[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in

Why was a defective file on your site ( which you
clearly must have been aware of )

It's not a defective file. It's a completely different
file with a completely different name.

It was my clear intention all along that this file be taken out of service,
as the web page I kept referring to did not refer to it.

It's a monumentally defective file since the natural
decay of the instrument is truncated. I don't care what
its name is. It should never have been there in the first
place !

As I explained elsewhere, the file had been taken out of service. Updating
the web page on that site to match the other sites took care of the problem.

Own up to your mistakes

Been there, done that.

or be seen for a charlatan.

Interesting that you would use that word.

I am getting rather cross with your obfuscation btw !

There has been no obfuscation. Its nice to see that Jenn has finally
explained her error of not downloading a carefully specified file.

You've pretty well lost it.

Bye, bye

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in

So you finally admit the originals were total crap ?

Whatever they are, they are arguably not SOTA.

Arguably ? No way. They are ****. Even by the standards of 20 yrs ago they
would be ****.


However, there is no need
that they be, for the intended purpose.

You're totally absurd.

How many amps can you tell apart by *listening* to their square wave
response ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in

But can he play a non-existent note ?

Get your facts straight. Jenn's claim is something like that the note can't
be played well on a certain instrument.

Well ?

Unless I'm mistaken, she said it couldn't be played at all in the example you
posted.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Your own tests are essentially 'lowest common
denominator' types.

Graham, I find it curious that you claim such great
expertise in DBTs given that you just admitted that you
had very interest in them.

I have never made any such claim. I have no trouble
discerning 'good from bad' in sighted tests. Why would I
need anything more elaborate ? The truth will out.

In fact a lot of audio truth seemed to not out, until we started doing DBTs.

Fine.

Tell that to my clients.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

It was my clear intention all along that this file be taken out of service,
as the web page I kept referring to did not refer to it.

So ? What the heck is it doing there still ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in

Own up to your mistakes

Been there, done that.

Woooo Hooooo !

My first example of KrooLogic ! I want MORE.

Graham

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Jenn wrote:

No, there's no "fault" to be assigned. You just don't
know the facts, and I'm trying to teach you the facts
if you are willing to learn.

Arny doesn't like the facts though since they make him
look stupid.

If I want to know technical information about music and
musical instruments, I would prefer to check that out
with my good friend who has a PhD in music, or use some
standard appropriate reference.

A PhD in music doesn't require a musical ear.

He's also a pretty sucessful musican (trumpet and other instruements) and
orchestra and choir director.

If this friend actually exists and if he is honest with you, he will
tell you that the low notes in your file are not trumpet "pedal" tones.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:39:25 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

BTW, when I logged on just now I saw there were 168
unread posts. If I'd known they were all from you I
wouldn't have bothered.

The world would be a better place if you hadn't.

Creeping paranoia ?

Statement of fact. When is the last time Paul Packer posted anything helpful
around here?


I'm always helping people see how illogical you are, Arnie.

Equalisers, anyone? :-)

[Eeyore]

paul packer wrote:

Equalisers, anyone? :-)

I'm no fan of them for sure.

In most cases they end up abusing the sound IMHO.

Graham

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


1. In spite of the truth, you still won't admit that the
files aren't of real trumpets? Why? Clearly, you are
simply unwilling to concede a point to me, no matter
what. This is what I find so curious about you.

I simply don't know for sure. How many times do I have to say this to you
Jenn?

Tell me: What is the lowest frequency on your "trumpets" files?

saving the remainder of your post until we settle this part

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

Tell me: What is the lowest frequency on your "trumpets" files?

Frequency ?

Heck, ask him what note it is !


Graham

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


Arny, once again, I'm not going to trade insults with you
anymore. It's a waste of time.

And yet you do it again and again, Jenn.

Incorrect. I haven't posted an insult since your return.


The truth is that I'm
trying to show you something about how instruments and
players work and how those files (which you list as
"trumpets" and which you claimed on this board is a
recording of real trumpets) CAN'T be of real trumpets.

You don't seem to know what an independent source of information is.

Incorrect. I've shown you an independent source that shows you the
bottom range of a trumpet. Your files go lower than that.


I've shown you the science (the frequencies are
unavailable on the instrument).

By assertion.

No, by an independent website. Ask your trumpet playing friend what the
lowest non-pedal range of a trumpet is if you don't believe me or the
website.


If you wish to remain
uneducated, that is your choice.

I prefer to be educated by people that I find credible. I don't find people
who refuse to follow simple instructions such as you to be credible.

lol


But now you're once
again on the record that throwing insults that have no
basis in fact is more important to you than learning
something about sound.

That's one of your problems Jenn - you see everything in terms of your
limited knowlege.

The statement that certain notes can't be played is a negative hypothesis.
You don't seem to respect the difficulty of proving negative hypothesis.

The fact of a trumpet's range is TOTALLY easy to prove. All you have to
do is read the website I posted, or ask ANY trumpet player.

Furthermore I've told you repeatedly that I for the purposes of the PCABX
web site, I don't care whether the sounds in the sample can be played on an
acoustic instrument or not.

And yet you claim that the files are of real trumpets.


Jenn, I'd like to see you actually understand why it is completely
irrelevant to the purposes of the PCABX web site whether the sounds in the
sample can be played on an acoustic instrument or not.

We can certainly discuss that after we solve the issue at hand.

[Jenn]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Tell me: What is the lowest frequency on your "trumpets" files?

Frequency ?

Heck, ask him what note it is !


Graham

Same thing, of course.

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

And yet you claim that the files are of real trumpets.

I rather hope he'd finally stopped making such a perverse and ridiculous claim !

Graham

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

If I want to know technical information about music and
musical instruments, I would prefer to check that out
with my good friend who has a PhD in music, or use some
standard appropriate reference.

A PhD in music doesn't require a musical ear.

He's also a pretty sucessful musican (trumpet and other
instruements) and orchestra and choir director.

But can he play a non-existent note ?

Get your facts straight. Jenn's claim is something like that the note can't
be played well on a certain instrument.

The note can't be played at all on any trumpet, other than as a blatty
sounding (fart-like) noise in the pedal register.

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Jenn wrote:

Tell me: What is the lowest frequency on your "trumpets" files?

Frequency ?

Heck, ask him what note it is !

Graham

Same thing, of course.

But not to him I'd venture.

I'll bet he can't 'hum' A4 for example. Or C5 even.

Graham

[Jenn]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Jenn wrote:

And yet you claim that the files are of real trumpets.

I rather hope he'd finally stopped making such a perverse and ridiculous
claim !

Graham

I suspect that he won't because I pointed out the truth to him.

[Jenn]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Jenn wrote:

Tell me: What is the lowest frequency on your "trumpets" files?

Frequency ?

Heck, ask him what note it is !

Graham

Same thing, of course.

But not to him I'd venture.

I'll bet he can't 'hum' A4 for example. Or C5 even.

Graham

I'm trying to help Arny by asking him the question in terms that he is
most likely to understand, i.e. frequency.

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore wrote
Jenn wrote:

Tell me: What is the lowest frequency on your "trumpets" files?

Frequency ?

Heck, ask him what note it is !

Graham

Same thing, of course.

But not to him I'd venture.

I'll bet he can't 'hum' A4 for example. Or C5 even.

Graham

I'm trying to help Arny by asking him the question in terms that he is
most likely to understand, i.e. frequency.

I rather suspect Arny is actually beyond help at this point.

Given enough time he'll be able to work out what frequencies A4 and C5 are
I'm sure. They're a bit of a 'giveaway' to a tech as it happens.

Graham

[paul packer]

On 13 Oct 2006 09:15:26 -0700, "
wrote:


paul packer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:51:49 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:


Unlike you, I find the aBxism-and-sameness religion truly offensive.
Poopie subscribes to much of the dogma, so he's still deserving of
considerable hostility.

Cut him some slack, George. Now that he's realized Arnie's insane he
might take a fresh look at aBxism. Then again, there's no crime in not
hearing differences; to most people most of the time even the grossest
differences aren't earth-shattering. As time goes on and we're all
forced to listen to mass market AV receivers the differences won't
exist--everything will sound like crap. Maybe Graham and the others
are just ahead of their time.
====================================

C


And this signifies what, Ludo?

[paul packer]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 07:44:37 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


The note can't be played at all on any trumpet, other than as a blatty
sounding (fart-like) noise in the pedal register.


Golly gee! And I thought you were a lady!

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Your own tests are essentially 'lowest common
denominator' types.

Graham, I find it curious that you claim such great
expertise in DBTs given that you just admitted that you
had very interest in them.

I have never made any such claim. I have no trouble
discerning 'good from bad' in sighted tests. Why would I
need anything more elaborate ? The truth will out.

In fact a lot of audio truth seemed to not out, until we
started doing DBTs.

Fine.

Tell that to my clients.

Meaning what?

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message

You're totally absurd.

The following is an absurd question:

How many amps can you tell apart by *listening* to their
square wave response ?

I don't know - never tried.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Jenn wrote:

And yet you claim that the files are of real trumpets.

More evidence that Jenn has no understanding of the word agnostic.

I rather hope he'd finally stopped making such a perverse
and ridiculous claim !

Of course Jenn is lying. I claim that I don't know whether the trumpets
sample is acoustic or synthed. I don't know which.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Jenn wrote:

And yet you claim that the files are of real trumpets.

I rather hope he'd finally stopped making such a
perverse and ridiculous claim !

Graham

I suspect that he won't because I pointed out the truth
to him.

Actually Jenn, this issue has come up before. I'm amazed that you've come
this far in life without being able to understand such phrases as "it
doesn't matter for the purpose", and the word agnostic.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

It was my clear intention all along that this file be
taken out of service, as the web page I kept referring
to did not refer to it.

So ? What the heck is it doing there still ?

It suffices that the web page that referred to it has been updated to not
refer to it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


1. In spite of the truth, you still won't admit that
the files aren't of real trumpets? Why? Clearly, you
are simply unwilling to concede a point to me, no matter
what. This is what I find so curious about you.

I simply don't know for sure. How many times do I have
to say this to you Jenn?

Tell me: What is the lowest frequency on your "trumpets"
files?

30 Hz or less. It appears to be room noise - probably the rumble of air
conditioning equipment.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Jenn wrote:

Tell me: What is the lowest frequency on your
"trumpets" files?

Frequency ?

Heck, ask him what note it is !

Graham

Same thing, of course.

But not to him I'd venture.

I'll bet he can't 'hum' A4 for example. Or C5 even.

I'm not a musician, so of course I can't do that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


1. In spite of the truth, you still won't admit that
the files aren't of real trumpets? Why? Clearly, you
are simply unwilling to concede a point to me, no
matter what. This is what I find so curious about you.

I simply don't know for sure. How many times do I have
to say this to you Jenn?

Tell me: What is the lowest frequency on your "trumpets"
files?

30 Hz or less. It appears to be room noise - possibly
the rumble of air conditioning equipment.

BTW, the spectra of the trumpets1.wav sample rather strongly resembles this
picture (aside from the air conditioning rumble):

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rumpet.html#c3

The lowest tone I see on my FFT that resembles the 200 Hz tone in the
example, is at about 234 Hz in my sample.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


Arny, once again, I'm not going to trade insults with
you anymore. It's a waste of time.

And yet you do it again and again, Jenn.

Incorrect. I haven't posted an insult since your return.


The truth is that I'm
trying to show you something about how instruments and
players work and how those files (which you list as
"trumpets" and which you claimed on this board is a
recording of real trumpets) CAN'T be of real trumpets.

You don't seem to know what an independent source of
information is.

Incorrect. I've shown you an independent source that
shows you the bottom range of a trumpet. Your files go
lower than that.


I've shown you the science (the frequencies are
unavailable on the instrument).

By assertion.

No, by an independent website. Ask your trumpet playing
friend what the lowest non-pedal range of a trumpet is if
you don't believe me or the website.

Here's an independent web site that has a pretty good FFT of a trumpet note:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rumpet.html#c3

If you wish to remain
uneducated, that is your choice.

I prefer to be educated by people that I find credible.
I don't find people who refuse to follow simple
instructions such as you to be credible.

lol

Nice job of dismissing your own errors, Jenn. That one little error of yours
kept you in the dark for about 3 weeks.

But now you're once
again on the record that throwing insults that have no
basis in fact is more important to you than learning
something about sound.

That's one of your problems Jenn - you see everything in
terms of your limited knowlege.

no response from Jenn

The statement that certain notes can't be played is a
negative hypothesis. You don't seem to respect the
difficulty of proving negative hypothesis.

The fact of a trumpet's range is TOTALLY easy to prove.
All you have to do is read the website I posted, or ask
ANY trumpet player.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rumpet.html#c3

seems to follow the pattern of my trumpets1.wav sample, and seems to show a
lower frequency in terms of the actual fundamental of the trumpet.

There is a FFT analysis command in Audacity. You might try it on my trumpets
sample, FFT 16834, log frequency.

for the
purposes of the PCABX web site, I don't care whether the
sounds in the sample can be played on an acoustic
instrument or not.

And yet you claim that the files are of real trumpets.

What's unclear about "agnostic"?

Jenn, I'd like to see you actually understand why it is
completely irrelevant to the purposes of the PCABX web
site whether the sounds in the sample can be played on
an acoustic instrument or not.

We can certainly discuss that after we solve the issue at
hand.

That is the issue at hand, but thanks for demontrating you warped priorities
and self-centeredness so well.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
paul packer wrote:

Equalisers, anyone? :-)

I'm no fan of them for sure.

In most cases they end up abusing the sound IMHO.

How many of your products had them, and why?

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Your own tests are essentially 'lowest common
denominator' types.

Graham, I find it curious that you claim such great
expertise in DBTs given that you just admitted that you
had very interest in them.

I have never made any such claim. I have no trouble
discerning 'good from bad' in sighted tests. Why would I
need anything more elaborate ? The truth will out.

In fact a lot of audio truth seemed to not out, until we started doing
DBTs.


Of course, the fact that his ABX test looses sensitivity with musical
samples doesn't bother Arny.

In fact, he's so not bothered that he (nor anyone else) has ever verified
the test as being valid to the open-ended evaluation of audio components.

The test is designed to pick up an identified artifact, after several hours
of training. Steve Phillips at Harman Industries claims about half his
potential testers are so poor at abx even after training that they have to
be excluded from his panels. Moreover, open-ended listening doesn't have a
specific artifact to listen for; the sound must be evaluated as a "gestalt".

Yet Arny goes on insisting (and preaching to newbies) that anything heard
without using ABX or ABC/hr or some other DBT is almost certainly
nonexistant - a figment of their imagination. And when antecdotes are
presented to him where the outcome of sighted listening goes against
expectations, then the person doing the listening must have some hidden
resistance that causes them to secretly hold the contrary expectation. And
when one-tailed risk / cost of being wrong is raised as a modifier (e.g.
when I can live with less than certainty that my decision is correct,
relative to the cost/pain/discomfort caused by a "wrong" decision) Arny goes
into his obfuscatory mode. This is taking a potentially good thing - DBT -
and carrying it to such an extreme that it becomes a bad thing....an act of
blind faith (pun intended).

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

====================================

C

And this signifies what, Ludo?

His mouse picked up a huge static charge from his overload of outrage at
MiNe, simultaneously knocking Ludo off his chair and causing his
newsreader to send the message with only one character. Accidents will
happen.




--

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

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Powell" wrote in message


Let me help you out with examples like:

Jeff Rowland
Mark Levinson
Lamm
Audio Research
Pass
Balanced Audio
Convergent Audio
Sutherland

Joke, right?

I've been in a number of good-sized active studios that were hardly
project studios, and never seen any of the above in use. I'm sure that
there are a few studios that have one or more of the above, but this
equipment list is hardly indicative of a studio's ability to get
professional work done.

This is consumer audio gear, and the list or other peers along with
similarly high-end speakers can be found in many highly regarded mastering
studios....it is used for final, ultimate sound quality check as
representing what audiophiles will hear. Just as $300 mini-monitors are
used to check out how car radios will sound.

So the fact that you don't find it in tracking studios is completely
irrelevant.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 07:07:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


That is the issue at hand, but thanks for demontrating you warped priorities
and self-centeredness so well.

This sentence has two things wrong with it.

There's also two spelling errors.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:33:14 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



paul packer wrote:

Equalisers, anyone? :-)

I'm no fan of them for sure.

In most cases they end up abusing the sound IMHO.

Graham

They have a function with archival and other poor quality material
which I outlined to Arnie, but keeping one permanently in circuit to
fiddle with whenever you dislike the sound of a CD is just plain daft.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

That is the issue at hand, but thanks for demontrating you warped priorities
and self-centeredness so well.

This sentence has two things wrong with it.
There's[sic] also two spelling errors.

The Usenet Law of Spel-Flayming claims another victim.




--

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

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Jenn wrote:
View this file:
http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdiction...t/Trumpet.html
Note the bottom range of low F#. The notes on your file
extend,
IIRC, a fifth below that. Not a few CPS, not a half
step, not a whole step, not a minor 3rd, not a major
3rd, not a 4th.... a 5th. Impossible.

Seems pretty convincing to this musician. But I am sure
Arny will continue to argue -- or disappear from the
thread altogether!

I did neither. My real problem is that Jenn doesn't understand
what it means to be agnostic about an issue.

Putting to one side, Mr. Krueger, your mindreading about what
Jenn understands or not, I fail to grasp why you are "agnostic"
on this question. Not only do your "Trumpets" samples have
timbral differences from the sounds of real trumpets, they include
notes that Jenn and Stephen have both stated can't be played on
any real-world trumpet; both have then presented evidence in
support of that statement. Why do you continue to ignore
that evidence?

And why do you claim to be "agnostic" on a subject where
you yourself have full knowledge of the samples' provenance?
That seems odd at best and downright schizophrenic at
worst.

Look, why does it matter to you if the samples are real or
synthesized, anyway? Their purpose is to aid identification
of differences, in which case their provenance can be argued to
be irrelevant.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Let me help you out with examples like:

Jeff Rowland
Mark Levinson
Lamm
Audio Research
Pass
Balanced Audio
Convergent Audio
Sutherland

Joke, right?

I've been in a number of good-sized active studios that were hardly
project studios, and never seen any of the above in use. I'm sure that
there are a few studios that have one or more of the above, but
this equipment list is hardly indicative of a studio's ability to get
professional work done.

Reading comprehension problems noted.

[Powell]

"Eeyore" wrote

they are talking Project Studio. Serious recording
is done with mics that cost $1500-4000 each and
mic preamps that cost at least $1000 per input,
feeding digital converters that cost mucho dinero.
The equivalent to "high end" audio gear. So why
shouldn't it be listened to with the same, if you
can afford it?

Because most "high-end" home audio gear is
in no way comparable to quality pro equipment
like the preamp I cited.

No, Lavo is right on the mark.


I do know of one designer who produced home
audio equipment at a comparable level of quality
though:

Let me help you out with examples like:
Jeff Rowland
Mark Levinson
Lamm
Audio Research
Pass
Balanced Audio
Convergent Audio
Sutherland

Yeah? I wouldn't use any of these in a situation
where time is money like a recording studio.

Who are you kidding, Newbie. It's no surprise that
you've never heard of half of the manufacturer
cited.

And the above kit isn't used in studios much ( I've certainly
never seen any ).

I never said this equipment was used by studios, Graham.
Although I'm sure all cited manufacturers are more than
adequate for such work.

If you spent the time to read the post you would have
noted that Krivis believes that "high-end" home audio
gear is in no way comparable to quality pro equipment."
This is simply not true. A list of manufacturers with
high quality construction standards was provided.