Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#241
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message Time for you to take your case to the Audio Engineering Society and let them assess the merit of the audio-related claims you presented in this thread. Been there, done that, and they decided the issue in favor of the viewpoint I've presented in this thread decades ago. You need to catch up on your reading. What models of the analog summing boxes that were available decades ago proved indistinguishable in ABX comparisons with the digital mixers that were available decades ago? Analog summing boxes have been a standard feature of analog consoles for decades. Your apparent assertion that repackaging the circuitry for separate sale dramatically changes their very nature from sonically transparent to having colorations like musical instruments runs counter to common sense. How could repackaging them and simplifying them cause them to add dramatically more coloration? As soon as you show some believable listening tests and/or technical to support your assertions... Yet you have apparently not used any of the contemporary offerings of these devices. Note that neither have I, so I don't comment on what they're supposed to or actually do or theory. Thee are in fact at the moment several different takes on design. But that's not anything you're concenred with. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
#242
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message Time for you to take your case to the Audio Engineering Society and let them assess the merit of the audio-related claims you presented in this thread. Been there, done that, and they decided the issue in favor of the viewpoint I've presented in this thread decades ago. You need to catch up on your reading. What models of the analog summing boxes that were available decades ago proved indistinguishable in ABX comparisons with the digital mixers that were available decades ago? Analog summing boxes have been a standard feature of analog consoles for decades. Your apparent assertion that repackaging the circuitry for separate sale dramatically changes their very nature from sonically transparent to having colorations like musical instruments runs counter to common sense. How could repackaging them and simplifying them cause them to add dramatically more coloration? OK, what is the model name of the analog summing box containing circuitry used in the decades old consoles and repackaged for separate sale today that proved indistinguishable in ABX comparisons with modern digital summing? Their name is legion. But, I'll make it easy for you. Prove your point with a proper listening test done on a Mackie SR32 known to be in good operating condition, IOW operating within specs and well within its specified dynamic range. It's now your turn to put up or shut up Predrag. You said the following: "Distortions color the sound. Some of them are perceived as more pleasing to the human ear than others. Analog summers, including analog consoles, all offer different packages of subtle distortions, hence the differences in sound. " More specifically you said: "Analog summers, including analog consoles, *all* offer different packages of subtle distortions, hence the differences in sound." You've thus said that all analog summers and all analog consoles sound different from each other. That means that according to you, they all color the sound. You've effectively said that they will *all* fail a straight wire bypass test. Since you've put a high premium on actually listening to components that are being discussed, please also show the results of a proper listening test proving that the SPL MixDream colors the sound. |
#243
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"Richard Webb"
wrote in message Paul writes: I side with them in thinking that you've gone insane; that you're committed to a worldview that says only you have the answers. And I'm not talking about your religious beliefs; I'm talking about your audio beliefs, which are fanatical, contradictory and (despite your claims) not even remotely scientific. When challenged on them, you respond by frothing at the mouth, calling names, red-baiting, and claiming that you're being persecuted for your religion. This has been said to him before Paul, but it does no good. True and most of the people who said this were rec.audio.opinon golden ears. If Hank wants to equate himself with George Middius, let him! ;-) |
#244
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"hank alrich" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message Time for you to take your case to the Audio Engineering Society and let them assess the merit of the audio-related claims you presented in this thread. Been there, done that, and they decided the issue in favor of the viewpoint I've presented in this thread decades ago. You need to catch up on your reading. What models of the analog summing boxes that were available decades ago proved indistinguishable in ABX comparisons with the digital mixers that were available decades ago? Analog summing boxes have been a standard feature of analog consoles for decades. Your apparent assertion that repackaging the circuitry for separate sale dramatically changes their very nature from sonically transparent to having colorations like musical instruments runs counter to common sense. How could repackaging them and simplifying them cause them to add dramatically more coloration? As soon as you show some believable listening tests and/or technical to support your assertions... Yet you have apparently not used any of the contemporary offerings of these devices. That is your assertion Hank, and I invite you to prove it. |
#245
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"hank alrich" wrote in message
Predrag Trpkov wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message Time for you to take your case to the Audio Engineering Society and let them assess the merit of the audio-related claims you presented in this thread. Been there, done that, and they decided the issue in favor of the viewpoint I've presented in this thread decades ago. You need to catch up on your reading. What models of the analog summing boxes that were available decades ago proved indistinguishable in ABX comparisons with the digital mixers that were available decades ago? Thank you. Now we're back to the chase. This IS the issue, not politics, religion, or dickheads. No, its a sucker's question, given that decades ago digital mixers were like hen's teeth. Since you expect me to answer it, that means that you're a sucker for it, Hank. |
#246
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
Arnieball,
you're the one who claimed Been there, done that, and they decided the issue in favor of the viewpoint I've presented in this thread decades ago. Don't back off now. I think most will agree ther's lots of analog gear you can set up to work in straight wire mode. However, whole point is in setting it NOT to. Than, compare "straight wire" to "NOT straight wire", in double blind and let the listener choose what he liked better. |
#247
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
Paul writes:
I side with them in thinking that you've gone insane; that you're committed to a worldview that says only you have the answers. And I'm not talking about your religious beliefs; I'm talking about your audio beliefs, which are fanatical, contradictory and (despite your claims) not even remotely scientific. When challenged on them, you respond by frothing at the mouth, calling names, red-baiting, and claiming that you're being persecuted for your religion. This has been said to him before Paul, but it does no good. YOu too will be accused of persecuting him because of his beliefs, because it's all about the argument, which appeared to be reasoned debate until the red baiting ahteist type conversation, which he introduced. Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
#248
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
Arny Krueger wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message Time for you to take your case to the Audio Engineering Society and let them assess the merit of the audio-related claims you presented in this thread. Been there, done that, and they decided the issue in favor of the viewpoint I've presented in this thread decades ago. You need to catch up on your reading. What models of the analog summing boxes that were available decades ago proved indistinguishable in ABX comparisons with the digital mixers that were available decades ago? Analog summing boxes have been a standard feature of analog consoles for decades. Your apparent assertion that repackaging the circuitry for separate sale dramatically changes their very nature from sonically transparent to having colorations like musical instruments runs counter to common sense. How could repackaging them and simplifying them cause them to add dramatically more coloration? As soon as you show some believable listening tests and/or technical to support your assertions... Yet you have apparently not used any of the contemporary offerings of these devices. That is your assertion Hank, and I invite you to prove it. I invite you to state which you have used. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
#249
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "david correia" wrote in message There are so few working recording engineers in this forum ... I'm sure that like Predrag, you'd like to deny that I'm among them. By working I mean it's your job. The one that pays your bills and sends the kids to college. And keeps the house warm in the winter. Predrag has an interesting approach - he dismisses about half the recording work that I do because its involved with religious events. How perfectly communistic-atheistic-intolerant of him. My comment about how I skip over your posts, along with a few others here, was an afterthought. Its clear that appealing to your bad character is good way to elicit responses from you, David. Bad character??? wtf. I skip over your posts. I have for quite a while. I skip over a few other folks here too. Who gives a ****? David Correia www.Celebrationsound.com |
#250
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message Time for you to take your case to the Audio Engineering Society and let them assess the merit of the audio-related claims you presented in this thread. Been there, done that, and they decided the issue in favor of the viewpoint I've presented in this thread decades ago. You need to catch up on your reading. What models of the analog summing boxes that were available decades ago proved indistinguishable in ABX comparisons with the digital mixers that were available decades ago? Analog summing boxes have been a standard feature of analog consoles for decades. Your apparent assertion that repackaging the circuitry for separate sale dramatically changes their very nature from sonically transparent to having colorations like musical instruments runs counter to common sense. How could repackaging them and simplifying them cause them to add dramatically more coloration? OK, what is the model name of the analog summing box containing circuitry used in the decades old consoles and repackaged for separate sale today that proved indistinguishable in ABX comparisons with modern digital summing? Their name is legion. This biblical reference is the closest you've come to Science in weeks. Worthy of an AES paper, no doubt. But, I'll make it easy for you. Prove your point with a proper listening test done on a Mackie SR32 known to be in good operating condition, IOW operating within specs and well within its specified dynamic range. It's now your turn to put up or shut up Predrag. (Arny imagines he's somehow made a point and taken the lead.) You made it easy for me because you failed to prove anything: the placebo effect of analog summing devices, your religious persecution, your superior education... You said the following: "Distortions color the sound. Some of them are perceived as more pleasing to the human ear than others. Analog summers, including analog consoles, all offer different packages of subtle distortions, hence the differences in sound. " More specifically you said: "Analog summers, including analog consoles, *all* offer different packages of subtle distortions, hence the differences in sound." You've thus said that all analog summers and all analog consoles sound different from each other. That means that according to you, they all color the sound. You've effectively said that they will *all* fail a straight wire bypass test. Exactly. All I need to do is adjust the Gain/Trim knobs and push the faders. Real drums, bass and a guitar or two. They will all sing within seconds. And I can bet that I'd be able to detect any older Mackie in a blind test simply by listening someone fiddle with the Trim pots. "Operating within specs", "well within its specified dynamic range", you must be kidding. You'd be surprised how many people buy analog mixers to mix music and operate them the way it sounds right to their ears. Who cares how you mix test tones? Since you've put a high premium on actually listening to components that are being discussed, please also show the results of a proper listening test proving that the SPL MixDream colors the sound. What if I heard what it's capable of in a test that wasn't "proper"? Anyway, I liked what came out of it. So did many others. Many voted with their wallets too. With or without proper listening tests. Add to that the designers and the manufacturer. That's a lot of people. If you were to somehow join the group, you would be the only one who hasn't tried the MixDream and who openly shows an aversion to the concept. And yet claim that all these people are deluding themselves; that the designers failed in the primary design goal, that the manufacturer operates a scam and that all the users believe in magic. You have claimed all that without ever listening to the unit, let alone testing it in the lab. It's not exactly scientific, to put it mildly, but it didn't automatically mean that you were wrong, just that the burden of proof was on you. However, after you've persisted that everyone else was wrong for three weeks now, failing to offer any kind of proof whatsoever, you are grossly overestimating your position if you think than anyone is interested in your dribble. You shouldn't confuse civility with professional respect. Predrag |
#251
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "hank alrich" wrote in message Predrag Trpkov wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message Time for you to take your case to the Audio Engineering Society and let them assess the merit of the audio-related claims you presented in this thread. Been there, done that, and they decided the issue in favor of the viewpoint I've presented in this thread decades ago. You need to catch up on your reading. What models of the analog summing boxes that were available decades ago proved indistinguishable in ABX comparisons with the digital mixers that were available decades ago? Thank you. Now we're back to the chase. This IS the issue, not politics, religion, or dickheads. No, its a sucker's question, given that decades ago digital mixers were like hen's teeth. Since you expect me to answer it, that means that you're a sucker for it, Hank. Here you start again dishing what you can't take. Next you'll be whining over getting insulted and persecuted. You're just a troll. |
#252
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
Bill Graham wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: If you don't go about things in a systematic way, how do you know you have really fixed a problem once and for all? Maybe the thing you did only hides the problem. Without careful measurement, you don't have any way to know why you heard what you did, and if you don't know that, you don't know if your fix is the right one or if it's just something that seems like it works now but may not work later. The above is the essence of troubleshooting and repairing macheniery. When I first starting working for IBM in San Francisco, many years ago, they put me with a "tech specialist" who went around fixing machines that other techs couldn't fix. He would be very careful to not touch a machine that was failing, but would just observe it and study the prints trying to figure out what could cause the trouble. Then, being very careful to not touch anything that was not in his troubleshooting line of thought, he would carefully make a measurement of a signal strength or timing. If I cleaned anything, or touched anything, he would jump on my ass like a bunch of chickens on a June bug. He had almost a religious reverance for a failing machine, because he knew how lucky he was to be there when it was actually failing, as opposed to the many machines that had highly intermittant troubles that were hell to fix. As Dave Haynie said: ultimately all hardware is analog, intereting post, thank you. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#253
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
Arny Krueger wrote:
Look Predrag, your thinking is obviously retarded by decades of slavery to your communist masters and your education in inherently defective communist schools. Actually they weren't. Look at the space race or at a classical music catalog. In case you want to use the demise of the USSR as proof, please do note that the USSR was a monolithic state-capitalist state, what was proved was Marx theorem that capitalism would eventually destroy from within. Stability seems to come from a sensible mix of conservative (preserving, not all grasp that aspect of it) and socialistic - or, if you prefer the word: social democratic - thinking. Ever since the end of Standard Oil the US of A has been such a compromise society and some of your financial issues with banks and brokers seem to have their origin in 1970'ties safeguards that were dismantled under Bush senior. There is however no way the US of A antitrustlaws, those that broke up Ma Bell, can pass as capitalism and their are more restrictive than what you'll find here in Denmark or in the "social democratic scarecrow" Sweden is sometimes used as. The middle of the road is a nice place to be, the curbs are not. Interestingly the US of A ability to create wealth is reducing with the change in income distribution since Johnson, unfortunately so is political and economic competence. I'm not gonna discuss here whether you ought to fight a war, but doing it without war bond sale to finance it is gross incompetence and does not constitute proof of quality of school system. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#254
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
Arny Krueger wrote:
Yup, the Communist-controlled education system was so *good* that the Iron Curtain collapsed under its own weight. Eastern Europe and Russia were on the average two decades or more behind Western Europe and the rest of the first and second worlds. West Germany had to rescue East Germany from backward and repressive governence, business practices miseducation, and backward technology. That all said, East Germany was one of the stars of the Communist system. No, it just wasn't entnazifiziert. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#255
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
Arny Krueger wrote:
How quickly you forgot, Hank. Or maybe you never knew... Kind of like calling citizens of Germany in 2011 idiots because of what the German leaders did in WWII. Nothing at all like that. I'm being generous to Predrag by blaming his weirdness on the communist educational system. For all I know, he got that way all by himself. I'm used to arguing with numb-nuts high end audiophiles, and Predrag acts much the same, only with a recorder in his hand. I find it - and have so done for many many years - very useful to assume that those I disagree with are sensible people with good reasons for having the viewpoits they have and then to try to understand those reasons. Because that is the route to synthesis. Much of your ""feud"" with Predrag to me appears to be about brain-halve thinking. As long as it is classical music recording where a mix emulates the real event - then the holy grail to me is to find the static mix that works, I want a stringently logical concept from mic setup to cd-burn. But I envision contexts where I may end up preferring an analog intuitive non-programmable and non-repeateable mix instead no matter the quality cost of DA and AD conversion. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#256
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
Predrag Trpkov wrote:
Now that you have expressed yours in such a memorable fashion, you might want to ask someone which side of the iron curtain Yugoslavia was. Yugoslavia was a great idea, it is very sad that the EU didn't have the nerve to say "We like the economic simplicity of dealing with one nation". Predrag Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#257
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"david correia" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "david correia" wrote in message There are so few working recording engineers in this forum ... I'm sure that like Predrag, you'd like to deny that I'm among them. By working I mean it's your job. The one that pays your bills and sends the kids to college. And keeps the house warm in the winter. I definately pay bills and taxes with the money I make recording. It is well known around here that my kids are all college graduates so that part of your post is gratuitous and also wrong - all my kids had full rides for all of their college, through 2 PhDs. Predrag has an interesting approach - he dismisses about half the recording work that I do because its involved with religious events. How perfectly communistic-atheistic-intolerant of him. My comment about how I skip over your posts, along with a few others here, was an afterthought. Its clear that appealing to your bad character is good way to elicit responses from you, David. Bad character??? wtf. I skip over your posts. Just like this one, that you quoted and responded to? LOL! |
#258
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
Peter Larsen wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: Look Predrag, your thinking is obviously retarded by decades of slavery to your communist masters and your education in inherently defective communist schools. Actually they weren't. Look at the space race or at a classical music catalog. In case you want to use the demise of the USSR as proof, please do note that the USSR was a monolithic state-capitalist state, what was proved was Marx theorem that capitalism would eventually destroy from within. Stability seems to come from a sensible mix of conservative (preserving, not all grasp that aspect of it) and socialistic - or, if you prefer the word: social democratic - thinking. Ever since the end of Standard Oil the US of A has been such a compromise society and some of your financial issues with banks and brokers seem to have their origin in 1970'ties safeguards that were dismantled under Bush senior. There is however no way the US of A antitrustlaws, those that broke up Ma Bell, can pass as capitalism and their are more restrictive than what you'll find here in Denmark or in the "social democratic scarecrow" Sweden is sometimes used as. The middle of the road is a nice place to be, the curbs are not. Interestingly the US of A ability to create wealth is reducing with the change in income distribution since Johnson, unfortunately so is political and economic competence. I'm not gonna discuss here whether you ought to fight a war, but doing it without war bond sale to finance it is gross incompetence and does not constitute proof of quality of school system. Kind regards Peter Larsen Our shcools eschew the concept of "thinking". The results are more obvious every day. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
#259
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
On Feb 11, 7:00*am, "Peter Larsen" wrote:
But I envision contexts where I may end up preferring an analog intuitive non-programmable and non-repeateable mix instead no matter the quality cost of DA and AD conversion. Those kinds of mixes sometimes contain that extra element, where the mix is actually another instrument, and you can feel the immediacy of what is happening and the urgency of it being right at the time, much like a performance and unlike an automated mix that has been micromanaged for a week. |
#260
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... But, I'll make it easy for you. Prove your point with a proper listening test done on a Mackie SR32 known to be in good operating condition, IOW operating within specs and well within its specified dynamic range. It's now your turn to put up or shut up Predrag. (Arny imagines he's somehow made a point and taken the lead.) Predrag pulls a Middius. Total lack of sincerity noted. End of discussion. |
#261
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"Luxey" wrote in message
I think most will agree there's lots of analog gear you can set up to work in straight wire mode. Many of us would hope that this is true. Those of us who have effectively tested a goodly number of things have found it to to be generally true. People like by Predrag, Hank, and Paul seem to disagree. They say that the only reason why we can possibly believe that lots of analog gear can be set up to work in straight wire mode is because we lack the necessary skills and experiences. Of course they want to save our souls by opening our minds to their world where everything has a characteristic sound. However, whole point is in setting it NOT to. Than, compare "straight wire" to "NOT straight wire", in double blind and let the listener choose what he liked better. Personal preferences are just that - personal. If you want to do DBTs to determine what people's personal preferences are and find out something meaningful then you usually have to test a lot of people. I'll leave that to Harman and Nabisco. Us folks who do audio production only get gigs over and over because we are able to do a bunch of things that clearly make things sound different, but do so in such a way that we end up with distributable media containing music that most people think sounds at least good enough for their purposes. There are people who think that *everything* in and around the signal path affects sound quality. Most of them are high end audiophiles. They run their cables on top of little towers rather than risk the floor corrupting the signal that is passing through the cable. They arrive at the conclusion that this is necessary using logic and listening tests that seem to be similar to those used by Predrag, Hank, and Paul. That isn't modern science at all. It is more like Alchemy. There are people who see the gear in the signal path in a priority scheme: These things (good mic cables) hardly matter, and these things (microphones) matter a lot. This is in accordance with modern science. |
#262
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
As he often does, Arny sets up a straw man. I've never suggested that
analog gear can't be uncolored ("straight wire with gain"). Plenty of it is (e.g. Millennia Media, Benchmark), or close enough. And plenty of it isn't (e.g. Neve); it has colorations that people find enjoyable. Both types of gear exist in the marketplace, for people with different needs who do different types of recordings. Now can we can this discussion? Peace, Paul |
#263
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
On 11 феб, 18:52, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Luxey" wrote in message I think most will agree there's lots of analog gear you can set up to work in straight wire mode. Many of us would hope that this is true. Those of us who have effectively tested a goodly number of things have found it to Â*to be generally true. People like by Predrag, Hank, and Â*Paul seem to disagree. Â*They say that the only reason why we can possibly believe that lots of analog gear can be set up to work in straight wire mode is because we lack the necessary skills and experiences. Â*Of course they want to save our souls by opening our minds to their world where everything has a characteristic sound. However, whole point is in setting it NOT to. Than, compare "straight wire" to "NOT straight wire", in double blind and let the listener choose what he liked better. Personal preferences are just that - personal. Â*If you want to do DBTs to determine what people's personal preferences are and find out something meaningful then you usually have to test a lot of people. I'll leave that to Harman and Nabisco. Us folks who do audio production only get gigs over and over because we are able to do a bunch of things that clearly make things sound different, but do so in such a way that we Â*end up with distributable media containing music that most people think sounds at least good enough for their purposes. There are people who think that *everything* in and around the signal path affects sound quality. Most of them are high end audiophiles. They run their cables on top of little towers rather than risk the floor corrupting the signal that is passing through the cable. They arrive at the conclusion that this is necessary using logic and listening tests that seem to be similar to those used by Predrag, Hank, and Â*Paul. That isn't modern science at all. It is more like Alchemy. There are people who see the gear in the signal path in a priority scheme: These things (good mic cables) hardly matter, and these things (microphones) matter a lot. Â*This is in accordance with modern science. You talk bull**** about people Arnie. I've never read anybody, you mention above, ever wrote what you claim. What people are saying, basicly goes down to - devices with same specs can sound different. That because 2 noisefloor's, measured to be of same level may have, say, different freq content, similar for harmonic distortion, so gear can sound different. Things like that. However, nobody can define what's your point, or goal, except selfpromotion. |
#264
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"Luxey" wrote in message
You talk bull**** about people Arnie. I've never read anybody, you mention above, ever wrote what you claim. Here we have Predrag saying that *all* analog summers and that all analog consoles color the sound: "Analog summers, including analog consoles, all offer different packages of subtle distortions, hence the differences in sound." |
#265
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
On 11 феб, 22:53, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Luxey" wrote in message You talk bull**** about people Arnie. I've never read anybody, you mention above, ever wrote what you claim. Here we have Predrag saying that *all* analog summers and that all analog consoles color the sound: "Analog summers, including analog consoles, all offer different packages of subtle distortions, hence the differences in sound." Which is correct thing to say. Meaning of that sentence is: If devices produce different artefacts (for example distortion, verified by residuee of nulling test), those artefacts (at least some) may produce audiable difference in sound. That's all. He did not claim all the differences are (clearly) audiable. Of course, you are not stupid, you understand it very well without my explanation, you just seam to be of certain charachter, personality, whatever. Ther's propably a nice scientific term for it. |
#266
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"Luxey" wrote in message
On 11 ???, 22:53, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Luxey" wrote in message You talk bull**** about people Arnie. I've never read anybody, you mention above, ever wrote what you claim. Here we have Predrag saying that *all* analog summers and that all analog consoles color the sound: "Analog summers, including analog consoles, all offer different packages of subtle distortions, hence the differences in sound." Which is correct thing to say. Meaning of that sentence is: If devices produce different artefacts (for example distortion, verified by residuee of nulling test), those artefacts (at least some) may produce audiable difference in sound. Your statement contains the word "may" which completely changes the meaning. He did not claim all the differences are (clearly) audiable. Sure he did and he has been doing this over and over in the past months and years. He claimed that they sounded different, IOW the differences are audible. This is consistent with many other posts that he has made. Luxey, you had to change what he said to come up with an acceptable statement, even if you don't know English well enough to know what you did. |
#267
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
On 12 äÕÑ, 13:15, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Luxey" wrote in message On 11 ???, 22:53, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Luxey" wrote in message You talk bull**** about people Arnie. I've never read anybody, you mention above, ever wrote what you claim. Here we have Predrag saying that *all* analog summers and that all analog consoles color the sound: "Analog summers, including analog consoles, all offer different packages of subtle distortions, hence the differences in sound." Which is correct thing to say. Meaning of that sentence is: If devices produce different artefacts (for example distortion, verified by residuee of nulling test), those artefacts (at least some) may produce audiable difference in sound. Your statement contains the word "may" which completely changes the meaning. He did not claim all the differences are (clearly) audiable. Sure he did and he has been doing this over and over in the past months and years. He claimed that they sounded different, IOW the differences are audible. *This is consistent with many other posts that he has made. Luxey, you had to change what he said to come up with an acceptable statement, even if you don't know English well enough to know what you did.- ÁÐÚàØø ÝÐÒÕÔÕÝØ ÕÚá - - ¿àØÚÐÖØ ÕÚá Ø×ÜÕòã ÝÐÒÞÔÝØÚÐ - I think my English is good enough to understand what he said. Try to get it this way: technicaly, they all produce different sound, but the difference is not always audiable. Is it even possible for one same anolog device to spit out two identical signals? Especialy if ran on the edge of specs? Propably not. So, it will always be different sound. Only you won't always hear the difference. Sooner you accept it sooner you'll get some friends. Not me however. I finished with you years ago, when you advocated use of nuclear weapons, intervention in Iraq and such crap. So, sooner you get out of this group, sooner I'll be happy. No more posts from me in this thread. |
#268
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
Arny Krueger wrote:
Luxey, you had to change what he said to come up with an acceptable statement, even if you don't know English well enough to know what you did. Precisely the type of remark that demonstrates how full of **** you really are. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
#269
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Luxey" wrote in message On 11 ???, 22:53, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Luxey" wrote in message You talk bull**** about people Arnie. I've never read anybody, you mention above, ever wrote what you claim. Here we have Predrag saying that *all* analog summers and that all analog consoles color the sound: "Analog summers, including analog consoles, all offer different packages of subtle distortions, hence the differences in sound." Which is correct thing to say. Meaning of that sentence is: If devices produce different artefacts (for example distortion, verified by residuee of nulling test), those artefacts (at least some) may produce audiable difference in sound. Your statement contains the word "may" which completely changes the meaning. He did not claim all the differences are (clearly) audiable. Sure he did and he has been doing this over and over in the past months and years. He claimed that they sounded different, IOW the differences are audible. This is consistent with many other posts that he has made. Luxey, you had to change what he said to come up with an acceptable statement, even if you don't know English well enough to know what you did. This is not what I said then, by using the term "offer", but I'll say it now: the differences are always audible, under real-world conditions. That means using analog summing devices for their intended purpose - to mix a number of individual tracks of recorded musical performance, aiming to achieve a sonically pleasing result. If you can't hear it, which doesn't mean it's not there, just push the levels a bit, until it starts singing. If you can't hear the difference and don't want to play with the levels in order to find out what sounds the best, why bother with analog mixing in the first place? I've been saying that for years and you have been unable to prove that it's wrong, despite all that prostitution of "science". Even people who share your preference for digital summing, like Frank Stearns and Peter Larsen, supported it by describing audible differences with respect to their experience with analog summing. You have set up a field full of straw men, dragged into the mud and embarrassed your children, your church, your colleagues, your educational system, your country - whatever you could think of, but still have not come up with any evidence whatsoever to back your claim. You have had plenty of time and resources to practice what you preach - to carry out any tests or measurements in order to prove the existence of the placebo effect in case of at least one of the analog summing boxes on the market. You haven't even tried. Instead you've been bragging for over three weeks now about your various "achievements" including the ability to look at a waveform and describe what it sounds like as well as to find and follow the melody. Well, later you denied saying that, but it's documented and open for everyone to judge for themselves. You also at one point tried to appeal for sympathy, claiming that you were being persecuted for your religious beliefs, but the next day you returned to bragging about the religious freedom in your country. Not to mention what you said early in this thread: "That is all I need to do to my precious tracks-convert them to analog, put them through a box that by definition must further degrade them at least in a technical sense, and then convert them back to digital again". If it comes from your mouth it's true "by definition", but if someone else says so it's "self-delusion". Even without going into really nasty things you've said to far too many people, it is now obvious that you've spent over three weeks trying to pull your foot out of your mouth and have only succeeded in dispelling the few remaining doubts related to your personal integrity and professional competence. |
#270
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Luxey" wrote in message Luxey, you had to change what he said to come up with an acceptable statement, even if you don't know English well enough to know what you did. Funny you should say that, given how much comprehension of English eludes you. Anyway, why don't you simply switch to his mother tongue? With your Education it shouldn't be a problem. |
#271
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"Luxey" wrote in message
On 12 äÕÑ, 13:15, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Luxey" wrote in message On 11 ???, 22:53, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Luxey" wrote in message You talk bull**** about people Arnie. I've never read anybody, you mention above, ever wrote what you claim. Here we have Predrag saying that *all* analog summers and that all analog consoles color the sound: "Analog summers, including analog consoles, all offer different packages of subtle distortions, hence the differences in sound." Which is correct thing to say. Meaning of that sentence is: If devices produce different artefacts (for example distortion, verified by residuee of nulling test), those artefacts (at least some) may produce audiable difference in sound. Your statement contains the word "may" which completely changes the meaning. He did not claim all the differences are (clearly) audiable. Sure he did and he has been doing this over and over in the past months and years. He claimed that they sounded different, IOW the differences are audible. This is consistent with many other posts that he has made. Luxey, you had to change what he said to come up with an acceptable statement, even if you don't know English well enough to know what you did. I think my English is good enough to understand what he said. There is evidence to the contrary. Try to get it this way: technicaly, they all produce different sound, but the difference is not always audiable. Is it even possible for one same anolog device to spit out two identical signals? If you want to split hairs, no analog device produces the same signal twice from the same signal. Analog noise always has random components and random means never the same thing twice. Especialy if ran on the edge of specs? Propably not. An unecessary complication. So, it will always be different sound. Only you won't always hear the difference. Predrag says otherwise, Luxey. |
#272
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Luxey" wrote in message On 12 äÕÑ, 13:15, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Luxey" wrote in message On 11 ???, 22:53, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Luxey" wrote in message You talk bull**** about people Arnie. I've never read anybody, you mention above, ever wrote what you claim. Here we have Predrag saying that *all* analog summers and that all analog consoles color the sound: "Analog summers, including analog consoles, all offer different packages of subtle distortions, hence the differences in sound." Which is correct thing to say. Meaning of that sentence is: If devices produce different artefacts (for example distortion, verified by residuee of nulling test), those artefacts (at least some) may produce audiable difference in sound. Your statement contains the word "may" which completely changes the meaning. He did not claim all the differences are (clearly) audiable. Sure he did and he has been doing this over and over in the past months and years. He claimed that they sounded different, IOW the differences are audible. This is consistent with many other posts that he has made. Luxey, you had to change what he said to come up with an acceptable statement, even if you don't know English well enough to know what you did. I think my English is good enough to understand what he said. There is evidence to the contrary. Try to get it this way: technicaly, they all produce different sound, but the difference is not always audiable. Is it even possible for one same anolog device to spit out two identical signals? If you want to split hairs, no analog device produces the same signal twice from the same signal. Analog noise always has random components and random means never the same thing twice. Especialy if ran on the edge of specs? Propably not. An unecessary complication. Only to someone who has no clue how these tools are used in the real world. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Analog Summing Mixers | Pro Audio | |||
Analog Summing Mixers | Pro Audio | |||
analog summing vs. digital summing | Pro Audio | |||
for the analog summing crowd - what are you using to AD your stereo mix? | Pro Audio |