"ScottW" wrote in message
news1sKf.14035$2c4.2760@dukeread11...

"Harry Lavo" 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.


Yeah, the Large Advents in particular seem to sound exceptionally good on
guitar.

I still have them.... refoamed the woofers once. The Sansui's phono stage
crapped out but my kid is still using it. I sold the AR to a friend when
his TT died and I had tired of the manual shut-off. Woke up once too
many times to the sounds of stylus against label . Somebody stole the
Akai.... I decide to replace it with a cassette...good reels were
expensive and so many of my plastic ones were warped just enough to give
you that screech of tape on plastic. God I hated that.... I loved the
look of my r to r but I had to put it in the closet to listen to it .


I'm still using large advents in my bedroom system...even used them stacked
as center channel with my Thiels before I got my third pair of Thiels.
Great speakers...not many from that era I enjoy, but these I do (another are
the little EPI's I have in my basement workroom).

You might want to reconsider reel to reel...can pick up some excellent buys
on eBay, and lots of prerecorded tapes. I have the Philadelphia / Ormandy
Verdi Requieum, for example, that bests even the SACD. I still run a Teac
4070 in the main system as well as a Nak cassette recorder and a Panasonic
DAT .

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

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 9:39 pm
Email: Steven Sullivan

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

How is that different from the 'it doesn't matter what you hear, I
MEASURE IT' non-argument?

That's not the argument. The argument is that what you hear (sighted)
*might* matter, but it's not always enough to establish that what you
hear
is *real*, and not a product of your imagination.

Just curious. I thought we were talking about preference here.

If only. "I like the sound of LPs better than the sound of CDs'
makes at least one big erroneous supposition about what sounds
are *inherent* to either format.


You don't understand: :-):

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

No, it is a fact *that* you like it. It is a fact about *you*, not
about the media.


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

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


It's a preference regardless of whether you are forced to defend
it, or whether I have a different one.


Good to see you really caught the humor in that one, Steven!

:-)

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in message


My point is
(again) that the sound of violins on CD is unlike ANY
violin that actually exists.

My point is that while CD recordings aren't perfect,

What? No "Perfect Sound Forever"? :-)

they are far more
perfect reproducers of the signals that come out of microphones and
reocrding consoles than LPs.

If you don't like the sound of the violins on some CD recording,
blame
the
guys who made the recording. They had an entirely adequate medium at
their
disposal and they blew it.

In that case EVERY recording team has "blown it".

You have heard every recording ever released on CD?

Of course not. Sigh...

So how on earth can you make a claim about 'every' recording team?

A reasonable person would assume that I mean every recording team that
I've heard.


And which recordings on LP sound indistinguishable, to you, from
a live performance?

None. I've never claimed that any did, have I?


OK, so, 'every' recording team, for both LP and CD, has 'blown it'
in that regard.

You are making a "logic leap". You stated that if the CD sound isn't
right, it's the fault of the recording team. I've made no such claim
about LP recording teams.

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?

But LP violins sound 'more real'

Once AGAIN, SOME LPs....

than CD violins, and this is due
to digital recording itself.

I don't know the cause for sure, but based on the fact that I've only
heard decent sounding violin sound on LPs, logic dictates that either
the digital process or the CD medium is to blame.

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

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

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:
Jenn said:


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


An interesting experiment would then be to record a good
sounding
LP
onto CD and report back whether you hear differences, or that
you
like
what you hear, or not.

I'd be very interested in the opinion of a professional
musician
such
as yourself on this.

I'd be more interested to hear the results of the comparison
done
sighted,
then blind. It ain't gonna happen, though.

Why not?


Because I doubt you have the resources or diligence to set up and
perform a
properly-controlled blind test between an LP and a CD. Certainly it
can
be
done, but it's not as easy as comparing two sound files. Assuming a
competent
'flat' digital transfer of the LP is performed, the test itself will
involve
careful level-matching of outputs from LP and CD sources (for each
channel),
randomization of presentation order, thorough double-blinding
during
the
test,
and making sure no new pops, clicks, or other surface noises are
introduced
to
the LP after it is copied to CD, and no audible cues are given as to
the
nature of the source in the circuit (e.g, you can't let the listener
hear
the needle drop or hit the run-out). Then you'll want to do ~25
trials
to
get a
decent statistical handle on the data. Of course you'll also have
to
use the
same turntable/stylus setup to do the test as you did for the
transfer,
so you've also got to be careful not to change its setup.


Assuming you get the setup ready, here's a page with advice for
performing the test as an ABX, including a link to a table of
binomial
probabilities for testing the significance of the results:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=16295

I'll do the best that I can. Have you done this?

I've not done a blind LP vs CD, no. But I know what would be
required to do it right. Do you?

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.



"Seemed to be faithfully transferred..." is just anecdotal. Where's the
"proof" they sounded the same?? :-)


Of course it is! And thus of course I didn't say *I'd* proved it.
But I do have science on my side, going in. Based on the characteristics
of the media, what *reason* can you
give why a CD transfer of LP would NOT sound identical to the LP?
(Let's assume the transfer and comparison were done properly.)

Then ask, what reason can you give why a CD transcribed to an LP
would NOT sound identical to the CD?



Ahhh, I see you caught the humor in this one too....

Tell me, Steven, what does a smiley mean?

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.


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.


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.

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?

snip

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
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,

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.


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.

"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.

"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.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The world is full of natural sounds that have
considerable energy 20 KHz. In test after test
reproducing that energy or not reproducing that energy
produces indistinguishable results in listeners.

Not quite all of them Arny. Not Oohashi's very
sophisticated testing which showed that was true when
doing short snippet testing, but not when doing longer
sampled proto-monadic testing in a relaxed environment.

Oohashi's tests are irrelevant to normal listening to the point of being
bogus.

"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.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
,
MINe 109 wrote:

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.

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

That might be fun!

The blind leading the blind.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


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

Every single time compared double blind abx, no doubt,
right Arny? Not a hint of a priori prejudice here, right?

To quote many golden ears - "The differences were so great that blind tests
were unecessary".

;-)

"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.

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The world is full of natural sounds that have
considerable energy 20 KHz. In test after test
reproducing that energy or not reproducing that energy
produces indistinguishable results in listeners.

Not quite all of them Arny. Not Oohashi's very
sophisticated testing which showed that was true when
doing short snippet testing, but not when doing longer
sampled proto-monadic testing in a relaxed environment.

Oohashi's tests are irrelevant to normal listening to the point of being
bogus.


lack of snip notification noted.

"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?

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


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

Every single time compared double blind abx, no doubt,
right Arny? Not a hint of a priori prejudice here, right?

To quote many golden ears - "The differences were so great that blind
tests were unecessary".

;-)


You just forfeited your "I can't believe I missed that smiley...." club
membership. That leaves only Steven. :-)

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?

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. :-)

"vlad" wrote in message
oups.com

There is a thing as 'generic violin sound' (GVS) that is
used for recognizing not particular violin but to
distinguish it from say, trombone, piano, cello, etc.

Agreed, as long as someone doesn't try to build a logical house of cards out
of this fact.

Anyone can get GVS from LP, there is no doubt about it.

I also claim that GVS from CD is also unmistakable.

Counter exemple: A GVS on CD that was transcribed off of a LP. This
experiment has been done many times and the result is that a well-prepared
CD made from a LP produces the GVS of a violin recorded on a LP.

I remember somebody like Jenn claiming that you cannot
recognize GVS from CD but I can be wrong about it.

A GVS from a CD is defined by something other than the CD format. It may be
the mastering, it may be the recording technique, it may be the details of
the violin and how and where it was played, but it is not due to the CD
format.

The CD format has been proven to be sonically transparent. The LP format
(and high speed analog master tape) have been proven to *not* be sonically
transparent.

A single generation of LP recording/playback and a single generation of the
highest quality analog tape are detectable in ABX tests. A single generation
of CD recording/playback is not detectable in ABX tests. These are
established facts.

Now, is GVS-LP different from GVS-CD?

As I said before a GVC-CD is indistinguishable from a GVS-LP is the CD is
transcribed from a LP.

I would guess they are.

YMMV.

What is better or close to GVS-real-life?

The difference between GVS-CD and GVS-live is due to other factors than the
inherent properties of the CD format.


I don't know, but my personal opinion after long expose to
USSR-Melodia LP's, Western made LP's, 20+ years of CD's
is that CD does this job better.

The CD has the potential to do the better job because it does not
necessarily impose a dectable audible change.

That is all about generic violin sound.

Point Two:

There are tons of badly mastered/printed LP's.
There are also tons of badly mastered/printed CD's.

Agreed. You can expand on that to include recording.

However, I never observed or heard defects in any LP
attributed to the media itself.

Huh?

In the day of LPs, audiophiles were constantly assaulted by sound quality
problems that were attributed to the LP format. These included:

Tics
Pops
Rumble
Grain noise
Dynamics compression to avoid problems with dynamic sources
Groove pre-echo
Tracing distortion at all locations on the LP, due to higher levels
Tracing distortion that increased for the inner grooves
Amplitude modulation due to relative motion of the cartridge and the LP
Wow and Flutter
Warp wow
Wow due to off-center and loose center holes
Harshness due to VTA mismatches
Groove non-fill
Frequency response issues due to tone arm resonances which cannot be
eliminated
Artificial breaks in performances because of the limited duration per LP
side
FM distortion due to the use of tone arms with offsets to minimize tracking
error
Harshness due to irreducable tracking angle errors with pivoted arms
Wear from repeated playings

At the same time any blemish in produced CD (that can be
very well screw up of mastering engineer) is immediately
attributed to 'digitalness' of the media.

Wrong. There are no such things as audible effects due to the digitalness of
CDs. The format is sonically transparent.

I rest my case.

Bad case - full of errors and omissions.

Harry Lavo said:

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?

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.

"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! :-)

"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

"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.

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.


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.


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.


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?

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) Is it possible that Arny never listen
to a high end turntable with well cared LP? By the way I always try to
buy both format of the same album (CD for the car and LP for Home) So
everytime I compare both most of the time the LP win (LP always win with
Classical and Jazz)

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


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


....that you've heard. You haven't heard all CDs.


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

Probably so, but you are also neglecting the role of acoustics.
The same recording played by the same system, will not sound the same
in a different room.



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

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

Harry Lavo said:

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?

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.

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?

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.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


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


...that you've heard. You haven't heard all CDs.

Duh.


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

Probably so,

Probably? I submit that anyone who has ever been fooled into thinking
that any recording is the actual sound of a violin (or any other
instrument or voice) needs MUCH more experience in the sound of those
instruments.

but you are also neglecting the role of acoustics.

In what way?

The same recording played by the same system, will not sound the same
in a different room.

Of course. But what does that have to do with the discussion?

In article ,
"J.Major" 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.


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.


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.


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?

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)

An EXCELLENT table. I had one in the 90s, with an Alphason arm.
Wonderful sound. Enjoy!

Is it possible that Arny never listen
to a high end turntable with well cared LP? By the way I always try to
buy both format of the same album (CD for the car and LP for Home) So
everytime I compare both most of the time the LP win (LP always win with
Classical and Jazz)

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.
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.





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

"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.

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


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. Why not just agree that you
could be 'hearing' though bias to a degree that confounds your *ears,
and leave be? It's what science tells us; it's what leads orchestral
committes to do 'blind' auditions; it leads 'objectivists' to use
words like 'may' and 'likely'.


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.


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

"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.

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


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? Do you remove dust before each play? How often do
you clean your stylus?

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.

ScottW

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


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.

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge across the Detroit River you
might want to buy! ;-)

It's the SET weirdness all over again.

The LP and tube bigots want us to believe that you can take a randomly
distorted signal, add more random distortions, and end up with something
that is more realistic.

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.




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

"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

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




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

"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.

"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.

Every Harry Lavo post needs smileys!

;-)