-style
enhancing and magical mystical accessories and not have any money left
over to buy the components at all. $2000 should buy you a great, long
term keeper of a high fidelity system. You can spend it all on just
the cables and not even be able to afford the cable break-in machine -
wouldn't that be awful?

Meanwhile, the next month's magazines arrive and inform you on one
hand that your system is obsolete because it does not provide for 16 x
9 ratio TV, ten speakers, and wireless infrared remote control of bass
and treble settings of each, or on the other hand that your $5000
external DAC has been superseded by the obviously better $10,000
model, but only if you use the two foot in diameter propane filled
interconnect cable (made of pure glow~in-the~dark irradiated copper
fresh from the control room at Chernobyl)."

The preceding two were at:
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/i...p?topic=7850.0


Here's:

"The typical "one bit" D to A converter can only operate at the
internal clock speed, maybe 10 meg or thereabouts, and thus can only
retreive about 1 percent of the digital data on a "one pass" basis at
high frequencies. A pure 16 bit parallel processor is needed to
retrieve all of the data at all frequencies. Nobody does that any
more (except us). Why not? Because 1-bit processors measure better on
steady state test signals. Of course they only provide 8-track
cassette resolution at high frequency on music. Oh well."

From: http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/i...?topic=30360.0

I believe the first place I saww this discussed was at:

http://www.avahifi.com/root/audio_ba...1993-09-10.pdf

Although I see a mention here too:

http://www.avahifi.com/root/audio_ba.../ab1992-04.pdf
================================

The satirist Krivis lists every idiotic gadget ever promoted by an
audio-quack or an audio- cheat. He indulges in the usual scientology
propaganda division heavy handed hilarity at the expense of the deluded
infidels.
A few messages down he has another screamingly funny passage about an
imaginary review of Meitner and D'Agostino's imaginary products.. He
said somewhere else that the promotion of cryogenic treatment of cds.
invalidates Meitner as a serious audio engineer.

A few observartions:
1) About cryogenics. No doubt Krivis investigated the subject and
published his results in a respectable peer revieved audio journal. I
don't know if Meitner did. But if neither did it we have to decide
whose authority to take seriously: Meitner of Museatex or Krivis of
RAO.

2) He goes on about tweaks - some so exotic or idiotic that one
wonders where he dug them up. He indulges in his chapel's favourite
propaganda trick : identifying the hated infidel subjectivists with the
gadgets, most of which no one except him ever heard of. I for one know
of no one that ever used them.

Enjoy yourself little naughty Stuart.
Ludovic Mirabel

[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


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me
on every CD. Some are much better than others;
none are good to my ears.

C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle
part of the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all
harmonics for all notes C6 and above played back
via the LP format are in doubt if the RIAA curve
is not precisely implmented. Imprecuise
implementation of the RIAA curve is endemic in LP
production and playback. In contrast CD playback
inherently plays them back with in the same
perspective as recorded, within the audible
range.

I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about
CDs - they are too consistent and accurate for
her preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might
be an audible differences junkie.

Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly
stated my complaints with CDs.

Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not
convincing. Especially true given your inability to
own up to errors that you have clearly made and
also denied.

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.

So what? If you have hysterical problems with CDs,
not my fault and nothing I want to try to cure.

If you hear it differently, that's fine.

No Jenn your problem is separating hysteria from art
from technical facts.

The technical fact is that CDs can be
indistinguishable from the master recordings they
were made from and LPs can't.

I already know that you hear it that way, thanks.

Just me any everybody else who gives it a serious try.

Oh, I give it a "serious try". I own many CDs, have
listened to many more, and I listen carefully.


Many of us had it up to here (patting air over my head)
with the vinyl artifacts that you deny, Jenn.

I don't deny them at all, Arny.


Now since I met your demand for a post about the mood
and cheese, be a good little girl

LOL

and show us where you had the candor to talk about some
of the
nastier vinyl artifacts, like pre and post echo.

I don't need to talk about them. It is clear that they
exist, and it is clear that I consider other aspects of
sound to be more important.

Given Jenn what you dismiss and what you have said that
you can't hear, its not clear what subtle aspects of
sound remain.

What have I said I can't hear, Arny?

Asked, answered, and denied by Jenn already.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
message
Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore
wrote:
Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.
If you hear it differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any
historic discussions about this, would you run those
by me pls ?

Graham

It was recently done again: everything above about
C6 sounds wrong to me IRT the timbre of instruments
and voices. These frequencies sound more real to me
on good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.

Either the CD player is broken or this is just more
anti-digital hysteria.

It's neither, thanks.



What's your CD player btw ?

Rotel RCD 1070.

I see it uses a Burr-Brown PCM1732 converter which is
now obsolete. I'd consider using an external converter.
I assume the transport works fine ?

No guarantees. Given how bad she says it sounds it could
be broken in lots of ways. Bad tracking is just one of
them.

Since what I hear is universal to every CD player I heard
(n=many), my CD players are not the problem.

Then the problem is within you, Jenn. Something about hysteria caused by
reading too many high end audio ragazines and lisetning to too many high end
audiophile sales hacks.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore
wrote:
Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.
If you hear it differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any
historic discussions about this, would you run
those by me pls ?

Graham

It was recently done again: everything above about
C6 sounds wrong to me IRT the timbre of instruments
and voices. These frequencies sound more real to me
on good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.

Really just that ?

Not JUST that; it's my biggest complaint, as I said.
But the JUST is VERY important to me. I understand
that it's not too important to others.

Other things specifically ?

The rest can be laid on the doorstep of bad recording I
suppose, since I've heard some CDs that almost get it
right, i.e. lack of "air" in the room, screechy high
frequencies.

Very likely the case. Orchestral recording by its very
nature is subject to many production related issues but
these should certainly be equally present on vinyl.


What's your CD player btw ?

Rotel RCD 1070.

I see it uses a Burr-Brown PCM1732 converter which is
now obsolete.

When did that happen?

Impossible to say since there is no trace of it at all
anymore on the TI ( who own Burr Brown ) website.


I'd consider using an external converter.

I've listened to several; none solves the problem to my
ears. I wish they did.

Which have you listened to ?


I assume the transport works fine ?

Yep.

I also have an Arcam on loan.

Model number ?

CD192

I'll take a peek just out of interest.

Incidentally, I've just been comparing my 1989 Denon
DCD-1700 to my 2004 ? Pioneer DV-360 DVD player playing
CD.

I expected the Pioneer ( a quite respectable unit )
perhaps to match the Denon ( an award winner in its day )
but initial results show the Denon to totally have the
upper hand.

Compared by what means?

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

Again my simulacrum appears in Arny's nightmares:

". The fun begins when people like Ludo start suggesting
that Vinyl can reproduce music more accurately than
digital.

I never said anything of the kind.

I never said that you did. I said that people like you did. I didn't say
what the areas of similarity were.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com

I remember one poster here who refused to believe that I
have several LPs that are of "ticks and pops".

Not me.

Yes, it was you.

How can that be when you already admitted that it was a typo?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham


Agreed.

Cool.... more used records available for me.

More evidence of ear damage.

Incorrect; more evidence of a preference for the sound of
good LPs.

Compared to CDs there are no good LPs in the sense that none are objectivly
even comparable.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



I raised his hackles by quoting two respected
designers and manufacturers of high-end transistor
audio equipment D'Agostino.and Meitner. Both had the
inegrity (and courage) to say that they hope one day
to equal the quality of tube and vinyl. .

That's utterly absurd.

Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.

Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Which doesn't bode well for the quality of D'Agostino
and Meitner's _current_ equipment. :-)

"One day our stuff will make it up to the level of being
really crappy."



Actually, I feel it is possible to do a pretty good job
with tubes in some cases. A couple of EEs I respect have
said that, as with SS, you can get good results with
tubes if you use them properly. I have certainly heard
good results with some tube preamps, for instance.

It appears to me that the best SS and tube gear are all
converging on the same point - neutral and stable
operation. The best of each breed sound very similar.

However, I choose to own SS myself for a number of
reasons, with heat and maintainance being up there at
the top.

And sound quality, evidently, being at the bottom.

Thanks for finally admitting this, Marc.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
message
Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore
wrote:
Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.
If you hear it differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any
historic discussions about this, would you run those
by me pls ?

Graham

It was recently done again: everything above about
C6 sounds wrong to me IRT the timbre of instruments
and voices. These frequencies sound more real to me
on good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.

Either the CD player is broken or this is just more
anti-digital hysteria.

It's neither, thanks.



What's your CD player btw ?

Rotel RCD 1070.

I see it uses a Burr-Brown PCM1732 converter which is
now obsolete. I'd consider using an external converter.
I assume the transport works fine ?

No guarantees. Given how bad she says it sounds it could
be broken in lots of ways. Bad tracking is just one of
them.

Since what I hear is universal to every CD player I heard
(n=many), my CD players are not the problem.

Then the problem is within you, Jenn. Something about hysteria caused by
reading too many high end audio ragazines and lisetning to too many high end
audiophile sales hacks.

Thanks for your opinion. I disagree.

[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


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me
on every CD. Some are much better than others;
none are good to my ears.

C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle
part of the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all
harmonics for all notes C6 and above played back
via the LP format are in doubt if the RIAA curve
is not precisely implmented. Imprecuise
implementation of the RIAA curve is endemic in LP
production and playback. In contrast CD playback
inherently plays them back with in the same
perspective as recorded, within the audible
range.

I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about
CDs - they are too consistent and accurate for
her preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might
be an audible differences junkie.

Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly
stated my complaints with CDs.

Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not
convincing. Especially true given your inability to
own up to errors that you have clearly made and
also denied.

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.

So what? If you have hysterical problems with CDs,
not my fault and nothing I want to try to cure.

If you hear it differently, that's fine.

No Jenn your problem is separating hysteria from art
from technical facts.

The technical fact is that CDs can be
indistinguishable from the master recordings they
were made from and LPs can't.

I already know that you hear it that way, thanks.

Just me any everybody else who gives it a serious try.

Oh, I give it a "serious try". I own many CDs, have
listened to many more, and I listen carefully.


Many of us had it up to here (patting air over my head)
with the vinyl artifacts that you deny, Jenn.

I don't deny them at all, Arny.


Now since I met your demand for a post about the mood
and cheese, be a good little girl

LOL

and show us where you had the candor to talk about some
of the
nastier vinyl artifacts, like pre and post echo.

I don't need to talk about them. It is clear that they
exist, and it is clear that I consider other aspects of
sound to be more important.

Given Jenn what you dismiss and what you have said that
you can't hear, its not clear what subtle aspects of
sound remain.

What have I said I can't hear, Arny?

Asked, answered, and denied by Jenn already.

I see. Well, when you want to back up your false statement, please
return and do so.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com

Meanwhile, back in reality, I own a 2wpc triode, and
derive a lot of listening pleasure from it.

Headphone amplifier?

And you
continue to base your opinions on something you've never
heard. Which is impressing no one, by the way.

One does not need to hear a 5 tube AM AC-DC radio with a 4" cheap speaker to
know that it sounds like crap.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
You keep talking about logic, yet you're the one who
thinks he knows what things sound like before he hears
them.

Given how flawed the evaluations you do are Boonie, this would be you who
*knows* what things sound like before he has properly heard them.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:22:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
every CD. Some are much better than others; none are
good to my ears.


It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music
(from a fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the
Sydney Opera House) I was shocked to find that I didn't
actually like the sound.

It's like Paul believes that all musical performances in
every concert hall should sound the same, or at least
should have sonics that fit some preconceived profile
that exists in his mind.

How is it inferred from my comments that I expect every
hall to sound the same, Arnie?

You seem to think that you are shocked when you find a hall that sounds so
different that you don't like it.

I was simply remarking
that in previous experience live music had had
"sweetness" about it that here appeared to be missing.

No, you said "I was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound."

If a "pre-conceived profile" exists, it was constructed
from previous experience, as all our pre-conceptions are.

Where is it written that we must form any pre-conceptions at all, especially
about concert halls?

There was an absence of treble
and the mid-range sounded hard.

Rather highly dependent on all sorts of things, elitist
comments from Jenn notwitstanding.

I detected no elitist comments from Jenn.

Of course not. That would take discernment that you obviously lack, Paul.

Had it been my system I'd
have been doing some major upgrading.

I think you need to get out more, Paul.

Lack of connection of reply to original comment noted.

The connection is obvious - if you got out more you might have known better
than to think what you did.

Was it because I was used to listening via the medium
of headphones?

Could be, but that wouldn't be the whole story.

I knew that much.

Really?

Don't think so, as I still listen to speakers
occasionally. Is there a problem with the acoustics?
Should I not have
being sitting in the high seats?

That might explain a lack of treble, and bass, or not.

I was just about to thank you for the info. Then you
added "or not."

I'm confused.

As a general rule, yes you are quite confused Paul, vain
attempts at sounding expert notwitstanding.

Cheap shot, given free this once. However, I never
attempt to "sound expert". I leave that to you.

Me an expert? LOL!

I only know that I could not happily have listened to
that sound
at home.

Given some time you might (heaven forbid!) adjust your
tastes to this reality.

Or.....sit in different seats next time, giving me a
sound closer to my home hi-fi.

Seems like a questionable standard.

It certainly wasn't euphonic.

How do you know that for sure?

Because it wasn't "an agreeable sound" to my ears.

But you admit that a lot of people might have found it euphonic?

In fact, apart from the dull treble, it sounded rather
CD-like.

Spoken like one of the brainwashed ones, Paul. Your
programming is coming along splendidly - you're changing
from being damaged goods to being totally ruined.

Damaged goods? Are you suggesting I may have been earning
my living on the streets at night, Arnie?

No, I'm suggesting that you are learning how to take cheap shots at CD
players. Jenn would be proud.

What "cheap shot" have I taken at CD players, Arny?

[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:

"Eeyore"
wrote in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is
inferior to plain old CD, so I don't see why
you would be supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason,
IMO, is because it is the only digital system
for home use that produces natural-sounding
transient response, as opposed to pcm which
produces transients with pre-echo. The latter
exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
ear-brain complex is highly oriented to
transient information and very sensitive to
*any* type of sound that is "un-natural" (our
heriditary self-preservation instinct, I
suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody
has ever provided a shred of proof that it's
true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so
low lin level that it's swamped by the noise
floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at
all produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and
is it therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl
give pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos
easy to measure (I see them in vinyl
transcriptions all the time), they are easy to
hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned
them, Jenn.

SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that
moon isn't made of cheese, Arny.

There are about 20 posts of mine related to that, the
earliest of which seems to be:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a2d3d82815cb18

Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:

"Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of
green cheese, and anybody with a few simple tools and
a good understanding of Newtonian Physics (and a
sample of green cheese) has been able to do so for
maybe 100 years or so."

OK, Jenn now put up or admit that you're wrong!

Yep, I was wrong; you posted about the moon and
cheese.

Here's you're latest lie and/or deception, Jenn - you
have now refused to admit that you are either deaf to
or in denial of pre- and post- echo on LPs.

Incorrect yet again. I'm clearly not deaf, and I'm not
in denial.

But, you lack proof that you knew about pre- and post-
echo on LPs until we pointed it out to you,

You lack proof that I know how to drink milk as well.

Show how that relates to your knowlege of the audible failings of LPs, Jenn/

It speaks to the fact that I don't post everything that I know. Neither
do you, I presume.


just like the supposedly missing data in my triangle
file.

The data wasn't in the file.

It is in all other of the versions that have ever been reported to me to be
downloaded by anybody.

That's nice; it wasn't in the one that arrived on my computer. I've
offered every reasonable way possible to prove to you that this is the
truth. How about this? I'll take my computer to the Baptist minister
that you select who is located within 20 miles of my location. I'll
download it in front of him/her and then open it with Audacity. The
minister can then email you with the result. Would that satisfy you
that I'm telling the truth?


I offered to send you a screen shot. But you mistrust me for some reason
(I
guess because I disagree with you about how things sound)

It's something about your inability to accept that you have made any
mistakes ever, Jenn when it is so obvious that you have.

More false information. Today I admitted that I made a mistake for
example.


so you won't accept that. You are free to come to my
house and see it if you wish.

That is another false claim. There is no free means by which I can see your
house. Every known way for me to see your house would cost time and/or
money.

Do you understand that the word "free" has meanings other than that
which concerns money, Arny?

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham


Agreed.

Cool.... more used records available for me.

More evidence of ear damage.

Incorrect; more evidence of a preference for the sound of
good LPs.

Compared to CDs there are no good LPs in the sense that none are objectivly
even comparable.

Incorrect according to my ears. Your ear may vary, and that's fine.
You should enjoy the sound of what you listen to just as I should.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

Again my simulacrum appears in Arny's nightmares:

". The fun begins when people like Ludo start suggesting
that Vinyl can reproduce music more accurately than
digital.

I never said anything of the kind.

I never said that you did. I said that people like you did. I didn't say
what the areas of similarity were.
=============================

Krueger says:
"I never said that you did. I said that people like you did. I didn't
say
what the areas of similarity were"

Let's pursue this interesting line and see where it gets us::

"People like .Krueger who think that Pachelbel's Canon is the peak of
musical achievement-
sorry emotional musical achievement.."

"Peple like Krueger with woodenn ears..."

"People like Krueger who will lie, slander and cheat to win a point..."

Want more about people like you?
Ludovic Mirabel