[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


I think this gets to the crux of Arny's belittling of the
LP.

No, this is about people who belittle the CD and ignore the gross sonic
flaws of the LP.

Since he is so "on the record" as saying that early
CD's and players sounded just fine, to admit that so many
people in the audio hobby found them wanting, and still
have the disks to prove it (I have a few myself) is to
either (a) admit that his hearing standards and
discrimination (at least in that day) were sub-par
compared to the majority of audio hobbyists, or (b) admit
at the very least that he let his love of technology
blind him to the shortfall of the early disks and
players.

A few badly made discs (of which I have some of my own) says nothing
signfiicant about the medium or its technical implementation at any time. It
just shows what some of us already know, which is that people make mistakes.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 5, 8:52 am, ScottW2 wrote:

The best of each format is very good, so IMO the format war is
somewhat meaningless. People who enjoy both formats simply have more
choice of superior quality music and recordings than those who don't.

ScottW

Words of wisdom. Any music lover that is genuinely interested in sound
quality is shooting themself in the foot if they are not exploring the
possibilities available in both formats.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Actually, a well-made Dolby B/C tape made with a good HQ deck on the best
tape would trounce the LP for dynamic range, even so if one were to loose
his mind and ignore the incessant tics and pops that only vinylphiles seem
to be able to fail to find irritating.

I think that you've touched on something here that contributed mightily
to the initial success of the CD: the lack of "tics and pops". I think
that it's pretty safe to say that most people didn't treat their LPs as
well as did/do "audiophiles", and more LPs were probably played on
terrible TT/arm/cartridge combos that were something like this:
http://tinyurl.com/r2p8dj
than on anything that could bring the listener what we think of as a
"high end" experience. "Ticks and pops" aren't a major concern to me,
unless they are very loud, as in an abused LP. An occasional click on
an otherwise fine LP simply doesn't ruin the overall experience, anymore
than the sound of someone's shoe scuffing the floor a few seats away
from me doesn't ruin the concert. What distracts me FAR more is the
sound of a flute on a recording that sounds like a flute never sounds in
real life. Whatever gets me closer to the sound of that flute is what
is important to me. Sometimes that's a LP, other times that's a CD.
Because of that, I've been called a "vinyl bigot". Whatever. The music
is what is important, and people should listen to whatever brings them
closer to that. It seems pretty simple.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 5, 8:50*am, wrote:

2. *We're talking about people for whom "quality mattered",


I'm sorry but this premise, besides being highly highly speculative,
is also self defeating. It infers that "classical music lovers" not
only all cared but were forming unbiased preferences for CD while
"audiophiles" who decried CD sound were somehow less discerning
despite their higher level of concern for sound quality and somehow
more affected by bias? Balony. It also ignores the fact that most
audiophiles of that time were primarily classical music lovers. If
anything it would be the audiophiles that were more discerning and
less likely to be biased by all the hype of perfect sound that came
with the introduction of CDs. I mean really, if classical music lovers
in general were so discerning how did they suffer the general state of
recording back in the early eighties? Most classical music sounded
like crap back then regardless of format. If you are going to argue
from authority you need a much better authority than that. The
audiophile/classical music lover back then certainly new better and
treasured the vastly superior recordings from earlier eras. recordings
that were largely butchered on CD before the mid 90s.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW2" wrote in message


IMO, you can't treat music as one homogenous market. I
think, at a minimmum, there are at least 2 distinct
markets.

Both of which wasted no time switching over to listening exclusively to CDs,
except for tiny, noisy minorities.

In the 80's, the typical popular music (the vast volume
of sales) was of extremely poor quality vinyl, noisy in
it's first play which no amount of record cleaning could
recover.

The classical music was often exactly the same for US purchasers. In the 60s
and 70s many US audiophiles started looking for european pressings and
paying premium prices for the. I had the good fortune to spend a year in
Europe as a guest of Uncle Sam, where the PX and audio club system provided
vast libraries of classical and pop LPs, all european pressings. I brought
zero LPs with me to Europe, but I returned with 100s.

So one important point is that I did not upgrade from crappy US-pressed LPs
to CDs I upgraded from a large collection of far better quality European
pressings.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


I dunno. My recollection was that classical fans flocked
to CD almost immediately, and they tended to care more
about sound quality than most. I wouldn't hold that up
as proof of anything, but it suggests that your opinion
of early CD quality was far from universally shared,
even by people for whom quality mattered.

You don't think being able to hear a symphony or concerto
all the way through without changing sides had anything
to do with it?

I think that hearing music without tics and pops, inner groove distortion,
rumble, flutter and wow was the dominant consideration for classical fans.
Unlike pop music, classical music actually has dynamics including pianissimo
passages where the inherent noise and distortion of vinyl was the worst.
Very many classical pieces have their loudest passages at the end, and the
added harshness of inner groove distortion just sucked the enjoyment out of
the experience.

In my case I had taped the entire Beethoven symphony series from virgin
vinyl so I could listen to an entire symphony without getting up to change
sides. Nevertheless, I was still stuck with all the rest of the problems of
vinyl, although tape did take some of the harshness away.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


And my recollection was that most classical fans found
early CD to be unmistakable.

That would be because your friends felt that way.

Certainly I and all of my audiophile friends found it so.

Exactly.

We seem to have an impasse of opinion here.

There's no impasse - the vast majority of classical music fans have long ago
switched to listening exclusively to CDs. Just a tiny noisy minority stuck
it out.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 6, 8:40*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ScottW2" wrote in message

The classical music was often exactly the same for US purchasers. In the 60s
and 70s many US audiophiles started looking for european pressings and
paying premium prices for the. I had the good fortune to spend a year in
Europe as a guest of Uncle Sam, where the PX and audio club system provided
vast libraries of classical and pop LPs, all european pressings. I brought
zero LPs with me to Europe, but I returned with 100s.

The well schooled audiophiles knew better than to make such broad
assumptions. If one were buying classical music from the RCA or
Mercury catalogue and knew what they were doing they were buying
American. Of course in the 60s and 70s if one were looking for
anything from the Decca or EMI labels they sought out Brittish
pressings but not because of the vinyl. Those titles were quite simply
mastered better back then at the Decca and EMI mastering facilities.
As for pop LPs you just can't make any broad claims. There are far too
many exceptions. In most cases the mastering was the dominant factor.
There was plenty of quality vinyl being made in the U.S. in the 60s
and 70s.


So one important point is that I did not upgrade from crappy US-pressed LPs
to CDs I upgraded from a large collection of far better quality European
pressings.

And you know they were better how? What bias controlled comparisons
did you make?

[[email protected]]

Scott wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:50 am, wrote:

2. We're talking about people for whom "quality mattered",


I'm sorry but this premise, besides being highly highly speculative,
is also self defeating.

What premise do you refer to?

It infers that "classical music lovers" not
only all cared but were forming unbiased preferences for CD while
"audiophiles" who decried CD sound were somehow less discerning
despite their higher level of concern for sound quality and somehow
more affected by bias? Balony.

It infers no such thing. There was no mention, nor implications,
relative to bias either, so I don't know where you're coming from there.
Please read the actual post before tilting at imaginary slights.

Bob wrote: "My recollection was that classical fans flocked to CD almost
immediately, and they tended to care more about sound quality than
most."

You seem be arguing both for and against this position.

Harry responded with "You don't think being able to hear a symphony or
concerto all the way through without changing sides had anything to do
with it?"

I did not provide a premise, I merely responded to Harry's premise that
play length might have been more important than quality. I *pointed
out* that the argument at hand centered around people to whom "quality
mattered", as stipulated in Bob's comment to which Harry was responding.

It also ignores the fact that most
audiophiles of that time were primarily classical music lovers.

Not my experience. Where is your support for that? And, of course, how
is it relevant to *my* post to which you're taking exception?

If
anything it would be the audiophiles that were more discerning and
less likely to be biased by all the hype of perfect sound that came
with the introduction of CDs. I mean really, if classical music lovers
in general were so discerning how did they suffer the general state of
recording back in the early eighties? Most classical music sounded
like crap back then regardless of format. If you are going to argue
from authority you need a much better authority than that.

What on Earth are you on about? What authority did I cite or assume?
Did you read anything I actually wrote beside the one sentence you snipped?

The
audiophile/classical music lover back then certainly new better and
treasured the vastly superior recordings from earlier eras. recordings
that were largely butchered on CD before the mid 90s.

OSAF, as well as being utterly irrelevant to the points I was addressing.

Keith Hughes

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:42:17 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Actually, a well-made Dolby B/C tape made with a good HQ deck on the best
tape would trounce the LP for dynamic range, even so if one were to loose
his mind and ignore the incessant tics and pops that only vinylphiles seem
to be able to fail to find irritating.

I think that you've touched on something here that contributed mightily
to the initial success of the CD: the lack of "tics and pops". I think
that it's pretty safe to say that most people didn't treat their LPs as
well as did/do "audiophiles", and more LPs were probably played on
terrible TT/arm/cartridge combos that were something like this:
http://tinyurl.com/r2p8dj
than on anything that could bring the listener what we think of as a
"high end" experience.

Sure. low playback noise was always a big selling point for CD, and
rightfully so. As you say, most people didn't treat their LPs very well and
played them on atrocious turntable equipment. Poor handling, storing records
without their sleeves in wire "record racks" picking then up by the recorded
area and getting finger oils all over them, playing them back on cheap record
changers with two-pole induction motors, arms with no bearings tracking
crystal or ceramic cartridges at 12-20 grams. No wonder the records got worn,
had scratches in them and became dirty. CD meant that people could be fairly
cavalier about handling the CDs and they still wouldn't get ticks and pops
and fingerprints caused less problems (although scratches and heavy
fingerprinting can still cause laser mistracking, even in CDs). There's no
doubt that CD is a better product for the average joe.

"Ticks and pops" aren't a major concern to me,
unless they are very loud, as in an abused LP.

Me either. I have 40-year old LPs that still sound as pristine as they did
when I bought them. Occasional ticks and pops from detritus in the grooves
don't bother me much.

An occasional click on
an otherwise fine LP simply doesn't ruin the overall experience, anymore
than the sound of someone's shoe scuffing the floor a few seats away
from me doesn't ruin the concert.

Exactly.

What distracts me FAR more is the
sound of a flute on a recording that sounds like a flute never sounds in
real life. Whatever gets me closer to the sound of that flute is what
is important to me. Sometimes that's a LP, other times that's a CD.
Because of that, I've been called a "vinyl bigot". Whatever. The music
is what is important, and people should listen to whatever brings them
closer to that. It seems pretty simple.

I couldn't agree more. I still get pleasure from LPs and I get pleasure from
CDs and SACDs too. To me, the music is the most important aspect of the hi-fi
hobby. I want the performances to sound as much like real, live music played
in real space as its possible to get. Like I've been saying here for months,
sometimes that illusion is successfully conveyed via CD, sometimes it's SACD,
and sometimes it's LP.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:42:31 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 5, 8:50*am, wrote:

2. *We're talking about people for whom "quality mattered",


I'm sorry but this premise, besides being highly highly speculative,
is also self defeating. It infers that "classical music lovers" not
only all cared but were forming unbiased preferences for CD while
"audiophiles" who decried CD sound were somehow less discerning
despite their higher level of concern for sound quality and somehow
more affected by bias? Balony. It also ignores the fact that most
audiophiles of that time were primarily classical music lovers. If
anything it would be the audiophiles that were more discerning and
less likely to be biased by all the hype of perfect sound that came
with the introduction of CDs. I mean really, if classical music lovers
in general were so discerning how did they suffer the general state of
recording back in the early eighties? Most classical music sounded
like crap back then regardless of format. If you are going to argue
from authority you need a much better authority than that. The
audiophile/classical music lover back then certainly new better and
treasured the vastly superior recordings from earlier eras. recordings
that were largely butchered on CD before the mid 90s.



One thing that you have give to the coming of CD. It caused the (classical)
recording industry to clean up its act. The shameful recording practices that
classical producers and engineers started using in the late '60's and which
continued into the '90's simply made CD sound much worse than did LP with the
same practices. The CD laid bare, for the first time for many, the sins of
multi-miking, multi-channel, pan-potting, "sweetening" and solo spotlighting.
While most mass-market purchasers perhaps didn't notice these things in LPs,
they certainly noticed them in CD. The result is that most modern classical
CDs are much better recorded than were classical recording sessions a
generation ago.

People wonder why RCA Victor and Mercury Living Presence stereo recordings
from the 1950's and early 1960's are still so highly prized (on vinyl and CD
as well as SACD). It's because they were simply miked and actually sound like
a real orchestra playing in a real space. Contrast these with any RCA red
seal from the 1970's produced by the likes of that know-nothing charlatan, J.
David Saks and his ilk. These later recordings don't just sound like cartoon
renditions of a symphony orchestra, they ARE cartoon renditions of a symphony
orchestra!

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 08:40:16 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"ScottW2" wrote in message


IMO, you can't treat music as one homogenous market. I
think, at a minimmum, there are at least 2 distinct
markets.

Both of which wasted no time switching over to listening exclusively to CDs,
except for tiny, noisy minorities.

In the 80's, the typical popular music (the vast volume
of sales) was of extremely poor quality vinyl, noisy in
it's first play which no amount of record cleaning could
recover.

The classical music was often exactly the same for US purchasers. In the 60s
and 70s many US audiophiles started looking for european pressings and
paying premium prices for the.

I'm certainly one of those. in the early 70's when Angel records started
pressing here in the USA, their quality was so poor (it wasn't Capitol's
pressings that were substandard most of the time, it was the mastering tapes
that EMI sent to Capitol to make the Angel pressings with that were the
culprit) that I started looking for imported "His Master's Voice" pressings
from England of the works . Often these were imported with stick-on labels
covering the dog and grammophone logo that was EMI's copyrighted logo in
England (and RCA's copyrighted logo here in the States) with a gold "Odeon"
label. Invariably, the British pressings were higher quality. Also, I would
try to buy English or German pressings of Vox - Turnabout recordings because
the US pressing were junk. Noisy non-virgin vinyl, underfill, warped
pressings, off center pressings, etc. The English and German Vox -
Turnabouts were pressed by TELDEC and were uniformly excellent.

I had the good fortune to spend a year in
Europe as a guest of Uncle Sam, where the PX and audio club system provided
vast libraries of classical and pop LPs, all european pressings. I brought
zero LPs with me to Europe, but I returned with 100s.

I don't blame you. I'd buy records every time I went to Europe too! My
collection has British, French, Dutch, German, Spanish, and even Italian
pressings in it. I also have some Iron-curtain pressings, but they are
variable. I never got a bad Melodiya from the USSR, but did get some pretty
bad Hungaratone and Polaphon pressings - Socialist labor and all that, you
know (a cold -war Polish worker's adage was "The Russians pretend to pay us
and we pretend to work").

So one important point is that I did not upgrade from crappy US-pressed LPs
to CDs I upgraded from a large collection of far better quality European
pressings.

[Roger Kulp]

On Jul 6, 4:42*am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Actually, a well-made Dolby B/C tape made with a good HQ deck on the best
tape would trounce the LP for dynamic range, even so if one were to loose
his mind and ignore the incessant tics and pops that only vinylphiles seem
to be able to fail to find irritating.

I think that you've touched on something here that contributed mightily
to the initial success of the CD: *the lack of "tics and pops". *I think
that it's pretty safe to say that most people didn't treat their LPs as
well as did/do "audiophiles", and more LPs were probably played on
terrible TT/arm/cartridge combos that were something like this:http://tinyurl.com/r2p8dj
than on anything that could bring the listener what we think of as a
"high end" experience.

Hey It has bids on it.You and I would chuck it in the nearest
dumpster,but somebody bought it.

Roger

[Roger Kulp]

On Jul 5, 9:45*am, bob wrote:
On Jul 4, 10:45*am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"bob" wrote in message

I dunno. My recollection was that classical fans flocked to CD almost
immediately, and they tended to care more about sound quality than
most. I wouldn't hold that up as proof of anything, but it suggests
that your opinion of early CD quality was far from universally shared,
even by people for whom quality mattered.

You don't think being able to hear a symphony or concerto all the way
through without changing sides had anything to do with it?

It didn't hurt. But the classical fans I knew did not seem to think
they were sacrificing sound quality—quite the opposite. Be interesting
to take a look at Gramophone from around 1985. See how much kvetching
there was about sound quality among the classical cognoscenti.

bob

The mid to late 80s were an interesting time.This was right about the
time hordes of classical music buyers were dumping their cheap rack
systems for expensive first generation CD players that sounded like
crap.The new classical titles that were issued on vinyl in 1987-91
sold so poorly,that they now command hundreds of dollars on eBay.

This was also the time when a (very) small per centage of us who truly
loved vinyl,were starting to pick up TAS and Stereophile,and starting
to learn about and love classical music in a whole new way.As with
"incredibly strange music",it was all about going to the
Goodwill,Salvation Army,etc ,and buying up shaded dogs,bluebacks,etc.
by the armload.And while you're there you start digging. "What's this?
Why it's Ernest Ansermet and the Diaghilev Ballets Russes Orchestra on
a 1916 Columbia 78."Before long you're getting rid of even more stuff
to accomidate a whole new area of your collection. Hell,I even sold
off all my jazz.Here it is twenty years later,I have long since
completed my sets of Living Stereos, and Mercs,and have been trying to
buy the more esoteric collector pieces of the electrical 78 and early
Lp era.Perhaps 1/3 of my 30,000+ record collection is "good"
classical.Now I go over to eBay,and early mono Londons,that you
couldn't give away at one,time now sell for an average of fifty
dollars each.

If you belong to any of the online classical music discussion
groups,you'll find a lot of the discussion is about buying
downloads.Then you go over to Mikrokosmos,and 90% of the catalog is
sold out the first day.

Nowadays kids think vinyl is cool.It is only a matter of time before
some of them discover Stokowski and Furtwangler.

Roger

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


So one important point is that I did not upgrade from
crappy US-pressed LPs to CDs I upgraded from a large
collection of far better quality European pressings.

And you know they were better how?

The differences were obvious.

What bias controlled comparisons did you make?

Unfair question as you know very well that I hadn't yet invented ABX at that
point.

[Norman Schwartz]

On Jul 6, 5:42*am, Jenn wrote:
*An occasional click on
an otherwise fine LP simply doesn't ruin the overall experience, anymore
than the sound of someone's shoe scuffing the floor a few seats away
from me doesn't ruin the concert. *

You can't really mean that. Extra-musical sounds heard during a live
performance are purely random in nature. That pop or tick always
occurs at the very same place. Should a significantly loud pop or tick
occur when the music volume is low, it's plain unbearable and I'd
probably never play that LP again (OK, maybe one more time).

What distracts me FAR more is the
sound of a flute on a recording that sounds like a flute never sounds in
real life. It seems pretty simple.

I've never heard a recording which sounds like real life; some closer,
some further, but none like real life. AFAIAC nothing in life is
simple.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Norman Schwartz wrote:

On Jul 6, 5:42*am, Jenn wrote:
*An occasional click on
an otherwise fine LP simply doesn't ruin the overall experience, anymore
than the sound of someone's shoe scuffing the floor a few seats away
from me doesn't ruin the concert. *

You can't really mean that. Extra-musical sounds heard during a live
performance are purely random in nature. That pop or tick always
occurs at the very same place.

Unless it's caused by something that can be fixed via cleaning.

Should a significantly loud pop or tick
occur when the music volume is low, it's plain unbearable and I'd
probably never play that LP again (OK, maybe one more time).

That's what I meant by "abused". If it's something really loud, it
would ruin it for me as well.


What distracts me FAR more is the
sound of a flute on a recording that sounds like a flute never sounds in
real life. It seems pretty simple.

I've never heard a recording which sounds like real life; some closer,
some further, but none like real life. AFAIAC nothing in life is
simple.

Of course. But of all of the recordings of, in this example, flutes,
there are some where one thinks, "OK, it doesn't sound like the
Muramatsu that is being played, but it sounds like flutes in general
sound." There are others that make you say, "That's so far from any
flute that's ever been played (no air, no pipe, etc.) that it's
distracting."

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 02:43:51 -0700, Roger Kulp wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 5, 9:45*am, bob wrote:
On Jul 4, 10:45*am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"bob" wrote in message

I dunno. My recollection was that classical fans flocked to CD almost
immediately, and they tended to care more about sound quality than
most. I wouldn't hold that up as proof of anything, but it suggests
that your opinion of early CD quality was far from universally shared,
even by people for whom quality mattered.

You don't think being able to hear a symphony or concerto all the way
through without changing sides had anything to do with it?

It didn't hurt. But the classical fans I knew did not seem to think
they were sacrificing sound quality—quite the opposite. Be interesting
to take a look at Gramophone from around 1985. See how much kvetching
there was about sound quality among the classical cognoscenti.

bob

The mid to late 80s were an interesting time.This was right about the
time hordes of classical music buyers were dumping their cheap rack
systems for expensive first generation CD players that sounded like
crap.The new classical titles that were issued on vinyl in 1987-91
sold so poorly,that they now command hundreds of dollars on eBay.

This was also the time when a (very) small per centage of us who truly
loved vinyl,were starting to pick up TAS and Stereophile,and starting
to learn about and love classical music in a whole new way.As with
"incredibly strange music",it was all about going to the
Goodwill,Salvation Army,etc ,and buying up shaded dogs,bluebacks,etc.
by the armload.And while you're there you start digging. "What's this?
Why it's Ernest Ansermet and the Diaghilev Ballets Russes Orchestra on
a 1916 Columbia 78."Before long you're getting rid of even more stuff
to accomidate a whole new area of your collection. Hell,I even sold
off all my jazz.Here it is twenty years later,I have long since
completed my sets of Living Stereos, and Mercs,and have been trying to
buy the more esoteric collector pieces of the electrical 78 and early
Lp era.Perhaps 1/3 of my 30,000+ record collection is "good"
classical.Now I go over to eBay,and early mono Londons,that you
couldn't give away at one,time now sell for an average of fifty
dollars each.

If you belong to any of the online classical music discussion
groups,you'll find a lot of the discussion is about buying
downloads.Then you go over to Mikrokosmos,and 90% of the catalog is
sold out the first day.

Nowadays kids think vinyl is cool.It is only a matter of time before
some of them discover Stokowski and Furtwangler.

Roger


I hope so. I don't have your faith in today's youngsters. I firmly believe
that once my generation has gone to Valhalla, classical music will fade into
total obscurity. You won't be able to buy new classical recordings because
there won't be any symphony orchestras. 100 years from now, the average
person will never have even heard of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, but they might
know who Michael Jackson was. Pretty grim prospect to see one's cultural
heritage flushed down the crapper by successive generations who don't care
about it.

[Dick Pierce]

On Jul 7, 10:55*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
What bias controlled *comparisons did you make?

Unfair question as you know very well that I hadn't yet
invented ABX at that point.

But ABX testing did exist prior to that point. It's a rather
old and well established technique. Here are some
references:

W. Strange and T. Halwes, "Confidence ratings in
speech perception research: Evaluation of an efficient
technique for discrimination testing," Perception &
Psychopohysics, vol 9 (2a), 1971
"The first discrimination studies (Liberman, et al,
1957) utilized and ABX test. Sequentially presented
triads were constructed from each comparison pair
such that the first and second sounds (A and B)
were different and the third (X) was either identical
to A or B. ..."

Liberman, A. L., Harris, K. S., Hoffman, H. S. and
Griffith, B. C., "The discrimination of speech sounds
within and across phoneme boundaries," J. Exp.
Psych., 1957, 54: 358-368.

Blesser, B. "Perception of spectrally rotated speech,"
PHD Thesis, MIT Dept. of Elect. Eng. June 1969

etc.

There are to be found numerous other references to
ABX testing methodology as a means of determining
perceptual discrimination of minimally-different
stimuli. SPecifically related to audio, sound and
hearing reveals the methodology was in common use
well over a half century ago.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 7, 7:55*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



So one important point is that I did not upgrade from
crappy US-pressed LPs to CDs I upgraded from a large
collection of far better quality European pressings.
And you know they were better how?

The differences were obvious.

The same has been said by Peter Beltians of taking a photograph and
putting it in your freezer. While I have no doubt that there were
differences between different pressings of the same classical titles
(I know this from my actual blind comparisons) I do doubt that your
conclusions were unaffected by bias.


What bias controlled *comparisons did you make?

Unfair question as you know very well that I hadn't yet invented ABX at that
point.

It is a fair question and one that you dump on others here when they
express the same sort of opinions that you have expressed. Clealry the
answer is none. I actually have done them quite extensively and my
conclusions are quite different than yours. It is often quite
surprising which version of a given title turns out to be the prefered
version under blind conditions. By the way, the early ABX machine
wouldn't have been the least bit useful in such comparisons. Blind
preference comparisons are a lot of work and take more time than
simple ABX tests for audible differences.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message


An occasional click on an otherwise
fine LP simply doesn't ruin the overall experience,

That's just it, the incidence of clicks on LPs is far from "occasional"

But the tics and pops aren't the only distractions on LPs. I'd list more of
them, but we all know what they are and we all know that they aren't just
"occasional".

anymore than the sound of someone's shoe scuffing the
floor a few seats away from me doesn't ruin the concert.

Happens how many times per concert?

Not a comparison of apples and oranges!

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 8, 3:03*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message



An occasional click on an otherwise
fine LP simply doesn't ruin the overall experience,

That's just it, the incidence of clicks on LPs is far from "occasional"

But the tics and pops aren't the only distractions on LPs. I'd list more of
them, but we all know what they are and we all know that they aren't just
"occasional".

anymore than the sound of someone's shoe scuffing the
floor a few seats away from me doesn't ruin the concert.

Happens how many times per concert?

Not a comparison of apples and oranges!

The most common culpret is the good old school cough. How many times
during a concert? depends on the size of the crowd and the season. I'd
say you are often looking at twenty to thirty coughs on average with a
good sized crowd. never really counted though.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Jul 7, 7:55 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



So one important point is that I did not upgrade from
crappy US-pressed LPs to CDs I upgraded from a large
collection of far better quality European pressings.
And you know they were better how?

The differences were obvious.

The same has been said by Peter Beltians of taking a
photograph and putting it in your freezer.

I seriously doubt that Peter Belt has used spectral analysis to support his
claim. I have.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dick Pierce" wrote in
message
On Jul 7, 10:55 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
What bias controlled comparisons did you make?

Unfair question as you know very well that I hadn't yet
invented ABX at that point.

But ABX testing did exist prior to that point. It's a
rather old and well established technique. Here are some
references:

W. Strange and T. Halwes, "Confidence ratings in
speech perception research: Evaluation of an efficient
technique for discrimination testing," Perception &
Psychopohysics, vol 9 (2a), 1971
"The first discrimination studies (Liberman, et al,
1957) utilized and ABX test. Sequentially presented
triads were constructed from each comparison pair
such that the first and second sounds (A and B)
were different and the third (X) was either identical
to A or B. ..."

Liberman, A. L., Harris, K. S., Hoffman, H. S. and
Griffith, B. C., "The discrimination of speech sounds
within and across phoneme boundaries," J. Exp.
Psych., 1957, 54: 358-368.

Blesser, B. "Perception of spectrally rotated speech,"
PHD Thesis, MIT Dept. of Elect. Eng. June 1969

etc.

There are to be found numerous other references to
ABX testing methodology as a means of determining
perceptual discrimination of minimally-different
stimuli. SPecifically related to audio, sound and
hearing reveals the methodology was in common use
well over a half century ago.

There is a type of comparison that is also called ABX and is used in studies
of hearing to this day, that is actually a very different method. We have
been fully aware of this since just after we invented the ABX technique that
we published in the JAES. The AES publication board was familiar with the
other form of ABX at the time, and the issue was discussed to the
satisfaction of everyone involved.

This issue has been discussed before on RAHE, so it is even old news here.

The differences include the fact that the ABX technique that is documented
in the 1978 JAES article by Clark is controlled by the listener and that the
listener has unlimited access to the sounds being compared. This difference
is fully justified by the nature of the tests that are being performed.

[Dick Pierce]

On Jul 8, 6:03*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
anymore than the sound of someone's shoe scuffing the
floor a few seats away from me doesn't ruin the concert.

Happens how many times per concert?

Once every couple of seconds. Shoes scuffling,
coughing, program rustling, battery low warning
on cell phone that otherwise had its ringer silenced,
guy behind me humming (badly) to the music, the
rumble of the Green Line train 100 feet behind and
25 feet below me, the woman next to me spending
the last 20 minutes of the Bach St. Matthew passion
trying to suppress the vomit because she downed
5 glasses of cheap white wine at intermission.

Not a comparison of apples and oranges!

Only substantive difference is that when you hear a
tick on a record, you KNOW there's another one
on it's way in 1.8 seconds. And another, and another
and another.

Just like the drunken both sitting next to me: every
covered wummmppff! was sure to be followed by
another. The only uncertainty was whether the LAST
sound she made was the projectile vomit, the sound
of her shoes running out of the hall, or the thud of
her worthless being hitting the ground after I strangled
her.

But having about 8 recordings of the St. Matthew
passion, half on CD and half on LP, which is the
best? Without a doubt, the version I attended at
Symphony Hall in Boston performed by Boston
Baroque, including and despite the regrettable
upchuck continuo.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message


An occasional click on an otherwise
fine LP simply doesn't ruin the overall experience,

That's just it, the incidence of clicks on LPs is far from "occasional"


Not on most of mine, which have been dusted and cleaned since I left college
in 1961 (most purchased after that) and none of which have been left lying
around out of their jackets, ever. And the ones that have been "Last"'d
hold up especially well and even clicks and pops that are there are
minimized in annoyance.

snip

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


An occasional click on an otherwise
fine LP simply doesn't ruin the overall experience,

That's just it, the incidence of clicks on LPs is far from "occasional"

I have many LPs where the incidence of clicks can be best described as
"occasional".

anymore than the sound of someone's shoe scuffing the
floor a few seats away from me doesn't ruin the concert.

Happens how many times per concert?

Sounds made by audience members? Dozens, at least.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 8, 10:20*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Jul 7, 7:55 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



So one important point is that I did not upgrade from
crappy US-pressed LPs to CDs I upgraded from a large
collection of far better quality European pressings.
And you know they were better how?
The differences were obvious.
The same has been said by Peter Beltians of taking a
photograph and putting it in your freezer.

I seriously doubt that Peter Belt has used spectral analysis to support his
claim. I have.

Please show us the spectral analysis you did of the European classical
LPs v. the American classical LPs and explain how that supports your
otherwise obviously biased opinions on the subject.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Jul 8, 10:20 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Jul 7, 7:55 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



So one important point is that I did not upgrade from
crappy US-pressed LPs to CDs I upgraded from a large
collection of far better quality European pressings.
And you know they were better how?
The differences were obvious.
The same has been said by Peter Beltians of taking a
photograph and putting it in your freezer.

I seriously doubt that Peter Belt has used spectral
analysis to support his claim. I have.

Please show us the spectral analysis you did of the
European classical LPs v. the American classical LPs and
explain how that supports your otherwise obviously biased
opinions on the subject.

Neither the LPs I compared nor any of the analysis that I did are currently
in my posession.

[Steven Sullivan]

Roger Kulp wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:45?am, bob wrote:
On Jul 4, 10:45?am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"bob" wrote in message

I dunno. My recollection was that classical fans flocked to CD almost
immediately, and they tended to care more about sound quality than
most. I wouldn't hold that up as proof of anything, but it suggests
that your opinion of early CD quality was far from universally shared,
even by people for whom quality mattered.

You don't think being able to hear a symphony or concerto all the way
through without changing sides had anything to do with it?

It didn't hurt. But the classical fans I knew did not seem to think
they were sacrificing sound quality?quite the opposite. Be interesting
to take a look at Gramophone from around 1985. See how much kvetching
there was about sound quality among the classical cognoscenti.

bob

The mid to late 80s were an interesting time.This was right about the
time hordes of classical music buyers were dumping their cheap rack
systems for expensive first generation CD players that sounded like
crap.The new classical titles that were issued on vinyl in 1987-91
sold so poorly,that they now command hundreds of dollars on eBay.

That's funny, becuase jsut today we had a new thread here from someone who,was in the market
to replace his 1985 Revox CDP (which I'm guessing was not an oversampling model) because it
had finally given up its ghost.

The 'crap' sound of early CDs...or is it early CDPs?...is another 'audiophile' meme. Hard
data from listening tests is really rather scanty on the matter. It would be interesting to
have, say, you, participate in a proper controlled comparison of a 1985-era CD and/or CDP
versus a modern remaster (let's assume it's classical so hopefully it hasn't been futzed with
TOO much) or even an LP version from that era; and compare a modern CDP to a 1985 CDP.

Nowadays kids think vinyl is cool.It is only a matter of time before
some of them discover Stokowski and Furtwangler.

That's intersting, becase according to 'Perfecting Sound Forever', Stokowski was all about
radically processing the recorded sound to make it 'better' than live.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 9, 8:36*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Jul 8, 10:20 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Jul 7, 7:55 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



So one important point is that I did not upgrade from
crappy US-pressed LPs to CDs I upgraded from a large
collection of far better quality European pressings.
And you know they were better how?
The differences were obvious.
The same has been said by Peter Beltians of taking a
photograph and putting it in your freezer.

I seriously doubt that Peter Belt has used spectral
analysis to support his claim. I have.

Please show us the spectral analysis you did of the
European classical LPs v. the American classical LPs and
explain how that supports your otherwise obviously biased
opinions on the subject.

Neither the LPs I compared nor any of the analysis that I did are currently
in my posession

What can you tell us from memory? What specific titles did you
compare? What specific masterings and pressings were they? What were
the subjective differences? What equipment did you use for the
spectral analysis of the LPs? what was it you saw in that spectral
analysis you felt corolated with what specific subjective
observations?

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message


I remember "Billboard" articles about how cassettes had
eclipsed LP sales, so I doubt if we're wrong here.

Absence of supporting evidence noted. However, your comment made two
separable claims, and even if the numerical sales are correct, there's still
room for falsification.

Quick googlin indicates that cassette sales overtook LP sales in the US and UK in 1984. By
1988 CD sales had also overtaken LP.

As the man used to say, 'you can look it up!'

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

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

"high end" experience. "Ticks and pops" aren't a major concern to me,
unless they are very loud, as in an abused LP. An occasional click on
an otherwise fine LP simply doesn't ruin the overall experience,

actually, it could be pretty annoying, depending on where that click fell.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

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

"high end" experience. "Ticks and pops" aren't a major concern to me,
unless they are very loud, as in an abused LP. An occasional click on
an otherwise fine LP simply doesn't ruin the overall experience,

actually, it could be pretty annoying, depending on where that click fell.

Of course. As in most things, home audio is always about "picking your
poison", in my opinion.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:58:39 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Roger Kulp wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:45?am, bob wrote:
On Jul 4, 10:45?am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"bob" wrote in message

I dunno. My recollection was that classical fans flocked to CD almost
immediately, and they tended to care more about sound quality than
most. I wouldn't hold that up as proof of anything, but it suggests
that your opinion of early CD quality was far from universally shared,
even by people for whom quality mattered.

You don't think being able to hear a symphony or concerto all the way
through without changing sides had anything to do with it?

It didn't hurt. But the classical fans I knew did not seem to think
they were sacrificing sound quality?quite the opposite. Be interesting
to take a look at Gramophone from around 1985. See how much kvetching
there was about sound quality among the classical cognoscenti.

bob

The mid to late 80s were an interesting time.This was right about the
time hordes of classical music buyers were dumping their cheap rack
systems for expensive first generation CD players that sounded like
crap.The new classical titles that were issued on vinyl in 1987-91
sold so poorly,that they now command hundreds of dollars on eBay.

That's funny, becuase jsut today we had a new thread here from someone
who,was in the market
to replace his 1985 Revox CDP (which I'm guessing was not an oversampling
model) because it
had finally given up its ghost.

The 'crap' sound of early CDs...or is it early CDPs?...is another
'audiophile' meme. Hard
data from listening tests is really rather scanty on the matter. It would be
interesting to
have, say, you, participate in a proper controlled comparison of a 1985-era
CD and/or CDP
versus a modern remaster (let's assume it's classical so hopefully it hasn't
been futzed with
TOO much) or even an LP version from that era; and compare a modern CDP to a
1985 CDP.

Nowadays kids think vinyl is cool.It is only a matter of time before
some of them discover Stokowski and Furtwangler.

That's intersting, becase according to 'Perfecting Sound Forever', Stokowski
was all about
radically processing the recorded sound to make it 'better' than live.

Yeah, and Stokowski (real name Leo Stokes. Father was a coal miner from
Wales) was a pretentious loon. He insisted that RCA Victor let him adjust the
levels on his Philadelphia Orchestra recording sessions. Of course, RCA
wasn't about to let him do that, so they gave him a VU meter with a knob
attached to it. All the knob did was vary the level of the meter, nothing
else. Stokowski would conduct and twiddle the knob to his heart's content. On
playback. he would beam and say to the engineers: "See this is perfect, this
is how it SHOULD be done. Why can't you overpaid recording engineers do
that?" The "overpaid recording engineers" would smile at each other and wink.
OTOH, Stokowski WAS responsible for talking Musicians Union maven James C,
Patrillo out of doubling the recording fees for stereophonic recording
sessions (two channels? Two recordings)! Another Stokowski story that I
recall was that when he was the resident conductor of the Dallas Symphony in
the late 1960's, he decided to marry the local Dallas Opera diva, a soprano
with a very plain name Jane Smith or some such (I don't remember her name).
Before he would marry her, he made her LEGALLY change her name to Countess
Vlotovsky or some such pretentious nonsense. He as a character. His
pretensions to technical audio knowledge are legendary, but he did promote
technical innovation in both the production and playback of recorded music.
The public trusted him as a famous "authority" and so he did a lot of good
for the business and the hobby. He wasn't a bad conductor either - as long
as he didn't try to "re-arrange" the works of the masters (which
unfortunately, he did all too often). His recording of the Virgil Thompson
Suites from "The River" and "The PLow That Broke The Plains" are THE best
recordings of those works and the only recording of them formally
acknowledged by the composer.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Yeah, and Stokowski (real name Leo Stokes. Father was a
coal miner from Wales) was a pretentious loon.

Another
Stokowski story that I recall was that when he was the
resident conductor of the Dallas Symphony in the late
1960's, he decided to marry the local Dallas Opera diva,
a soprano with a very plain name Jane Smith or some such
(I don't remember her name). Before he would marry her,
he made her LEGALLY change her name to Countess Vlotovsky
or some such pretentious nonsense.


Counterpoint:

http://sthweb.bu.edu/index.php?optio...ski&Itemid=360

"After he had achieved international fame with the Philadelphia Orchestra,
unsubstantiated rumours circulated that he was born "Leonard" or "Lionel
Stokes" or that he had "anglicized" it to "Stokes"; this canard is readily
disproved by reference not only to his birth certificate and those of his
father, younger brother, and sister (which show Stokowski to have been the
genuine Polish family name), but also by the Student Entry Registers of the
Royal College of Music, Royal College of Organists, and The Queen's College,
Oxford, along with other surviving documentation from his days at St.
Marylebone Church, St. James's Church, and St. Bartholomew's in New York
City.[13][not specific enough to verify] Upon his arrival in America,
however, he briefly spelled his name as Stokovski to ensure that people
could pronounce it correctly

"Stokowski married three times. His first wife was the American concert
pianist Olga Samaroff (born Lucie Hickenlooper), to whom he was married from
1911 until 1923 (one daughter: Sonia Stokowski, an actress). His second wife
was Johnson & Johnson heiress Evangeline Love Brewster Johnson, an artist
and aviator, to whom he was married from 1926 until 1937 (two daughters:
Gloria Luba Stokowski and Andrea Sadja Stokowski). His third wife, from 1945
until 1955, was railroad heiress Gloria Vanderbilt (born 1924), an artist
and fashion designer (two sons, Leopold Stanislaus Stokowski b. 1950 and
Christopher Stokowski b. 1952). He also had a much-publicized affair with
Greta Garbo during the 1930s.
...

[Stephen McElroy]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

That's intersting, becase according to 'Perfecting Sound Forever',
Stokowski
was all about
radically processing the recorded sound to make it 'better' than live.

Yeah, and Stokowski (real name Leo Stokes. Father was a coal miner from
Wales) was a pretentious loon. He insisted that RCA Victor let him adjust the
levels on his Philadelphia Orchestra recording sessions. Of course, RCA
wasn't about to let him do that, so they gave him a VU meter with a knob
attached to it. All the knob did was vary the level of the meter, nothing
else. Stokowski would conduct and twiddle the knob to his heart's content. On
playback. he would beam and say to the engineers: "See this is perfect, this
is how it SHOULD be done. Why can't you overpaid recording engineers do
that?" The "overpaid recording engineers" would smile at each other and wink.
OTOH, Stokowski WAS responsible for talking Musicians Union maven James C,
Patrillo out of doubling the recording fees for stereophonic recording
sessions (two channels? Two recordings)! Another Stokowski story that I
recall was that when he was the resident conductor of the Dallas Symphony in
the late 1960's, he decided to marry the local Dallas Opera diva, a soprano
with a very plain name Jane Smith or some such (I don't remember her name).
Before he would marry her, he made her LEGALLY change her name to Countess
Vlotovsky or some such pretentious nonsense. He as a character. His
pretensions to technical audio knowledge are legendary, but he did promote
technical innovation in both the production and playback of recorded music.
The public trusted him as a famous "authority" and so he did a lot of good
for the business and the hobby. He wasn't a bad conductor either - as long
as he didn't try to "re-arrange" the works of the masters (which
unfortunately, he did all too often). His recording of the Virgil Thompson
Suites from "The River" and "The PLow That Broke The Plains" are THE best
recordings of those works and the only recording of them formally
acknowledged by the composer.

From wiki:

After Stokowski's death, Tom Burnam writes, the "concatenization of
canards" that had arisen around him was revived‹that his name and accent
were phony; that his musical education was deficient; that his musicians
did not respect him; that he cared about nobody but himself. Burnam
suggests that there was a dark, hidden reason for these rumors.
Stokowski deplored the segregation of symphony orchestras in which women
and minorities were excluded, and, so Burnam claims, the bigots got
revenge by slandering Stokowski.

--

http://www.stokowski.org/Leopold%20S...0Biography.htm

This page includes an image of his birth certificate.

Stokowski's first wife, Olga Samaroff, was born Lucy Mary Olga Agnes
Hickenlooper but performed under her stage name for years before their
marriage.

Touching up scores was standard practice for the early twentieth
century. Please provide an example of a "re-arrangement" that showed he
was a "bad conductor."

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message


Of course. As in most things, home audio is always about
"picking your poison", in my opinion.

There are two possible sources of "poison": The inherent properties of the
medium, and the specific production steps.

The CD medium has no inherent poison, as many DBTs have shown. The LP
format is egregiously sonically flawed, and only usable if one intentionally
ignores obvious audible problems.

The production steps for either medium are mostly judgment calls, personal
choices and personal preferences. They can be all over the map for both LPs
and CDs.

It is conceivable that a CD might contain no poison. It is inconceivable
that a LP would be equally free of poison.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


Neither the LPs I compared nor any of the analysis that
I did are currently in my possession

What can you tell us from memory?

Not much.

What specific titles
did you compare? What specific masterings and pressings
were they?

Too numerous to remember, but they included both classical and rock titles.

What were the subjective differences?

Less noise, better dynamics and detail.

What equipment did you use for the spectral analysis of the
LPs?

Purpose-built filter banks meters,and oscilliscope.

what was it you saw in that spectral analysis you
felt corolated with what specific subjective observations?

Generally less midrange and more treble.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:15:10 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Yeah, and Stokowski (real name Leo Stokes. Father was a
coal miner from Wales) was a pretentious loon.

Another
Stokowski story that I recall was that when he was the
resident conductor of the Dallas Symphony in the late
1960's, he decided to marry the local Dallas Opera diva,
a soprano with a very plain name Jane Smith or some such
(I don't remember her name). Before he would marry her,
he made her LEGALLY change her name to Countess Vlotovsky
or some such pretentious nonsense.


Counterpoint:


http://sthweb.bu.edu/index.php?optio...icle= Leopold

_Stokowski&Itemid=360

"After he had achieved international fame with the Philadelphia Orchestra,
unsubstantiated rumours circulated that he was born "Leonard" or "Lionel
Stokes" or that he had "anglicized" it to "Stokes"; this canard is readily
disproved by reference not only to his birth certificate and those of his
father, younger brother, and sister (which show Stokowski to have been the
genuine Polish family name), but also by the Student Entry Registers of the
Royal College of Music, Royal College of Organists, and The Queen's College,
Oxford, along with other surviving documentation from his days at St.
Marylebone Church, St. James's Church, and St. Bartholomew's in New York
City.[13][not specific enough to verify] Upon his arrival in America,
however, he briefly spelled his name as Stokovski to ensure that people
could pronounce it correctly

"Stokowski married three times. His first wife was the American concert
pianist Olga Samaroff (born Lucie Hickenlooper), to whom he was married from
1911 until 1923 (one daughter: Sonia Stokowski, an actress). His second wife
was Johnson & Johnson heiress Evangeline Love Brewster Johnson, an artist
and aviator, to whom he was married from 1926 until 1937 (two daughters:
Gloria Luba Stokowski and Andrea Sadja Stokowski). His third wife, from 1945
until 1955, was railroad heiress Gloria Vanderbilt (born 1924), an artist
and fashion designer (two sons, Leopold Stanislaus Stokowski b. 1950 and
Christopher Stokowski b. 1952). He also had a much-publicized affair with
Greta Garbo during the 1930s.
..



Looks like the "story" is true but the dates and circumstances are not. It
looks as if it was his FIRST wife who changed her name from a plain one to a
pretentious one (born Lucie Hickenlooper changed to Olga Samaroff ) and she
was a pianist not a diva. And we still don't know whether she changed her
name at Stokowski's request or for professional reasons - I suspect the
latter. There is a lot of apocrypha out there. By the way, I got the "Leo
Stokes" story and the "Diva" story from famed musicologist Nicolas Slonimsky,
whom I met through a mutual friend. Looks like you can't even trust famed
"authorities" to get everything right these days.

OTOH, I do know that the two anecdotes about Stokowski and the VU meter and
the one about him dissuading James Patrillo from doubling union recording
fees for stereo recording sessions are true because the former comes from a
book written in 1947 by RCA's A&R man in the 1930's and 1940's Charles
O'Connell entitled: "The Other Side of The Record" . The latter was told to
me personally by the late Bert Whyte, who was there, in Stokowski's apartment
in the early 1950's, when, as a Magnecord tape recorder representative, he
arranged a demonstration of Stereophonic sound for Stowkowski and Patrillo.
Earlier in the day, Whyte had recorded, in stereo, the St Louis Symphony
rehearsal with Stowkowski conducting and Stowkowski invited Whyte to bring
his equipment by his apartment later and join he and Patrillo for dinner.
After dinner, Whyte (who had lugged the huge two road-case tape recorder, a
pair of MacIntosh tube amps and a pair of monitor speakers up three flights
of stairs to Stokowski's rather large St. Louis apartment ) played back the
stereo recordings of the symphony rehearsal for Stokowski and the Musicians
Union founder and president Patrillo.