[Fella]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Fella wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:



Dunno if I am an "audiophile" or not, but I did. When we were doing the
amp tests we also did one CD player test. It was a really big fat gold
colored high end sony "reference" player (I forget the model number now)
against a cambridge audio azur 640c. In real life the sony had an
immense midrange, liquid, syrupy, almost coming apart at the seems, and
a tall soundstage, while the CA had a comparatively compressed midrange,
clean, accentuated highs and an almost out of control bass. But
connected to the abx box they just sounded the same, lots of detail,
information, no music.


I find that hard to believe.

You should try it yourself one of these days.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:



Lots!

So you do actually say things like that. Hmm...

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Fella" wrote in message
.. .
Peter wrote:
Is the Ayre C-5xe Universal "Silver Disc" Player really
the best "CD Redbook" Player in the world, as a number
of reviewers in both the USA and Europe seem to believe?

Well since a $39 dvd player sounds the same as the ayre
(in double blind tests) it doesn't really matter.

**Bull****. Cite any such test.

Nobody wants to loan me an Ayre, on the chance that it would indeed be
humiliated by the $39 DVD player.

**It would be difficult to find a player as bad as a cheap DVD player.


All the budget DVD
players I've examined have serious and audible flaws.

Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
Trevor.

**Immediately after you provide a blind test to show us the difference
between blondes and brunettes.


Even a 15 year old CD player can beat the pants off them.

Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
Trevor.

**The differences are not that subtle. Try it. Let me know how you go. ANy
cheap, $39.00 DVD player, compared to a Rotel RCD951 or RCD971. Both
machines are several years old, easy to find and employ good, solid sesible
technology (muting relays, decent output chips). Let me know how you go. I
trust you.


Cheap DVD players use primitive output OP amps, which are
similar to the late 1970s vintage 4558 type.

That's not the results of a time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled
test results, Trevor. That's just techhie gobbeldy-gook. Assault on the
senses by numbers.

**Nope. I just deal in facts. $39.00 DVD players suck (sonically). They're
fine when used through modern HT receivers though.


Even the
very first CD players (Philips/Marantz and Sony CDP101)
used the vastly superior 5534 and LM833 types.

So what? All the poor output OP amp has to do is cleanly pass a 22 KHz 2
volt signal. The slew-rate of that signal is what, Trevor?

Amost every CD player since, has used these chips. NOw, I have
no idea what the Ayre sounds like, but I can tell you
that any reasonable CD player sounds better than a budget
DVD player.

Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
Trevor.

**No need. But let me know when you've performed the test. You're in for a
big surprise.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[George M. Middius]

Fella said:

Lots!

So you do actually say things like that. Hmm...

Krooglish is real. Make no mistake.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
"Fella" wrote in message
.. .
Peter wrote:
Is the Ayre C-5xe Universal "Silver Disc" Player
really the best "CD Redbook" Player in the world, as
a number of reviewers in both the USA and Europe seem
to believe?

Well since a $39 dvd player sounds the same as the ayre
(in double blind tests) it doesn't really matter.

**Bull****. Cite any such test.

It's common sense given the measured performance of a typical cheap DVD
player.

Nobody wants to loan me an Ayre, on the chance that it
would indeed be humiliated by the $39 DVD player.

**It would be difficult to find a player as bad as a
cheap DVD player.

Try a mid-priced CD player of say 10 years ago.


All the budget DVD
players I've examined have serious and audible flaws.

Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
bias-controlled test results, Trevor.

**Immediately after you provide a blind test to show us
the difference between blondes and brunettes.

Easy - just ask them to tell you the color of their hair.

Even a 15 year old CD player can beat the pants off
them.

Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
bias-controlled test results, Trevor.

**The differences are not that subtle.

Opinion stated as proof.

Try it.

Not my job. You're the one making the claims, Trevor.

Besides, if I found that you were wrong, you would just claim that I didn't
do the test right.

Let me
know how you go. ANy cheap, $39.00 DVD player, compared
to a Rotel RCD951 or RCD971. Both machines are several
years old, easy to find and employ good, solid sesible
technology (muting relays, decent output chips). Let me
know how you go. I trust you.
Cheap DVD players use primitive output OP amps, which
are similar to the late 1970s vintage 4558 type.

That's not the results of a time-synched,
level-matched, bias-controlled test results, Trevor.
That's just techhie gobbeldy-gook. Assault on the senses
by numbers.

**Nope. I just deal in facts.

Show us your facts, not your parts numbers.

$39.00 DVD players suck
(sonically). They're fine when used through modern HT
receivers though.

Oh, that's a laugh. You think that modern HT receivers just happen to have
the antidote for the sound of modern DVD players?

Even the
very first CD players (Philips/Marantz and Sony CDP101)
used the vastly superior 5534 and LM833 types.

So what? All the poor output OP amp has to do is
cleanly pass a 22 KHz 2 volt signal. The slew-rate of
that signal is what, Trevor?

Note that Trevor can't calculate slew rate. Do I have to post the formula
for him?

Amost every CD player since, has used these chips.
NOw, I have no idea what the Ayre sounds like, but I
can tell you that any reasonable CD player sounds better than a
budget
DVD player.

Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
bias-controlled test results, Trevor.

**No need. But let me know when you've performed the
test. You're in for a big surprise.

Where would there be a surprise? You're long on claims and short on proof
Trevor, as you have been several times before.

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound respectable
are pretty simple:

* Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
* Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something better. 5534/2 will be
fine, though I prefer the AD825.

Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD player by several
hundred percent.

As aftermarket mods for sure.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound respectable
are pretty simple:

* Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
* Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something better. 5534/2 will
be
fine, though I prefer the AD825.

Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD player by several
hundred percent.

As aftermarket mods for sure.

**And if installed by the manufacturer, around 3 Bucks.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Jenn]

In article . com,
"Bret Ludwig" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
snip


Many violins sound "better" when processed through mastering and
replaying vinyl than they do live, but hi-fi is about "making it the
same" and not "better". If you want my-fi, get a good stereo parametric
EQ and a compressor. Be honest about it. It isn't a moral failing. But
it isn't fidelity. It's niceness.

This, of course, speaks to the reasons one listens to their audio
systems. IOW, does one listen for accuracy, or does one listen for
music that sounds like music? In regards to audio, this seems like the
eternal question.

It should sound like music to the extent the original performance
"sounded like music", in the case of a representational recording, or
to the extent the producers intended it to "sound like music" in the
case of constucted music (multitracked, edited, mixed performances) .

Of course.

Consider that euphony and music are not synonymous, and that in all
music, but especially in 20th century compositions, dysphony is
employed.

What is "dysphony"?

It is as important as the silence when the whole group plays
a rest. Apparatus that dulls this, musically speaking, is as offensive
as that which "sours' the euphony, where present.



If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment on an ad hoc basis,
at least acknowledge this to be the case. Posession of a good stereo EQ
(graphic or parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the case of
mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of post-recording compression
improves the listenability of high dynamic range content in noisy
environments) is not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would not be the case.

I understand your point of course. My point is what good is "accuracy"
if instruments don't sound like instruments or voices like voices?



Violinists choose violins for career enhancing reasons-orchestras make
good second violinists with Old Cremona instruments first violinists,
because then the orchestra feels its penis is bigger. Old violins are
about penis size and not music, like old guitars, just more money
involved. And whether the violinist or conductor EVEN HAS a penis is
irrelevant. The orchestra has a phantom weenie, like Madge in her
crotch grabbing phase. Since the biggest four-stringed, bowed penises
are 300+ years old they don't really sound all that great, so
processing helps.

Well, I couldn't disagree more.

Even leading apologists for high dollar vintage instruments will,
between the lines, concede that the "fleet" of Old Cremona instruments
is probably past the peak of its excellence

Some would say that, some wouldn't.

and that playing an
instrument only improves it to a certain extent after which it takes a
toll. And the love for these instruments manifested by leading
orchestral players is not without a substantial attention-receiving
component.

Are you saying that orchestras will pay the huge bucks they have to pay
for an old instrument for supposed "substantial attention"?


Further, the art of bowed instrument construction is probably at its
peak today, as so much more is known about every detail of the process.


In fifty to a hundred years, Cremona violins will join the serpents
and sackbuts and rebecs and virginals as museum display pieces, played
only for historical interest, and considered-rightly- as quaint
artifacts rather than essential musical tools for modern musicians.


FWIW, the older generation of violinists and violin recordings were
more euphonic, plus which their "axes' were half a century younger and
sounded better,

Again, this is a generalization with which I disagree.

Well, an instrument 300 years old today was only 250 in 1956! Surely
we can agree on the arithmetic!

lol Of course.

Players are going to go for what instrument helps them to make the best
sound their technique allows. Their livelihood depends on their sound.
Whatever vintage of instrument help them to get the sound they need,
they will go for.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message



"Arny Krueger" said:


"Fella" wrote in message
t...



Why don't you just walk over to your local HE dealer and
take one home for audition?


That would be Audio Dimensions on N Woodward near my
daughter's house.


They are the guys who sold me my bigger NHTs, and told
me that I'd burn them out by driving them with a Mackie
M1200. Long story short - the NHTs out-survived the
M1200 by at least 5 years. Seriously though, they are
pretty good guys.

Too far to walk.


They finally took your driver's license?


Forgot how to read again Sander, or is your memory that short?

To refresh your mind, please see the OP's comment about walking, at the top
of this post.



Ok ok arny, sheeeeeeeesh, ok, here's a step by step instructions thingy.
DRIVE your car, park your car, get *out* of your car and *walk* to the
shop and *open* its door and get an audition version of the ayre. Then
*go* home arny, yea, go. Then arny, hook it up to whatever disgusting
amp you have and have a listen. Then arny, hook it up to whatever
disgusting abx box you have and do those abxist masturbations to "find
out" that under the abx conditions the ayre sounds the same as your main
system cd transport, decoder, united $39 dvd video player you got from
wart mart or whatever disgusting place you get your mainstream korean
gear from.

And bret, just think somewhat before answering this post too. Don't come
up with stuff like "wart mart? What art mart? In a united dvd player
transport and decoder are in the same box" etc.. It's arny's job to
write responses like that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message


I understand your point of course. My point is what good
is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like instruments
or voices like voices?

Please explain how adding audible noise and distortion to the sound of
instruments and voices makes them sound more like instruments and voices for
persons with normal hearing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Eeyore" wrote
in message ...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound
respectable are pretty simple:

* Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
* Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something
better. 5534/2 will be
fine, though I prefer the AD825.

Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD
player by several hundred percent.

As aftermarket mods for sure.

**And if installed by the manufacturer, around 3 Bucks.

5532s are under $0.50 each in quantity, and that's pretty much all it takes
to get rid of the dreaded 4558s in this application.

The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad for the application as
some make out, in actual use. For example, some rag on its lack of slew
rate. However none of the RAO critics seem to be able to calculate the slew
rate of a 20 Hz 2 volt rms sine wave. For them, here is a slew rate
calculator http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/a741p3.html
..

[paul packer]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:45:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Start them at the same time, and apply manual drag to a CD disc

Eh?

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:45:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Start them at the same time, and apply manual drag to a
CD disc

Eh?

Generally, you have to take the cover off the CD player to do this.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

Start them at the same time, and apply manual drag to a CD disc

Eh?

Do you want to torture yourself or not?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment on
an ad hoc basis, at least acknowledge this to be the
case. Posession of a good stereo EQ (graphic or
parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the case
of mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of
post-recording compression improves the listenability
of high dynamic range content in noisy environments) is
not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would not
be the case.

I understand your point of course. My point is what
good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
instruments or voices like voices?


If instruments don't sound like instruments and voices
don't sound like voices, then you don't have "accuracy."
Luckily, it isn't hard at all to have accuracy in between
the transducers at either end of the chain.

At the listening end, we thus really only have to worry
about the speakers on out to your ears. (It _is_ a worry,
since the problems here are orders of magnitude greater
than those in the electronics in the chain.)

And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that she can only get
certain instruments to sound right when the signal chain includes a medium
that is nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to perform accurately.
She's equally adamant that she's never found a highly-accurate medium to do
the job right.

I guarantee you that ABXing the CD format and getting positive results is
just as hard, as it is easy to get negative results while ABX-ing the LP
format. IOW, the LP format *always* leaves relatively big audible
footprints on whatever is processed through it, and the CD format need not
leave any audible footprints at all.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


I understand your point of course. My point is what good
is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like instruments
or voices like voices?

Please explain how adding audible noise and distortion to the sound of
instruments and voices makes them sound more like instruments and voices for
persons with normal hearing.

I don't know, as I've stated before.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:14:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment on
an ad hoc basis, at least acknowledge this to be the
case. Posession of a good stereo EQ (graphic or
parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the case
of mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of
post-recording compression improves the listenability
of high dynamic range content in noisy environments)
is not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would not
be the case.

I understand your point of course. My point is what
good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
instruments or voices like voices?


If instruments don't sound like instruments and voices
don't sound like voices, then you don't have "accuracy."
Luckily, it isn't hard at all to have accuracy in
between the transducers at either end of the chain.

At the listening end, we thus really only have to worry
about the speakers on out to your ears. (It _is_ a
worry, since the problems here are orders of magnitude
greater than those in the electronics in the chain.)

And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that she
can only get certain instruments to sound right when the
signal chain includes a medium that is
nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to perform
accurately. She's equally adamant that she's never found
a highly-accurate medium to do the job right.

It isn't just Jenn though. There are other people who
feel the same way.

Yes, Stephen and Harry seems to be others of them. On Usenet, they make up a
noisy minority.

I can't figure out _why_ they do this, but there it is...

I suspect that I've figured a lot of it out. Due to pride, most if not all
of the afflicted are ever going to agree with any of the diagnoses.


I guarantee you that ABXing the CD format and getting
positive results is just as hard, as it is easy to get
negative results while ABX-ing the LP format. IOW, the
LP format *always* leaves relatively big audible
footprints on whatever is processed through it, and the
CD format need not leave any audible footprints at all.

I would agree with that. Vinyl is just not a transparent
medium; it always colors the content.

On that people who understand the two technologies will agree.

It's sort of like windows made of hand-blown glass. Some
people may like the hand-made glass better, or feel it
has more "character," and it certainly keeps the wind
out. However, if you use glass to see through, the
machine-made glass is far superior.

Three reasons not to agree that modern glass is superior.

(1) Your vision is so bad that you don't see the waveyness of hand-blown
glass windows.]

(2) Glass is always a liquid at standard temperatures and it sags in the
long haul - leading to an appearance that is something like hand-blown glass
over many decades.

(3) You're so used to the waveyness, that you see flat as if it was wavy.
This definately happens with curved-faceplate CRTs.


I expect my stereo system to be as transparent as
possible so I can "see" through to the original
performance. I don't want a rose-tinted stereo system
that makes everything sound happy. :-)

Agreed. People who have colored systems will tend to see some recordings as
being very exceptional, and others that are really pretty good as sounding
flat. People with accurate systems will tend to have a less spectacular
sound, but with a higher percentage of the recordings.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


I understand your point of course. My point is what
good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
instruments or voices like voices?

Please explain how adding audible noise and distortion
to the sound of instruments and voices makes them sound
more like instruments and voices for persons with normal
hearing.

I don't know, as I've stated before.

There are explanations, but you've rejected them.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com

If you balanced and blueprinted that old Buick straight
eight, using new rings and pistons, put on a good full
flow and bypass oil filter and a effective crankcase vent
system, an electronic ignition and something a little
better for induction than that old single barrel carb, I
bet the Buick would go 12,000 miles between oil changes
too.

However, the block, crank and mains are still made out of old-tech
materials. There does appear to be a business in updating the technology of
old cars, but a full engine swap seems to be a big part of the game.

So, no dice.

And replacing the kingpin front end with a Mustang
II style setup with a power rack and ball joints and
urethane bushings, it would handle pretty good as well as
not needing greasing too.

I think you'd solve the lube problems, but the high CG and ancient geometry
of the suspension would still dictate how it handles. That and of course the
tires.

And it would be a hell of a lot cooler than that Milan.

You forgot about adding air conditioning to that old Buick. ;-)

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
says...


(2) Glass is always a liquid at standard temperatures and it sags in the
long haul - leading to an appearance that is something like hand-blown glass
over many decades.

A very minor nit, but this is a pervasive urban legend and is in fact
false. Glass is not a liquid at standard temperatures and does not
"flow" as commonly believed: http://glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html

--
Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
In article ,
says...


(2) Glass is always a liquid at standard temperatures
and it sags in the long haul - leading to an appearance
that is something like hand-blown glass over many
decades.

A very minor nit, but this is a pervasive urban legend
and is in fact false. Glass is not a liquid at standard
temperatures and does not "flow" as commonly believed:
http://glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html

I looked at your reference, and did some other browsing around. Point taken.
Visible glass flow at room temp is not a strong effect.

[George M. Middius]

Time to bring out the big insult guns.

I don't know, as I've stated before.

There are explanations, but you've rejected them.

Not really.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that she
can only get certain instruments to sound right when the
signal chain includes a medium that is
nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to perform
accurately. She's equally adamant that she's never found
a highly-accurate medium to do the job right.

It isn't just Jenn though. There are other people who
feel the same way.

Yes, Stephen and Harry seems to be others of them. On Usenet, they make up a
noisy minority.

No, I feel that vinyl does enough right to sound good in ways that favor
certain types of music.

CDs can sound good.

Stephen

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Agreed. People who have colored systems will tend to see some recordings
as being very exceptional, and others that are really pretty good as
sounding flat. People with accurate systems will tend to have a less
spectacular sound, but with a higher percentage of the recordings.


The world according to Arny, translated into how an audiophle would
interpret the above:

People with "colored" (in Arny's terms, almost all really high-end) systems
can tell those recordings that sound exceptional from those which sound less
than exceptional (Arny calls them "flat").

People with "accurate" (in Arny terms Best Buy mid-fi) systems tend to have
everything sound the same (Arny calls it "less spectacular"...some might
call it "mediocre").

Read your words again, Arny. That's basically what you seem to have said.
Do you want to take the oath?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Agreed. People who have colored systems will tend to see
some recordings as being very exceptional, and others
that are really pretty good as sounding flat. People
with accurate systems will tend to have a less
spectacular sound, but with a higher percentage of the
recordings.

Good example of how Harry Lavo free-associates on a long, probably somewhat
wet Friday afternoon:

The world according to Arny, translated into how an
audiophle would interpret the above:

People with "colored" (in Arny's terms, almost all really
high-end) systems can tell those recordings that sound
exceptional from those which sound less than exceptional
(Arny calls them "flat").
People with "accurate" (in Arny terms Best Buy mid-fi)
systems tend to have everything sound the same (Arny
calls it "less spectacular"...some might call it
"mediocre").

Read your words again, Arny. That's basically what you
seem to have said.

Only in your mind, Harry.

Do you want to take the oath?

Sounds like you need a good 12-step program, Harry.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Fella" wrote in message
.. .
Peter wrote:
Is the Ayre C-5xe Universal "Silver Disc" Player really
the best "CD Redbook" Player in the world, as a number
of reviewers in both the USA and Europe seem to believe?

Well since a $39 dvd player sounds the same as the ayre
(in double blind tests) it doesn't really matter.

**Bull****. Cite any such test.

Nobody wants to loan me an Ayre, on the chance that it would indeed be
humiliated by the $39 DVD player.

All the budget DVD
players I've examined have serious and audible flaws.

Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
Trevor.

Even a 15 year old CD player can beat the pants off them.

Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
Trevor.

Cheap DVD players use primitive output OP amps, which are
similar to the late 1970s vintage 4558 type.

That's not the results of a time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled
test results, Trevor. That's just techhie gobbeldy-gook. Assault on the
senses by numbers.

Even the
very first CD players (Philips/Marantz and Sony CDP101)
used the vastly superior 5534 and LM833 types.

So what? All the poor output OP amp has to do is cleanly pass a 22 KHz 2
volt signal. The slew-rate of that signal is what, Trevor?

Amost every CD player since, has used these chips. NOw, I have
no idea what the Ayre sounds like, but I can tell you
that any reasonable CD player sounds better than a budget
DVD player.

Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
Trevor.
======================================
Our own Gulliver in full flight :
Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
Trevor.

You first. Where are your TS, LM, BC ( an oh so cunning cryptonym for
ABX) listening test results?

If you had any idea Gulliver what science is all about you'd know that
it is about experimental evidence. If you recommend a method to do a
listening test for differences between audio components it is up to you
to show that it works.

As I said to you many times before choose what even you agree sounds
different from each other like different kinds of loudspeaker. (For
details see Sean Olive's loudspeaker comparisons in JAES). Have a
statistically significant large panel of listeners: both genders,
different ages, different levels of musical experience.

Show that you get better results using your method than without.it in a
study acceptable for the editors of a professional peer- reviewed
journal. Till then Gulliver....see you..
Ludovic Mirabel.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
s.com


Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
bias-controlled test results, Trevor.
======================================

Our own Gulliver in full flight :
Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
bias-controlled test results, Trevor.

Seems like the snot disease is catchy

You first. Where are your TS, LM, BC ( an oh so cunning
cryptonym for ABX) listening test results?

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_data.htm

If you had any idea Gulliver what science is all about
you'd know that it is about experimental evidence. If you
recommend a method to do a listening test for differences
between audio components it is up to you to show that it
works.

Tell it to the ITU:

http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I/e

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com

I understand your point of course. My point is what
good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
instruments or voices like voices?

Please explain how adding audible noise and distortion
to the sound of instruments and voices makes them sound
more like instruments and voices for persons with normal
hearing.

I don't know, as I've stated before.

There are explanations, but you've rejected them.

I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those things sound
compared to instruments and voices based on my experience with same.
That's all that matters to me. How many times must you be told that to
understand it?

[Jenn]

In article . com,
"Bret Ludwig" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
snip

Consider that euphony and music are not synonymous, and that in all
music, but especially in 20th century compositions, dysphony is
employed.

What is "dysphony"?

It's the antonym, the opposite of euphony.

Well, it's a nice word you made up there! ;-)

In this context, I mean it
to mean a unit or process that affects the timbre or other sonic
characteristics of the instrument in a way that makes it less pleasing,
rather than more pleasing, to listen to.


It is as important as the silence when the whole group plays
a rest. Apparatus that dulls this, musically speaking, is as offensive
as that which "sours' the euphony, where present.



If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment on an ad hoc basis,
at least acknowledge this to be the case. Posession of a good stereo EQ
(graphic or parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the case of
mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of post-recording compression
improves the listenability of high dynamic range content in noisy
environments) is not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would not be the case.

I understand your point of course. My point is what good is "accuracy"
if instruments don't sound like instruments or voices like voices?

I can tell a banjo from a resonator guitar, or Johnny Cash from Bob
Dylan, or Susannah McCorkle from Marilyn Monroe or Diana Krall, to use
non-classical examples, on a record played on any old record player one
might find at a yard sale or through ear buds on a cheesy MP3 player
very easily. Now you may say: Yes, but in each case you can tell it is
a recording and not actually them standing there! (If I see Johnny,
Susannah, or MM standing next to me....uh oh....) That wall is pretty
tough to break. It happens only occasionally with the best recordings
and systems and rooms, no matter what.

Now, I'll be the first to say that in many instances the LP of a
performance, especially old ones found in unplayed shape, is the best
sonic document available of a given performance. That isn't going to
change either, because of the prevalence of bad mastering techniques,
lost master tapes, "sticky shed" and other tape impairments, etc, etc.
But the following is also unassailable:

1. Many, maybe even most, LPs are not exactly world class.

Of course.


2. LP is NOT AS GOOD as other analog media, particularly half-inch
half track tape at 30 ips, on properly set up professional Ampex,
Studer, or other such decks. NO LP pressing can completely encompass
the "resolution" (I hate that word, since audio saloon whores have
pounded it into the carpet) of good tape, not even some of the really
magnificent direct to disk audiophile projects in the 70s and early
80s. And they were some of the best vinyl ever.

Agreed.


3. CD has limits but nevertheless there are some pretty good CDs out
there.

Agreed.

In the case of popular music from the mid-60s and back with no
audible content over 10-12 kHz to begin with, and also in the cases of
some classical releases generated from mag film, tape, transcription
discs, etc. the CD is as good as you are ever going to get-the CD is
performing to the limits of the media it comes from. You might as well
lay back, close your eyes and think of England.

4. In the case of new recordings it is unlikely that the vinyl is
going to be better than the highbit digital releases. For one thing,
though there are some great mastering guys with great tools working
today, they are not getting any younger, neither are their lathes and
heads, and no one is too serious about keeping the supply chain going
at the highest level of performance. Who's building a new world class
cutting head? And are the blanks of the highest quality? Yes, vinyl
will continue, but the retro and DJ markets drive it, just like guitar
amps drive new vacuum tube manufacture. Unless a huge renaissance of
SERIOUS vinyl buffs with the highest buying standards breaks out that
infrastructure can't last. If you simply can't abide digital
reproduction whatsoever, you are in a lot of trouble. I was hoping for
an open reel renaissance, but that is not going to happen.




Violinists choose violins for career enhancing reasons-orchestras
make
good second violinists with Old Cremona instruments first violinists,
because then the orchestra feels its penis is bigger. Old violins are
about penis size and not music, like old guitars, just more money
involved. And whether the violinist or conductor EVEN HAS a penis is
irrelevant. The orchestra has a phantom weenie, like Madge in her
crotch grabbing phase. Since the biggest four-stringed, bowed penises
are 300+ years old they don't really sound all that great, so
processing helps.

Well, I couldn't disagree more.

Even leading apologists for high dollar vintage instruments will,
between the lines, concede that the "fleet" of Old Cremona instruments
is probably past the peak of its excellence

Some would say that, some wouldn't.

and that playing an
instrument only improves it to a certain extent after which it takes a
toll. And the love for these instruments manifested by leading
orchestral players is not without a substantial attention-receiving
component.

Are you saying that orchestras will pay the huge bucks they have to pay
for an old instrument for supposed "substantial attention"?

Absolutely.

How much attention does the L.A.Phil get for owning some Strads? Before
the theft and recovery of a Strad cello a couple of years ago, what
percentage of ticket buyers do you suppose even knew that the LAP owned
old instruments?

Good modern instruments are at their peak yet musicians
(with nice houses on the coasts) take out instrument mortgages for
three times their house value. It isn't WGBD on their part
personally-it's good business since owning the instrument gets them a
better gig, because of institutional WGBD.

Well, now you're onto private ownership as opposed to orchestral
ownership.



Further, the art of bowed instrument construction is probably at its
peak today, as so much more is known about every detail of the process.


In fifty to a hundred years, Cremona violins will join the serpents
and sackbuts and rebecs and virginals as museum display pieces, played
only for historical interest, and considered-rightly- as quaint
artifacts rather than essential musical tools for modern musicians.


FWIW, the older generation of violinists and violin recordings were
more euphonic, plus which their "axes' were half a century younger
and
sounded better,

Again, this is a generalization with which I disagree.

Well, an instrument 300 years old today was only 250 in 1956! Surely
we can agree on the arithmetic!

lol Of course.

Players are going to go for what instrument helps them to make the best
sound their technique allows. Their livelihood depends on their sound.
Whatever vintage of instrument help them to get the sound they need,
they will go for.

I'm certain that as in all human endeavors the sound is not the sole
determinant, but one piece of the puzzle: a worn-out instrument is of
value only to a pure collector. But the fact is that just as mechanics
go way in hock for a Snap-On tool box stuffed full of male jewelry they
use five percent of regularly-status, you see- a musician is looking at
it from a number of angles. A highly prestigious instrument is a career
enhancer, gets them publicity, gets their orchestra publicity, etc,
etc. Classical music is, unless you are strictly an amateur, a
business-show business- and it's no different in its bottom line-you
put asses in the seats or you go home and get a real job. Audiences
want gawk value and having a 300 year old instrument the price of a
corporate jet is something to gawk at. To think otherwise is naivete
at its zenith-such as believing that country music is about real
working people or that rock and roll is really about youth rebellion
and freedom or that Republicans are more moral than Democrats (or vice
versa.)

I would think that the vast majority of concert goers have no idea of
the origin or vintage of the instruments being played. I doubt that if
Joshua Bell suddenly switched from a Strad to an allegedly equally
sounding modern instrument, that he would sell even one less ticket to
his concerts.

[Jenn]

In article ,
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment on an ad hoc basis,
at least acknowledge this to be the case. Posession of a good stereo EQ
(graphic or parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the case of
mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of post-recording compression
improves the listenability of high dynamic range content in noisy
environments) is not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would not be the case.

I understand your point of course. My point is what good is "accuracy"
if instruments don't sound like instruments or voices like voices?


If instruments don't sound like instruments and voices don't sound
like voices, then you don't have "accuracy."

You have an accurate home product if the master sounded that way.

Luckily, it isn't hard at
all to have accuracy in between the transducers at either end of the
chain.

At the listening end, we thus really only have to worry about the
speakers on out to your ears. (It _is_ a worry, since the problems
here are orders of magnitude greater than those in the electronics in
the chain.)


Players are going to go for what instrument helps them to make the best
sound their technique allows. Their livelihood depends on their sound.
Whatever vintage of instrument help them to get the sound they need,
they will go for.

It's a very subjective thing, so I would imagine that there are other
things involved besides the quality of sound the instrument allows.

Sure there are other things. But professional musicians need to earn a
living. They aren't going to chance having an inferior sound in order
to have the other things.


It's pretty easy to envision a violinist to perceive a certain violin
as sounding better, even if it doesn't in actuality. An exclusive
"brand name" or high price tag may very well change perceptions. Even
the looks of the instrument can do that.

We could even take it further and speculate that the violinist who
owns an "elite" instrument might then feel more confident and thus
play better. So the subjective becomes objective. :-)

There are certainly some objective things that belong at this end of
the music (the performance end), but subjective judgement is also
apropos here because we are _making_ music.

OF COURSE it's subjective.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:14:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment on
an ad hoc basis, at least acknowledge this to be the
case. Posession of a good stereo EQ (graphic or
parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the case
of mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of
post-recording compression improves the listenability
of high dynamic range content in noisy environments)
is not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would not
be the case.

I understand your point of course. My point is what
good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
instruments or voices like voices?


If instruments don't sound like instruments and voices
don't sound like voices, then you don't have "accuracy."
Luckily, it isn't hard at all to have accuracy in
between the transducers at either end of the chain.

At the listening end, we thus really only have to worry
about the speakers on out to your ears. (It _is_ a
worry, since the problems here are orders of magnitude
greater than those in the electronics in the chain.)

And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that she
can only get certain instruments to sound right when the
signal chain includes a medium that is
nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to perform
accurately. She's equally adamant that she's never found
a highly-accurate medium to do the job right.

It isn't just Jenn though. There are other people who
feel the same way.

Yes, Stephen and Harry seems to be others of them. On Usenet, they make up a
noisy minority.

I can't figure out _why_ they do this, but there it is...

I suspect that I've figured a lot of it out. Due to pride, most if not all
of the afflicted are ever going to agree with any of the diagnoses.

Says the person who called obviously synthed music files on his website
recordings of acoustic instruments, and still has doubts about it.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to ConcreteCraniumBorg:

I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those things sound
compared to instruments and voices based on my experience with same.
That's all that matters to me. How many times must you be told that to
understand it?

Minimum 490 times.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

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

Jenn said to ConcreteCraniumBorg:

I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those things sound
compared to instruments and voices based on my experience with same.
That's all that matters to me. How many times must you be told that to
understand it?

Minimum 490 times.

I'm getting close.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com

I understand your point of course. My point is what
good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
instruments or voices like voices?

Please explain how adding audible noise and distortion
to the sound of instruments and voices makes them sound
more like instruments and voices for persons with
normal hearing.

I don't know, as I've stated before.

There are explanations, but you've rejected them.

I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those
things sound compared to instruments and voices based on
my experience with same. That's all that matters to me.

So which LPs of yours are in fact performances that are entirely composed of
voices and instruments that you have ever heard live?

How many times must you be told that to understand it?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:14:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment
on an ad hoc basis, at least acknowledge this to be
the case. Posession of a good stereo EQ (graphic or
parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the
case of mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of
post-recording compression improves the
listenability of high dynamic range content in
noisy environments) is not wrong morally. It does
make some recordings comprehensible or enjoyable
where otherwise would not be the case.

I understand your point of course. My point is what
good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
instruments or voices like voices?


If instruments don't sound like instruments and voices
don't sound like voices, then you don't have
"accuracy." Luckily, it isn't hard at all to have
accuracy in between the transducers at either end of
the chain.

At the listening end, we thus really only have to
worry about the speakers on out to your ears. (It
_is_ a worry, since the problems here are orders of
magnitude greater than those in the electronics in
the chain.)

And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that
she can only get certain instruments to sound right
when the signal chain includes a medium that is
nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to perform
accurately. She's equally adamant that she's never
found a highly-accurate medium to do the job right.

It isn't just Jenn though. There are other people who
feel the same way.

Yes, Stephen and Harry seems to be others of them. On
Usenet, they make up a noisy minority.

I can't figure out _why_ they do this, but there it
is...

I suspect that I've figured a lot of it out. Due to
pride, most if not all of the afflicted are ever going
to agree with any of the diagnoses.

Says the person who called obviously synthed music files
on his website recordings of acoustic instruments, and
still has doubts about it.

Says a person who prefers her music with added audible noise and distortion.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

What is "dysphony"?

It's the antonym, the opposite of euphony.

Well, it's a nice word you made up there! ;-)

The word is real. Bratwig made up his bizarre definition:

dysphony medicine A difficulty in producing vocal sounds;
enfeebled or depraved voice.

Here's a very similar def:

DYS'PHONY, n. [Gr. bad, hard; and voice.] A difficulty of
speaking, occasioned by an ill disposition of the organs of speech.


Brattie probably should have just said dissonance.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:14:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment
on an ad hoc basis, at least acknowledge this to be
the case. Posession of a good stereo EQ (graphic or
parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the
case of mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of
post-recording compression improves the
listenability of high dynamic range content in
noisy environments) is not wrong morally. It does
make some recordings comprehensible or enjoyable
where otherwise would not be the case.

I understand your point of course. My point is what
good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
instruments or voices like voices?


If instruments don't sound like instruments and voices
don't sound like voices, then you don't have
"accuracy." Luckily, it isn't hard at all to have
accuracy in between the transducers at either end of
the chain.

At the listening end, we thus really only have to
worry about the speakers on out to your ears. (It
_is_ a worry, since the problems here are orders of
magnitude greater than those in the electronics in
the chain.)

And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that
she can only get certain instruments to sound right
when the signal chain includes a medium that is
nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to perform
accurately. She's equally adamant that she's never
found a highly-accurate medium to do the job right.

It isn't just Jenn though. There are other people who
feel the same way.

Yes, Stephen and Harry seems to be others of them. On
Usenet, they make up a noisy minority.

I can't figure out _why_ they do this, but there it
is...

I suspect that I've figured a lot of it out. Due to
pride, most if not all of the afflicted are ever going
to agree with any of the diagnoses.

Says the person who called obviously synthed music files
on his website recordings of acoustic instruments, and
still has doubts about it.

Says a person who prefers her music with added audible noise and distortion.

Whatever it takes to make sound right.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
s.com


Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
bias-controlled test results, Trevor.
======================================

Our own Gulliver in full flight :
Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
bias-controlled test results, Trevor.

Seems like the snot disease is catchy

You first. Where are your TS, LM, BC ( an oh so cunning
cryptonym for ABX) listening test results?

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_data.htm

If you had any idea Gulliver what science is all about
you'd know that it is about experimental evidence. If you
recommend a method to do a listening test for differences
between audio components it is up to you to show that it
works.

Tell it to the ITU:

http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I/e
==============================

Gulliver performs a deconstruction of my posting::

The inconvenient bits litter the floor:

He ressuscitates the joke "research" in the Carlstrom web site:
I said:
"Have a statistically significant large panel of listeners: both
genders, different ages, different levels of musical experience."

Krueger's idea of the "statistically significant, large... etc panel":
10, 9 and 6 in the three trials he quotes.
The first comparison.

Their comment (That Gulliver strategically omits):

. :"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400, (A 200 watt transistor amp. L.M.)
two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
not bad but less than flat

As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering subtle differences"- like
the subtleties between 200 and 7 watts
.. .
They would have nver managed without ABX.
QED.

2nd comparison Paoli60M- whatever that was. (No details available).
62% of the
panelists got it right.ie "different"
38% got it wrong 3rd comparison: Dynaco 400 vs. something called
Swartz40 (20 watts/channel).

3rd comparison: Swartz 40 ( a 20 watt transistor) vs Dynaco 400, Their
comment: "The Swartz 40 is a 20 Watt per channel power amplifier with
quasi-complementary ouputs built exactly to the five transistor per
channel design in the RCA Transistor Manual." No mention that it was
not properly designed.

Out of six (repeat six!) panelists 4 incorrectly said they were the
same and only 2 guessed that they were different..

Now we face a conundrum. According to the chapel level-matched
competently designed amps. should sound the same. That is their
explanation when asked about the Stereo Review amp test when everything
did sound the same to most of the panelists.
But here they sound different. By a margin of 4 against 2. Compare
with the test #1

He has the brass to quote these tiny numbers, contradictory results as
his best evidence that his "bias controlled" test works!.


Can you wonder that this "research" was never submitted to a journal
and stayed since 1977in a private website to be quoted by Krueger?.
In the hope that no one will bother to look at it closely..

His second piece of "evidence". From that well known audio hi-fi
authority International Communications. Union:

"BS.1116-1 (10/97)] Methods for the subjective assessment of small
impairments in audio systems including multichannel sound systems
Remove "

The word "Remove" is there in his document. ABX is not mentioned .
Only Arny knows what on earth this Alice in Wonderland quote is
supposed to mean.

No wonder that he amputated this my request as well
"Show that you get better results using your method than without.it in
a
study acceptable for the editors of a professional peer- reviewed
journal"

A few remarks: "level-controlled"- who could object? A sound precaution
when choosing your component in an audio shop, "time-synchronised"- it
seems to me that asimple way to achieve this is to put the two
components for comparison on different sides (witrh random changes from
side to side to defeat room effects etc.). This way is scorned by
Arny-it isn't his party line. I use it not as a "test' but to make my
choices easier.
"Bias controlled"?. Here we get into a big problem. We all have huge
biases built in: age, education, musical interests and experience. My
choice is highly unlikely to be the same as that of a car radio boom,
boom, boom enthusiast. And vice versa.
Hence the requirement for as large a panel as possible..

Try again Gulliver.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com

I understand your point of course. My point is what
good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
instruments or voices like voices?

Please explain how adding audible noise and distortion
to the sound of instruments and voices makes them sound
more like instruments and voices for persons with
normal hearing.

I don't know, as I've stated before.

There are explanations, but you've rejected them.

I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those
things sound compared to instruments and voices based on
my experience with same. That's all that matters to me.

So which LPs of yours are in fact performances that are entirely composed of
voices and instruments that you have ever heard live?

Very few of course, but your question is beside the point. Let me try
this again:

Every, for example, violin that one hears live has a distinctive
quality. Whether it is a Strad or a Costco, there are identifiable
characteristics to the sound that tell you it is a violin. I hear
something in CDs of violin sound (both solo and sections, but it's more
pronounced in sections) that is unlike the sound of ANY of the thousands
of violins that I've heard in my lifetime. It's obviously not a gross
enough problem that it prohibits one from distinguishing them as
violins, but there is something about the sound that is fundamentally
unlike the sound of any violin that I've ever experienced. This effect
is most pronounced to me in upper range violin, upper range flute/picc,
upper range clarinet, and upper range soprano voice. Otherwise I think
that the sound of CDs is often quite good.

How many times must you be told that to understand it?

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:

The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound
respectable are pretty simple:

* Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
* Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something
better. 5534/2 will be
fine, though I prefer the AD825.

Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD
player by several hundred percent.

As aftermarket mods for sure.

**And if installed by the manufacturer, around 3 Bucks.

5532s are under $0.50 each in quantity, and that's pretty much all it takes
to get rid of the dreaded 4558s in this application.

The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad for the application as
some make out, in actual use.

Strange then that no credible audio manufacturer uses them. Heck the NJM4560 is
about 2 cents more and is close to 5532 performance already.

4558ss do however figure in cheap Asian disco gear and graphic EQs.


For example, some rag on its lack of slew
rate. However none of the RAO critics seem to be able to calculate the slew
rate of a 20 Hz 2 volt rms sine wave. For them, here is a slew rate
calculator http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/a741p3.html

20Hz is hardly the issue is it ?

sr = 2.pi.f.Vpk btw.

Graham