Bob Cain wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

I think the Lip****z and Vanderkooy AES paper pretty well
solved the problem of complementary RIAA equalization.

I've never studied it in detail but I've always assumed
the
equalization was designed to have a pretty exact inverse.

On second thought, can that really be accomplished with
minimum phase filters? Hmmmm.

The answer is yes, both the RIAA pre-emphasis and
de-emphasis filters, if properly implemented, are minimum
phase.

On second thought, can that really be accomplished with
minimum phase filters? Hmmmm.

Yes, yes, yes. The transfer functions are simple. Two poles and two zeros
for both recording and playback (though sometimes the topmost zero is
ignored in playback).

Carey Carlan wrote:

Irrelevant to my question. I want to know how HIS digital copy of his
record sounds. I'd like to know if any of that magic quality remains.

My digital copy would sound pretty good, but I'm still kind of paranoid
about this kind of thing.

You want a fair comparison? Send me a 1/4" tape and $150 and I'll send
you a lacquer (one side). You can compare THAT with the original tape.
I'll cut flat or not, your choice, with margin control.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Joe Sensor wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:

And one with reasonably good gear could digitally record
the output
of your turntable/pre and you would not be able to tell
any
difference between the digital playback and the output of
the pre.

You say this is if it were fact. It ain't.

It is a fact, why don't you know it, Joe?

Bob Cain wrote:
Joe Sensor wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:

And one with reasonably good gear could digitally record
the output
of your turntable/pre and you would not be able to tell
any
difference between the digital playback and the output
of the pre.


You say this is if it were fact. It ain't.

Arny, you (or someone) needs to build a little box with a
cascaded A/D and D/A (of reasonable but not insane
quality)
and a PIC which can mechanically switch an output between
the analog line in and the cascade to do double blind
switching control. We could lend it to these guys and ask
for their results (encoded so as to not be subject to
fakery.) :-)

IME, guys like Joe Sensor and VB are way too cagey to get
trapped into taking a reliable, unbiased listening test. For
one thing, they have Harry Lavo as their apologist.

Carey Carlan wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
news:1LGdnZoJmO0OMiTfRVn-
:

Carey Carlan wrote:
flatfish+++ wrote in
:

It literally sounds like the band is right in front of
me, and while
CD's are nice, and theory is in their favor, I would
offer up that
people interested in comparisons, should seriously
listen
to some
great analog D2D stuff on decent playback equipment
because you
really might be surprised.
I was...

I'm terrified of starting another vinyl vs CD debate,
but
I am
curious.

Do you have some high quality A/D and D/A converters?
If so, how does a digital copy of your record sound?

Given his stance on DBT's it's quite likely that all he's
heard is the badly-done yellow-faced CD, not the later
remastering of a different performance.

Irrelevant to my question. I want to know how HIS digital
copy of his
record sounds.

Sorry for my momentary inattention. You mean the digital
copy he made himself. Well for one thing, can we trust him
to do this with reasonable levels of expertise?

I'd like to know if any of that magic quality remains.

I predict he'll do a sighted evaluation with entirely
predictable results.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Carey Carlan wrote:

Irrelevant to my question. I want to know how HIS digital copy of his
record sounds. I'd like to know if any of that magic quality remains.

My digital copy would sound pretty good, but I'm still kind of paranoid
about this kind of thing.

You want a fair comparison? Send me a 1/4" tape and $150 and I'll send
you a lacquer (one side). You can compare THAT with the original tape.
I'll cut flat or not, your choice, with margin control.
--scott

I could email you an MP3 ...

duck!

Sean

"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:F6Gdnb78IJgWlSffRVn-
:

Do you have some high quality A/D and D/A converters?
If so, how does a digital copy of your record sound?

Given his stance on DBT's it's quite likely that all he's
heard is the badly-done yellow-faced CD, not the later
remastering of a different performance.

Irrelevant to my question. I want to know how HIS digital
copy of his
record sounds.

Sorry for my momentary inattention. You mean the digital
copy he made himself. Well for one thing, can we trust him
to do this with reasonable levels of expertise?

Yes, that should be part of the question. If we divert the exact analog
vinyl playback chain through an AD-DA pair, wouldn't it sound much like it
does now?

I'd like to know if any of that magic quality remains.

I predict he'll do a sighted evaluation with entirely
predictable results.

You do realize, Arny, that statements like that are what incite these flame
wars? Ignoring whether or not it's true, proper decorum leaves that
comment unsaid.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

No way. What really happened is that cassettes went the way
of vinyl.

Cassettes went the way of MP3!

Julian

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:01:20 GMT, Carey Carlan
wrote:

I'd like to know if any of that magic quality remains.

I predict he'll do a sighted evaluation with entirely
predictable results.

You do realize, Arny, that statements like that are what incite these flame
wars? Ignoring whether or not it's true, proper decorum leaves that
comment unsaid.

(Hopefully) without entering into any of the Forbidden
Mysteries topics, the issue of "magic quality" is yet to
be addressed.

In my model framework, we're always wrong, always lacking data, always
confused in our modeling. Magic is the noisy dithering parallel
input to our models, inputing more questions, but no answers.

Answers are always ultimately wrong. Including this one! Arf.

Chris Hornbeck

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...


Actually, it could also have been the headamp if it was a MC
cartridge...some of them in the late '70's / early '80's weren't so great.

But it only takes one falsification to prove it wasn't that vinyl....and
I've heard that falsification in my own system (as well as in others). No
"glare", just natural sounding brass.

What the hell does a "falsification" sound like?

Stuart

Carey Carlan wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
news:F6Gdnb78IJgWlSffRVn-
:

Do you have some high quality A/D and D/A converters?
If so, how does a digital copy of your record sound?

Given his stance on DBT's it's quite likely that all
he's
heard is the badly-done yellow-faced CD, not the later
remastering of a different performance.

Irrelevant to my question. I want to know how HIS
digital
copy of his
record sounds.

Sorry for my momentary inattention. You mean the digital
copy he made himself. Well for one thing, can we trust
him
to do this with reasonable levels of expertise?

Yes, that should be part of the question. If we divert
the exact
analog vinyl playback chain through an AD-DA pair,
wouldn't it sound
much like it does now?

Yes. I've done a number of tests where various sources were
routed through some good 44/16 converters, back-to-back.
Tape, vinyl, CD, etc. If you match the levels carefully, the
conversion is sonically transparent.

I'd like to know if any of that magic quality remains.

I predict he'll do a sighted evaluation with entirely
predictable results.

You do realize, Arny, that statements like that are what
incite these
flame wars?

The OP purporting vinyl as the sonic standard for all times
and all purposes, was posted to incite a flame war. Once
that happened, it was all down hill.

Ignoring whether or not it's true, proper decorum leaves
that comment unsaid.

Unfortunately, its essentially 100% factual. Here's a
challenge, find Sensor or VB posting about something they
themselves did recently along the lines of audio production.

"Stuart Welwood" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...


Actually, it could also have been the headamp if it was a MC
cartridge...some of them in the late '70's / early '80's weren't so
great.

But it only takes one falsification to prove it wasn't that vinyl....and
I've heard that falsification in my own system (as well as in others).
No "glare", just natural sounding brass.

What the hell does a "falsification" sound like?

Stuart

"Falsification" is a favorite of the objectivist school of audio and is a
logical analysis term. It means "if you can find a single instance to the
contrary". Arny says the records have "glare" and that the problem is on
the record itself, rather than in the arm/cartridge/headamp combination he
was using. I said it wasn't in the recording, and that there was "no glare"
on my system. That one instance proves it isn't on the vinyl. (Of course,
I've also heard the records on other systems, again without glare). So the
sound of falsification in this case is "no glare."

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Falsification" is a favorite of the objectivist school of audio and is a
logical analysis term. It means "if you can find a single instance to the
contrary". Arny says the records have "glare" and that the problem is on
the record itself, rather than in the arm/cartridge/headamp combination he
was using. I said it wasn't in the recording, and that there was "no
glare" on my system. That one instance proves it isn't on the vinyl. (Of
course, I've also heard the records on other systems, again without
glare). So the sound of falsification in this case is "no glare."

Interesting. My schooling in logic has never included the term
falsification, and my lowest exam score was 98%! Let's see, you are saying
that the word falsification, which is a noun, means something that is not a
noun, namely "if you can find a single instance to the contrary." Are you an
idoit?

And, while we're at it, what is this "objectivist school of audio?" There is
science, and there is bull****. You clearly subscribe to the latter.

Stuart

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Falsification" is a favorite of the objectivist school of
audio and
is a logical analysis term. It means "if you can find a
single
instance to the contrary". Arny says the records have
"glare"

Typical Harry Lavo lie. I said that with some vinyl playback
systems, the Sheffield Harry James records play back with
glare.

and that the problem is on the record itself, rather than
in the
arm/cartridge/headamp combination he was using.

Typical Harry Lavo lie. I clarified and said that I heard
this effect on vinyl playback systems other than my own. In
the days of vinyl, many of us heard the Harry James
Sheffield LPs played all over the place.

I said it wasn't in the recording, and that there was "no
glare" on my system.

We all know that Harry Lavo's system is as close to
sonically perfect as is Harry himself. ;-)

That one instance proves it isn't on the vinyl.

We know that Harry Lavo is 65 and no doubt can't hear glare
as clearly as a 18-30 year old with well-trained but
untarnished ears.

(Of course, I've also heard
the records on other systems, again without glare). So
the sound of
falsification in this case is "no glare."

Most probable cause of Harry Lavo not hearing glare on his
personal sysetm would be his diefication of his own audio
system, his diefication of vinyl, and the natural effects of
time on human hearing.

The larger problem is that none of us were present when the
Harry James LPs were cut. So, none of us know what the live
performance actually sounded like. There's no doubt that as
close to that experience as we could come, would be a
digital recording made at the time, with a modern good
quality digital recorder. Of course, that didn't happen even
though suitable digital recording equipment existed at the
time. It just wasn't being used much for audio due its size
and cost.

About as close as most of us can practically come to the mic
feeds taken at the time the Harry James LPs were cut, are
the redone CD transcriptions of the high speed analog tapes
that were made at the time - the "Brown Face" Sheffield CDs.

Stuart Welwood wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...


Actually, it could also have been the headamp if it was a MC
cartridge...some of them in the late '70's / early '80's weren't so great.

But it only takes one falsification to prove it wasn't that vinyl....and
I've heard that falsification in my own system (as well as in others). No
"glare", just natural sounding brass.

What the hell does a "falsification" sound like?

18 minutes of silence, preferably with an erasure signature of a Uher 8000.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Stuart Welwood" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Falsification" is a favorite of the objectivist school of audio and is a
logical analysis term. It means "if you can find a single instance to
the contrary". Arny says the records have "glare" and that the problem
is on the record itself, rather than in the arm/cartridge/headamp
combination he was using. I said it wasn't in the recording, and that
there was "no glare" on my system. That one instance proves it isn't on
the vinyl. (Of course, I've also heard the records on other systems,
again without glare). So the sound of falsification in this case is "no
glare."

Interesting. My schooling in logic has never included the term
falsification, and my lowest exam score was 98%! Let's see, you are saying
that the word falsification, which is a noun, means something that is not
a noun, namely "if you can find a single instance to the contrary." Are
you an idoit?

And, while we're at it, what is this "objectivist school of audio?" There
is science, and there is bull****. You clearly subscribe to the latter.

Then your schooling also didn't include Arny and others who promote
themselves as "objectivists". It is their term, so defined, not something
that I would use on my own. That's why I quoted it back to Arny.

But certainly the concept is correct. Let's try a little logic, shall we:

My system playing this record = glare (Arny).
The glare is in the vinyl, not in my system (Arny's hypothesis)

My system playing this record glare (Harry)
The glare cannot be in the vinyl.

Hypothesis denied (falsification)

Or if you'd rather:

Set A (Arny's system) includes glare (G) and the recording (R)
Set H (my system) does not include glare (G) and the recording (R)

What can we deduce? Let's try this:

Both systems include (R)
One system does not include (G)
Glare (G) cannot be a subset of (R)

And this was also true 30 years ago, when my hearing was better (even
though, as of last year, one year is still fine out to 16khz).

I don't see Arny, in his early-mid 50's posting his hearing, as I did a few
posts ago. And he apparently doesn't have the recordings on hand (as I do)
to refresh his current memory.

I hear what I hear. And it ain't glare. And that is on full-range Thiel
speakers, which are hardly treble shy.

Also, FWIW, I spent 10 years doing location recording in the Seventies
using Schoeps and Neumann and B&O mics and Gately mixers, recording into a
portable Ampex 440C. Arny has been at it for 1-1/2 years using 30 "under
$200" mics. I'll put my knowledge of recording and sound quality against
his any day of the year.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:05:22 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

What the hell does a "falsification" sound like?

18 minutes of silence, preferably with an erasure signature of a Uher
8000.

Haven't you heard? It was Alice's Restaurant.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...


Then your schooling also didn't include Arny and others who promote
themselves as "objectivists". It is their term, so defined, not something
that I would use on my own. That's why I quoted it back to Arny.

But certainly the concept is correct. Let's try a little logic, shall we:

My system playing this record = glare (Arny).
The glare is in the vinyl, not in my system (Arny's hypothesis)

To me, "glare" is a visual term. How is "glare" defined as applied to audio?
How does one measure it?

Stuart

Harry Lavo wrote:

Then your schooling also didn't include Arny and others
who promote
themselves as "objectivists". It is their term, so
defined, not
something that I would use on my own. That's why I quoted
it back to
Arny.

Yet another Harry Lavo lie. I never promote myself as being
an objectivist, nor do I call the subjective tests I am
involved with anything but subjective tests.

Harry was personally present at my HE2005 debate with John
Atkinson. During my introductory comments I showed how the
meaning that people like Atkinson and Lavo assign to the
words subjectivist and objectivist are in fact inconsistent
with the standard definitions of the two words. While
Atkinson and Lavo posture vainly that subjectivism and
objectivism are mututally incompatible, a simple recitation
of the generally-used meanings of the words allows that a
world view that pays careful attention to both philosophies
results in a very reasonable world view, which happens to be
my world view.

But certainly the concept is correct. Let's try a little
logic,
shall we:

My system playing this record = glare (Arny).

A very likely outcome given the specific disk. Furthermore
there is an extreme liklihood that while many listeners
might find glare in Harry's system, he himself is incabable
of hearing it because of his advanced age for an audiophile.

The glare is in the vinyl, not in my system (Arny's
hypothesis)

That a vinyl-based system playing some really
hottly-recorded trumpets would evidence some glare is a
completely understandable and likely expectation. It is well
known that vinyl is inherently susceptible to high frequency
nonlinear distortion, if for no other reason due to groove
geometry and discrepancies between the geometry of record
cutters and playback styli.

My system playing this record glare (Harry)

Harry is not likely to be a reliable judge of this matter
due to his advanced age for being a reliable critical
listener. I have very good reason to suspect that Harry
would not do well in the listener training course presented
at http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .

The glare cannot be in the vinyl.

It is well known that vinyl is inherently susceptible to
high frequency nonlinear distortion, if for no other reason
due to groove geometry and discrepancies between the
geometry of record cutters and playback styli.

Hypothesis denied (falsification)

This would likely be a profound wish on Harry's part,
perhaps some kind of a religious belief.

Or if you'd rather:

Set A (Arny's system) includes glare (G) and the recording
(R)

Yet another Harry Lavo lie. At this time I do not even have
an operational vinyl playback system, therefore my system
cannot possibly evidence vinyl-induced glare. Furthermore,
my judgements of glare in vinyl systems go back over decades
and dozens of other people's systems.

snip remainder of Harry Lavo lie-based blather

Stuart Welwood wrote:

Interesting. My schooling in logic has never included the term
falsification, and my lowest exam score was 98%!

And you never read Popper? That's odd. It relates somehow
to his attack on logical positivism but, as an idiot, that's
all I can remember.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

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

Then your schooling also didn't include Arny and others
who promote
themselves as "objectivists". It is their term, so
defined, not
something that I would use on my own. That's why I quoted
it back to
Arny.

Yet another Harry Lavo lie. I never promote myself as being
an objectivist, nor do I call the subjective tests I am
involved with anything but subjective tests.


For years on RAHE you happily included yourself in a group that was happy to
label yourself "objectivist".
A bit revisionest, eh wot, Arny?

Harry was personally present at my HE2005 debate with John
Atkinson. During my introductory comments I showed how the
meaning that people like Atkinson and Lavo assign to the
words subjectivist and objectivist are in fact inconsistent
with the standard definitions of the two words. While
Atkinson and Lavo posture vainly that subjectivism and
objectivism are mututally incompatible, a simple recitation
of the generally-used meanings of the words allows that a
world view that pays careful attention to both philosophies
results in a very reasonable world view, which happens to be
my world view.


Meaningless blather. The terms are widely used and widely understood on the
audio usenets.


But certainly the concept is correct. Let's try a little
logic,
shall we:

My system playing this record = glare (Arny).

A very likely outcome given the specific disk. Furthermore
there is an extreme liklihood that while many listeners
might find glare in Harry's system, he himself is incabable
of hearing it because of his advanced age for an audiophile.


Arny, you made a bald-faced assertion that the disk was badly recorded and
full of glare. Now you say "a very likely outcome....". We're not talking
theory here Arny, we are (or I thought we were) talking about how the disk
sounds.

The glare is in the vinyl, not in my system (Arny's
hypothesis)

That a vinyl-based system playing some really
hottly-recorded trumpets would evidence some glare is a
completely understandable and likely expectation. It is well
known that vinyl is inherently susceptible to high frequency
nonlinear distortion, if for no other reason due to groove
geometry and discrepancies between the geometry of record
cutters and playback styli.

Again, "would evidence...should evidence.." phoey. The Sheffield disks were
very well recorded, demanding as they were. Harry's trumpet sounds exactly
like a trumpet. The trombones exactly like trombones. The saxes exactly
like saxes. The drums, cymbals, etc....but why go on.

The only "glare" was in the system(s) you heard it on.


My system playing this record glare (Harry)

Harry is not likely to be a reliable judge of this matter
due to his advanced age for being a reliable critical
listener. I have very good reason to suspect that Harry
would not do well in the listener training course presented
at http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .


Bull****. What you think I might or might not be does not count. I had a
superb system in the sixties and seventies when I was in my thirties...and
there was no glare. I have a superb system now, and one good and tested ear
(as well as one not so good one) and there is no glare. I have the records
(all three) and can play them (did so yesterday). There is no glare.


The glare cannot be in the vinyl.

It is well known that vinyl is inherently susceptible to
high frequency nonlinear distortion, if for no other reason
due to groove geometry and discrepancies between the
geometry of record cutters and playback styli.


A line contact stylus basically takes care of that Arny, and I have used
nothing else since they came out. Have you?


Hypothesis denied (falsification)

This would likely be a profound wish on Harry's part,
perhaps some kind of a religious belief.


What, a religous belief to deny you the belief that the record was recorded
with "glare". What an egomonical view of the world, Arny.


Or if you'd rather:

Set A (Arny's system) includes glare (G) and the recording
(R)

Yet another Harry Lavo lie. At this time I do not even have
an operational vinyl playback system, therefore my system
cannot possibly evidence vinyl-induced glare. Furthermore,
my judgements of glare in vinyl systems go back over decades
and dozens of other people's systems.


You didn't qualify your original opinion. You said the record had
glare. No system, no record, no glare. You just walked out on thin ice and
fell right through Arny. Not the first time, though.

snip remainder of Harry Lavo lie-based blather

Notice what Arny snipped, which I am repeating below. Here 'tis:

* * * * * * * * *

"Set H (my system) does not include glare (G) and the recording (R)"

What can we deduce? Let's try this:"

Both systems include (R)
One system does not include (G)
Glare (G) cannot be a subset of (R)"

And this was also true 30 years ago, when my hearing was better (even
though, as of last year, one year is still fine out to 16khz)."

I don't see Arny, in his early-mid 50's posting his hearing, as I did a few
posts ago. And he apparently doesn't have the recordings on hand (as I do)
to refresh his current memory."

I hear what I hear. And it ain't glare. And that is on full-range Thiel
speakers, which are hardly treble shy."

Also, FWIW, I spent 10 years doing location recording in the Seventies
using Schoeps and Neumann and B&O mics and Gately mixers, recording into a
portable Ampex 440C. Arny has been at it for 1-1/2 years using 30 "under
$200" mics. I'll put my knowledge of recording and sound quality against
his any day of the year."

* * * * * *

It would appear Arny doesn't want you to:

a) see the undisputable logic
b) realize that I have the evidence in hand and he does not
c) realize that I have one quite acceptable ear despite my 65 years
d) realize that I have a lot of first hand experience to back up my
assertions.

Of course, his "snip" was just innocuous, wasn't it?


Judge for yourselves whose judgement you trust in this matter.

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

Then your schooling also didn't include Arny and others
who promote
themselves as "objectivists". It is their term, so
defined, not
something that I would use on my own. That's why I
quoted
it back to
Arny.

Yet another Harry Lavo lie. I never promote myself as
being
an objectivist, nor do I call the subjective tests I am
involved with anything but subjective tests.

For years on RAHE you happily included yourself in a group
that was
happy to label yourself "objectivist".

Yet another Harry Lavo lie. I included myself in no
particular groups on RAHE.

A bit revisionest, eh wot, Arny?

Yet another Harry Lavo lie. I've never changed how I've
presented myself in this context. Remember, I am a
co-inventor of ABX and was doing DBTs long ago - even when
Harry Lavo might have had something like normal hearing.

Harry was personally present at my HE2005 debate with
John
Atkinson. During my introductory comments I showed how
the
meaning that people like Atkinson and Lavo assign to the
words subjectivist and objectivist are in fact
inconsistent
with the standard definitions of the two words. While
Atkinson and Lavo posture vainly that subjectivism and
objectivism are mututally incompatible, a simple
recitation
of the generally-used meanings of the words allows that a
world view that pays careful attention to both
philosophies
results in a very reasonable world view, which happens to
be
my world view.

Meaningless blather.

Yet another Harry Lavo Lie. Here is exactly the text that I
presented at the HE2005 debate and that Harry listened to
me read:

---------- Begin long quote of text that I spoke in Harry's
presence at HE2005 ---------

Subjectivism is the fact that we cannot know everything, or
even know anything for sure, because everyone's mind is
different (and therefore) everyone experiences events
differently. http://www.vexen.co.uk/3/subjectivism.htm

What is Objectivism?

Objectivism regards reason as an absolute. It holds that all
knowledge is based on the evidence of the senses. It holds
that all beliefs, conclusions, and convictions must be
established by logical methods of inquiry and tested by
logical methods of verification. In short, it holds that
Scientific approach applies to all areas of knowledge...
http://www.whatisobjectivism.com/

I Believe.
.. I agree that that individuals cannot be completely
assured that they know everything, or anything perfectly
correctly.
.. Everyone's mind is different and imperfect.
.. Everyone experiences all events at least a little
differently and recalls them imperfectly.

I Believe.
.. As much knowledge as possible should be based on the
reliable evidence of the senses.
.. As many beliefs, conclusions, and convictions as
possible, should be established and tested by logical means.
.. The scientific approach should be applied to as many
areas of knowledge as is reasonable and possible.

I Believe.
.. All of our findings are at best provisional.
.. Our findings can be falsified at any time by new
knowledge that we discover, or new methods that we use to
test their reasonableness.
.. The possibility of error, whether human or systematic,
is often very great.

---------- End long quote of text that I spoke in Harry's
presence at HE2005 ---------


The terms are widely used and widely understood on the
audio usenets.

Harry I defined my terms precisely in your presence. Your
inability to accept my clearly-spoken words typifies your
impossible mental state.

But certainly the concept is correct. Let's try a
little
logic,
shall we:

My system playing this record = glare (Arny).

A very likely outcome given the specific disk.
Furthermore
there is an extreme liklihood that while many listeners
might find glare in Harry's system, he himself is
incabable
of hearing it because of his advanced age for an
audiophile.

Arny, you made a bald-faced assertion that the disk was
badly
recorded and full of glare.

Yet another Harry Lavo lie. How many times do I have to
prove that Harry is simply impossible to deal with in a
rational way because of his acute perceptual difficulties?

Now you say "a very likely outcome....".
We're not talking theory here Arny, we are (or I thought
we were)
talking about how the disk sounds.

The glare is in the vinyl, not in my system (Arny's
hypothesis)

That a vinyl-based system playing some really
hottly-recorded trumpets would evidence some glare is a
completely understandable and likely expectation. It is
well
known that vinyl is inherently susceptible to high
frequency
nonlinear distortion, if for no other reason due to
groove
geometry and discrepancies between the geometry of record
cutters and playback styli.

Again, "would evidence...should evidence.." phoey. The
Sheffield
disks were very well recorded, demanding as they were.
Harry's
trumpet sounds exactly like a trumpet. The trombones
exactly like
trombones. The saxes exactly like saxes. The drums,
cymbals,
etc....but why go on.

The only "glare" was in the system(s) you heard it on.

Prove it.

My system playing this record glare (Harry)

Harry is not likely to be a reliable judge of this matter
due to his advanced age for being a reliable critical
listener. I have very good reason to suspect that Harry
would not do well in the listener training course
presented
at http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .


Bull****. What you think I might or might not be does not
count.

End of discussion Harry. If what I think means nothing, then
why should I waste a moment more with you?

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

Then your schooling also didn't include Arny and others
who promote
themselves as "objectivists". It is their term, so
defined, not
something that I would use on my own. That's why I
quoted
it back to
Arny.

Yet another Harry Lavo lie. I never promote myself as
being
an objectivist, nor do I call the subjective tests I am
involved with anything but subjective tests.

For years on RAHE you happily included yourself in a group
that was
happy to label yourself "objectivist".

Yet another Harry Lavo lie. I included myself in no
particular groups on RAHE.


Would come as a complete surprise to most denizens there.


A bit revisionest, eh wot, Arny?

Yet another Harry Lavo lie. I've never changed how I've
presented myself in this context. Remember, I am a
co-inventor of ABX and was doing DBTs long ago - even when
Harry Lavo might have had something like normal hearing.


Who said you changed how you've presented yourself? You've always been an
objectivist...in fact you were one of the founders of the clique.


Harry was personally present at my HE2005 debate with
John
Atkinson. During my introductory comments I showed how
the
meaning that people like Atkinson and Lavo assign to the
words subjectivist and objectivist are in fact
inconsistent
with the standard definitions of the two words. While
Atkinson and Lavo posture vainly that subjectivism and
objectivism are mututally incompatible, a simple
recitation
of the generally-used meanings of the words allows that a
world view that pays careful attention to both
philosophies
results in a very reasonable world view, which happens to
be
my world view.

Meaningless blather.

Yet another Harry Lavo Lie. Here is exactly the text that I
presented at the HE2005 debate and that Harry listened to
me read:



Yeah, go ahead and read it.



---------- Begin long quote of text that I spoke in Harry's
presence at HE2005 ---------

Subjectivism is the fact that we cannot know everything, or
even know anything for sure, because everyone's mind is
different (and therefore) everyone experiences events
differently. http://www.vexen.co.uk/3/subjectivism.htm

What is Objectivism?

Objectivism regards reason as an absolute. It holds that all
knowledge is based on the evidence of the senses. It holds
that all beliefs, conclusions, and convictions must be
established by logical methods of inquiry and tested by
logical methods of verification. In short, it holds that
Scientific approach applies to all areas of knowledge...
http://www.whatisobjectivism.com/

I Believe.
. I agree that that individuals cannot be completely
assured that they know everything, or anything perfectly
correctly.
. Everyone's mind is different and imperfect.
. Everyone experiences all events at least a little
differently and recalls them imperfectly.

I Believe.
. As much knowledge as possible should be based on the
reliable evidence of the senses.
. As many beliefs, conclusions, and convictions as
possible, should be established and tested by logical means.
. The scientific approach should be applied to as many
areas of knowledge as is reasonable and possible.

I Believe.
. All of our findings are at best provisional.
. Our findings can be falsified at any time by new
knowledge that we discover, or new methods that we use to
test their reasonableness.
. The possibility of error, whether human or systematic,
is often very great.

---------- End long quote of text that I spoke in Harry's
presence at HE2005 ---------



A bit pretentious, wot?
Now try to get Arny to ever admit he is wrong about anything important.


The terms are widely used and widely understood on the
audio usenets.

Harry I defined my terms precisely in your presence. Your
inability to accept my clearly-spoken words typifies your
impossible mental state.



Most linquist will tell you that a word ultimately is defined by its popular
use. You are known on RAHE and other forums as an "objectivist" when it
comes to audio. You may think of yourself as scientific, reasonable, and
open-minded. Others see you as an ideologue. No amount of "definition" is
going to help that, Arny.


But certainly the concept is correct. Let's try a
little
logic,
shall we:

My system playing this record = glare (Arny).

A very likely outcome given the specific disk.
Furthermore
there is an extreme liklihood that while many listeners
might find glare in Harry's system, he himself is
incabable
of hearing it because of his advanced age for an
audiophile.

Arny, you made a bald-faced assertion that the disk was
badly
recorded and full of glare.

Yet another Harry Lavo lie. How many times do I have to
prove that Harry is simply impossible to deal with in a
rational way because of his acute perceptual difficulties?


Other than calling me a liar, Arny, I see no rebuttal.



Now you say "a very likely outcome....".
We're not talking theory here Arny, we are (or I thought
we were)
talking about how the disk sounds.

The glare is in the vinyl, not in my system (Arny's
hypothesis)

That a vinyl-based system playing some really
hottly-recorded trumpets would evidence some glare is a
completely understandable and likely expectation. It is
well
known that vinyl is inherently susceptible to high
frequency
nonlinear distortion, if for no other reason due to
groove
geometry and discrepancies between the geometry of record
cutters and playback styli.

Again, "would evidence...should evidence.." phoey. The
Sheffield
disks were very well recorded, demanding as they were.
Harry's
trumpet sounds exactly like a trumpet. The trombones
exactly like
trombones. The saxes exactly like saxes. The drums,
cymbals,
etc....but why go on.

The only "glare" was in the system(s) you heard it on.

Prove it.


Oh, hey, there's a "big boy" answer!


My system playing this record glare (Harry)

Harry is not likely to be a reliable judge of this matter
due to his advanced age for being a reliable critical
listener. I have very good reason to suspect that Harry
would not do well in the listener training course
presented
at http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .


Bull****. What you think I might or might not be does not
count.

End of discussion Harry. If what I think means nothing, then
why should I waste a moment more with you?

I see...my integrity and competence can be called into question, but the
assertion is not challengeable. Is that it, Arny?



(Notice that Arny has once again found a reason to snip all the damning
argument and evidence that follows.)

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...

He's saying he prefers the sound of great musicians playing in a carefully
chosen acoustic space feeding a world class mic into state-of-the art
preamps directly feeding a cutting lathe to the sound of the same source
and record electronics feeding a great two track analog deck played back
into a mid-80s A/D converter recorded onto a PCM1610 (unless it's one of
the newer transfers.)


Wonder what a discriminating CD transfer of this D2D would sound like on CD
? With no mastering apart from dithering to 44k1/16 . And also comparing to
a monitored signal off the AD stage.

geoff

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

The difference here is that as the technology improved, the sound quality
of many CDs got worse, rather than better over that 20-year period.

Sound quality of CDs did not get worse. Mixing and mastering engineers, and
more to the point PRODUCERS' taste got worse.

geoff

On 22 Jun 2005 20:47:07 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

I think the Lip****z and Vanderkooy AES paper pretty well
solved the problem of complementary RIAA equalization.

I've never studied it in detail but I've always assumed the
equalization was designed to have a pretty exact inverse.

It is. The problem is that components with tight tolerances are needed,
and _many_ folks design one or more poles into the feedback loop of an
amplifier in such a way that the impulse response is adversely affected
or distortion becomes a serious issue.

On second thought, can that really be accomplished with
minimum phase filters? Hmmmm.

Yes, that's the point of minimum phase filters. You use the same RC
networks for record and playback, one in series and one in parallel
so the effective responses are exact opposites.

-- I think that exact, or very close, preemphasis and deemphasis is
still a very very good method for noise reduction, too and sometimes I
use a kind of the process in my restoration work. You can match the
both more precisely in digital domain.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Cratia

"Loopy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:41:59 +1200, Geoff Wood wrote:


Wonder what a discriminating CD transfer of this D2D would sound like on
CD
? With no mastering apart from dithering to 44k1/16 . And also comparing
to
a monitored signal off the AD stage.

geoff

I'm in the process of doing that right now.
FWIW I have 3 copies of the entire Harry James Sheffield catalog.
I should be done sometime this weekend and will be happy to post my
results.
FWIW I'm a pianist who regularly plays in a big band and I have had
the privilege of hearing Harry's band several times. For my money the
Sheffield disks capture the band nicely and sound very natural.
I have some other direct to disk recordings that sound horrible, Les Brown
for example.I am however NOT a vinyl freak, nor am I a CD freak. I prefer
to listen to the music rather than the medium and I am also a fairly
strong believer in the if it can't be measured, it MOST LIKELY can't be
heard by MOST people philosophy, ala Julian Hirsch. The word MOST reflects
my experiences (40 years) where I HAVE heard subtle differences between
equipment that measured, at least for the tests performed, the same. They
are few and far between and in every case were highly dependent upon
source material being played. I have a fairly high end home system and a
small project studio. I will post a gear list with my evaluations and
please, this is totally unscientific, levels are not matched and so forth.
I am just listening to see if the vinyl looses or gains anything going
digital, for better or worse. I am not a golden eared person, but I am
very sensitive to imaging and frequency problems, I suspect it comes from
being a musician all my life and having perfect pitch. Off key singers
actually make my teeth hurt I will post my results as soon as I can and
again, this is more from a musicians POV than an engineers.


Great! Look forward to it.

I look forward to your observations.

Two weeks I transferred the entire Beatles MFSL Vinyl Box Set to 24/bit
digital. The hi-res. play back is very close to the original, but when
transferred to 16/44 and then CD there is a clear loss of dimension and
smoothness and fullness in all freq. ranges..... Not sure that you can
measure that, but it is obvious.

VB

Vinyl_Believer wrote:
when transferred to 16/44 and then CD there is a clear loss of
dimension and
smoothness and fullness in all freq. ranges.....


can one ask how the transferring was done,
maybe that is the problem
inferior processing software

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:18:40 -0700, dale wrote:

Vinyl_Believer wrote:
when transferred to 16/44 and then CD there is a clear loss of
dimension and
smoothness and fullness in all freq. ranges.....


can one ask how the transferring was done, maybe that is the problem
inferior processing software listening

Might one also ask what equipment was used in the 24 bit listening (you
didn't specify sample rate, possibly because you don't really understand
how this stuff works), the 16/44 listening, and then the CD listening?

It might explain a lot, at least to those who really want to know.

"possibly because you don't really understand how this stuff works "

Your usual juvenile insults 86, and too lazy and to do any testing on
your own..... I'll type slower for you this time 86.

Transfer was done via Throens turntable through Denon pre-amp into
Masterlink via onboard AKM converters at 24/96. As stated "The hi-res.
play back is very close to the original".

But when down-sized to 16/44, WITHIN the masterlink and listened
to..... ALONG with burning a CD and listened to within the masterlink
.... AND listened to on other CD players.... the problems of reduced
resolution were obvious.

"a clear loss of dimension and smoothness and fullness in all freq.
ranges..."

Do your own DD 86 and dispute me or quit biting my ankles.

VB

dale wrote:
Vinyl_Believer wrote:
when transferred to 16/44 and then CD there is a clear loss of
dimension and
smoothness and fullness in all freq. ranges.....


can one ask how the transferring was done,
maybe that is the problem
inferior processing software


STRAWMAN

Agent 86 wrote:


Might one also ask what equipment was used in the 24 bit listening (you
didn't specify sample rate, possibly because you don't really understand
how this stuff works),


A page out of the Arny playbook, eh? Always gotta make sure to add that
little jab in there.

Possibly you are just an asshole?

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:17:37 -0700, Vinyl_Believer wrote:

Transfer was done via Throens turntable through Denon pre-amp into...

Not really relevant to the question of the digital transfer, as long as
it's the same analog chain you used for your analog listening test.

...Masterlink via onboard AKM converters at 24/96. As stated "The
hi-res. play back is very close to the original".

But when down-sized to 16/44, WITHIN the masterlink and listened to.....
ALONG with burning a CD and listened to within the masterlink...

News flash - Alesis is not famous for high quality converters. And like a
lot of pro-sumer gear that jumped on the early 96k bandwagon, they are
well known for performing noticeably better at 96K than at 44k1. This is
not new ground we're covering here.

Considering how long the Masterlink has been on the market, I don't think
it would be my first choice as a SRC tool if I had an alternative, but
that's just a guess on my part. It might be informative to grab a digital
copy & compare it to one done with a more modern software tool.

... AND listened to on other CD players...

Other CD players? That covers a lot of territory.

.. the problems of reduced resolution were obvious.

I don't doubt your word that problems were obvious. But none of the
information you've provided lends any real credence to your claim that
resolution has anything to do with the problems you're hearing.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:25:20 -0500, Joe Sensor wrote:

Possibly you are just an asshole?

Possibly. And possibly I'm your daddy, so show a little respect.

Agent 86 wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:25:20 -0500, Joe Sensor wrote:


Possibly you are just an asshole?


Possibly. And possibly I'm your daddy, so show a little respect.


Believe me. You ain't my daddy.

In article .com writes:

Two weeks I transferred the entire Beatles MFSL Vinyl Box Set to 24/bit
digital. The hi-res. play back is very close to the original, but when
transferred to 16/44 and then CD there is a clear loss of dimension and
smoothness and fullness in all freq. ranges.....

That's a pretty good description of a poor CD player. Like we've been
saying, if you're that fussy, get a good CD player. If you want to prove
your point, record the same source through the same A/D converter, once
at 16/44 and again at 24/96. And do it with a really good converter such as
a Lavry so you'll have pretty good confidence (though no absolute assurance)
that it's performance is as good as it can be at both resolutions and sample
rates. Then play them back through the same really high quality D/A
converter.

Will there be a difference? Almost certainly. I don't think that anyone will
deny that. But then you have something that you can really compare, and
you should then be able to fairly describe the difference in better terms than
"Swiss cheese" and "bucket of water with holes."

If you had stopped before you said "and then CD" you might have a leg
to stand on. At this point you're just telling us that you don't like your
process for making CDs.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Well Mike if you'd taken the time to read my post on the process you'd
actaully know WTF you're talking about.

I did record at 24/96 and 16/44 I/0 AKM 5393, 4393 Converters Chips and
compared the results. The results were even worse when played through a
good consumer CD player.

Quote ...... "Transfer was done via Throens turntable through Denon
pre-amp into Masterlink via onboard AKM converters at 24/96. As stated
"The hi-res. play back is very close to the original".

But when down-sized to 16/44, WITHIN the masterlink and listened
to..... ALONG with burning a CD and listened to within the masterlink
.... AND listened to on other CD players.... the problems of reduced
resolution were obvious. "

VB



Mike Rivers wrote:
In article .com writes:

Two weeks I transferred the entire Beatles MFSL Vinyl Box Set to 24/bit
digital. The hi-res. play back is very close to the original, but when
transferred to 16/44 and then CD there is a clear loss of dimension and
smoothness and fullness in all freq. ranges.....

That's a pretty good description of a poor CD player. Like we've been
saying, if you're that fussy, get a good CD player. If you want to prove
your point, record the same source through the same A/D converter, once
at 16/44 and again at 24/96. And do it with a really good converter such as
a Lavry so you'll have pretty good confidence (though no absolute assurance)
that it's performance is as good as it can be at both resolutions and sample
rates. Then play them back through the same really high quality D/A
converter.

Will there be a difference? Almost certainly. I don't think that anyone will
deny that. But then you have something that you can really compare, and
you should then be able to fairly describe the difference in better terms than
"Swiss cheese" and "bucket of water with holes."

If you had stopped before you said "and then CD" you might have a leg
to stand on. At this point you're just telling us that you don't like your
process for making CDs.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo


AKM 5393 and 4393

Mike Rivers wrote:


If you had stopped before you said "and then CD" you might have a leg
to stand on. At this point you're just telling us that you don't like your
process for making CDs.

STRAWMAN