[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

That has not been my experience, but no, I would not
expect you to listen to something you found to be
inferior. In fact, I'd be very interested in finding
out why these CDs sounded inferior to you.

Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
every CD. Some are much better than others; none are
good to my ears.


Some CD players that use "1-bit" DACs throw away a lot
of the bits at high frequencies.

Simply not true. If this occurred, it would be highly measurable. It turns
out that SACD does in fact throw away a lot of the bits at high frequencies.
IOW, its dynamic range above about 20 KHz is vastly reduced.

Where did you come across with this idea ?

No doubt the same places that some audiophiles got the idea that the output
of a CD player was like a stair case.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message


Frank Van Alstine and Peter Moncrieff, independently. I
also asked a friend of my father's who was quite familiar
with the engineering of digitial circuitry. He dug into
it and then agreed.

I think you may have misuderstood some details.


It also made eminent sense in that there simply aren't
enough data points being used to define signals at high
frequencies. (Unless you measure using sine waves and
average over a number of cycles.)

Not true. As long as a signal is within the bandpass of a digital system
that has uniform dynamic range over its bandpass (like PCM, but unlike SACD)
all signals in the bandpass are equally well-defined.

It seems intuitive that a 20 KHz sine wave that is defined by a few points
is less well-defined than a 2 KHz waved that is defined by many more points.
But, this isn't true. If it were true the 20 KHz wave would have poorer
dynamic range than the 2 KHz wave.

The fact that the 20 KHz ave is defined by only a few points is not without
its costs - but the cost is the absence of higher harmonics.

SACD do much the same thing, although they attempt to do noise-shaping to
hide the low resolution.

In fact the lowered resolution of SACD above 20 KHz is easily measurable,
and not hidden at all from simple measurements. Noise shaping is the means
by which the intentionally lowered dynamic range is obtained. 24/192 DVD-A
does not have this inherent limitation.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
wrote:

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:

People like Krivis will never understand the concept
of personal preference. Nearly everyone I know who
prefers vinyl does so because they "like it better."
No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or

So you admit it's down to "I like it."

It's always been about personal preference. That's why
the objectivists always sound so foolish.

There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good
*objectively* !

Agreed. In some ways the so-called subjectivists are somewhat nihilistic in
their approach to audio.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

The arguments are there in the Usenet archives. For years we were told by
vinyl bigots that digital sounded bad because of imaginary digital artifacts
like "stair steps". It seems like that folk tale has been pretty well
spiked. However, I expect to see someone bring it up again on RAO, any day
now.

Early D-A converters were a bit ropey in truth. I found the Sony CDP-101
unpleasant to listen to for example.

Since then converters have improved immeasurably and techniques like
oversampling and dither have reduced other issues to the level of no interest.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to plain old CD, so I
don't see why you would be supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is because it is the only
digital system for home use that produces natural-sounding transient
response, as opposed to pcm which produces transients with pre-echo. The
latter exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the ear-brain complex is
highly oriented to transient information and very sensitive to *any* type of
sound that is "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation instinct, I
suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever provided a
shred of proof that it's true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin level that
it's swamped by the noise floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all produces sound
right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it therefore very
noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give pre-echo though !

Graham

[John Atkinson]

On Oct 9, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

Some questions:
Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Neither. When very gross (in the millisecond range) pre-echo is swamped by
temporal masking. When fall smaller (in the microsecond range) pre-echo is
removed by the ear before it hits the nerves.

This subject was covered in the January 2006 issue of Stereophile
(see http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/ ), complete with
blind listening tests. The filter that was downgraded in the blind
auditioning was the one where all the ringing was in the form
of pre-echo. These results align with those in an AES paper
co-authored by Roger Lagadec and the late Tom Stockham in the
1980s. (See R. Lagadec and T.G. Stockham, "Dispersive Models
for A-to-D and D-to-A Conversion Systems," Preprint 2097, 75th
Audio Engineering Society Convention (1984).)

I'd be interested in learning of Mr. Krueger's own listening test
results on this phenomenon.

Does it really not exist in nature?

False - all musical instrutments make very messy transients with
relatively long rise times and even longer fall times.

Except that nothing in nature resemble the pre-ringing of a
digital filter. Which is perhaps why it could be detected in
the Stereophile listening tests.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message



Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every
CD. Some are much better than others; none are good to
my ears.

C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle part of the RIAA curve. The
amplitude of all harmonics for all notes C6 and above played back via the LP
format are in doubt if the RIAA curve is not precisely implmented.
Imprecuise implementation of the RIAA curve is endemic in LP production and
playback. In contrast CD playback inherently plays them back with in the
same perspective as recorded, within the audible range.

I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs - they are too consistent
and accurate for her preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an
audible differences junkie.

Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated my complaints with
CDs.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every
CD. Some are much better than others; none are good to
my ears.


It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music
(from a fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the
Sydney Opera House) I was shocked to find that I didn't
actually like the sound.

It's like Paul believes that all musical performances in every concert hall
should sound the same, or at least should have sonics that fit some
preconceived profile that exists in his mind.

There was an absence of treble
and the mid-range sounded hard.

Rather highly dependent on all sorts of things, elitist comments from Jenn
notwitstanding.

LOL. You're cracking me up.


Had it been my system I'd
have been doing some major upgrading.

I think you need to get out more, Paul.

Was it because I was used to listening via the medium of headphones?

Could be, but that wouldn't be the whole story.

Don't think so, as I still listen to speakers occasionally. Is
there a problem with the acoustics? Should I not have
being sitting in the high seats?

That might explain a lack of treble, and bass, or not.

I'm confused.

As a general rule, yes you are quite confused Paul, vain attempts at
sounding expert notwitstanding.

I only know that I could not happily have listened to that sound
at home.

Given some time you might (heaven forbid!) adjust your tastes to this
reality.

It certainly wasn't euphonic.

How do you know that for sure?

In fact, apart from the dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.

Spoken like one of the brainwashed ones, Paul. Your programming is coming
along splendidly - you're changing from being damaged goods to being totally
ruined.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious
point is that we all listen to what we think sounds best.

Nonsense. Many of us spent lots of time listening to things that don't sound
the best to us. Something about convenience and practicality.

We shouldn't listen to something just because others
state that it is better.

Yet vinyl bigots state that vinyl sounds better because they want others to
listen to it.

Incorrect yet again. I don't care what you listen to.


I WANT CDs to always sound better than LPs.

I doubt it. Jenn, you're obviously a card-carrying elitist.

LOL

CDs are way to
common and practial to appeal to you.

Incorrect. As I've clearly stated, I want CDs to be good; they are
easier to find, there is a wider variety of literature and performances,
and they play better in the car than do LPs.


The convenience factor would be great.

Note that Jenn speaks of an obvious quality of CDs as if it might exist in
some far off place or future time. For normal humans the place is here and
the time is now.

I don't find bad sound to be convenient.


But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me.

Yes, they strike that elitist chord.

Incorrect, but keep guessing.


Obviously I'm not going to listen to something that
sounds inferior to me just because I'm told that it
should sound better to me.

Well, if we could get you to open your mind to reality, Jenn...

That would be quite counterproductive, right?

It would be part of your recovery process, Jenn.

Arny, you can keep attempting to insult me if that is what pleases you.
I'm not playing anymore.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
On Oct 9, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

Some questions:
Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Neither. When very gross (in the millisecond range)
pre-echo is swamped by temporal masking. When fall
smaller (in the microsecond range) pre-echo is removed
by the ear before it hits the nerves.

This subject was covered in the January 2006 issue of
Stereophile (see
http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/ ), complete
with blind listening tests. The filter that was
downgraded in the blind auditioning was the one where all
the ringing was in the form
of pre-echo. These results align with those in an AES
paper co-authored by Roger Lagadec and the late Tom
Stockham in the 1980s. (See R. Lagadec and T.G. Stockham,
"Dispersive Models
for A-to-D and D-to-A Conversion Systems," Preprint 2097,
75th Audio Engineering Society Convention (1984).)

I'd be interested in learning of Mr. Krueger's own
listening test results on this phenomenon.

My results were similar to those in the cited article:

" But the listening results, described in the sidebar, indicate that the
sonic disparities between the filtered tracks and the 24/96 originals were
very difficult to pin down."

The source materials and a DBT comparitor are available at

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

and

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm

Others are described at:

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


However, we didn't all use the exact same filters. In particular, I didn't
go to the extremes described in

http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/index1.html


Does it really not exist in nature?

False - all musical instruments make very messy
transients with relatively long rise times and even
longer fall times.

Nothing at all
produces sound right before a transient?

Sound reaches the ear by multiple paths. The longer paths are often the
louder ones. The ear is made as it is to detangle the messy transients
and
exact the useful information from them. This involves simplifying many
details out of perceptual existence.

Except that nothing in nature resemble the pre-ringing of
a digital filter.

Sure it does, I described some above. However the paragraph in which I
described these effects somehow mysteriously went missing when Mr. Atkinson
did his usual out-of-context hatchet quoting jobbie on them.

Which is perhaps why it could be detected in
the Stereophile listening tests.

The Stereophile listening tests used highly artificial means to make up
pre-ringing that was not typical of modern or perhaps even fairly ancient
digital equipment.

To repeat the stereophile article's summary:

http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/index1.html

"But the listening results, described in the sidebar, indicate that the
sonic disparities between the filtered tracks and the 24/96 originals were
very difficult to pin down."

I should also point out that the Stereophile listening test paradigm that
was described was not very easy to use to get instantaneous, time-synched
comparisons, and was therefore probably less sensitive than optimum. I
can't find any statistical results, am I missing something?


Finally, Atkinson made in this article what might be interpreted as a
ringing criticism of the listening procedures used by RAO trolls:

http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/index3.html

" However, this was not something I felt I could identify without direct
reference to the originals."

Of course this same criticism can be leveled at most Sterephile reviews, can
it not?

Perhaps Mr. Phillips might be more sucessful with his attempts at journalism
if he cleaned up his experimental act? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
because it is the only digital system for home use that
produces natural-sounding transient response, as
opposed to pcm which produces transients with pre-echo.
The latter exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
ear-brain complex is highly oriented to transient
information and very sensitive to *any* type of sound
that is "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
instinct, I suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever
provided a shred of proof that it's true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy to measure (I see
them in vinyl transcriptions all the time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message



Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every
CD. Some are much better than others; none are good to
my ears.

C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle part of
the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all harmonics for all
notes C6 and above played back via the LP format are in
doubt if the RIAA curve is not precisely implmented.
Imprecuise implementation of the RIAA curve is endemic
in LP production and playback. In contrast CD playback
inherently plays them back with in the same perspective
as recorded, within the audible range.

I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs -
they are too consistent and accurate for her
preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an audible
differences junkie.

Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated my
complaints with CDs.

Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not convincing. Especially true
given your inability to own up to errors that you have clearly made and also
denied.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


He recorded his system? Even the best system in the
world, in the best room, would sound pretty bad once fed
back into a microphone/recorder setup and played back
through another pair of speakers? Ever tried it?

It can be done fairly well, particularly if the listening room is fairly
free of excessive reverb.

I have, just for kicks, years ago, and the end result
simply doesn't sound anything like the system.

As you say Harry, years ago, and it was you that did it.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every
CD. Some are much better than others; none are good to
my ears.

C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle part of
the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all harmonics for all
notes C6 and above played back via the LP format are in
doubt if the RIAA curve is not precisely implmented.
Imprecuise implementation of the RIAA curve is endemic
in LP production and playback. In contrast CD playback
inherently plays them back with in the same perspective
as recorded, within the audible range.

I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs -
they are too consistent and accurate for her
preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an audible
differences junkie.

Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated my
complaints with CDs.

Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not convincing. Especially true
given your inability to own up to errors that you have clearly made and also
denied.

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear it
differently, that's fine.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
because it is the only digital system for home use that
produces natural-sounding transient response, as
opposed to pcm which produces transients with pre-echo.
The latter exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
ear-brain complex is highly oriented to transient
information and very sensitive to *any* type of sound
that is "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
instinct, I suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever
provided a shred of proof that it's true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy to measure (I see
them in vinyl transcriptions all the time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
because it is the only digital system for home use
that produces natural-sounding transient response, as
opposed to pcm which produces transients with
pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and we
do know the ear-brain complex is highly oriented to
transient information and very sensitive to *any*
type of sound that is "un-natural" (our heriditary
self-preservation instinct, I suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever
provided a shred of proof that it's true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy
to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions all the
time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them, Jenn.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
because it is the only digital system for home use
that produces natural-sounding transient response, as
opposed to pcm which produces transients with
pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and we
do know the ear-brain complex is highly oriented to
transient information and very sensitive to *any*
type of sound that is "un-natural" (our heriditary
self-preservation instinct, I suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever
provided a shred of proof that it's true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy
to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions all the
time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them, Jenn.

SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that moon isn't made of
cheese, Arny.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
every CD. Some are much better than others; none are
good to my ears.

C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle part
of the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all harmonics for
all notes C6 and above played back via the LP format
are in doubt if the RIAA curve is not precisely
implmented. Imprecuise implementation of the RIAA
curve is endemic in LP production and playback. In
contrast CD playback inherently plays them back with
in the same perspective as recorded, within the
audible range.

I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs -
they are too consistent and accurate for her
preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an
audible differences junkie.

Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated my
complaints with CDs.

Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not
convincing. Especially true given your inability to own
up to errors that you have clearly made and also denied.

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.

So what? If you have hysterical problems with CDs, not my fault and nothing
I want to try to cure.

If you hear it differently, that's fine.

No Jenn your problem is separating hysteria from art from technical facts.

The technical fact is that CDs can be indistinguishable from the master
recordings they were made from and LPs can't.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
every CD. Some are much better than others; none are
good to my ears.

C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle part
of the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all harmonics for
all notes C6 and above played back via the LP format
are in doubt if the RIAA curve is not precisely
implmented. Imprecuise implementation of the RIAA
curve is endemic in LP production and playback. In
contrast CD playback inherently plays them back with
in the same perspective as recorded, within the
audible range.

I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs -
they are too consistent and accurate for her
preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an
audible differences junkie.

Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated my
complaints with CDs.

Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not
convincing. Especially true given your inability to own
up to errors that you have clearly made and also denied.

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.

So what? If you have hysterical problems with CDs, not my fault and nothing
I want to try to cure.

If you hear it differently, that's fine.

No Jenn your problem is separating hysteria from art from technical facts.

The technical fact is that CDs can be indistinguishable from the master
recordings they were made from and LPs can't.

I already know that you hear it that way, thanks.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious
point is that we all listen to what we think sounds
best.

Nonsense. Many of us spent lots of time listening to
things that don't sound the best to us. Something about
convenience and practicality.

We shouldn't listen to something just because others
state that it is better.

Yet vinyl bigots state that vinyl sounds better because
they want others to listen to it.

Incorrect yet again. I don't care what you listen to.

Speaks to your bad attitude towards me, Jenn.

I WANT CDs to always sound better than LPs.

I doubt it. Jenn, you're obviously a card-carrying
elitist.

LOL

Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

CDs are way too
common and practial to appeal to you.

Incorrect.

Elitist dismissive attitude noted.


As I've clearly stated, I want CDs to be
good; they are easier to find, there is a wider variety
of literature and performances, and they play better in
the car than do LPs.

Unresponsive and irrelevant.

The convenience factor would be great.

Note that Jenn speaks of an obvious quality of CDs as if
it might exist in some far off place or future time. For
normal humans the place is here and the time is now.

I don't find bad sound to be convenient.

Who does?

But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me.

Yes, they strike that elitist chord.

Incorrect, but keep guessing.

Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

Obviously I'm not going to listen to something that
sounds inferior to me just because I'm told that it
should sound better to me.

Well, if we could get you to open your mind to reality,
Jenn...

That would be quite counterproductive, right?

It would be part of your recovery process, Jenn.

Arny, you can keep attempting to insult me if that is
what pleases you. I'm not playing anymore.

Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
because it is the only digital system for home use
that produces natural-sounding transient response,
as opposed to pcm which produces transients with
pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and
we do know the ear-brain complex is highly oriented
to transient information and very sensitive to *any*
type of sound that is "un-natural" (our heriditary
self-preservation instinct, I suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has
ever provided a shred of proof that it's true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low
lin level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy
to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions all the
time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them,
Jenn.

SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that moon
isn't made of cheese, Arny.

There are about 20 posts of mine related to that, the earliest of which
seems to be:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a2d3d82815cb18

Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:

"Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of green cheese, and anybody
with a few simple tools and a good understanding of Newtonian Physics (and a
sample of green cheese) has been able to do so for maybe 100 years or so."

OK, Jenn now put up or admit that you're wrong!

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com

You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious
point is that we all listen to what we think sounds
best.

Nonsense. Many of us spent lots of time listening to
things that don't sound the best to us. Something about
convenience and practicality.

We shouldn't listen to something just because others
state that it is better.

Yet vinyl bigots state that vinyl sounds better because
they want others to listen to it.

Incorrect yet again. I don't care what you listen to.

Speaks to your bad attitude towards me, Jenn.

I WANT CDs to always sound better than LPs.

I doubt it. Jenn, you're obviously a card-carrying
elitist.

LOL

Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

No, I'm simply laughing at the fact that you consider it "elitist" to
listen to what I think sounds best.


CDs are way too
common and practial to appeal to you.

Incorrect.

Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

No, your point is simply incorrect.



As I've clearly stated, I want CDs to be
good; they are easier to find, there is a wider variety
of literature and performances, and they play better in
the car than do LPs.

Unresponsive and irrelevant.

Incorrect. It's totally relevant to your belief that I don't really
want CDs to be better.


The convenience factor would be great.

Note that Jenn speaks of an obvious quality of CDs as if
it might exist in some far off place or future time. For
normal humans the place is here and the time is now.

I don't find bad sound to be convenient.

Who does?

Nobody that I know.


But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me.

Yes, they strike that elitist chord.

Incorrect, but keep guessing.

Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

Not elitist at all. You keep guessing wrong: I simply suggest that you
keep guessing.


Obviously I'm not going to listen to something that
sounds inferior to me just because I'm told that it
should sound better to me.

Well, if we could get you to open your mind to reality,
Jenn...

That would be quite counterproductive, right?

It would be part of your recovery process, Jenn.

Arny, you can keep attempting to insult me if that is
what pleases you. I'm not playing anymore.

Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

Thanks for your opinion.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

"Eeyore" wrote
in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
because it is the only digital system for home use
that produces natural-sounding transient response,
as opposed to pcm which produces transients with
pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and
we do know the ear-brain complex is highly oriented
to transient information and very sensitive to *any*
type of sound that is "un-natural" (our heriditary
self-preservation instinct, I suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has
ever provided a shred of proof that it's true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low
lin level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy
to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions all the
time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them,
Jenn.

SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that moon
isn't made of cheese, Arny.

There are about 20 posts of mine related to that, the earliest of which
seems to be:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a2d3d82815cb18

Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:

"Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of green cheese, and anybody
with a few simple tools and a good understanding of Newtonian Physics (and a
sample of green cheese) has been able to do so for maybe 100 years or so."

OK, Jenn now put up or admit that you're wrong!

Yep, I was wrong; you posted about the moon and cheese.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:47:54 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


Harry, are you really trying to talk sense to a bunch
of tech. school graduates venting their childish views
about music reproduction, here, where no one can stop
them?
Let them argue with each other about tube impendances
and such. When they try to venture into the country of
the real pioneers of audio they come up with idiocies
like explaining to us why d'Appolito and Meitner see
fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why? Simple:
because they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE products
for "megabucks". Incredible as this may sound that's
exactly what one of them said. And repeated.
Ludovic Mirabel


Yeah, I saw that.... grin

So you have a better suggestion as to why a (presumably)
competent engineer would ignore reality and claim that
vinyl is superior to CD?

I think you're close.

Allegance to vinyl is virtually required in the world of high end audio.
More money is now probably being spent on digital equipment based on the
claim that it is "vinyl-like" than is being spent on equipment for actually
playing back vinyl.

Although, perhaps my presumption of competency is not
correct. It's either that or they were just into selling
snake oil.

Meitner is known to be into audio snake oil, including mystical SACD
beliefs.

Oh, and are you both saying that Krell products weren't
selling for very high (and unwarrentedly so) prices?

Of course, D'Augistino's allegance to High End mystecism has an obvious
cause: it is his bread and butter.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
every CD. Some are much better than others; none
are good to my ears.

C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle part
of the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all harmonics for
all notes C6 and above played back via the LP format
are in doubt if the RIAA curve is not precisely
implmented. Imprecuise implementation of the RIAA
curve is endemic in LP production and playback. In
contrast CD playback inherently plays them back with
in the same perspective as recorded, within the
audible range.

I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs -
they are too consistent and accurate for her
preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an
audible differences junkie.

Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated
my complaints with CDs.

Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not
convincing. Especially true given your inability to own
up to errors that you have clearly made and also
denied.

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.

So what? If you have hysterical problems with CDs, not
my fault and nothing I want to try to cure.

If you hear it differently, that's fine.

No Jenn your problem is separating hysteria from art
from technical facts.

The technical fact is that CDs can be indistinguishable
from the master recordings they were made from and LPs
can't.

I already know that you hear it that way, thanks.

Just me any everybody else who gives it a serious try.

Many of us had it up to here (patting air over my head) with the vinyl
artifacts that you deny, Jenn.

Now since I met your demand for a post about the mood and cheese, be a good
little girl and show us where you had the candor to talk about some of the
nastier vinyl artifacts, like pre and post echo.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

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

"Eeyore"
wrote in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
because it is the only digital system for home use
that produces natural-sounding transient response,
as opposed to pcm which produces transients with
pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and
we do know the ear-brain complex is highly
oriented to transient information and very
sensitive to *any* type of sound that is
"un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
instinct, I suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has
ever provided a shred of proof that it's true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low
lin level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is
it therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos
easy to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions
all the time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them,
Jenn.

SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that moon
isn't made of cheese, Arny.

There are about 20 posts of mine related to that, the
earliest of which seems to be:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a2d3d82815cb18

Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:

"Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of green
cheese, and anybody with a few simple tools and a good
understanding of Newtonian Physics (and a sample of
green cheese) has been able to do so for maybe 100 years
or so."

OK, Jenn now put up or admit that you're wrong!

Yep, I was wrong; you posted about the moon and cheese.

Here's you're latest lie and/or deception, Jenn - you have now refused to
admit that you are either deaf to or in denial of pre- and post- echo on
LPs.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

ig
y.
com


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
every CD. Some are much better than others; none
are good to my ears.

C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle part
of the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all harmonics for
all notes C6 and above played back via the LP format
are in doubt if the RIAA curve is not precisely
implmented. Imprecuise implementation of the RIAA
curve is endemic in LP production and playback. In
contrast CD playback inherently plays them back with
in the same perspective as recorded, within the
audible range.

I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs -
they are too consistent and accurate for her
preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an
audible differences junkie.

Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated
my complaints with CDs.

Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not
convincing. Especially true given your inability to own
up to errors that you have clearly made and also
denied.

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.

So what? If you have hysterical problems with CDs, not
my fault and nothing I want to try to cure.

If you hear it differently, that's fine.

No Jenn your problem is separating hysteria from art
from technical facts.

The technical fact is that CDs can be indistinguishable
from the master recordings they were made from and LPs
can't.

I already know that you hear it that way, thanks.

Just me any everybody else who gives it a serious try.

Oh, I give it a "serious try". I own many CDs, have listened to many
more, and I listen carefully.


Many of us had it up to here (patting air over my head) with the vinyl
artifacts that you deny, Jenn.

I don't deny them at all, Arny.


Now since I met your demand for a post about the mood and cheese, be a good
little girl

LOL

and show us where you had the candor to talk about some of the
nastier vinyl artifacts, like pre and post echo.

I don't need to talk about them. It is clear that they exist, and it is
clear that I consider other aspects of sound to be more important.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore"
wrote in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
because it is the only digital system for home use
that produces natural-sounding transient response,
as opposed to pcm which produces transients with
pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and
we do know the ear-brain complex is highly
oriented to transient information and very
sensitive to *any* type of sound that is
"un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
instinct, I suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has
ever provided a shred of proof that it's true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low
lin level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is
it therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos
easy to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions
all the time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them,
Jenn.

SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that moon
isn't made of cheese, Arny.

There are about 20 posts of mine related to that, the
earliest of which seems to be:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a2d3d82815cb18

Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:

"Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of green
cheese, and anybody with a few simple tools and a good
understanding of Newtonian Physics (and a sample of
green cheese) has been able to do so for maybe 100 years
or so."

OK, Jenn now put up or admit that you're wrong!

Yep, I was wrong; you posted about the moon and cheese.

Here's you're latest lie and/or deception, Jenn - you have now refused to
admit that you are either deaf to or in denial of pre- and post- echo on
LPs.

Incorrect yet again. I'm clearly not deaf, and I'm not in denial.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
because it is the only digital system for home use that
produces natural-sounding transient response, as
opposed to pcm which produces transients with pre-echo.
The latter exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
ear-brain complex is highly oriented to transient
information and very sensitive to *any* type of sound
that is "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
instinct, I suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever
provided a shred of proof that it's true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy to measure (I see
them in vinyl transcriptions all the time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

They're fabulously obvious during a lead-in. A nice low-level sampler of
what's about to be played. How anyone can pretend this is hi-fi is beyond
me.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear it
differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any historic discussions about this,
would you run those by me pls ?

Graham

[Jenn]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
because it is the only digital system for home use that
produces natural-sounding transient response, as
opposed to pcm which produces transients with pre-echo.
The latter exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
ear-brain complex is highly oriented to transient
information and very sensitive to *any* type of sound
that is "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
instinct, I suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever
provided a shred of proof that it's true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy to measure (I see
them in vinyl transcriptions all the time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

They're fabulously obvious during a lead-in. A nice low-level sampler of
what's about to be played. How anyone can pretend this is hi-fi is beyond
me.

Graham

Just as how anyone can pretend that the sound of violins (for example)
on CD is hi-fi is beyond me. My opinion on that was reinforced again at
Disney Hall. But YMMV, and that's fine, in my opinion.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

be a good little girl

Arny !

Can it pls.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:47:54 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


Harry, are you really trying to talk sense to a bunch
of tech. school graduates venting their childish
views about music reproduction, here, where no one can
stop them? Let them argue with each other about tube impendances
and such. When they try to venture into the country of
the real pioneers of audio they come up with idiocies
like explaining to us why d'Appolito and Meitner see
fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why?
Simple: because they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE
products for "megabucks". Incredible as this may sound
that's exactly what one of them said. And repeated. Ludovic Mirabel


Yeah, I saw that.... grin


So you have a better suggestion as to why a (presumably)
competent engineer would ignore reality and claim that
vinyl is superior to CD? Although, perhaps my presumption of competency
is not
correct. It's either that or they were just into selling
snake oil. Oh, and are you both saying that Krell products weren't
selling for very high (and unwarrentedly so) prices?

You may not say it is a better suggestion, but I would
suggest that they say what they say because they believe
it to be true. Why is that so hard for *you* to believe?

I'm willing to believe that Meitner and D'Augustino believe in the technical
trash that they spew. Write it off to a desire to make a living. We have
politicians who tell even worse falsehoods, you know! ;-)

And yes, they are competent. Very few, if any, engineers
would claim that Krell or Meitner equipment is
incompetently designed or manufactured.

You forgot D'Augustino's true genius - the marketing.

And yes, both product lines sell for very high prices. But unwarrentedly?
Not to the many thousands of people
who buy the products and get fantastic sound, pride of
ownership, little obsolesence, and little urge to
upgrade. It's called value. Its called cache'. Yes, it
requires a good income; many people have it, and it is no
more extravagant than buying a BMW 325 versus a Honda
Civic.

Actually, its measureably worse.

www.autos.yahoo.com

2006 BMW 325i $29,777

2007 Honda Civi Sedan $15,010-$21,260

Quotient about 2:1 to 1.5:1

http://www.audiophileliquidator.com

Krell KAV 2250 250 wpc at 8 ohms power amp $4,000

Parasound 2250 250 wpc at 8 ohms power amp $949

Quotient about 4:1

Perhaps you think all the recording engineers that favor
Millenia Media preamps are also fools, and that the
manufacturer is a charlatan? Same for Grace? Or Manley? Or John Hardy?
If so, then I am sad for you.

Just because its done, doesn't mean it is right. I can tell that Harry told
his folks that they should supply him with crack or whatever was current
then, because that's what "All the other kids did".

[Jenn]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear it
differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any historic discussions
about this,
would you run those by me pls ?

Graham

It was recently done again: everything above about C6 sounds wrong to
me IRT the timbre of instruments and voices. These frequencies sound
more real to me on good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy to measure (I see
them in vinyl transcriptions all the time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

They're fabulously obvious during a lead-in. A nice low-level sampler of
what's about to be played. How anyone can pretend this is hi-fi is beyond
me.

Graham

Just as how anyone can pretend that the sound of violins (for example)
on CD is hi-fi is beyond me. My opinion on that was reinforced again at
Disney Hall. But YMMV, and that's fine, in my opinion.

I guess I'd have to make a recording of violins myself to find out that !

What was this example you refer to ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Harry Lavo wrote:

It's called value. Its called cache'. Yes, it requires a good income; many
people have it, and it is no more extravagant than buying a BMW 325 versus a
Honda Civic.

Cachet actually. You computer has a cache.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear it
differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any historic discussions
about this, would you run those by me pls ?

Graham

It was recently done again: everything above about C6 sounds wrong to
me IRT the timbre of instruments and voices. These frequencies sound
more real to me on good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.

Really just that ?

What's your CD player btw ?

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


You know why those preamps are bought/used by the pros?

(1) Bragging rights
(2) Carriage trade
(3) Money to burn
(4) Impresses prospective clients and contributors
(5) May actually do something audible a tiny percentage of the time

THEY SOUND BETTER!

Maybe, maybe not. They won't turn a Shure SM58 into a Neumann, and for the
price they should.

The engineers know it.

There is actually a controversy

The musicians who record with them know it.

Only the ones who are into technological name-dropping who do definately
exist but are probably a minority.

When people talk about all
the low-quality crap in the studio recording chain, they
are talking Project Studio.

Some of which are listed at http://www.mil-media.com/docs/custlist.shtml

It's just that if you are BabS, you don't have a lot of Behringer sitting
around.

Serious recording is done
with mics that cost $1500-4000 each and mic preamps that
cost at least $1000 per input, feeding digital converters
that cost mucho dinero.

There's some of that around. But it is not what working recordists use as a
rule.

The equivalent to "high end" audio gear.

A tiny minority of that which is in use.

So why shouldn't it be listened to with the same, if you can afford it?

Because the money you don't blow on your stereo, you can give to charity.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Royer, Microtech-Gefell, Josephson, and T.H.E. are
antiques? What world do you live in?

A lot of them are definately retro-designs. Well those of us who have kept
up know that, but not apparently Harry.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 08:09:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The arguments are there in the Usenet archives. For
years we were told by vinyl bigots that digital sounded
bad because of imaginary digital artifacts like "stair
steps". It seems like that folk tale has been pretty
well spiked. However, I expect to see someone bring it
up again on RAO, any day now.


I'm expecting to see someone resurrecting Dr. Diamond. :-)

If anybody could do it, it would be my good friend Dave Clark of the AES.