[hank alrich]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Luxey]

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.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

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.

[hank alrich]

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

[david correia]

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

[Predrag Trpkov]

"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

[Predrag Trpkov]

"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.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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!

[hank alrich]

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

[vdubreeze]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[PStamler]

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

[Luxey]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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."

[Luxey]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Luxey]

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.

[hank alrich]

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

[Predrag Trpkov]

"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.

[Predrag Trpkov]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Predrag Trpkov]

"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.