[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

AFAIK cosmetology is based on technology. It's about light and how various
substances reflect and transmit it and how they interact with the surfaces
they are on.

Since I am calling it quits on uk.rec.audio i'll take soem time and
answer some of your questions and correct a few of your mistakes.
Cosmetology is something seperate from makeup artistry. Hair stylists
need to go to cosmetology school and get a licence. So do cosmetitions
who do facials and other sorts of skin care services. It's no big deal
just a point of fact.



I wonder how Scott would feel if someone who had as little knowlege of
cosmetology as he has of audio would try to tell him how to do his job.


I would actually pay attention to any ideas that may have merit
regardless of the source. Some of us are always looking for better ways
to o things. Some of the best ideas in the field of makeup artistry
have come from hobbyists. BUT this question is based on the false
premise that I have been telling audio pros how to do their job. When
have I done that? Who here records or masters LPs or CDs
proffessionally?



After all, cosmetology is all just about aesthetics, right?

No. But makeup artistry is just about aesthetic effect.


Anybody with a
good eye for aesthetics should be able to do his job better than Scott does,
right?


Anybody with more artistic talent than me should be able to do a lot of
the things I do better than me. and anyone who thinks so is free to
try. There are two didstict aspects to my line of work. One is
technical and one is artistic. Yes there is some cross over but not
that much. There are people that specialize in the technical aspects of
makeup atistry, some that specialize in the artsistic aspects of it and
some, like myself, that try to be as good as they can be in both
aspects. My technical skills do not make me a better artist. If *you*
have a substantial artistic talent you would be able to walk off the
streets into a lab and do better aesthetic work than the best and most
experienced lab tech that specializes in the technical side of things.
But you know Arny, in the end, my work goes before millions of people
and they are all free to form their own aesthetic opinions about it. I
have no problem with that. I don't expect them to know any of the
technicalities of my jo to form a valid opinion of the results of my
efforts.


Scott

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article . com,
wrote:
What you obviously don't realise is just how poor the ear's 'memory' is
and how easily it is fooled by other factors.

Another meter reader building an argument based on made up facts.

Made up is it? You really know so very little.

Yep you guys do pretty much all sound the same. As usual the point went
right over your head.

Still waiting for you to make any point that is sense.

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
wrote in message
ups.com...



http://www.performancerecordings.com/albums.html

pr7lp (LP), pr7cd (CD): Boyk plays Mussorgsky 1991
"Pictures at an Exhibition"

"World's only comparison of (a) pure digital, (b) digital-from-analog, and
(c) pure analog recordings, made at the same time from the same microphones;
(a) and (b) on the CD, (c) on the LP. The analog master tape was the first
tape made on MagnesaurusTM. From the album notes: "Interested listeners may
use this double release of LP and CD to investigate some timely questions:
Given an analog master tape, which medium preserves its virtues better, LP
or CD? (Compare the LP with the analog half of the CD.) Does a CD sound
better made from digital or analog master tape? (Compare the two versions on
the CD.) And most important, which preserves the emotional impact of the
music better, purely analog or purely digital recording? (Compare the LP
with the digital half of the CD.)"

The obvious problem none of us low-lifes could possibly aspire to have
access to a SOTA LP playback system that would do this recording justice.

Sorry to hear that. Not even access? oh well.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message


What kills me is these clowns don't seem to realise there
is no small degree of *engineering* in vinyl and vinyl
playback systems...

The opposite is true. I know from personal experience a great deal about the
engineering that is required in vinyl production and playback systems. It's
all a kluge with obvious limitations in terms of noise and distortion.

Do tell us about your experience with actually recording and mastering
LPs.


Scott

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article . com,
wrote:
I'll bet he agrees. I think he is smart enough to know his soldering
skills are independent of his listening skills.

But not mutually exclusive as I asked?

It was a loaded question. Like do you still beat your wife?

No it wasn't. You were suggesting they were and I simply wanted
clarification.

The point is they are independent.

So you're backtracking now?

You have been trying to assert they are related.

Where and when?

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I think it's time....

(I've been very patient....)

Oops, here it goes!!

**splash**

Very shortly Mr G will achieve his aim of having this newsgroup to himself
on his newsreader. Think there's a name for that...

--
*I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't care.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I wonder how Scott would feel if someone who had as little knowlege of
cosmetology as he has of audio would try to tell him how to do his job.
After all, cosmetology is all just about aesthetics, right? Anybody with
a good eye for aesthetics should be able to do his job better than
Scott does, right?

Happens all the time here in low budget TV. Every woman does her own
makeup - so why is it different just because a camera is involved? The
same happens with other skills - after all most now shoot holiday movies.
And when those skills are dispensed with to be replaced by amateurs it
doesn't half show.

It doesn't? I think quite the opposite is true. Audiences are getting
more and more sophisticated. Maybe with the sort of production you are
talking about the expectations just aren't very high.


But only possibly to those with the skills to notice
the difference. As is apparently the case with those who find vinyl more
'realistic' than CD. They just don't know what they're listening to.

Now that is an interesting claim. Arny just went on about how I might
feel about non-pros telling me how to do my job etc. But here you are
claiming that the real top flight pros don't know what they are
listening to. Can anyone else see the irony? Arny went after James Boyk
infering that he has an anti digital agenda. But the fact is he is an
actual pro and has a fantastic ear. I can assure you he knows far
better than you what he is listening to yet he finds the vinyl more
faithful to the original than the CD of his recording made for the
purpose of comparison. He listens to live music on a daily basis. He
teaches other musicians how to listen to sound! He has access to the
the original master and had access to the original mic feed of his
recordings. So, unlike you, he had an actual reference to make his
claims. And it isn't just him. You will find a number of *top industry
pros* that have the same preference for vinyl. So maybe it is you who
doesn't know what he is listening to.



Scott

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Now where is your proof to the contrary?

I see no proof in the link you have quoted?

It's an email address Einstien not a link. wow.

Fear not, we were able to circumvent your inability to provide a proper
cite, Scott.

Apparently not. The point of offering an email address is so that one
can send an inquiry via email. By failing to do so one only circumvents
themselves from exposure to the relevant information.The "cite" was
proper. The information is not at Boyk's website but with Boyk himself.
OTOH if you read what Mr.T said it is hilarious. Yeah you can click an
email address as though it were a link all day and not find any proof
of anything related to the subject.


Scott

[Keith G]

wrote in message
ps.com...

Keith G wrote:


Scott, I really wouldn't waste my life's breath arguing with Plowie - he
thinks he knows summat and wants to be my uncle and I won't let him is
how
it is....

You are right. especially now that a couple big jobs are about to start
up. I have a suggestion for you. Check out Stevehoffman.tv. This is
your kind of forum. friendly folks that actually have passion for music
and audio and a wealth of information when it comes to the sound
quality of the many LPs and CDs out there. I think I am done after
today with these losers. I walked away from rec.auio.opinion for the
same reason. Haven't looked at for a year. I'll bet that it's the same
people saying the same things. But i 'm not even going to check.



Don't blame you - the simple truth is Usenet's had its day and all the
groups I've ever looked into (in the past - I only subscribe to ukra) have
the same few sad ****s wanking out the same old **** over and over again!
And, tbh, I guess I'm getting a bit fed up of 'winding them up and setting
them off' - it's just too easy to do!

(I simply can't believe their *unending* capacity to type so much samey-samo
crap so many times over - it's *gotta* be driven by insecurity and
fear...!!??)

Thanks for the tip about the Stevehoffman.tv. forum! Ordinarily, I'm not all
that good with 'forums' as such - to fiddly to 'work' them mostly (or
*klugey* as Barmy Arny would have it... :-) and, apart from anything else,
they also usually have a few *stars* who get on everybody's tits as well!!
But with over 2 million posts and about 10 thousand members, it's certainly
a lot more going for it than this place! (Kinda shoots the 'small vinylist
minority' theories up the arse a tad, don't it??!! :-)




(The reason I'm sorry to see you and Don trading blows is that Don really
*does* know summat and he *can* be my uncle, despite being about 5 years
younger than me!! ;-)


If Don chooses to play nice I will too. Not that it matters. I'm done
with uk.rec.audio after today. Slapping aound meter readers gets boring
and I have a lot more on my plate. The nature of the business you know.
Things are about to get crazy. looks like they will be crazy for a
couple years, maybe four or five years.


OK. Hope it all goes nicely for you!! :-)

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a
24/96 copy of that LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem
with digital recording then.

Finally? Did you "finally" pull your head out of your ass?


All we need to know now is whether you think you can
hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave
or so, where vinyl fails miserably. After all the only
other difference for 24/96 over CD is dynamic range
beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)


Prove it.

It is your claim to prove, Scott.

You seem to be confused Arny. Mr.T claimed the following.
"All we need to know now is whether you think you can hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave or so, where
vinyl fails miserably. After all the only other difference for 24/96
over CD is dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)"

His claim his burden of proof.

Scott

[[email protected]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On 1 Nov 2006 08:40:42 -0800, wrote:

It was a loaded question. Like do you still beat your wife? The point
is they are independent. You have been trying to assert they are
related.

So at the end of all this, which are they, mutually exclusive or
independent? Just so I know.

Hey Don, how are you doing today? Independent. not mutually exclusive.




See Kieth, I am being nice to Don.


Scott

[Keith G]

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message


What kills me is these clowns don't seem to realise there
is no small degree of *engineering* in vinyl and vinyl
playback systems...

The opposite is true. I know from personal experience a great deal about
the
engineering that is required in vinyl production and playback systems.
It's
all a kluge with obvious limitations in terms of noise and distortion.


:-)

Ooh! Another chance to that *kluge* again - how sweet!! :-)

(Arny's a fully paid-up member of the Creeps Club* and now resides in my
****ter with all his crap scraped off my newsreader, so I couldn't look at
it and *admire* it again....!! :-)


Here's a movie line I love (5th Element): "She *dove* off....!!"

('Dove' as in 'stove' - fekkin' priceless, innit? :-)



Do tell us about your experience with actually recording and mastering
LPs.



Leave him alone, Scott - he's way past that bit in The Caine Mutiny where
Bogey sits rattling his balls with his mind gone...

(Just to keep with the *movie theme*...!!)



* Better make that *Kreeps Klub* in Kruger's Kase - or he'll think it's a
Kluge.....!!! :-))


Ooh, dear - YHFL, do you not..??!!

:-))

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
The opposite is true. I know from personal experience a great deal
about the engineering that is required in vinyl production and
playback systems. It's all a kluge with obvious limitations in terms
of noise and distortion.

Do tell us about your experience with actually recording and mastering
LPs.

Do tell us about yours?

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com


But here you are claiming that the real top
flight pros don't know what they are listening to.

Surprise, surprise, people with commercial axes to grind favoring vinyl,
favor vinyl.

Arny went after James Boyk
infering that he has an anti digital agenda.

Boyk has a number of interesting agendas including one against stranded
wire. Seriously, he claims some kind of loss of musicality when stranded
wire is used to carry audio signals. I'm glad that I don't cite him as an
authority!

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...32f66b7ce31d49

"Good question, especially given that solid-core sounds better."

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...4382f8cafebd67

"I suggested using a wire identical to one of them *but* non-stranded. He
tried it
and found it far better than any others he'd tried."

But the fact
is he is an actual pro and has a fantastic ear.

Proof?

I suspect he's approaching or has reached an age where his hearing apparatus
is slowling slip-slip sliding away. He was artist-in-residence for 30 years
which puts him up around 60+.

I can
assure you he knows far better than you what he is
listening to yet he finds the vinyl more faithful to the
original than the CD of his recording made for the
purpose of comparison.

See Boyk's former comments about wire. There's one word for this sort of
thing: "Hysterical".

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article . com,
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I wonder how Scott would feel if someone who had as little knowlege
of cosmetology as he has of audio would try to tell him how to do
his job. After all, cosmetology is all just about aesthetics, right?
Anybody with a good eye for aesthetics should be able to do his job
better than Scott does, right?

Happens all the time here in low budget TV. Every woman does her own
makeup - so why is it different just because a camera is involved? The
same happens with other skills - after all most now shoot holiday
movies. And when those skills are dispensed with to be replaced by
amateurs it doesn't half show.

It doesn't? I think quite the opposite is true. Audiences are getting
more and more sophisticated.

I suppose I'm guilty of using a local expression. 'Doesn't half' means
'does'.

Maybe with the sort of production you are talking about the expectations
just aren't very high.

I don't see how you can have high expectations with a low budget
production. Very few are willing to work for free - and those that do
fools.


But only possibly to those with the skills to notice the difference.
As is apparently the case with those who find vinyl more 'realistic'
than CD. They just don't know what they're listening to.

Now that is an interesting claim. Arny just went on about how I might
feel about non-pros telling me how to do my job etc. But here you are
claiming that the real top flight pros don't know what they are
listening to. Can anyone else see the irony? Arny went after James Boyk
infering that he has an anti digital agenda. But the fact is he is an
actual pro and has a fantastic ear. I can assure you he knows far better
than you what he is listening to yet he finds the vinyl more faithful to
the original than the CD of his recording made for the purpose of
comparison.
You can 'assure' me of anything. Doesn't make it anymore true. The way
Boyk goes about things is designed to prove his theories. Equally easy to
do the opposite.
He listens to live music on a daily basis. He teaches other
musicians how to listen to sound! He has access to the the original
master and had access to the original mic feed of his recordings. So,
unlike you, he had an actual reference to make his claims.

Err, how do you know what I do (did) and do not have access to?

And it isn't just him. You will find a number of *top industry pros*
that have the same preference for vinyl.

And you'll find even more *top industry pros* who don't. Oh - and simply
having a preference for something - work wise - doesn't make it the most
'realistic'. Look at the number of top photographers who work in B&W.

So maybe it is you who doesn't know what he is listening to.

Oh but I do.

To me, you are simply one of those who prefers listening to vinyl. I've no
argument with that - or with anyone else who holds that view. Only when
they start talking about 'realism'. Which is simply the bull**** they've
convinced themselves to believe for whatever reason.

--
*Laugh alone and the world thinks you're an idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Now where is your proof to the contrary?

I see no proof in the link you have quoted?

It's an email address Einstien not a link. wow.

Fear not, we were able to circumvent your inability to
provide a proper cite, Scott.

Apparently not.

Apparently so, your denials notwithstanding.

The point of offering an email address is
so that one can send an inquiry via email.

No need to when he has enough relevant details on his web site as I showed
in another post.


The
information is not at Boyk's website but with Boyk
himself.

Wrong, there's enough info on the web site to suffice.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Don't blame you - the simple truth is Usenet's had its day and all the
groups I've ever looked into (in the past - I only subscribe to ukra)
have the same few sad ****s wanking out the same old **** over and over
again!

You can put that mirror down now.

--
*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a
24/96 copy of that LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem
with digital recording then.

Finally? Did you "finally" pull your head out of your
ass?


All we need to know now is whether you think you can
hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom
octave or so, where vinyl fails miserably. After all
the only other difference for 24/96 over CD is dynamic
range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)


Prove it.

It is your claim to prove, Scott.

You seem to be confused Arny. Mr.T claimed the following.
"All we need to know now is whether you think you can
hear above 22 kHz, and why it is more important than the
bottom octave or so, where vinyl fails miserably. After
all the only other difference for 24/96 over CD is
dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)"

His claim his burden of proof.


Not at all Scott. His comments were based on earlier claims that you
apparently now don't want to stand behind.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message



You're all over the place Arny - really not very much
worth reading at all. A mildly psychotic and complex
little smokescreen at best - puts me in mind of a corny
courtroom scene in a cheesy Yank B movie....
I think it's time....

(I've been very patient....)

Oops, here it goes!!

**splash**

:-)

Aaah, *that's* better......

:-)

LOL!!

Jokes on you, Keith. It's really nice for me when the guy I've been using
for a punching bag decides to blindfold himself. Now, I don't have to worry
about him even seeing me when I hit him.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message


What kills me is these clowns don't seem to realise
there is no small degree of *engineering* in vinyl and
vinyl playback systems...

The opposite is true. I know from personal experience a
great deal about the engineering that is required in
vinyl production and playback systems. It's all a kluge
with obvious limitations in terms of noise and
distortion.

Do tell us about your experience with actually recording
and mastering LPs.

According to you Scott, this is entirely uncessary.

[Keith G]

"Keith G" wrote


Not one of them has the balls to speak plainly for themselves - I still
wonder what it is they are all so *scared* of...???

Can't be my ****ter 'cos most of 'em are already in it...!!??

(Glad I paid extra for the 'Tardis' model....!! :-)


Thought of a *lost pun opportunity* - 'Turdis'....!!??

Googled it (just in case)...

Clicked on the first entry.....

***WARNING - unsavoury site***

(Don't click on it and come whining to me if you are offended/disgusted by
it!)

http://www.poopreport.com/Stories/Content/turdis.html

Scrolled down (fairly rapidly) with those mixed feelings of mild disbelief
and morbid curiosity, as you do....

....and found the 'Highest User' table down on the right.

Look who's top of the list!! :-)

LOL

No, I mean *really* FLOL!!!

:-))

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
oups.com...

Now where is your proof to the contrary?

I see no proof in the link you have quoted?

It's an email address Einstien not a link. wow.

And you can't tell when someone is being facetious, no surprise there!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
ups.com...
At least Arny has some idea of what the "tech" in rec.audio.tech stands
for.


Dude, I am posting on uk.rec.audio. Guess the idea of cross posting is
also beyond you.

You are crossposting to rec.audio.tech. Guess the idea of where you are
cross posting to is
beyond you.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
ups.com...
You seem to be confused Arny. Mr.T claimed the following.
"All we need to know now is whether you think you can hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave or so, where
vinyl fails miserably. After all the only other difference for 24/96
over CD is dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)"

His claim his burden of proof.

Happy to oblige if :

1. There was the slightest chance you would accept scientific facts.
2. There was the slightest chance you could understand them.
3. You tell us what DNR *you* think vinyl is capable of, and provide ANY
supporting evidence that it is more than CD is capable of, either wideband
OR narrow band.
(it's absolutely impossible of course, so I won't hold my breathe :-)

MrT.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:

I found the spec sheet for the TDA1540 and SAA 7030 online, and can
confirm that noise shaping is done in the SAA 7030.

The TDA 1540 spec sheet was found at the Signetics web site.

BTW the speced dynamic range of the TDA 1540 is 85 dB.

Not read the data sheets. However I've now had a chance to re-read the
special issue of Philips Tech Rev that includes

Digital-to-analog conversion in playing a Compact Disc.
Goedhart, et al.
Philips Tech Rev V40(6) 1982 pages 174-9

This paper outlines how the SAA7030 and TDA1540 operate as part of the
conversion system.

This confirms the noise shaping, essentially by the method of taking the
LSB portion of the 28 bit accumulator and employing it as a carry forwards
to combine with the next filter-computed oversample.

Although the dynamic range is around 85dB this is essentially for the x4
bandwidth, and the paper explains that the result should end up being more
like 97dB if the devices operate as intended.

Two reasons for this.

1) Even with a 'white' quantisation noise spectrum the final bandwidth only
covers a quarter of the oversampled rate bandwidth, so this would give a
6dB improvement.

2) The noise shaping actually generates a noise spectrum which rises with
frequency, thus the 85dB noise is predominantly above 22kHz. This improves
the result according to their analysis by another 7dB or so over what you'd
get for 'white' noise.

The results are broadly in line with the use of noise shaping in other,
more modern, oversampling systems that use lower bit-depths than the input
data.

Given that this was the first system Philips used, it still looks
remarkably 'fresh' in concept. Hardly surprising that some marketing types
and journalists have had to use the term 'upsampled' more recently to try
and pretend they have come up with a new idea, when this may not always be
so. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
One would think from your post that one's ability to solder has
something to do with one's ability to make aesthetic judgements. Do
I hve to tell you just how stupid that idea is? Engineers do the
work the hobbyists consume it.

So they're mutually exclusive?

The ability to solder and the ability to make aestheic judgemens? Yes
they are.

Wonder what your only 'supporter' Mr G will make of that? He loves to
build kit and is the vinyl disciple to end all disciples.

I'm getting the sense that Scott doesn't understand the meaning of the
phrase 'mutually exclusive' -- unless he really means that if you can
solder, you can't judge beauty.

Or perhaps it's another one of his exquisite jokes.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:


Not at all. But then maybe iIm actually understanding what I read.

But not the parts about the limits of human hearing, or the sources of errors
in interpreting what is heard. These are what I was referring to as 'the
well-documented limitations of listening'.

Suffering from an identity crisis?

Not that I'm aware of...why would you think so, from the above
excerpt?

You should read up on them, they're *gold*.

I have actually. that is one of the many reasons I get such a laugh at
the idiots on Usenet and their complete misapplication and
misinerpretation of psychoacoustics. The idea that human hearing is
wrong while technical measurements are right when it comes to this
hobby is a prime example of that misapplication.

The idea is that human 'hearing' has well-known confounding factors to accuracy which create a
significant risk of 'hearing' differences that are purely imaginary, or misconstruing the
actual source of the difference. The other idea is that human hearing has natural limits in
terms of measurable quantities -- frequency, for example.

The most glaring, most prevalent, and most regularly-occuring 'misapplications' of these ideas
are, of course, found in the audiophile press and subjectivist audio forums, which tend to
ignore the consequences of the first idea , and always give secondary status to the latter
one, in favor of hypothetical factors which await scientific discovery.

So once again, your ire is grossly misplaced, if it's the misapplication of science
in the audio hobby that vexes you.

Yeah if the meter readers can't corilate the numbers to the aesthetic
experience there must be something wrong with the aesthetic expeience.

Hmm...did anyone *here* say that?

Pretty much.

Don't think so.

Even you are subject to Bias stevie. You se what you want to see.

I see what you want to see, too. It's quite obvious.

Do tell. What is it I want to to see? Share with us your insight.

You first.

the perception must bend to meet the expectations given to them by the
measurements.

Well, correlation of objective reality to subjective reality has its merits.
It allowed the creation of things like audio gear and recordings.

It did? I had no idea Edison was relying on that.

Well, maybe you should do some reading on his work, too, then.

How about filling us in?

Well for starters, Edison did these things called...*experiments*. If they didn't work, his
subjective wish that they did, wasn't an overriding factor.

Btw, are you aware that audio technology has advanced a bit since Edison's day?
Though of course, the sound of wax cylinders probably has its advocates even today.


interested in that than in promoting what they believe (often without basis)
are audible limitations of digital.


Maybe they are just looking for an explination for what they hear?

Oh, you mean, an objective correlate of their subjective experience? I thought that
was a nonstarter for you?

Maybe you are struggling with pronouns. When I say "they" i don't mean
"me."


Ah, you mean people like Keith,

No i don't.

my reply to whom set you off on this latest tirade.

tirade? Suffering from hypersensitivity? Did it really bother you that
much to be the sucker who set up my joke about meter readers all
sounding the same? It was just a poke.

Oh, snap, you got me again. I just don't get this sarcasm thing at all.


Pretty basic English don't you think? "I" don't worry so much
about explinations unless I think they can narrow the scope of things I
look out for when making purchases. "My" focus is on thr results not
the explanations for those results.

Scott, you'd do best not to chastise others for their command of English.
You've embarrassed yourself enough as is.

Big difference between speeling errors and mistakes like confusing
"they" with" I."


Scott, your defense of 'they' against mean old 'me' was that maybe 'they' were looking for an
explanation of what 'they' hear. All I did was point out the oddity that 'you'
would offer 'that' as a defense of 'them', since 'you' had already 'pretty much' claimed that
looking for explanations for what 'one' hears, is a chump's game.

But really I don't think it was as much a language
problem with you as it was the trappings of your prejudices. Like I
said, you see what you want to see, not what I actually write. You talk
about me embarrassing myself. OK put up or shut up. Without taking
something out of context cite one thing that I have said about the
subject of LPs v. Cds on this thread that you think was embarrassingly
wrong. only rules are it has to be about the subject, I had to actually
say it and you have to leave it in the context inwhich it was said.

Well, since you ask....

You embarrass yourself by losing your **** in public so floridly and often, when you aren't
muzzled by moderators. You embarrass yourself with your silly challenges and call-outs and
pathetic attempts to get people to play your word games. You embarrass yourself with your
often wince-making command of spelling and grammar, which simply can't be attributed to typos,
even as you're calling someone else a dumbass. You embarrass yourself by claiming to be
deeply amused (it comes off as angry, btw) by the misuse of science yet spending hardly a
titter on the jaw-dropping excesses of the audiophile press , manufacturers, and hobbyists in
that area. You embarrass yourself by presenting false choices as the only choices, because of
need to use words like *only*, such as when you wrote, in this thread:

"That is true if one of the following circumstances exist.
1. Your TT gear sucks
2. You are near deaf
3. You are so consumed by anti analog biases that it takes over your
judgement. "


But most of all you embarrass yourself the way all such as you do: by not realizing what a
train wreck you appear to be.



But you have hit on a wonderful example of the usefulness of explanations:
they help you evaluate the claims of advertisers and manufacturers. If the explanation is
technically or logically dubious, there's a good chance the claim is too.

That may or may not be.

Brilliantly observed. Next time, consider trying 'it is what it is'.

I've never really spent any time trying to study the
connection. But we aren't talking about that.

And there's the switch...you do that when you're on the ropes. But let's consider: how did we
get here? I'm pretty sure I was replying to *something* you wrote. If you're going to say
'you might be right, I don't know', you might at least include what I was *possibly
correcting* you about. I have a feeling it was something about the utility of explanations.


Would you say the same is
true of audiophiles? Would you say the claims of cause offered by
audiophiles in any way reflects the claims of theaesthetic experiences
that spawn those explanations?

It can reflect *on* the claims of aesthetic experience, certainly. What do you make of the
courtiers' oohs and aahs over the beauty of the Emperor's new clothes?

It's funny that having hit upon this, you backtracked immediately from it.

How did I back track?

It's pretty obvious in the original post. You really should consider including context.


if that is so terrible but attacking the perceptions as wrong because
they don't fit the meter reader's formulas is completely reasonable.


What's usually wrong is not the effort, but the execution. Vinylphile 'explanations' of
digital tend to be laughable nonsense.

But you love that don't you? makes you feel better about your faith in
the almighty meter.


Vinylphile stereotypes of the reality-based population tend to be laughable
nonsense too.

IOW yes.

Scott *in excelsis*.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
One would think from your post that one's ability to solder has
something to do with one's ability to make aesthetic judgements. Do
I hve to tell you just how stupid that idea is? Engineers do the
work the hobbyists consume it.

So they're mutually exclusive?

The ability to solder and the ability to make aestheic judgemens? Yes
they are.

Wonder what your only 'supporter' Mr G will make of that?

I'll bet he agrees. I think he is smart enough to know his soldering
skills are independent of his listening skills.

But that is not what 'mutually exclusive' means at all, Scott.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
SACD and DVD-A discs are and were sold for about the same price as CDs.

Less than the original price of CD if adjusted for inflation.

When the sales failed to take off, nobody with a brain invested in more
new
titles.

Nobody *with a brain* invested in a SACD/DVDA player to begin with.

I resemble that remark!

But I invested in one for two reasons only:

1) the possibility of better *remastering* on SACD/DVD-A
2) surround sound


and
at least one hardware manufacturer had had the foresight
to make a DVD video player with additional 5.1 *audio
only* capability available at a reasonable price.

As a rule DVD players do just fine with 5.1 discs that are essentially
music-only.

But why would you want *music only* when you can get 5.1 DVD music video's
for less than the CD price in many cases?

Because those are usually concert videos...different performances entirely.
The 'original' performance (remixed) plus video content usually means DVD-A.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Don Pearce wrote:
On 1 Nov 2006 08:40:42 -0800, wrote:

It was a loaded question. Like do you still beat your wife? The point
is they are independent. You have been trying to assert they are
related.

So at the end of all this, which are they, mutually exclusive or
independent? Just so I know.


'mutually exclusive' 'independent' and 'loaded question' are all synonymous.

Didn't you know?

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
The opposite is true. I know from personal experience a great deal
about the engineering that is required in vinyl production and
playback systems. It's all a kluge with obvious limitations in terms
of noise and distortion.

Do tell us about your experience with actually recording and mastering
LPs.

Do tell us about yours?

Or about engineering a vinyl playback system.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Now where is your proof to the contrary?

I see no proof in the link you have quoted?

It's an email address Einstien not a link. wow.

And you can't tell when someone is being facetious, no surprise there!

Scott's humor is on another plane from us mere mortals'.

He employs sarcasm in ways that only *seem* lame, but are
actually sublime.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:
So they're mutually exclusive?

The ability to solder and the ability to make aestheic judgemens?
Yes they are.

Wonder what your only 'supporter' Mr G will make of that? He loves to
build kit and is the vinyl disciple to end all disciples.

I'm getting the sense that Scott doesn't understand the meaning of the
phrase 'mutually exclusive' -- unless he really means that if you can
solder, you can't judge beauty.

Or perhaps it's another one of his exquisite jokes.

There seemed to be a great deal of plain English he didn't seem to
understand. Perhaps that's why he flounced off in a huff.

--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mr.T]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
But I invested in one for two reasons only:

1) the possibility of better *remastering* on SACD/DVD-A

Since mastering has nothing to do delivery format, (other than indirectly at
least) I'm not sure why you made that assumption.

2) surround sound

Usually poorly done anyway. There are plenty of 5.1 music titles available
on DVD that will attest to that, but don't need an expensive player, have
the bonus of video, and are usually much cheaper than DVD/SACD tiltles.

As a rule DVD players do just fine with 5.1 discs that are essentially
music-only.

But why would you want *music only* when you can get 5.1 DVD music
video's
for less than the CD price in many cases?

Because those are usually concert videos...different performances
entirely.
The 'original' performance (remixed) plus video content usually means
DVD-A.

Possibly, but doesn't have to. There are actually some studio albums
available on DVD. Hopefully we may see more, but it's purely a commercial
decision, not a technical one.
In any case new SACD and DVDA titles are also scarce now.

MrT.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
But I invested in one for two reasons only:

1) the possibility of better *remastering* on SACD/DVD-A

Since mastering has nothing to do delivery format, (other than indirectly at
least) I'm not sure why you made that assumption.

It's a certainty it will be a remaster. It's a possibility it will be better.
There are no assumptions involved. I'm not sure why you think there are,
from what I wrote.

2) surround sound

Usually poorly done anyway. There are plenty of 5.1 music titles available
on DVD that will attest to that, but don't need an expensive player, have
the bonus of video, and are usually much cheaper than DVD/SACD tiltles.

Those 5.1 titles were rarely, until the advent of SACD/DVA-A, digital
remixes of the original album, but were usually concert videos instead.
DTS released a batch of album remixes over the years, but that was
about it. In short, SACD/DVD-A offered some new surround content.
I'd have been just as happy if it had been released as DD/DTS only, but
the industry wanted something new and copy-protected.

The quality of any given remix is, of course, a subjective call.
Some I like; some I'll be happy never to hear again.


As a rule DVD players do just fine with 5.1 discs that are essentially
music-only.

But why would you want *music only* when you can get 5.1 DVD music
video's
for less than the CD price in many cases?

Because those are usually concert videos...different performances
entirely.
The 'original' performance (remixed) plus video content usually means
DVD-A.

Possibly, but doesn't have to. There are actually some studio albums
available on DVD. Hopefully we may see more, but it's purely a commercial
decision, not a technical one.

Note that I never said it was.

In any case new SACD and DVDA titles are also scarce now.

True, and I don't mourn their passing, though I'd like to
see more albums remixed for surround.

It may be that the industry will 'try again' with Dolby TRueHD
or some other new format. In the meantime, some newer
surround remixes (e.g. Bjork's back catalog) are being offered
as plain Dolby Digital without a DVD-A version, which again
is OK by me.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.tech "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article

.com,
wrote:
The opposite is true. I know from personal experience
a great deal about the engineering that is required in
vinyl production and playback systems. It's all a
kluge with obvious limitations in terms of noise and
distortion.

Do tell us about your experience with actually
recording and mastering LPs.

Do tell us about yours?

Or about engineering a vinyl playback system.

Scott is also a tube bigot, so his inability to make judgements about audio
covers a lot of ground.

[Mr.T]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
But I invested in one for two reasons only:

1) the possibility of better *remastering* on SACD/DVD-A

Since mastering has nothing to do delivery format, (other than
indirectly at
least) I'm not sure why you made that assumption.

It's a certainty it will be a remaster. It's a possibility it will be
better.

Sure, and a possibility it will be worse.

There are no assumptions involved. I'm not sure why you think there are,
from what I wrote.

Since better remastering doesn't involve the consumer buying any new
equipment, then it must be implied when you actually do so, and claim that
as one reason?

2) surround sound

Usually poorly done anyway. There are plenty of 5.1 music titles
available
on DVD that will attest to that, but don't need an expensive player,
have
the bonus of video, and are usually much cheaper than DVD/SACD tiltles.

Those 5.1 titles were rarely, until the advent of SACD/DVA-A, digital
remixes of the original album, but were usually concert videos instead.

Not so, there are a fair number of MTV type DVD albums using the original
studio recordings, often with both PCM stereo and 5.1 mixes. I have many.
Then of course there are the concert video's with the same basic recordings
as the CD/LP versions, but often with more tracks, and usually with stereo
or 5.1 mixes, plus video, and amazingly are often cheaper than the CD
version here!


DTS released a batch of album remixes over the years, but that was
about it. In short, SACD/DVD-A offered some new surround content.
I'd have been just as happy if it had been released as DD/DTS only, but
the industry wanted something new and copy-protected.

The last being THEIR major motivation, hardly a benefit for the consumer!

MrT.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
But I invested in one for two reasons only:

1) the possibility of better *remastering* on SACD/DVD-A

Since mastering has nothing to do delivery format, (other than
indirectly at
least) I'm not sure why you made that assumption.

It's a certainty it will be a remaster. It's a possibility it will be
better.

Sure, and a possibility it will be worse.

Of course. I own several examples of that.

I suppose there's also the possibility it will sound pretty much the same.

There, now we've covered them all.

There are no assumptions involved. I'm not sure why you think there are,
from what I wrote.

Since better remastering doesn't involve the consumer buying any new
equipment, then it must be implied when you actually do so, and claim that
as one reason?

That's pretty bad logic! It's not implied, it;'s just an assumption *you*
made abiout my motives. Nothing at all in what *I've* written supports
it. I've assumed *nothing* about SACDs or DVD-As except that they are
remastered. To play those remasters, unfortunately I have to buy a player
that can play them. I had to do this when CDs first appeared too...
then later, DVDs.


2) surround sound

Usually poorly done anyway. There are plenty of 5.1 music titles
available
on DVD that will attest to that, but don't need an expensive player,
have
the bonus of video, and are usually much cheaper than DVD/SACD tiltles.

Those 5.1 titles were rarely, until the advent of SACD/DVA-A, digital
remixes of the original album, but were usually concert videos instead.

Not so, there are a fair number of MTV type DVD albums using the original
studio recordings, often with both PCM stereo and 5.1 mixes. I have many.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with these...can you point me to some? The only
music-only surround DVDs I'm familiar with, were the DTS series.

Then of course there are the concert video's with the same basic recordings
as the CD/LP versions,


Well, no, not the 'same basic recording' -- entirely new performances,
usually.


but often with more tracks, and usually with stereo
or 5.1 mixes, plus video, and amazingly are often cheaper than the CD
version here!

Wonderful! I have a number of them that I enjoy! But they usually don't
have the original album remastered, or the original album in a surround
remix. The exception would be the relatively rare concert that received
LP/CD release as well as film (e.g., Woodstock).


DTS released a batch of album remixes over the years, but that was
about it. In short, SACD/DVD-A offered some new surround content.
I'd have been just as happy if it had been released as DD/DTS only, but
the industry wanted something new and copy-protected.

The last being THEIR major motivation, hardly a benefit for the consumer!


Have I disagreed? I really don't see why you're on my case. I'm not
touting SACD or DVD-A for their supposedly better sound quality; I'm not
saying they are preferable to the formats that existed before them.
Indeed, if you were to look up my posts abotu SACD/DVD-A on other formats
you'd find me consistently, often scathingly, skeptical about the claims
made for them, often in the face of sheer dispbelief on the part of
peopel who have swallowed the industry line about 'high resolution audio'
whole. I'm aware that SACD and DVD-A were largely attempts by the
industry to control digital copying and establish new patented formats.
I buy them for the remastering and the surround mixes that are unavailable
in other digital formats. Period.

I guess you're just angry that I'm not as angry about them as you?
Or is it a sin to buy them for *any* reason?


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 07:59:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Scott is also a tube bigot, so his inability to make
judgements about audio covers a lot of ground.

I just noticed that the tubes in my old preamp have
substandard wiring, so I just rewired each 12AX7 with
Quicksilver silver speaker wire.

Pretty neat given that the preamp was based on printed circuit cards like
the old PAS-3.

It was a real chore to replace all those tiny wires, but
it was worth it. My tubes now sound much better!

I hope you soldered the wire directly to the tube pins.

I think I'm going to use this same wire for the voice
coils of my tweeters. After all, it's "speaker wire" and
is obviously much higher quality than that thin stuff in
there right now.

I know that Scott bit hard for the tubes and vinyl uber alles hype, but I
don't know if he believes in magic wire.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 07:59:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

snip
..

I know that Scott bit hard for the tubes and vinyl uber alles hype, but I
don't know if he believes in magic wire.

Why can't you two guys just accept the fact that many, many audiophiles
believe tube gear sounds more dimensional and musical than solid-state; and
that vinyl can sound more life-like than CD. That is their judgement, their
choice, and their pleasure. It is no skin off your back.

You remind me of neighborhood busybodies cluck-clucking over the naughty
goings-on in the neighborhood. Get a life!