[Keith G]

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:


I perhaps do not agree with everything I've read, but (as ukra's leading
'vinyl bigot') I would just like to say how refreshing it is to see an
intelligent rationale like this one - the digital bigots in ukra can't
do anything like it without getting all twisted out of shape!!

If you think the above is 'new',


No, not 'new' - the refreshing bit is the lack of the usual (and strange)
'digital bile' in the whole post!


then you may find

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM.../feedback.html

interesting. :-)

The above page was put onto the web in Jan 2003 and summarises work by
Noel Keywood and others back in the late 1970's and early 1980's.



Yes that it interesting - thank you! (I believe I have seen it before some
time back!)

[Keith G]

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote in message


Richard Crowley wrote:

"Nick Gorham" wrote ...


Richard Crowley wrote:


Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before
posting it? Or are they using a different definintion
of "real" than the rest of us?

No, but you do seem to be using a different method of
clipping a post to make the point you want, and
attempting to acredit the author of a statement to the
wrong group in this case.


Huh? If you look closely, you will see that I
"accredited" it to NO specific author. I neither know nor care who said
it.


I'm questioning the concept of "adding realism" quite
apart from whether this applies to vinyl or digital, or
even to audio as such.

I did look closely, I see two "they"'s and a "us". To me
that involves at least two groups, and you are placing
yourself in the not "them" one.


Note that Nick is picking at words to avoid dealing with the important
issues that were raised.

Nick has effectively conceeded the points raised to Richard, but lacks
the candor to come out and say it.

Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other
in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment that
he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group, then Richard seems
to have taken this point out of context and tried to make it the subject
of a strawman argument. Then following this several people (including
yourself Arni) has then jumped on this as a excuse to wheel out the normal
old stuff.

As it happens, I doubt you have ever head me claim that I believe that
vinyl has anywhere near the SN of CD, anywhere the low level of distortion
or anywhere near the convienence.



No-one has ever claimed any of that - it's only in the heads of the twisty
people who are *terrified* by vinyl....

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message



No-one has ever claimed any of that - it's only in the
heads of the twisty people who are *terrified* by
vinyl....

Hmm, Keith's post is 100% name-calling and a claim that others are paranoid.
Interesting how quickly he brings a reasoned discussion down that his level.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:
Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other
in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment
that he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group,

My intention was to summarise what was said recently on the 'Vinyl to CD
on a PC' thread on ukra by the, as ever, extremely vocal vinyl lobby.
Above all, they emphasise the 'realism' of anything on vinyl.
Rumble, hiss, clicks, pops, varying bandwidth and distortion throughout
the record matters not one jot - it's 'realism'.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message
oups.com

To the extent that this is correct, the technically
preferable way to induce this effect is to start with the
cleanest, most accurate recording possible and then use
digital signal processing to introduce phase distortion
at the user's discretion. This allows you to adjust the
effect to the recording, rather than accepting the fixed
distortion of a particular vinyl rig.

Agreed

[Dave Platt]

In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:

Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other
in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment
that he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group,

Assuming that I'm the "Dave" you're referring to - I was not trying to
put words into mouth of anyone at all other than myself. What I wrote
was my own personal opinion and understanding, based on my own
experiences and on research I've read over the years.

The first writeup and research I remember reading on the whole issue
of microphonic pickup by LP platters, and acoustic ringing in
poorly-damped LPs, was in a fairly early issue of "International Audio
Review" back in the late 1970s. It was in part due to the tests
published in this magazine that I chose to purchase an Oracle
turntable, which I still possess and occasionally use today.

I do not claim (or even expect) that the more strongly-opined LP
enthusiasts will agree with my suggestions as to the reasons why they
might prefer the sound of LPs to the sound of CDs.

Please do not attribute to me, motives that I do not actually possess.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

[Nick Gorham]

Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote:


Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other
in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment
that he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group,


Assuming that I'm the "Dave" you're referring to - I was not trying to
put words into mouth of anyone at all other than myself. What I wrote
was my own personal opinion and understanding, based on my own
experiences and on research I've read over the years.

I didn't for one moment suggest you were, its wasnt your post I was
refering to.

Dave Plownam (news) posted

In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:

The converse is not true:- An LP cut from a CD will not sound identical,
whatever mastering it has gone through. There are those who think the LP
will sound better, that's fine as their opinion, but the fact that it
*is* different means that CD is a transparent medium (what you put in
you get out) whilst LP is not.


You can say this 'till you're blue in the face but it won't make a scrap
of difference to vinyl freaks. Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


And then Richard Crowley took what I assume was just Dave making a off
the cuff comment, and made it look like someone had said part of the
above while meaning it

Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?



So, nothing related you any of your postings.


Please do not attribute to me, motives that I do not actually possess.


Didn't, haven't and won't :-).

--
Nick

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 20:47:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


It's well known, for example, that adding some amount of
delayed, out-of-phase signal components to a piece of
music can create a sense of "air" or "ambience" that
makes the playback seem more like listening to the music
as it might be when played in a live venue.

Yes, the well-known phasiness, which is actually not
usually characteristic of a high quality live venue such
as a symphony hall.

Multi-channel
playback systems such as the venerable Dynaquad, or the
various digital-delay ambience-synthesis systems such as
Yamaha and a/d/s have made, have been used to good
advantage for this for decades.

Again, many listeners observe that many recordings give
strong directional cues that actually don't exist in a
quality live venue.

Yes, I always felt that this was due to phase distortions
between the stereo channels added by the vinyl
recording/playback process.

Sometimes true of recordings that are 100% digital.

Phase differences between the sound event as received by
our two ears is one of the cues we use for localization.

Though secondary to amplitude differences.

Normal "stereo" tends to screw up parts of the
localization process. Perhaps gobs of added phase
distortion from vinyl makes some people think the
"imaging" is better.

Classic example would be the old ADC XLM cartridge. Ragazines like TAS
ranted and raved about how the soundstage of this cartridge blew away
competitive cartridges like the V15. It turned out that records that were
even slightly warped or slightly eccentric would combine with the
nonlinearity of the XLM to produce all kinds of phase and amplitude changes.
Sure, the XLM produced an exciting soundstage, but big gobs of the
excitement were generated right in the cartrdige.

Counterpoint - multi-miced recordings can sound "phasey"
due to leakage between the mics, while coincident-mic
minimla-miced recordings tend to create sound fields
that implement "intensity stereo" that have vastly
reduced phase differences between the channels.

Spaced-mic recording doubles the signal when played back
through normal speakers.

That's one way to look at it.

Coincident-mic recording leaves some of the localization
up to the spacing of the speakers in relation to your
ears.

Though not uniquely so.

I don't think either method is optimal, but coincident
miking seems to produce a more accurate result overall.

I do a lot of work with coincident mics, including multiple coincident mics.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley wrote:

A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code


When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing
plant? Was this something done in the early 80s?

I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally --
redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital
mastering.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Richard Crowley wrote:
Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.

Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?

er...he was being sarcastic, you know. Repeating
the 'vinyl freak' (that should have been a tipoff, btw) mantra.





___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote:

Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.

Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?

I think that a valid distinction can be made between "accuracy" (a
term I use here to denote an objective relationship between source and
playback) and "realism" (which term I use to indicate a _subjective_
perception).

It's well known, for example, that adding some amount of delayed,
out-of-phase signal components to a piece of music can create a sense
of "air" or "ambience" that makes the playback seem more like
listening to the music as it might be when played in a live venue.
Multi-channel playback systems such as the venerable Dynaquad, or the
various digital-delay ambience-synthesis systems such as Yamaha and
a/d/s have made, have been used to good advantage for this for decades.

Such modification of the signal is artifical. The resulting signal is
less accurate (in the objective sense). It may, on the other hand, be
more "realistic", in the sense that the music sounds more like it
might if the musicians were actually present in the listening room,
performing the music in a real live venue.

These are good points worth repeating occasionally.

Me, I'd hate to have to go back to listening to two-channel without
Dolby Pro Logic II (muisc mode) and 5.1 system.

I don't claims it's accurate -- it certainly modifies the signal!
-- but I like it. It's intentional euphonic distortion. I can even
adjust and tweak the DPLII parameters to suit.

But of course it's not intrinsic to digital playback. If I someday decide
I don't like it, I can turn it OFF...or substitute some processing
I like more.

Try THAT with a turntable/LP system.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.

It's a reasonable assumption that the *audible part* of any LP is fully
captured by a decent CD transcription of it.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance
in sources.

What variances in *this* souce -- would you suggest fail to be
captured?


These assumptions aren't facts.

What data would demonstrate that they are or are not, to you?
How would you falsify Mr. Satz' claims?


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Jeff Findley]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley wrote:

A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the
CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the
CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code


When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing
plant? Was this something done in the early 80s?

I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally --
redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital
mastering.

I believe this was actually the early 90's, but he did say by then delivery
of analog audio to them was becoming less and less common. Still, he still
tends to avoid buying AAD CD's based on what he saw going on at the plant
since you can't tell from the AAD code who did the mastering from the analog
tapes.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Karl Uppiano]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley wrote:

A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he
understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the
CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the
CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code


When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing
plant? Was this something done in the early 80s?

I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally --
redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital
mastering.

I believe this was actually the early 90's, but he did say by then
delivery of analog audio to them was becoming less and less common.
Still, he still tends to avoid buying AAD CD's based on what he saw going
on at the plant since you can't tell from the AAD code who did the
mastering from the analog tapes.

Jeff

I always purchased CDs based on the quality of the music. The SPARS code was
irrelevant to me, but I always took comfort that if it said AAD, it meant
that the master tape ensured adequate dithering for the CD. :-)

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in
its audible sound quality than CD playback
equipment does. But your method eliminates that
variable completely, and the mastering decisions of
a commercial CD aren't a factor, either.
"
Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer
has managed two maxims from anecdote.
No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts,
and with a very considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts,
and with a considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements. The measurements need to be coordinated
with what is known about human perception of sound. This
has been done.

That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle
about supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you
shouldn't hear, makes the notion of 'audible' a problem
for dunces like me :-)

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
Properly stated they are findings of science that have
been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
to substantiate this?

Here's an example of some people who tried to collect their own data:

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

The digital delay device being tested used the identical same data format as
audio CDs and was of professional grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD
player back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to time in more
modern contexts with identical results.


OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of
(incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to:

http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological
and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. The
bibliography is rather narrow and doesn't (of course) guide the reader
towards references. What made the inventor choose that method? It didn't
just come out of the air!

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.
That wasn't the point.
Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is
based on stimulus and perception. Perception is based on
the body's sensory reaction to stimulus and how the
brain processes those reactions. If you trace through
the steps, you find the most variations in how different
people's brains work.

Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

Robust fact.

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are
well-informed about sensation and perception.

I think you're steering towards a
rational/'nature'/positivist explanation. Nothing wrong
with that in itself, but you do understand there are
different ways of thinking about things?!

It seems to me that when a bunch of audiophiles and recording engineers
listen to high quality live and recorded analog sources and find that they
can't tell the difference between a short piece of wire and relatively
complex digital encoding and decoding in the signal path, a lot of heavy
philosophical thinking can be bypassed.


Of course - but it's obvious to anyone looking at those tests that it's
a pretty narrow respondent sample. To turn it round and say "Well, they
are the most qualified to comment" is IMO elitist claptrap.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
Properly stated they are findings of science that have
been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
to substantiate this?

Here's an example of some people who tried to collect
their own data: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

The digital delay device being tested used the identical
same data format as audio CDs and was of professional
grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD player
back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to
time in more modern contexts with identical results.

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

[Jim Lesurf]

In article ,
Rob wrote:


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain
English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me
by. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

[Keith G]

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

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

[Karl Uppiano]

"Keith G" wrote in message
news

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

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by Dr
Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here.

Frankly, I don't know why they're discussing (or I'm reading) an issue that
was already settled 25 years ago by anyone willing to accept the obvious
physical, mathematical and usability advantages of digital audio, instead
of, oh, I don't know, whether Western Civilization has the nerve to fight a
dangerous religious war to the death, or if we're in life-threatening
denial. At least we have our priorities straight. :-)

[Rob]

Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
news
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/
with an odd statement about methodology.

What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
Well, it's your ball :-)


What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by Dr
Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here.


Do you mean ontology and epistemology? They're common enough words when
discussing methodology - Arny started that ball rolling. I do tend to
agree that a lot of BS accompanies philosophical 'analysis'.

Frankly, I don't know why they're discussing (or I'm reading) an issue that
was already settled 25 years ago by anyone willing to accept the obvious
physical, mathematical and usability advantages of digital audio,

Agreed. But I didn't start it :-)

instead
of, oh, I don't know, whether Western Civilization has the nerve to fight a
dangerous religious war to the death, or if we're in life-threatening
denial. At least we have our priorities straight. :-)


I didn't start that one either!

[Rob]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain
English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me
by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising -
you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more
than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained
('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set
about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and
the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I
know, roughly, thank you.

The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread.

[Rob]

Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/
with an odd statement about methodology.

What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)


Oh I think not :-) Still, he's a bloody good sport that Arny!

[Keith G]

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:z6q3h.2238$Wd5.62@trnddc05...

"Keith G" wrote in message
news

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

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by
Dr Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here.



Sure, why not? It definitely says 'fight fire with fire' on page 28 of my
copy of 'How To Scrape By'.....???

Talking of which, here's a clip of a St Neots (UK) inhabitant enjoying his
fireworks display tonight:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Fireworks.mp3

:-)

(Dual mono for technical reasons.....)

[Keith G]

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/
with an odd statement about methodology.

What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)


Oh I think not :-) Still, he's a bloody good sport that Arny!



Good sport or *a* good sport? - There's a big difference!

(I'd agree with the former....!! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the
'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be
absolutely clear on these points to accept what you
say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights.
I've seen this technique used many times before and
I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your
question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I
read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or
patronising - you've explained the meaning of questions
of this kind to me on more than one occasion. But here we
go:
Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to
be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists,
how do you propose to set about knowing this reality
(your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach
you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)?
Your method I know, roughly, thank you.

100% BS.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the
'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in
plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context
passed me by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising -

No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I didn't
know what you were asking, or why.

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more
than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained
('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set
about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and
the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I
know, roughly, thank you.

Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking Arny
to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the design and
use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?

If you are asking for his personal view, then it would be for him to
explain. However whatever his view, it may not alter the actual methods or
results he and others refer to. If you are asking for a more general
explanation of something anyone might give, then perhaps someone else can
help. None of this was/is clear to me, hence my question.

The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread.

Again, as in my previous posting re 'context' - I don't know what 'facts'
you are referring to here. If your point is specific, can you please
explain?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

[Arny Krueger]

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological
basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept
what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights.
I've seen this technique used many times before and
I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your
question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I
read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or
patronising -

No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the
reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or why.

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind
to me on more than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to
be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists,
how do you propose to set about knowing this reality
(your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach
you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity
methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you.

Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or
are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the
scientific method and the design and use of experimental
protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?

None of the above. He's simply obfuscating.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological
basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept
what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights.
I've seen this technique used many times before and
I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your
question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I
read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or
patronising -

No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the
reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or why.

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind
to me on more than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to
be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists,
how do you propose to set about knowing this reality
(your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach
you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity
methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you.

Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or
are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the
scientific method and the design and use of experimental
protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?

None of the above. He's simply obfuscating.

When audiophiles reach for ontological/epistomological arguments
to defend why they 'trust what they hear', you know they're in
desperate straits -- nothing less than an attack on scientific
method remains to them. And I know it it's time to reach for my
killfile, because what is the point with arguing with solipsists
('what I hear is real to me, and that's enough')?


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological
basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept
what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights.
I've seen this technique used many times before and
I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your
question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when
I read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or
patronising -

No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the
reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or
why.

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind
to me on more than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to
be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what
exists, how do you propose to set about knowing this
reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and the
approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what
then is the logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity
methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you.

Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or
are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the
scientific method and the design and use of experimental
protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?

None of the above. He's simply obfuscating.

When audiophiles reach for ontological/epistomological
arguments to defend why they 'trust what they hear', you
know they're in desperate straits -- nothing less than an
attack on scientific method remains to them. And I know
it it's time to reach for my killfile, because what is
the point with arguing with solipsists ('what I hear is
real to me, and that's enough')?

IOW, the well-known red herring argument. The questions Rob asked raise a
humungious number of issues that have been asked and answered dozens of
times over. If someone were stupid enough to take the bait, there are a
zillion size issues that could be argued, while the important issues were
obfuscated.

[Rob]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the
'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)
Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in
plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context
passed me by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising -

No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I didn't
know what you were asking, or why.


Fair enough - sorry if my opening was a little offhand.

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more
than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained
('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set
about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and
the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I
know, roughly, thank you.

Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking Arny
to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the design and
use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?


Arny has reached certain conclusions from a test. That test relied on a
certain method. And that method - whether he or anyone else like it or
not - arose from a particular methodology. In very plain terms I was
asking for the reasoning behind the method.

If you are asking for his personal view, then it would be for him to
explain.

He doesn't want to, and that's fine by me.

However whatever his view, it may not alter the actual methods or
results he and others refer to.

I can only assume that he doesn't have a view.

If you are asking for a more general
explanation of something anyone might give, then perhaps someone else can
help. None of this was/is clear to me, hence my question.


No, nothing general - just why he would choose a method for a test. I
wasn't asking for general answers - it's by belief that there is no
'correct' methodology.

The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread.

Again, as in my previous posting re 'context' - I don't know what 'facts'
you are referring to here. If your point is specific, can you please
explain?


The specific point, and where this thread started, was an assertion that
CD-standard recording captures the whole LP audio recording for all
practical purposes. I had certain issues with the source of that
assertion which went unanswered; no matter. Arny then associated that
assertion with certain facts:

1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.
2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance in sources.

I felt these were assumptions, and Arny then led me to a test carried
out which I think he feels was a good example of data collection in this
context:

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

I cuoldn't see any explanation of method, variables, respondents. A
bunch of people - probably highly skilled in their field - concluding
that they couldn't reliably hear any difference given two modes of
playback. I would add an important part of context - the thread is about
*audible* difference.

Digging a little deeper, there's a reference on the ABX site to
something called "Virtual Reality Methodology". I wondered what that
methodology was all about. Arny wouldn't tell me.

And that, as they say, is that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message

The specific point, and where this thread started, was an
assertion that CD-standard recording captures the whole
LP audio recording for all practical purposes. I had
certain issues with the source of that assertion which
went unanswered; no matter. Arny then associated that
assertion with certain facts:

1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music
recording. 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety
any variance in sources.

I felt these were assumptions, and Arny then led me to a
test carried out which I think he feels was a good
example of data collection in this context:

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

I cuoldn't see any explanation of method, variables,
respondents.

Didn't find any of that anywhere on that whole web site?

Then you didn't look.

A bunch of people - probably highly skilled
in their field - concluding that they couldn't reliably
hear any difference given two modes of playback. I would
add an important part of context - the thread is about
*audible* difference.

Does that require discussion of all those things you questioned?

Digging a little deeper, there's a reference on the ABX
site to something called "Virtual Reality Methodology". I
wondered what that methodology was all about. Arny
wouldn't tell me.

I would, if I thought that you weren't trolling.

[Rob]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological
basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept
what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights.
I've seen this technique used many times before and
I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)
Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your
question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I
read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-)

Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or
patronising -
No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the
reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or why.

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind
to me on more than one occasion. But here we go:
Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to
be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists,
how do you propose to set about knowing this reality
(your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach
you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity
methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you.
Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or
are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the
scientific method and the design and use of experimental
protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?

None of the above. He's simply obfuscating.

When audiophiles reach for ontological/epistomological arguments
to defend why they 'trust what they hear', you know they're in
desperate straits -- nothing less than an attack on scientific
method remains to them. And I know it it's time to reach for my
killfile, because what is the point with arguing with solipsists
('what I hear is real to me, and that's enough')?


OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between LP-CD recordings
and LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous test, just mild
and recreational observation. Then I'm told there can't be any
difference. The reasoning, I gather, is based on something called
"Virtual Reality" methodology, which involves double-blind testing
amongst other things. And I asked what that was all about in an
admittedly precise way. Nothing to do with solipsism - at least from my end.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Rob wrote:
OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between LP-CD recordings
and LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous test, just mild
and recreational observation.

The CD made using the same pickup etc as you're using for the playback -
and a high quality sound card on the computer, etc? And how did you match
levels exactly for the comparison?

--
*Modulation in all things *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:

OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between LP-CD recordings
and LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous test, just mild
and recreational observation

Then, simply put, your 'fair surety' is not warranted.


Then I'm told there can't be any
difference.

Bull****. NO ONE said there CAN'T be any difference. It's possible
to make a suboptimal transfer.

The reasoning, I gather, is based on something called
"Virtual Reality" methodology, which involves double-blind testing
amongst other things.

'Double blind testing' existed long before 'virtual reality' technology.

And I asked what that was all about in an
admittedly precise way. Nothing to do with solipsism - at least from my end.

You are laboring under at least several misconceptions.

There is NO known technical or physiological reason why a good digital
transfer of LP playback shouldn't capture ALL of the audible information
available.

Proceed from there.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Glenn Richards]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but
then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness
wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to
some pop releases.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can
get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field.

--
*Marriage changes passion - suddenly you're in bed with a relative*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mr.T]

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
. uk...
So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better?

That of course can be the case, but the reverse is also true, far more
often.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

Obviously.

MrT.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

[snip]


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising -

No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I
didn't know what you were asking, or why.


Fair enough - sorry if my opening was a little offhand.

Ok. :-)

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more
than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained
('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set
about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and
the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method
I know, roughly, thank you.

Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking
Arny to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the
design and use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of
experimental results?


Arny has reached certain conclusions from a test. That test relied on a
certain method. And that method - whether he or anyone else like it or
not - arose from a particular methodology. In very plain terms I was
asking for the reasoning behind the method.

Is this specific to the individual test(s) he has described? Or are you
asking about the method generally called 'ABX' whenever it is employed? My
impression is that you are directing your questions just to a specific
instance, but I am not entirely sure of that.

[snip]

However whatever his view, it may not alter the actual methods or
results he and others refer to.

I can only assume that he doesn't have a view.

FWIW In my experience many academic scientists and engineers employ the
scientific method and various experimental protocols because they are the
usual techniques they are taught and find useful. Many seem not to concern
themselves with the arguments for or against them. Just use the tools from
the toolbox. I doubt most of my ex-colleagues would know what
'epistimology' or 'ontology' means without looking it up. They would
suspect they have encountered a theologian, or a philosopher who walked
into the wrong dept by mistake. :-)

If you are asking for a more general
explanation of something anyone might give, then perhaps someone else
can help. None of this was/is clear to me, hence my question.


No, nothing general - just why he would choose a method for a test. I
wasn't asking for general answers - it's by belief that there is no
'correct' methodology.

Can you explain what you mean here by "correct"? Your wording implies a
unique methodology. The reality is that various techniques may be applied,
and are chosen on the basis of what idea(s) an observation or experiment is
aimed at testing, and what forms of problems may be significant in the
specific context.

The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread.

Again, as in my previous posting re 'context' - I don't know what
'facts' you are referring to here. If your point is specific, can you
please explain?


The specific point, and where this thread started, was an assertion that
CD-standard recording captures the whole LP audio recording for all
practical purposes. I had certain issues with the source of that
assertion which went unanswered; no matter. Arny then associated that
assertion with certain facts:

1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording. 2 -
CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance in sources.

As you inserted yourself, the above need to be qualified in some way to
mean they refer to what is 'audible' in terms of being distinguishable
since all real systems will have limitations. Ditto for the circumstances
of use. However I would take such qualifiers to be read into the statements
in this context.

That said, the above seem simply to re-state the assertion you questioned.
However is this not on the basis that controlled tests return results that
support these "assumptions"? So your point is to question the nature of
those controlled tests?

When a statement has been subject to controlled experimental tests,
designed to cope with the relevant experimental problems, and found to be
supported, then the conclusions should only be called "assumptions" with
care as this term might me misunderstood. Do you do this because you don't
know the details of the experiments or the results?

I could easily say that if I hold a pen and then let it go it is my
"assumption" that it will accellerate downwards and fall to the ground.
However most people in most normal circumstances would not feel that
calling this an "assumption" means it is a mistake or in any serious doubt.
Of course, I can find circumstances where it won't apply, and in general,
we can expect any conclusions to only apply within a range of
circumstances, etc.

In general, also, if you have doubts about a given experimental design,
etc, and regard the results as doubtful, the normal recourse in science is
to propose better controlled experiments and judge on the basis of their
results.

I felt these were assumptions,

I obviously can't speak for Arny, but my understanding is that suitable
tests do support what you call assumptions. Also that descriptions of the
experimental designs and the control conditions, etc, have been dicussed on
many occasions over the years. Given this, is it suprising if Arny decides
he can't be bothered to cover old ground yet again? Is this not already
covered on his website or elsewhere?


and Arny then led me to a test carried
out which I think he feels was a good example of data collection in this
context:

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

[snip]

Digging a little deeper, there's a reference on the ABX site to
something called "Virtual Reality Methodology". I wondered what that
methodology was all about. Arny wouldn't tell me.

Afraid I don't know off-hand what it means, so can't comment on that. :-)
If I have seen the phrase in the past, then I am afraid I have forgotten
about it. But when I get a chance I'll check the above reference.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

[Keith G]

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
. uk...
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)



Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?
(Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??)

Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting, there are two CD racks
full of the sort stuff I like to (and do) play. It is though they do not
exist - I *never* think to play them! I just looked, there is even a 'boxed
set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it hasn't been - it's
still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/cellophane.jpg

It must have been there some years now and one of the *few* things I like on
Carsick FM is the 'Smooth Classics at Seven' prog..!!??

In fact, I suspect over half of them have never been played even once since
they were bought - why is that...??

(I think it's a 'natural selection' based on a genuine preference that has
bugger-all to do with technical differences!)