"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

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

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:5hrKf.13968$2c4.4392@dukeread11

I've got albums that are over 30 years old and I've
played 100s of times and they do not noticeably
degrade with each play.

In fact you don't know, because you can't and aren't
basing your judgement
on a fixed reference point.

On a number of occasions I've purchased two identical
copies of a LP, and maintained one as an archival
reference. In every case, I find that the working copy
of the LP degrades as compared to the archival
reference.

You should remove the quarter from the headshell. :-)


Or get rid of that Garrard changer once and for all!
:-)

Better yet, stop using that primitive rock-scrapes-plastic
technology. SMILEY

Note how Jenn and Harry handle truth that does not agree with their personal
ideologies.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


You don't understand: :-):

We understand it very well.

It's a "fact" when I like it.

It's a fact that you like it, but its a fact with zero inherent
relevance
to anybody else until relevance is established.

It's a "preference" when I'm forced to defend it.

No, its a preference when someone chooses one alternative from among
several.

It's an untrue claim "to be proved" when it's your preference.

Completely irrelevant.

Congratulations, Arny! You join Steven in the "I can't believe I missed
that Smiley...." club.

Harry, rest assured, no one missed your passive-aggressive smileys.

Then you take yourself WAY too importantly.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:wkvKf.14667$2c4.2417@dukeread11
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:5hrKf.13968$2c4.4392@dukeread11

I've got albums that are over 30 years old and I've
played 100s of times and they do not noticeably degrade
with each play.

In fact you don't know, because you can't and aren't
basing your judgement on a fixed reference point.

I've played 1 side of an album on repeat and couldn't
tell the difference.

The album's two sides were different, right?

Irrelevent without a fixed reference.

I think albums suffer more from storage, lack of use and
cleaning (mold) than they do from playing.

Irrelevant - the discussion is not what other factors also cause
degradation.

On a number of occasions I've purchased two identical
copies of an LP, and maintained one as an archival
reference. In every case, I find that the working copy
of the LP degrades as compared to the archival
reference.

After how many plays?

dozens.

Do you remove dust before each play?

Of course.

How often do you clean your stylus?

Often - inspect it before every listening session.

I've had albums that picked up a pop or two from
dust...removing dust before each play helps, replacing
obviously offensive liners (some are really bad for
shedding or just being dirty new) and I've had some
really horrid pressings that went to crap in a few plays.
I understand those were most likely reused vinyl that
requires mold release treatment the metal that get
embedded in the vinyl and sheds quickly. It was common
in the 70s but hasn't been an issue in years for me. The only albums I
have that are really worn out.. I got
used or had when I got my first cheapo stereo that
included a BSR groove grinder.

Note that Scott isn't getting the concept of comparing to a stable
reference, but is talking all around it.

ScottW

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


I have listened 'sighted' to LPs transferred to CD, and
the pops, clicks, pitch variations, surface noise, and
different mastering
choices compared to the official CD releases, all seemed
to be faithfully transferred, at least before I fixed
what I could using digital tools.

There's a big problem with trying to compare formats using commercial
recordings. There are almost always major differences in mastering during
the production steps.

True. But I'm talking about the LP-to-CD transfers that I've done.
The main problem there is setting up the comparison afterwards,
since the turntable's not usually part of my system. It's a
pain and, IMO, simply not worth it. The few times I did it (sighted),
I didn't note any difference big enough to convince myself
that there was a real difference between LP source and CD copy.
Which might well have been bias, but I'm perfectly happy to admit
that possibility.





--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can
still tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's
a matter of degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same, or Jenn has some
magical ESP power that enables her to accurately
know what a violin she's never seen or heard is
supposed to sound like.

Better than that: her "ESP" can tell what a violin
*doesn't* sound like.

If so, why is she so sold on LPs?

Some lps preserve some aspect of the sound that cds
don't. Or so-called "euphonic distortions" play a
part.

Wrong, totally wrong. LP's can't preserve anything well
- they are like the fuzz boxes that some people use
with their guitars.

They can preserve enough well enough. Your fuzz box
comparison is off by an order of magnitude.

If we had a specific recording in mind we could
discuss the individual elements: hall; mics;
recording medium; mastering; etc.

All pointless because the LP format is well-known for
adding audible trash.

Exactly to the point: the end medium is a result of all
previous steps.

I've never heard a LP handle solo, ensemble and
massed violins as well as good digital.

That's too bad. Perhaps you'd like to recommend a cd
with a good representation of massed violins.

I can't think any CD that fail to do a better job on
massed violins than the best LPs I've ever heard.

Can't recommend a cd that represents massed violins
well?

That's not what I said.

Your cd collection must be extraordinarily well-chosen
because most orchestral cds aren't so great, just as in
lp days.

As I said before, the recordings of violins that I'm
most interested are the ones I make myself. In those
cases I was present for the live performance that was
recorded, and move freely among the instruments and
audience listening positions during rehearsals. Too bad about the rest of
you zombies who aren't
recordists, and don't have frequent and ready access to
live performances.

Does that include those of us who started doing it forty
years ago when you were still in kneepants?

40 years ago I had been building electonics projects for 11 years, selling
stereo gear in an audio store for over 6 years, had designed and installed
an intercom system for a 160 bed hospital several years back, etc., etc.,
etc.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can
still tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's
a matter of degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same, or Jenn has some
magical ESP power that enables her to accurately
know what a violin she's never seen or heard is
supposed to sound like.

Better than that: her "ESP" can tell what a violin
*doesn't* sound like.

If so, why is she so sold on LPs?

Some lps preserve some aspect of the sound that cds
don't. Or so-called "euphonic distortions" play a
part.

Wrong, totally wrong. LP's can't preserve anything well
- they are like the fuzz boxes that some people use
with their guitars.

They can preserve enough well enough. Your fuzz box
comparison is off by an order of magnitude.

If we had a specific recording in mind we could
discuss the individual elements: hall; mics;
recording medium; mastering; etc.

All pointless because the LP format is well-known for
adding audible trash.

Exactly to the point: the end medium is a result of all
previous steps.

I've never heard a LP handle solo, ensemble and
massed violins as well as good digital.

That's too bad. Perhaps you'd like to recommend a cd
with a good representation of massed violins.

I can't think any CD that fail to do a better job on
massed violins than the best LPs I've ever heard.

Can't recommend a cd that represents massed violins
well?

That's not what I said.

Your cd collection must be extraordinarily well-chosen
because most orchestral cds aren't so great, just as in
lp days.

As I said before, the recordings of violins that I'm
most interested are the ones I make myself. In those
cases I was present for the live performance that was
recorded, and move freely among the instruments and
audience listening positions during rehearsals.

Too bad about the rest of you zombies who aren't
recordists, and don't have frequent and ready access to
live performances.

Gee, in light of some here who have stated that I'm
claiming "special skills" or "special experience" in
light of my daily experience with live music, where are
those people when Arny claims this in the above paragraph?

Your experience and education does not give you any special qualifications
to judge the reproduction of audio, Jenn.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

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

snip

On a number of occasions I've purchased two identical
copies of a LP, and maintained one as an archival
reference. In every case, I find that the working copy
of the LP degrades as compared to the archival
reference.

You should remove the quarter from the headshell. :-)


Or get rid of that Garrard changer once and for all!
:-)

Better yet, stop using that primitive rock-scrapes-plastic
technology. SMILEY

Note how Jenn and Harry handle truth that does not agree with their
personal ideologies.


What, by kidding you about it? How terribly cruel of us, Arny. So, so, so
very sorry.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Do you understand, yet, why definitively attributing
this to some inherent characteristic of *CD*, is a
flawed argument? Your claims overreach your evidence.

I listen to my stereo by listening to it.

This makes you different from RCA's "Nipper" how?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

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

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:5hrKf.13968$2c4.4392@dukeread11

I've got albums that are over 30 years old and I've
played 100s of times and they do not noticeably
degrade with each play.

In fact you don't know, because you can't and aren't
basing your judgement
on a fixed reference point.

On a number of occasions I've purchased two identical
copies of a LP, and maintained one as an archival
reference. In every case, I find that the working copy
of the LP degrades as compared to the archival
reference.

You should remove the quarter from the headshell. :-)


Or get rid of that Garrard changer once and for all!
:-)

Better yet, stop using that primitive rock-scrapes-plastic
technology. SMILEY

Note how Jenn and Harry handle truth that does not agree with their personal
ideologies.

Note Arny's lack of a sense of humor.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"J.Major" wrote:

snip


snip
To Jenn an Arny that are always arguing about the LP vs CD. I have a
little story to tell. Last week my sister in law call to say that she
will visit us for the weekend. I remenber that she loved a french singer
(Jean Ferrat) so I ask her if she could bring her cd so she could listen
to her singer on my "high end" cd player "a Moon Equinox". I did not
told her that my wife have the same singer album on LP. So she came with
her CD and after supper we tried her CD she was amazed by the quality of
the sound. But after she listen to her cd I put the LP and her jaw
dropped. Her comment was " How come this is much better than my cd when
this is past technology? The cd is not supposed to exceed in quality the
lp? Tomorrow I am going with her to buy a new Turntable.... (By the way
my turntable is an Oracle Delphi)


I had a roughly parallel experience. Friend of mine lived across the
street
upgraded his stereo in the late '80's ....

Now come on... digital recording and mixing has come a long way since then,
even playback has had some improvement.

ScottW

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Do you understand, yet, why definitively attributing
this to some inherent characteristic of *CD*, is a
flawed argument? Your claims overreach your evidence.

I listen to my stereo by listening to it.

This makes you different from RCA's "Nipper" how?

My hearing is not as good as the average dog's, and my system is better
than his.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


I have listened 'sighted' to LPs transferred to CD, and
the pops, clicks, pitch variations, surface noise, and
different mastering
choices compared to the official CD releases, all seemed
to be faithfully transferred, at least before I fixed
what I could using digital tools.

There's a big problem with trying to compare formats
using commercial recordings. There are almost always
major differences in mastering during the production
steps.

True. But I'm talking about the LP-to-CD transfers that
I've done. The main problem there is setting up the
comparison afterwards,
since the turntable's not usually part of my system.

The easy relevant test to do is to have a ADC and DAC running back-to-back,
set for non-inverting polarity and unity gain. In the blind test, switch in
and out of a high quality signal path that starts with a LP.

The DAC and DAC are a valid stand-in for the CD because its all the same
digital format.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


You don't understand: :-):

We understand it very well.

It's a "fact" when I like it.

It's a fact that you like it, but its a fact with zero
inherent relevance
to anybody else until relevance is established.

It's a "preference" when I'm forced to defend it.

No, its a preference when someone chooses one
alternative from among several.

It's an untrue claim "to be proved" when it's your
preference.

Completely irrelevant.

Congratulations, Arny! You join Steven in the "I can't
believe I missed that Smiley...." club.

Harry, rest assured, no one missed your
passive-aggressive smileys.

Then you take yourself WAY too importantly.

If irony killed.

Harry will never figure out why he was in the audience and I was on the
platform at the HE2005 debate

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


I have listened 'sighted' to LPs transferred to CD, and
the pops, clicks, pitch variations, surface noise, and
different mastering
choices compared to the official CD releases, all seemed
to be faithfully transferred, at least before I fixed
what I could using digital tools.

There's a big problem with trying to compare formats using commercial
recordings. There are almost always major differences in mastering during
the production steps.

True. But I'm talking about the LP-to-CD transfers that I've done.
The main problem there is setting up the comparison afterwards,
since the turntable's not usually part of my system. It's a
pain and, IMO, simply not worth it. The few times I did it (sighted),
I didn't note any difference big enough to convince myself
that there was a real difference between LP source and CD copy.
Which might well have been bias, but I'm perfectly happy to admit
that possibility.

Nonetheless, it makes your myriad pronouncements here that CD makes a
perfect replica of an LP pretty empty as "scientific proof", don't you
think?

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 3:12 pm
Email: Steven Sullivan

Not very wise of them, if true.

The RIAA curve is there for a good reason, you know. And if you play
such Russian LPs back though a typical phono preamp, the RIAA compensation
will be applied -- no different than applying rather massive EQ.

IIRC, there were several EQ curves in the beginning of LPs. I had an
Eico HF-20 that had, I think, Angel, Columbia, and some others, 4-6
total.

Maybe the Russians had their own EQ. EQ for LPs is there for very good
reason. RIAA was (I think) just a standard, perhaps one among many...

I think Melodiya was distributed by Angel in the US, no doubt with RIAA
EQ. These are apparently from Russia, as the title, Etc. is all in
Russian.

Wasn't RIAA short for Russian Industries Audio Authority?:-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:gJrKf.14026$2c4.3567@dukeread11
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

Have you heard LPs where you aren't sure you could tell
the recorded violin, from a real violin playing in your
room?

Once in college I was standing outside my dorm room
chatting with some neighbors when the sound of acoustic
guard floated out of my open door. The guy across the hall whose name
I've long forgotten
said "Wow, you're roommate is getting really good on that
guitar". Except it wasn't my roommate, it was ELP on my
stereo. Then he went on about how my reel to reel sounded so good
compared to records.
Except that tape was one I recorded from vinyl.

System Components we original Large Advents, Sansui
Au6500, Akai GX500db, AR-XA with Shure M93E. Not
exactly SOTA but it did sound pretty good.

Oh, its the 476th incarnation of the "wife in the kitchen" anecdote.

My former sax playing friend was by a few months ago... fantasy football
draft
party. Afterwords I let him listen to my Quads. He has a nice pair of
Energy
towers but lacks the room to position them properly. Anyway, I had a
record on so played it (Kate Bush Hounds of Love), he didn't like Kate
(can you imagine?), but didn't realize he was listening to vinyl till I was
putting the album away. The thought crossed my mind to get him to listen
to the CD, perfect opportunity.... but I let him slide.
BTW... he liked the Quads and commented they are really clear on vocals but
like most musicians wants something more dynamic,
more in your face, he likes my Legacy's better.

ScottW

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:wkvKf.14667$2c4.2417@dukeread11
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:5hrKf.13968$2c4.4392@dukeread11

I've got albums that are over 30 years old and I've
played 100s of times and they do not noticeably degrade
with each play.

In fact you don't know, because you can't and aren't
basing your judgement on a fixed reference point.

I've played 1 side of an album on repeat and couldn't
tell the difference.

The album's two sides were different, right?

1 side... the Mitsu has a repeat function. I know you're not supposed to
do it..
but I did and it wasn't some vinyl destroying disaster.


Irrelevent without a fixed reference.

I think albums suffer more from storage, lack of use and
cleaning (mold) than they do from playing.

Irrelevant - the discussion is not what other factors also cause
degradation.

On a number of occasions I've purchased two identical
copies of an LP, and maintained one as an archival
reference. In every case, I find that the working copy
of the LP degrades as compared to the archival
reference.

After how many plays?

dozens.

Do you remove dust before each play?

Of course.

How often do you clean your stylus?

Often - inspect it before every listening session.

I've had albums that picked up a pop or two from
dust...removing dust before each play helps, replacing
obviously offensive liners (some are really bad for
shedding or just being dirty new) and I've had some
really horrid pressings that went to crap in a few plays.
I understand those were most likely reused vinyl that
requires mold release treatment the metal that get
embedded in the vinyl and sheds quickly. It was common
in the 70s but hasn't been an issue in years for me. The only albums I
have that are really worn out.. I got
used or had when I got my first cheapo stereo that
included a BSR groove grinder.

Note that Scott isn't getting the concept of comparing to a stable
reference, but is talking all around it.

Actually I did exactly that... for 1 play. I have to conclude... your TT
must be a real POS.. or horribly setup. Even my old Technics SL-22 didn't
give me the problems you're having.

ScottW

In article cNvKf.14726$2c4.769@dukeread11,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:gJrKf.14026$2c4.3567@dukeread11
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

Have you heard LPs where you aren't sure you could tell
the recorded violin, from a real violin playing in your
room?

Once in college I was standing outside my dorm room
chatting with some neighbors when the sound of acoustic
guard floated out of my open door. The guy across the hall whose name
I've long forgotten
said "Wow, you're roommate is getting really good on that
guitar". Except it wasn't my roommate, it was ELP on my
stereo. Then he went on about how my reel to reel sounded so good
compared to records.
Except that tape was one I recorded from vinyl.

System Components we original Large Advents, Sansui
Au6500, Akai GX500db, AR-XA with Shure M93E. Not
exactly SOTA but it did sound pretty good.

Oh, its the 476th incarnation of the "wife in the kitchen" anecdote.

My former sax playing friend was by a few months ago... fantasy football
draft
party. Afterwords I let him listen to my Quads. He has a nice pair of
Energy
towers but lacks the room to position them properly. Anyway, I had a
record on so played it (Kate Bush Hounds of Love), he didn't like Kate
(can you imagine?), but didn't realize he was listening to vinyl till I was
putting the album away. The thought crossed my mind to get him to listen
to the CD, perfect opportunity.... but I let him slide.
BTW... he liked the Quads and commented they are really clear on vocals but
like most musicians wants something more dynamic,
more in your face,snip.

Perhaps I'm the exception; I LOVE the Quads!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
If irony killed.

Harry will never figure out why he was in the audience and I was on the
platform at the HE2005 debate

Because all of us really important people had something else to do.

ScottW

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


I have listened 'sighted' to LPs transferred to CD, and
the pops, clicks, pitch variations, surface noise, and
different mastering
choices compared to the official CD releases, all seemed
to be faithfully transferred, at least before I fixed
what I could using digital tools.

There's a big problem with trying to compare formats
using commercial recordings. There are almost always
major differences in mastering during the production
steps.

True. But I'm talking about the LP-to-CD transfers that
I've done. The main problem there is setting up the
comparison afterwards,
since the turntable's not usually part of my system.

The easy relevant test to do is to have a ADC and DAC running
back-to-back, set for non-inverting polarity and unity gain. In the blind
test, switch in and out of a high quality signal path that starts with a
LP.

The DAC and DAC are a valid stand-in for the CD because its all the same
digital format.

BS Arny... you really think it valid to leave CIRC or EFM out of this?

There's a whole lot more than digitizing a signal to redbook CD. In fact
about 2/3 of the data on an audio CD isn't audio at all. Arny would like
us to forget all that and assume it all works perfectly every time.

ScottW

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
BTW... he liked the Quads and commented they are really clear on vocals
but
like most musicians wants something more dynamic,
more in your face,snip.

Perhaps I'm the exception; I LOVE the Quads!

Me too.. but I admit they give a more distant presentation than some
speakers. I'm speculating that musicians are used to it being in their ear.
Maybe conductors can go both ways .

ScottW

In article 6DwKf.14828$2c4.10560@dukeread11,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
BTW... he liked the Quads and commented they are really clear on vocals
but
like most musicians wants something more dynamic,
more in your face,snip.

Perhaps I'm the exception; I LOVE the Quads!

Me too.. but I admit they give a more distant presentation than some
speakers. I'm speculating that musicians are used to it being in their ear.
Maybe conductors can go both ways .

ScottW

No comment. :-)

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

During that time all I had to listen to is LPs, live
music and occasional way-to-short sessions of listening
to high speed analog tape masters.

Why didn't a picky listener such as yourself pursue
commercial reel-to-reel?

I did, Revox A77, right?

How would I know?

You read rec.audio.opinion?

Sorry, I haven't memorized your system, although I remember NHT speakers
are involved. That and the powered monitor system.

More importantly, you didn't mention commercial reel-to-reel above, so
even someone aware of which model deck you had might think you used
solely for recording.

Good for you, though. Did you find the
extra effort worth the trouble compared to just slapping
on a record?

What extra effort?

Loading the reels. Maintenance.

The biggest problem with open reel was a lack of good prerecorded program
material @ 7.5 ips.

And finding program material.

However, there were some very worthwhile gems. When the
average Doors LP sounded like crap, the 7.5 ips Doors tapes were clean.

That's the kind of thing. Lots of Doors cds sound like crap, too, but
not all.

Stephen

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

To Arny:
My point is, do you really expect people to remember details about your
audio equipment that they MIGHT have read about at least 3 years ago?

I think he really does.

Stephen

In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

To Arny:
My point is, do you really expect people to remember details about your
audio equipment that they MIGHT have read about at least 3 years ago?

I think he really does.

Stephen

Yeah. My point was his high opinion of his importance, which, of
course, he missed.

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Do you understand, yet, why definitively attributing
this to some inherent characteristic of *CD*, is a
flawed argument? Your claims overreach your evidence.

I listen to my stereo by listening to it.

This makes you different from RCA's "Nipper" how?

My hearing is not as good as the average dog's, and my system is better
than his.

LOL!

Acoustic recordings have their fans...

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


I have listened 'sighted' to LPs transferred to CD, and
the pops, clicks, pitch variations, surface noise, and
different mastering
choices compared to the official CD releases, all seemed
to be faithfully transferred, at least before I fixed
what I could using digital tools.

There's a big problem with trying to compare formats
using commercial recordings. There are almost always
major differences in mastering during the production
steps.

True. But I'm talking about the LP-to-CD transfers that
I've done. The main problem there is setting up the
comparison afterwards,
since the turntable's not usually part of my system.

The easy relevant test to do is to have a ADC and DAC running back-to-back,
set for non-inverting polarity and unity gain. In the blind test, switch in
and out of a high quality signal path that starts with a LP.

The DAC and DAC are a valid stand-in for the CD because its all the same
digital format.

Unless the CD is the problem, of course.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can
still tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's
a matter of degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same, or Jenn has some
magical ESP power that enables her to accurately
know what a violin she's never seen or heard is
supposed to sound like.

Better than that: her "ESP" can tell what a violin
*doesn't* sound like.

If so, why is she so sold on LPs?

Some lps preserve some aspect of the sound that cds
don't. Or so-called "euphonic distortions" play a
part.

Wrong, totally wrong. LP's can't preserve anything well
- they are like the fuzz boxes that some people use
with their guitars.

They can preserve enough well enough. Your fuzz box
comparison is off by an order of magnitude.

If we had a specific recording in mind we could
discuss the individual elements: hall; mics;
recording medium; mastering; etc.

All pointless because the LP format is well-known for
adding audible trash.

Exactly to the point: the end medium is a result of all
previous steps.

I've never heard a LP handle solo, ensemble and
massed violins as well as good digital.

That's too bad. Perhaps you'd like to recommend a cd
with a good representation of massed violins.

I can't think any CD that fail to do a better job on
massed violins than the best LPs I've ever heard.

Can't recommend a cd that represents massed violins
well?

That's not what I said.

Your cd collection must be extraordinarily well-chosen
because most orchestral cds aren't so great, just as in
lp days.

As I said before, the recordings of violins that I'm
most interested are the ones I make myself. In those
cases I was present for the live performance that was
recorded, and move freely among the instruments and
audience listening positions during rehearsals.

Too bad about the rest of you zombies who aren't
recordists, and don't have frequent and ready access to
live performances.

Gee, in light of some here who have stated that I'm
claiming "special skills" or "special experience" in
light of my daily experience with live music, where are
those people when Arny claims this in the above paragraph?

Your experience and education does not give you any special qualifications
to judge the reproduction of audio, Jenn.

Right.... the less you know the sound of live music the better, right?
Besides, my point is if your statement is true for me, it is also true
for you, in spite of what you write three paragraphs above.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article
. net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs
in their reproduction
of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it
is to find works
on
CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all
you'll ever be
able
to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how
much about digital
to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a
statement of preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If
you think LPs sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound'
on CD, I suggest
you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're
enjoying so much,a
nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered
in an exremely faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't
remember you being such a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn
that encourages your
brutal propensities.

*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one?
Amazing. It's like
you
guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't
matter what you say, I
HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better,
so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument".

You keep saying that LP versions of violin recording
sound better to you,
that's a prefernce, but the simple fact is that a CD
recording of violins
is
an exact copy of what the violin sounded like when
recorde to a master
tape.

I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I
have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no
doubt now increase.

As you have been told, the simplest way to prove
that CD is accurate is
to
record any LP or LP's to CD and then compare them.
What you get is the
exact sound that you fed to the CD recorder, an
exact duplicate of what
was
on the LP. So the same holds true for a commerical
recording of music on
CD, it is what was on the master tape. That you
like it or not is another
issue, but the CD is the more accurate recording, so
if you want to know
what the violin is supposed to sound like on any
given recording, you get
the CD version, since it is not possible for an LP
to be as accurate.

What does it matter which is more "accurate" if they
all sound like something else than a violin?

Have you heard LPs where you aren't sure you could
tell the recorded violin, from a real violin playing
in your room?

Nope, and I've never claimed otherwise, have I?


So, LP violins don't sound like real violins, but they
don't sound like something
else than a violin either, while CD violins always sound
like 'something else than
a violin, even though you can always tell they are
violins.

Other than adding the word "some" to the LP side, yes,
that's pretty much it.

If you can believe that, you can believe in the Easter Bunny!

When you can hear through my ears, let me know.

Some LPs sound much closer to the
sound of real violins than do any CDs.

For this statement to be true, the person who says it would have had to
listen to every CD title ever made.

Actually, that's not true. You would have to have heard every CD with
violin. But, as I stated before, a reasonable person would understand
that I mean every CD that I've heard, which is a very large number.

NO media sounds real enough to be fooled into thinking that an actual
violin is playing in the room.

Given that LPs have audible distortion and CDs don't, how can adding
randomly-chosen distortion make things sound better?

I don't know; I only know what I hear. Since CD is not a perfect copy
of the original signal, perhaps something is being "left out"; I don't
know.

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"J.Major" wrote:

snip


snip
To Jenn an Arny that are always arguing about the LP vs CD. I have a
little story to tell. Last week my sister in law call to say that she
will visit us for the weekend. I remenber that she loved a french singer
(Jean Ferrat) so I ask her if she could bring her cd so she could listen
to her singer on my "high end" cd player "a Moon Equinox". I did not
told her that my wife have the same singer album on LP. So she came with
her CD and after supper we tried her CD she was amazed by the quality of
the sound. But after she listen to her cd I put the LP and her jaw
dropped. Her comment was " How come this is much better than my cd when
this is past technology? The cd is not supposed to exceed in quality the
lp? Tomorrow I am going with her to buy a new Turntable.... (By the way
my turntable is an Oracle Delphi)


I had a roughly parallel experience. Friend of mine lived across the street
upgraded his stereo in the late '80's .... top of the line B&W speakers,
some good electronics, well regarded CD player. I didn't think it sounded
as good as it should have. Trundled home and tore my turntable system out
of my second system. It was a Thorens TD-160 Super, with a Grace 747 Arm, a
Dynavector Ruby MC cartridge, and a Modified Marcof B headamp. Took it
across the stree and set up. Put on my LP of Time Out (he had the CD). The
LP system *whacked* the CD...I mean it wasn't close. His wife came rushing
in to hear...and said "that's what I thought our system should sound like".
"I thought CD's were supposed to be better".

Needless to say, they went out the next day and bought a top quality
turntable system.

remainder cut, irrelevant to above

I had the Dynavector at one time; a REALLY fine cartridge, IMO. It was
on my Oracle/Alphason, then a VPI TNT/SME.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in message

om

What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter of
degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same,

A statement that no one has made.

or Jenn has some magical ESP power that
enables her to accurately know what a violin she's never seen or
heard
is
supposed to sound like.

Another statement that no one has made. My point is (again) that
the
sound of violins on CD is unlike ANY violin that actually exists.

And you're quite sure that's due to its being on CD? That a violin
recording on CD will *inevitably* sound unlike ANY violin that
actually
exists?

I can only go by what I hear.


No, you usually are 'going' by what you hear, see, and believe. If you
want to *really* go only by what you hear, a DBT is the way to go.

And as I've stated, over and over, I'm going to arrange such a test as
soon as time allows.


Well, I don't see why you keep talking about how what you HEAR (sighted)
is the only important thing 'at the end of the day', and how you can
'only go by what you hear' (sighted), if in fact you understand
why DBTs exist and are used.

Because I and the vast majority of audio consumers will not/cannot carry
out such tests to make the occasional purchasing choices that we make;
we have to make the best call based on our ears, and using only our
hearing is how we will use the product. I understand the usefulness of
DBT in R&D.

Why not just agree that you
could be 'hearing' though bias to a degree that confounds your *ears,
and leave be?

I could be. On the other hand, bias could have nothing to do with it.
We'll see, if I can set up the test, right?

It's what science tells us; it's what leads orchestral
committes to do 'blind' auditions;

Orchestras use blind auditions mostly for an entirely different reason,
which we've discussed before.

it leads 'objectivists' to use
words like 'may' and 'likely'.

Funny, the words that I've heard here most often are "impossible" and
"always",



I've yet to hear a CD get violin sound
anywhere near the quality of the best LPs. I wish that it weren't so,
but it is.

Do you understand, yet, why definitively attributing this to some
inherent characteristic of *CD*, is a flawed argument? Your claims
overreach your evidence.

I listen to my stereo by listening to it.

And listening isn't what you think it is.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

During that time all I had to listen to is LPs,
live music and occasional way-to-short sessions of
listening to high speed analog tape masters.

Why didn't a picky listener such as yourself pursue
commercial reel-to-reel?

I did, Revox A77, right?

How would I know?

You read rec.audio.opinion?

The most recent reference in this group that I can find
to you owning an A77 was posted in 2003.

Mine109 has been posting here since no later than
3/7/2002 .

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...bcb9e0e02de503

My point is, do you really expect people to remember
details about your audio equipment that they MIGHT have
read about at least 3 years ago?

This isn't about my expectations, its about possible means by which Stephen
might know.

But thanks for doing your usual twisty-turney thing with my post Jenn.

LOL What did I "twist"? Did I misquote you? Your obvious implication
is that because you revealed that you had an A77 in 2003, Mine109 should
remember that fact.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:
If what I hear is measureable or not doesn't matter to be in the
least.


Does it 'matter' whether what you think you hear, see, feel, taste
or smell, is real or not? Clearly we poor humans aren't perfect
perceivers, so I'd think the issue might come up for you now and
then.

To what end? I listen with my EARS.

No, you, like everyone listen with your ears and your brain. Your
brain is influenced in its decision about what you hear, by things other
than what your ears pick up. And this decision-making process isn't
flawless. So when
you decide WHY you hear what you hear, you can be flat wrong.

OF COURSE that's true, but at the end of the day, we go by what we HEAR.


And of course, that doesn't mean we are right in everything we *say* about
what we hear. At the end of the day, we have to realize that we often
stand a pretty good chance of being *wrong* about what we hear.



By your logic I could say : I *see* with my eyes. But this doesn't mean
that
I always interpret everything I see, correctly. In fact, 'eyewitness'
testimony
is notoriously inaccurate.

And yet, eyewitness testimony is the most trusted.


By people who don't know better, yes. Lots of people believe they will win
the
lottery if they play at the place where the last winning ticket
was won, too.

There are other kinds of evidence that are more trustworthy,
and prosecutors, defense attorneys, cops, and judges know this.


I hear what I hear. What is the purpose of home audio to you? For
me,
it's the close as possible recreation of a performance of acoustic
music. How it measures doesn't matter. Nor does the playback
equipment. If I get it from CD, LP, or a Philco radio, I don't
care.

Do you care *why* you 'hear' what you 'hear'?

Not really.

Then why bother even doing an LP vs CD comparison?


Umm, to find out what I hear.

I thought you already KNOW what you heard with your EARS?


You clearly find
faith-based reasoning about causes of audio, more than adequate. Even
if you refuse to admit that that's what your reasoning is.

Tell me; If I do the DBT and I hear a difference between the LP and the
CD of the LP, what will be your comment?


I know where this is going. You want to believe that I can't even
consider that possibility. But I can. Alas I can also consider the
possibility
that you have set up the test poorly, or have lied about the results.

Which you no doubt WILL claim, unless, of course, my findings confirm
your opinions.

So if it's *truly* important to you to forestall further skepticism on *my*
part, induce someone whom *I* trust, like Tom Nousaine, who has considerable
experience setting up and proctoring DBTs, to proctor your test.
*OR* provide some independent measurement data that supports your
results.

This, again, illustrates my point. Since I can't reasonably be expected
to carry out the test with someone you know and trust, in the end I'll
do what we ALL do: rely on my ears.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
big snip due to repetition of ground covered
Steven wrote:
No violin recordings sound like *real* violins.

Correct. Don't you agree? Can't you hear the difference between any
recording and an actual live instrument?

I haven't heard every recording ever made, much less every
live performance.

Do you really think that that is required to be able to state that NO
recording sounds absolutely like a real instrument?

But generally it's impossible for recording
to capture all of the spatial cues of a live performance.

It's about more than just spatial cues, of course.

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Jenn said:

Actually, Krooger was a young adult 'borg 40 years ago. We know this
because that was around the first time he was arrested for child
molestation.

Now George, unless you have proof that such arrests actually happened,
your charge is in extremely poor taste.

Thank you for the recognition. Poor taste is my speciality.

Of course, in Mr. ****'s demented "debating trade" idiom, the Kroogeresque
response would be "Prove it didn't happen!" And, if nobody can prove
whether it happend or not, that means the accusation is valid. duh-Mikey
has also used this excuse when Turdy was flinging the accusations about
kiddie porn at a dozen or so people.

I understand that. Taking the high road becomes one though, don't you
agree?

From: Jenn
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 4:48 pm
Email: Jenn

He also bought a Telefunken and 4 Philips. And, there are other reasons
to buy and enjoy a recording than the audio quality.

The Russian recordings are of conductor/orchestra combinations that I
don't have, of Russian compositions that I don't have, or don't have
many of. So even if the audio quality is skewed by EQ differences
between RIAA in my pre and whatever they used in the USSR, I still want
to hear them. It will only suck if they're completely unlistenable. I
rather doubt that will be the case. Early Columbia and Angel recordings
sound fine through RIAA.

Still, the potential waste of $4 really ****es me off.:-)

In article . com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 4:48 pm
Email: Jenn

He also bought a Telefunken and 4 Philips. And, there are other reasons
to buy and enjoy a recording than the audio quality.

The Russian recordings are of conductor/orchestra combinations that I
don't have, of Russian compositions that I don't have, or don't have
many of. So even if the audio quality is skewed by EQ differences
between RIAA in my pre and whatever they used in the USSR, I still want
to hear them. It will only suck if they're completely unlistenable. I
rather doubt that will be the case. Early Columbia and Angel recordings
sound fine through RIAA.

There ya go. Some have a problem understanding that it's not always
about audio.

Still, the potential waste of $4 really ****es me off.:-)

Been there! :-)

This wasn't very nice, was it?

What do you think nob usually wears to work?

Depends, I suppose.

Making fun of nob's incontinence seems rather insensitive. Unless, of
course, it is the root cause of his stupidity. Then it's fair game.

MINe 109 said:

My point is, do you really expect people to remember details about your
audio equipment that they MIGHT have read about at least 3 years ago?

I think he really does.

Delusions persist in 'borgworld.

BTW, Mr. **** has used the "I can't be expected to remember that" excuse
several times when trapped in his own web of lies. In fact, here's one,
from May 8 2001:

"This was November 1999, which was 18 months ago and I just don't remember
details like this from that long ago."

Jenn said:

Of course, in Mr. ****'s demented "debating trade" idiom, the Kroogeresque
response would be "Prove it didn't happen!" And, if nobody can prove
whether it happend or not, that means the accusation is valid. duh-Mikey
has also used this excuse when Turdy was flinging the accusations about
kiddie porn at a dozen or so people.

I understand that. Taking the high road becomes one though, don't you
agree?

Good one. G

I can see you up there on the mountainside, communing with a guru....