[Eeyore]

paul packer wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital domain more
than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't something I routinely listen
to so I'm a little in the dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my next-door neighbour (
professional musician ) playing his violin on my Mini-disc a while back and
it sounded Ok to me.

Graham

[Eeyore]

" wrote:

A few observartions:
1) About cryogenics. No doubt Krivis investigated the subject and
published his results in a respectable peer revieved audio journal. I
don't know if Meitner did. But if neither did it we have to decide
whose authority to take seriously: Meitner of Museatex or Krivis of
RAO.

Any clown who considers freezing something to make it sound better ought to
be locked up and the key thrown away.

Graham

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

paul packer wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital domain more
than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't something I routinely listen
to so I'm a little in the dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my next-door neighbour (
professional musician ) playing his violin on my Mini-disc a while back and
it sounded Ok to me.

I don't know what Jenn hears, but I've heard opinions that string
section sound "above the stave" (as Gramophone puts it) suffers.

Stephen

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Incidentally, I've just been comparing my 1989 Denon
DCD-1700 to my 2004 ? Pioneer DV-360 DVD player playing
CD.

I expected the Pioneer ( a quite respectable unit )
perhaps to match the Denon ( an award winner in its day )
but initial results show the Denon to totally have the
upper hand.

Compared by what means?

My ears ! I hope that's not too radical ?

It surprised me a bit actually. I'm curious as to the technical basis
for it. There must be one. Bear in mind I have no axe to grind in this
regard.

Incidentally, the DCD-1700 is well recognised as a very competent CD
player of its era. In fact it was the first CD player I thought sounded
'real' hence why I bought it. I gather the DV-360 is a 'better than
average' DVD player, indeed the Pioneers seem well thought of but I have
no knowledge of its internals unlike the Denon. Do you have any info on
this ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote

Meanwhile, back in reality, I own a 2wpc triode, and
derive a lot of listening pleasure from it.

Headphone amplifier?

I used an EL84 stage as a headphone amp in my schooldays. It was damn loud into
Koss PRO4's !

Graham

[Eeyore]

MiNe 109 wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
paul packer wrote:
Jenn wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital domain more
than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't something I routinely listen
to so I'm a little in the dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my next-door neighbour (
professional musician ) playing his violin on my Mini-disc a while back and
it sounded Ok to me.

I don't know what Jenn hears, but I've heard opinions that string
section sound "above the stave" (as Gramophone puts it) suffers.

The higher octaves then ?

Graham

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
paul packer wrote:
Jenn wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital domain more
than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't something I routinely
listen
to so I'm a little in the dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my next-door neighbour (
professional musician ) playing his violin on my Mini-disc a while back
and
it sounded Ok to me.

I don't know what Jenn hears, but I've heard opinions that string
section sound "above the stave" (as Gramophone puts it) suffers.

The higher octaves then ?

Yes, but specifically unison section sound. The RAO reference (okay, I
made up that designation) for string recording is the Barbirolli
Elgar/RVW EMI on GROC with the Elgar Introduction and Allegro and the
VFW Greensleeves.

Stephen

PS Jenn, I noticed that the lyric of "Lovely Joan" is a thematic
counterpoint to "Greensleeves."

Stephen

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:16:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

m
In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham


Agreed.

Cool.... more used records available for me.

More evidence of ear damage.

Completely no justification for that comment
- the badmouthed idiot cannot STFU.

Indeed. I don't know what it is that makes men in their 50s suddenly act like
toddlers when they use computers for social interaction. I have noticed one
pecularity, though, they always have beards (they're also usually chubby, but
the beard is the only constant variable). I think the 'comic book guy' in the
Simpsons is the prototype.

[Eeyore]

MiNe 109 wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
MiNe 109 wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
paul packer wrote:
Jenn wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital domain more
than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't something I routinely
listen to so I'm a little in the dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my next-door neighbour (
professional musician ) playing his violin on my Mini-disc a while back
and it sounded Ok to me.

I don't know what Jenn hears, but I've heard opinions that string
section sound "above the stave" (as Gramophone puts it) suffers.

The higher octaves then ?

Yes, but specifically unison section sound. The RAO reference (okay, I
made up that designation) for string recording is the Barbirolli
Elgar/RVW EMI on GROC with the Elgar Introduction and Allegro and the
VFW Greensleeves.

Not exactly my kind of listening but I'll check out the classical CDs I have.

I will say that my experience of classical music recording encompasses the truly
worst ever to quite good. I can't say I've ever heard one that excelled though.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Chevdo said:

Indeed. I don't know what it is that makes men in their 50s suddenly act like
toddlers when they use computers for social interaction. I have noticed one
pecularity, though, they always have beards (they're also usually chubby, but
the beard is the only constant variable).

Does that include metaphorical "beards", such as Krooger's komment
yesterday about his "favorite girl"?




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[paul packer]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:36:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:22:12 -0400, "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.

How is it inferred from my comments that I expect every
hall to sound the same, Arnie?

You seem to think that you are shocked when you find a hall that sounds so
different that you don't like it.

I was simply remarking
that in previous experience live music had had
"sweetness" about it that here appeared to be missing.

No, you said "I was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound."

Yes, because it lacked the sweetness I had previously encountered in
live music. Want to go around again?

If a "pre-conceived profile" exists, it was constructed
from previous experience, as all our pre-conceptions are.

Where is it written that we must form any pre-conceptions at all, especially
about concert halls?

Show me a man with no pre-conceptions and I'll show you a corpse.

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.

I detected no elitist comments from Jenn.

Of course not. That would take discernment that you obviously lack, Paul.

Or delusions that you obviously don't lack.

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

I think you need to get out more, Paul.

Lack of connection of reply to original comment noted.

The connection is obvious - if you got out more you might have known better
than to think what you did.

Let's look at what I said: "Had it been my system I'd have been doing
some major upgrading". This is a simple statement of fact. I was
unhappy with the sound and, had it been emanating from my own system,
I would have taken appropriate steps. Only a fool listens daily to
sound he doesn't like, accuracy notwithstanding. In any case, as has
already been pointed out by Jenn and others. there is no single
"sound" in a concert hall. It depends where one is sitting, and indeed
on the concert hall itself. So what is "live" sound in that case?

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

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

I knew that much.

Really?

Yes.

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 was just about to thank you for the info. Then you
added "or not."

I'm confused.

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

Cheap shot, given free this once. However, I never
attempt to "sound expert". I leave that to you.

Me an expert? LOL!

Indeed.

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.

Or.....sit in different seats next time, giving me a
sound closer to my home hi-fi.

Seems like a questionable standard.

It certainly wasn't euphonic.

How do you know that for sure?

Because it wasn't "an agreeable sound" to my ears.

But you admit that a lot of people might have found it euphonic?

A lot of people were probably not judging it one way or the other,
just as most people listen to all kinds of sound without judgement or
analysis. Most people are not very technically critical.

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.

Damaged goods? Are you suggesting I may have been earning
my living on the streets at night, Arnie?

No, I'm suggesting that you are learning how to take cheap shots at CD
players. Jenn would be proud.


You obviously missed the recent threads where I championed CD players.
Actually I've come to the conclusion recently that there's nothing
wrong with a good CD player, but that the recordings are sometimes
lousy. This is because I've heard, and own, so many good to wonderful
recordings that I cannot believe there is an intrinsic weakness in the
medium. If CD were a faulty medium, it could not make as good a sound
as it does so often--and for Jenn, I include orchestral violins in
that comment. But it's an exacting medium, more so than analogue, and
so requires a surer hand at the recording consol.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:58:59 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


That's nice; it wasn't in the one that arrived on my computer. I've
offered every reasonable way possible to prove to you that this is the
truth. How about this? I'll take my computer to the Baptist minister
that you select who is located within 20 miles of my location. I'll
download it in front of him/her and then open it with Audacity. The
minister can then email you with the result. Would that satisfy you
that I'm telling the truth?


Why not? Baptist ministers don't have much else to do these days
anyway.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:07:13 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



paul packer wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital domain more
than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't something I routinely listen
to so I'm a little in the dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my next-door neighbour (
professional musician ) playing his violin on my Mini-disc a while back and
it sounded Ok to me.

Graham


I should more accurately have said "massed strings", as I think this
is what Jenn is referring to. Most classical listeners will tell you
that nothing tends to brittleness and hardness so often in the digital
domain as massed strings. It is indeed the hardest thing to
"digitize". And no, to answer Arnie's question elsewhere, I have no
technical clue as to why that might be, other than the fact that
massed strings are the sweetest sounding section of the orchestra and
thus reveal any lack of sweetness in the sound quicker than any other
section. Care to comment, Jenn?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:22:12 -0400, "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.

How is it inferred from my comments that I expect every
hall to sound the same, Arnie?

You seem to think that you are shocked when you find a
hall that sounds so different that you don't like it.

I was simply remarking
that in previous experience live music had had
"sweetness" about it that here appeared to be missing.

No, you said "I was shocked to find that I didn't
actually like the sound."

If a "pre-conceived profile" exists, it was constructed
from previous experience, as all our pre-conceptions
are.

Where is it written that we must form any
pre-conceptions at all, especially about concert halls?

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.

I detected no elitist comments from Jenn.

Of course not. That would take discernment that you
obviously lack, Paul.

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

I think you need to get out more, Paul.

Lack of connection of reply to original comment noted.

The connection is obvious - if you got out more you
might have known better than to think what you did.

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

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

I knew that much.

Really?

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 was just about to thank you for the info. Then you
added "or not."

I'm confused.

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

Cheap shot, given free this once. However, I never
attempt to "sound expert". I leave that to you.

Me an expert? LOL!

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.

Or.....sit in different seats next time, giving me a
sound closer to my home hi-fi.

Seems like a questionable standard.

It certainly wasn't euphonic.

How do you know that for sure?

Because it wasn't "an agreeable sound" to my ears.

But you admit that a lot of people might have found it
euphonic?

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.

Damaged goods? Are you suggesting I may have been
earning my living on the streets at night, Arnie?

No, I'm suggesting that you are learning how to take
cheap shots at CD players. Jenn would be proud.

What "cheap shot" have I taken at CD players, Arny?

Something about not being able to reproduce the sound of violins.

Must have been a made-up story given how quickly you forgot about it, Jenn.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:36:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:22:12 -0400, "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.

How is it inferred from my comments that I expect every
hall to sound the same, Arnie?

You seem to think that you are shocked when you find a
hall that sounds so different that you don't like it.

I was simply remarking
that in previous experience live music had had
"sweetness" about it that here appeared to be missing.

No, you said "I was shocked to find that I didn't
actually like the sound."

Yes, because it lacked the sweetness I had previously
encountered in live music. Want to go around again?

If a "pre-conceived profile" exists, it was constructed
from previous experience, as all our pre-conceptions
are.

Where is it written that we must form any
pre-conceptions at all, especially about concert halls?

Show me a man with no pre-conceptions and I'll show you a
corpse.

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.

I detected no elitist comments from Jenn.

Of course not. That would take discernment that you
obviously lack, Paul.

Or delusions that you obviously don't lack.

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

I think you need to get out more, Paul.

Lack of connection of reply to original comment noted.

The connection is obvious - if you got out more you
might have known better than to think what you did.

Let's look at what I said: "Had it been my system I'd
have been doing some major upgrading". This is a simple
statement of fact. I was unhappy with the sound and, had
it been emanating from my own system, I would have taken
appropriate steps. Only a fool listens daily to sound he
doesn't like, accuracy notwithstanding. In any case, as
has already been pointed out by Jenn and others. there is
no single "sound" in a concert hall. It depends where one
is sitting, and indeed on the concert hall itself. So
what is "live" sound in that case?

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

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

I knew that much.

Really?

Yes.

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 was just about to thank you for the info. Then you
added "or not."

I'm confused.

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

Cheap shot, given free this once. However, I never
attempt to "sound expert". I leave that to you.

Me an expert? LOL!

Indeed.

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.

Or.....sit in different seats next time, giving me a
sound closer to my home hi-fi.

Seems like a questionable standard.

It certainly wasn't euphonic.

How do you know that for sure?

Because it wasn't "an agreeable sound" to my ears.

But you admit that a lot of people might have found it
euphonic?

A lot of people were probably not judging it one way or
the other, just as most people listen to all kinds of
sound without judgement or analysis. Most people are not
very technically critical.

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.

Damaged goods? Are you suggesting I may have been
earning my living on the streets at night, Arnie?

No, I'm suggesting that you are learning how to take
cheap shots at CD players. Jenn would be proud.


You obviously missed the recent threads where I
championed CD players.

That would be damned with faint praise.

Actually I've come to the
conclusion recently that there's nothing wrong with a
good CD player, but that the recordings are sometimes
lousy.

Think you will feel the same way tomorrow?

This is because I've heard, and own, so many good
to wonderful recordings that I cannot believe there is an
intrinsic weakness in the medium. If CD were a faulty
medium, it could not make as good a sound as it does so
often--and for Jenn, I include orchestral violins in that
comment.

That's CD players as I know them, in general.

I record a group that has 2-4 violinists just about every week and burn my
own CDs of it. This is a group that I frequently walk up on the stage and
listen to from various positions, as well as from normal seating in the
room. Other than the room acoustics and amateur-grade playing, the sonics
are just fine.

But it's an exacting medium, more so than
analogue, and so requires a surer hand at the recording
console.

What do you think that one does special at the console while recording
violins?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:


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

Hmm, and what is the proof that this isn't just another form of your problem
with denial, Jenn?

But, you lack proof that you knew about pre- and post-
echo on LPs until we pointed it out to you,

You lack proof that I know how to drink milk as well.

Jenn, I guess you need to be reminded that this is a forum about audio, not
eating or drinking. I guess you need to be reminded that you've written here
extensively about the unknown (to those of us who can listen and reach
reasonable conclusions) faults of the CD format and the comparative
perfection of the LP format.

In short Jenn, you need to remember that every time you have one of your
many public shows of dissembling, I hold you accoutable for your past
statements, nonsensical as many of them have been.

Show how that relates to your knowlege of the audible
failings of LPs, Jenn/

It speaks to the fact that I don't post everything that I
know. Neither do you, I presume.

So then Jenn you're saying that you know lots of things about the clearly
audible failings of the LP format that you have chosen to keep secret, even
while you hype the dickens out of intangible benefits that you among a tiny
proportion of music lovers, even believe might exist.

just like the supposedly missing data in my triangle
file.

The data wasn't in the file.

It is in all other of the versions that have ever been
reported to me to be downloaded by anybody.

That's nice; it wasn't in the one that arrived on my
computer.

Even after several tries. Yeah, sure.

Anybody who believes this tall tale needs their head examined.

I've offered every reasonable way possible to
prove to you that this is the truth.

No you haven't. All of your offerings were impractical (i.e., I travel long
distances at my own expense) or readily falisifiable (I believe a report
from a program that can easily shorten the file and create a false report).

How about this?
I'll take my computer to the Baptist minister that you
select who is located within 20 miles of my location.

Ludicrous. Why would a Baptist minister be relevant to this discussion were
he not also a computer expert?

I'll download it in front of him/her and then open it
with Audacity. The minister can then email you with the
result. Would that satisfy you that I'm telling the
truth?

Not at all.

Jenn, quit screwing around. Do what thousands of other people have done -
properly download the file.

I offered to send you a screen shot. But you mistrust
me for some reason (I
guess because I disagree with you about how things
sound)

It's something about your inability to accept that you
have made any mistakes ever, Jenn when it is so obvious
that you have.

More false information. Today I admitted that I made a
mistake for example.

Remind me.

so you won't accept that. You are free to come to my
house and see it if you wish.

That is another false claim. There is no free means by
which I can see your house. Every known way for me to
see your house would cost time and/or money.

Do you understand that the word "free" has meanings other
than that which concerns money, Arny?

Stop insulting our intelligence, Jenn. Admit that I caught you in yet
another embarassing situation and you tried to lie your way out of it.
Again.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
paul packer wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital
domain more than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't
something I routinely listen to so I'm a little in the
dark here.

Yes, Paul is as usual making it up as he goes along.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my
next-door neighbour ( professional musician ) playing his
violin on my Mini-disc a while back and it sounded Ok to
me.

I do know that massed violins and choirs are very effective at making SETs
do their intermodulation thingie. They can be pretty good for detecting
timbre changes in the midrange. However, in the PCABX tests, it was
generally found that the Trumpets sample that Jenn hates so much was more
effective at doing the same thing for a lot of people.

Back in the days of vinyl, massed violins could sometimes elicit mistracking
and inner-groove distortion. But again, other instruments were often more
sensitive tests. My recollection is that again, brass instruments could be
the tougher challenge.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

paul packer wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital
domain more than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't
something I routinely listen to so I'm a little in the
dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my
next-door neighbour ( professional musician ) playing
his violin on my Mini-disc a while back and it sounded
Ok to me.

I don't know what Jenn hears, but I've heard opinions
that string section sound "above the stave" (as
Gramophone puts it) suffers.

Unh, suffers from freedom of audible distortions that can be common with
vinyl.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
paul packer wrote:
Jenn wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the
digital domain more than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't
something I routinely listen
to so I'm a little in the dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my
next-door neighbour ( professional musician ) playing
his violin on my Mini-disc a while back and
it sounded Ok to me.

I don't know what Jenn hears, but I've heard opinions
that string section sound "above the stave" (as
Gramophone puts it) suffers.

The higher octaves then ?

Yes, but specifically unison section sound. The RAO
reference (okay, I made up that designation) for string
recording is the Barbirolli Elgar/RVW EMI on GROC with
the Elgar Introduction and Allegro and the VFW
Greensleeves.

Hmm, a 1966 recording - no doubt far from the current state of the art of
recording in numerous ways related to micing, etc.

Typical of a vinyl bigot to adversely judge an entire mainstream digital
format based on a single recording that was almost 20 years old when that
format was first made available to the public. Were the recording human, it
could have been licensed to drive!

And of course, Stephen has no idea what the live performance actually
sounded like. Was he even in school when it was made?

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

paul packer wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital
domain more than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't
something I routinely listen to so I'm a little in the
dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my
next-door neighbour ( professional musician ) playing
his violin on my Mini-disc a while back and it sounded
Ok to me.

I don't know what Jenn hears, but I've heard opinions
that string section sound "above the stave" (as
Gramophone puts it) suffers.

Unh, suffers from freedom of audible distortions that can be common with
vinyl.

No, because if that were so it would sound more like real violins. Idle
speculation suggests a problem with harmonically complex high frequency
sounds.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:07:13 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



paul packer wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital
domain more than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't
something I routinely listen to so I'm a little in the
dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my
next-door neighbour ( professional musician ) playing
his violin on my Mini-disc a while back and it sounded
Ok to me.

Graham


I should more accurately have said "massed strings", as I
think this is what Jenn is referring to. Most classical
listeners will tell you that nothing tends to brittleness
and hardness so often in the digital domain as massed
strings.

Of course the real source of the problem is with the preconceived notions of
the listener, starting with the weird idea that massed strings should be any
kind of a problem for a modern digital format.

Stephen's ultra reference recording appears to date back to 1966, when for
example a lot of tubed equipment in questionable stages of maintenance
(proper maintenance is far more critical with tubes) was still in use. Old
dudes like me were in college in those days and at least listening seriously
to classical music (regrettably clouded by the many noises and distortions
inherent in vinyl). I seriously doubt that is true of Stephen or Jenn.

Since this is obviously a remastered CD of a recording that was made well
before digital audio was a commercial reality, a lot rests in the hands of
people who probably had little to do with the original production.

It is indeed the hardest thing to "digitize".

No way, Jose. Paul obviously wants us to believe that he's some kind of
world-class technical expert about digital audio.

In fact violins aren't a problem for equipment with flat power bandwidth
such as digital recording and power amplifiers.

And no, to answer Arnie's question elsewhere, I have no
technical clue as to why that might be, other than the
fact that massed strings are the sweetest sounding
section of the orchestra and thus reveal any lack of
sweetness in the sound quicker than any other section.

The real problem is that micing and acoustics can be issues. That really
doesn't have a lot to do with recording format except that in the days of
vinyl, people carried the technical limitations of vinyl back through the
production process, sometimes even arranging music so that it would not
stess the relatively weak technical underpinings of vinyl. In 1966 record
companies could not presume that the average customer had a
high-trackability cartrdidge for example. So, various artful dodges were
used to fit 5 pounds of music in vinyl's 3 pound bag.

Care to comment, Jenn?

She already has - showing her hysterical prejudice against digital very
nicely, thank you Paul.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
paul packer wrote:
Jenn wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the
digital domain more than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't
something I routinely listen
to so I'm a little in the dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my
next-door neighbour ( professional musician ) playing
his violin on my Mini-disc a while back and
it sounded Ok to me.

I don't know what Jenn hears, but I've heard opinions
that string section sound "above the stave" (as
Gramophone puts it) suffers.

The higher octaves then ?

Yes, but specifically unison section sound. The RAO
reference (okay, I made up that designation) for string
recording is the Barbirolli Elgar/RVW EMI on GROC with
the Elgar Introduction and Allegro and the VFW
Greensleeves.

Hmm, a 1966 recording - no doubt far from the current state of the art of
recording in numerous ways related to micing, etc.

Tell it to the Mercury recording team.

I'm willing to investigate a new RAO reference if you have a suggestion.
It's just that several RAOers have heard this one and commented
positively.

Typical of a vinyl bigot to adversely judge an entire mainstream digital
format based on a single recording that was almost 20 years old when that
format was first made available to the public. Were the recording human, it
could have been licensed to drive!

Boy, are you off on the wrong foot! This is a recording of strings that
I especially like.

And of course, Stephen has no idea what the live performance actually
sounded like. Was he even in school when it was made?

What time was it made?

Were you at any of Dorati's Detroit recording sessions? I might have
some of those early digitals somewhere.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com

Meanwhile, the association of audiotweaks has brought us
the joys of $500 per foot speaker leads, interconnect
cables full of water, $300 each thumbnail sized dots to
enhance your listening room, panty-hose for your speaker
wires, $5000 20 watt tube amps, $10,000 external DACS
(to replace a part the size of your fingertip that costs
$20), digital clocks to make your electricity all
better, gadgets to "break-in" your cables (gotta plug
them in for a few days before you dare use them or the
sound will be all ruined), and freezer pouches, marking
pens, and a variety of clamps, weights, and elixirs to
subjugate your CDs to.

In addition we are exposed to the sage advice that we
really need two sets of $500 per foot speaker wires per
channel, that we really need to eliminate almost all
that nasty and bad sounding $500 per foot speaker wire
and use a half a mile of much more wonderful sounding
$1000 per foot interconnect cable instead, that we
really need two amplifiers per speaker, that we really
need eight channels - not two, that we need little IC
bass boost boxes to make our $5000/pair speakers work
right, that we need to destroy our floors and shelves
with railroad spikes sticking out the bottom of most all
our components, and that we need to subsidize the
electric company and aid the coal miners and OPEC by
leaving everything turned on all the time (this may work
for our blenders and microwaves too). We are encouraged
to risk electrocution with huge metal external speaker
terminals and by plugging our exotic amplifiers into US
240V lines (putting 120V AC live on the chassis).

You can easily spend your entire hi-fi budget on all the
life-style enhancing and magical mystical accessories
and not have any money left over to buy the components
at all. $2000 should buy you a great, long term keeper
of a high fidelity system. You can spend it all on just
the cables and not even be able to afford the cable
break-in machine - wouldn't that be awful?

Meanwhile, the next month's magazines arrive and inform
you on one hand that your system is obsolete because it
does not provide for 16 x 9 ratio TV, ten speakers, and
wireless infrared remote control of bass and treble
settings of each, or on the other hand that your $5000
external DAC has been superseded by the obviously better
$10,000 model, but only if you use the two foot in
diameter propane filled interconnect cable (made of pure
glow~in-the~dark irradiated copper fresh from the
control room at Chernobyl)."

The satirist Krivis lists every idiotic gadget ever
promoted by an audio-quack or an audio- cheat.

No, he missed quite a few. The Bedini clarifier, green CD pens come
instantly to mind, and that's just the tip of a very large iceburg that Mr.
Kravis left out due to space limitations.

He
indulges in the usual scientology propaganda division
heavy handed hilarity at the expense of the deluded
infidels.

Isn't that more like Jenn and Stephen territory?

A few messages down he has another screamingly funny
passage about an imaginary review of Meitner and
D'Agostino's imaginary products.. He said somewhere else
that the promotion of cryogenic treatment of cds.
invalidates Meitner as a serious audio engineer.

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/822/

"Ed Meitner, designer of the Museatex line of electronics, has discovered
that cryogenically freezing a CD changes the physical structure of
polycarbonate, the plastic material from which CDs are made. The result is
reportedly an audible improvement in sound quality. In this process, CDs are
placed in a cryogenic freezing chamber and the temperature is slowly reduced
over eight hours to 75 Kelvins, or about -300 degrees Fahrenheit. This is
approximately the temperature of liquid nitrogen, the chamber's cooling
agent. The temperature is then slowly brought back to room temperature over
another eight hours."

How much damning evidence does any reasonable person need?



A few observartions:
1) About cryogenics. No doubt Krivis investigated the
subject and published his results in a respectable peer
revieved audio journal. I don't know if Meitner did. But
if neither did it we have to decide whose authority to
take seriously: Meitner of Museatex or Krivis of RAO.

LOL! Anybody who knows squat about how CD's work knows what it takes to show
that Mietner is talking out the back of his neck.

2) He goes on about tweaks - some so exotic or idiotic
that one wonders where he dug them up.

In the case of Meitner, one need not spend more than 5 seconds with google,
and 8 seconds cutting and pasting from the Stereophile web site.

He indulges in his
chapel's favourite propaganda trick : identifying the
hated infidel subjectivists with the gadgets, most of
which no one except him ever heard of. I for one know of
no one that ever used them.

No, Meitner was someone you brought into this discussion, Ludo. Thanks for
showing again what little you really know about audio.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
" wrote:

A few observartions:
1) About cryogenics. No doubt Krivis investigated the
subject and published his results in a respectable peer
revieved audio journal. I don't know if Meitner did. But
if neither did it we have to decide whose authority to
take seriously: Meitner of Museatex or Krivis of RAO.

Any clown who considers freezing something to make it
sound better ought to be locked up and the key thrown
away.

I suspect that Meitner hopes to laugh all the way to the bank. Remember that
in addition to cryogenic CDs Meitner also promotes the magical properties of
the SACD format.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:30:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Ed Meitner, designer of the Museatex line of electronics, has discovered
that cryogenically freezing a CD changes the physical structure of
polycarbonate, the plastic material from which CDs are made. The result is
reportedly an audible improvement in sound quality. In this process, CDs are
placed in a cryogenic freezing chamber and the temperature is slowly reduced
over eight hours to 75 Kelvins, or about -300 degrees Fahrenheit. This is
approximately the temperature of liquid nitrogen, the chamber's cooling
agent. The temperature is then slowly brought back to room temperature over
another eight hours."

How much damning evidence does any reasonable person need?

So sayeth Arnold the Luddite.

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"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:

Really. You performed listening tests where the only
variable was the time-domain nature of the reconstruction
filter.

In the sense that my tests the major variable the corner
frequency of the reconstruction frequency.

A very different subject. In the Stereophile tests, the
passbands of the filters were all the same. They differed
in their time-domain behavior.

When was this work done and where was it
published.

See Usenet, RAP, RAT, and RAO.

I Googled various combinations of "pre-echo" "filter"
"dispersion" "digital" "ringing" "listening tests" "ABX"
"tests" and "Krueger" and got no confirmation that you
have ever performed formal blind tests on filter
dispersion, Mr. Krueger. Can you give a more precise
URL please.

So you _didn't_ do tests on these phenomena. Which
is what I had thought.

Why is it that denial is so common among golden ears?

I am not sure why you are referring to yourself as a
"golden ear," Mr. Krueger, but you certainty do appear to
be in denial. To sum up: you stated that pre-echo from
PCM's uniquitous digital filters was not audible, but you
have no test support for that opinion. By contrast, my
opinion that it is audible is supported by published positive
blind-test results. I would have thought that that should be
the end of the discussion.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



MiNe 109 wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
MiNe 109 wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
paul packer wrote:
Jenn wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital
domain more than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't something I
routinely listen to so I'm a little in the dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my next-door
neighbour ( professional musician ) playing his violin on my
Mini-disc a while back and it sounded Ok to me.

I don't know what Jenn hears, but I've heard opinions that string
section sound "above the stave" (as Gramophone puts it) suffers.

The higher octaves then ?

Yes, but specifically unison section sound. The RAO reference (okay,
I made up that designation) for string recording is the Barbirolli
Elgar/RVW EMI on GROC with the Elgar Introduction and Allegro and the
VFW Greensleeves.

Not exactly my kind of listening but I'll check out the classical CDs
I have.

I will say that my experience of classical music recording encompasses
the truly worst ever to quite good. I can't say I've ever heard one
that excelled though.


What a fjukktard



As if you'd know with your Phil Collins collection.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



MiNe 109 wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
paul packer wrote:
Jenn wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital domain
more than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't something I
routinely listen to so I'm a little in the dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my next-door
neighbour ( professional musician ) playing his violin on my
Mini-disc a while back and it sounded Ok to me.

I don't know what Jenn hears, but I've heard opinions that string
section sound "above the stave" (as Gramophone puts it) suffers.

The higher octaves then ?


Oow all those years playing your plastic recorder have paid off!


Netkkkop.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
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 ?

Not JUST that; it's my biggest complaint, as I said. But the
JUST is VERY important to me. I understand that it's not too
important to others.

Other things specifically ?

The rest can be laid on the doorstep of bad recording I suppose,
since I've heard some CDs that almost get it right, i.e. lack of
"air" in the room, screechy high frequencies.

Very likely the case. Orchestral recording by its very nature is
subject to many production related issues but these should certainly
be equally present on vinyl.


What's your CD player btw ?

Rotel RCD 1070.

I see it uses a Burr-Brown PCM1732 converter which is now obsolete.

When did that happen?

Impossible to say since there is no trace of it at all anymore on the
TI ( who own Burr Brown ) website.


I'd consider using an external converter.

I've listened to several; none solves the problem to my ears. I wish
they did.

Which have you listened to ?


I assume the transport works fine ?

Yep.

I also have an Arcam on loan.

Model number ?

CD192

I'll take a peek just out of interest.

Incidentally, I've just been comparing my 1989 Denon DCD-1700 to my
2004 ? Pioneer DV-360 DVD player playing CD.

I expected the Pioneer ( a quite respectable unit ) perhaps to match
the Denon ( an award winner in its day ) but initial results show the
Denon to totally have the upper hand.



netkkoping ****.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Incidentally, I've just been comparing my 1989 Denon
DCD-1700 to my 2004 ? Pioneer DV-360 DVD player playing
CD.

I expected the Pioneer ( a quite respectable unit )
perhaps to match the Denon ( an award winner in its day )
but initial results show the Denon to totally have the
upper hand.

Compared by what means?

My ears ! I hope that's not too radical ?

It surprised me a bit actually. I'm curious as to the technical basis
for it. There must be one. Bear in mind I have no axe to grind in this
regard.

Incidentally, the DCD-1700 is well recognised as a very competent CD
player of its era. In fact it was the first CD player I thought
sounded
'real' hence why I bought it. I gather the DV-360 is a 'better than
average' DVD player, indeed the Pioneers seem well thought of but I
have
no knowledge of its internals unlike the Denon. Do you have any info
on
this ?


netkkkping piece of ****.



bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Incidentally, I've just been comparing my 1989 Denon
DCD-1700 to my 2004 ? Pioneer DV-360 DVD player playing
CD.

I expected the Pioneer ( a quite respectable unit )
perhaps to match the Denon ( an award winner in its day )
but initial results show the Denon to totally have the
upper hand.

Compared by what means?

My ears ! I hope that's not too radical ?

It surprised me a bit actually. I'm curious as to the technical basis
for it. There must be one. Bear in mind I have no axe to grind in this
regard.

Incidentally, the DCD-1700 is well recognised as a very competent CD
player of its era. In fact it was the first CD player I thought
sounded
'real' hence why I bought it. I gather the DV-360 is a 'better than
average' DVD player, indeed the Pioneers seem well thought of but I
have
no knowledge of its internals unlike the Denon. Do you have any info
on
this ?


netkkkoping piece of ****.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



"George M. Middius" wrote:

MiNe 109 said:

Who can actually say a McClaren or Koenigsegg or Bugatti is
really a better car than say a Merc or Lexus or Cadillac ?

People who have them.

Poopie has his fingers in his ears now, and he's ululating "LALALA I
can't hear you! LALALALALA!"

LMAO ! None of the above actually appeal to me much but they do appeal
to those who like to appear swanky I guess. I'm quite happy with my
Saab.


Yes, you would be.

netkkkop

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

I see it uses a Burr-Brown PCM1732 converter which is now
obsolete. I'd consider using an external converter. I
assume the transport works fine ?

No guarantees. Given how bad she says it sounds it could be broken in
lots of ways. Bad tracking is just one of them.

Odd that there's no mention at all of the PCM1732 on TI's site at all
though yet the ancient PCM56 is still there ! Ouch. Look at the price
too.

http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/pcm56.html

Graham

netkkkpin gpiece of ****.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Arny Krueger wrote:

The point is that Jenn is now trying to turn around the fact that she
has again been hung out to dry on her own petard.

*On* a petard ? That's unusual !


netkkkopin gpiece of ****.



You can ish it out but you can't take it, can you?

hypocrite.



Bertie

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
paul packer wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital
domain more than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't
something I routinely listen to so I'm a little in the
dark here.

Yes, Paul is as usual making it up as he goes along.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my
next-door neighbour ( professional musician ) playing his
violin on my Mini-disc a while back and it sounded Ok to
me.

I do know that massed violins and choirs are very effective at making SETs
do their intermodulation thingie. They can be pretty good for detecting
timbre changes in the midrange. However, in the PCABX tests, it was
generally found that the Trumpets sample that Jenn hates snip

I don't hate your "Trumpets" file Arny. I simply correctly stated that
it isn't a recording of real trumpets. Please strive for the truth.

[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:


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

Hmm, and what is the proof that this isn't just another form of your problem
with denial, Jenn?

But, you lack proof that you knew about pre- and post-
echo on LPs until we pointed it out to you,

You lack proof that I know how to drink milk as well.

Jenn, I guess you need to be reminded that this is a forum about audio, not
eating or drinking. I guess you need to be reminded that you've written here
extensively about the unknown (to those of us who can listen and reach
reasonable conclusions) faults of the CD format and the comparative
perfection of the LP format.

In short Jenn, you need to remember that every time you have one of your
many public shows of dissembling, I hold you accoutable for your past
statements, nonsensical as many of them have been.

Show how that relates to your knowlege of the audible
failings of LPs, Jenn/

It speaks to the fact that I don't post everything that I
know. Neither do you, I presume.

So then Jenn you're saying that you know lots of things about the clearly
audible failings of the LP format that you have chosen to keep secret,

Not a "secret" Arny; I simply haven't posted about them.

even
while you hype the dickens out of intangible benefits that you among a tiny
proportion of music lovers, even believe might exist.

just like the supposedly missing data in my triangle
file.

The data wasn't in the file.

It is in all other of the versions that have ever been
reported to me to be downloaded by anybody.

That's nice; it wasn't in the one that arrived on my
computer.

Even after several tries. Yeah, sure.

Yes, sure.


Anybody who believes this tall tale needs their head examined.

I've offered every reasonable way possible to
prove to you that this is the truth.

No you haven't. All of your offerings were impractical (i.e., I travel long
distances at my own expense) or readily falisifiable (I believe a report
from a program that can easily shorten the file and create a false report).

Why would you distrust me?


How about this?
I'll take my computer to the Baptist minister that you
select who is located within 20 miles of my location.

Ludicrous. Why would a Baptist minister be relevant to this discussion were
he not also a computer expert?

Because I thought that you might trust her/him. It appears that I was
wrong.


I'll download it in front of him/her and then open it
with Audacity. The minister can then email you with the
result. Would that satisfy you that I'm telling the
truth?

Not at all.

Do you not trust ANYONE Arny?


Jenn, quit screwing around. Do what thousands of other people have done -
properly download the file.

I downloaded it in the usual manner.


I offered to send you a screen shot. But you mistrust
me for some reason (I
guess because I disagree with you about how things
sound)

It's something about your inability to accept that you
have made any mistakes ever, Jenn when it is so obvious
that you have.

More false information. Today I admitted that I made a
mistake for example.

Remind me.

Remind yourself.


so you won't accept that. You are free to come to my
house and see it if you wish.

That is another false claim. There is no free means by
which I can see your house. Every known way for me to
see your house would cost time and/or money.

Do you understand that the word "free" has meanings other
than that which concerns money, Arny?

Stop insulting our intelligence, Jenn. Admit that I caught you in yet
another embarassing situation and you tried to lie your way out of it.
Again.

You consider the usage of the word "free" as in "able or permitted to
take a specified action" to be a "lie"? Well, OK; thanks for your
opinion. You are certainly "free" to have such an opinion.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


No, I'm suggesting that you are learning how to take
cheap shots at CD players. Jenn would be proud.

What "cheap shot" have I taken at CD players, Arny?

Something about not being able to reproduce the sound of violins.

Must have been a made-up story given how quickly you forgot about it, Jenn.

No, it's simply not a "cheap shot". It's simply my opinion.

[Jenn]

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:07:13 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



paul packer wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the digital domain more
than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't something I routinely listen
to so I'm a little in the dark here.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my next-door neighbour (
professional musician ) playing his violin on my Mini-disc a while back and
it sounded Ok to me.

Graham


I should more accurately have said "massed strings", as I think this
is what Jenn is referring to. Most classical listeners will tell you
that nothing tends to brittleness and hardness so often in the digital
domain as massed strings. It is indeed the hardest thing to
"digitize". And no, to answer Arnie's question elsewhere, I have no
technical clue as to why that might be, other than the fact that
massed strings are the sweetest sounding section of the orchestra and
thus reveal any lack of sweetness in the sound quicker than any other
section. Care to comment, Jenn?

I would agree with what you wrote above.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


No, I'm suggesting that you are learning how to take
cheap shots at CD players. Jenn would be proud.

What "cheap shot" have I taken at CD players, Arny?

Something about not being able to reproduce the sound of
violins.

Must have been a made-up story given how quickly you
forgot about it, Jenn.

No, it's simply not a "cheap shot". It's simply my
opinion.

OK, it was an expensive shot, given its deliterious effect on your personal
credibility, Jenn.

[Eeyore]

paul packer wrote:

If CD were a faulty medium, it could not make as good a sound
as it does so often--and for Jenn, I include orchestral violins in
that comment. But it's an exacting medium, more so than analogue, and
so requires a surer hand at the recording consol.

Not really.

As long as it doesn't clip it's just fine. Given the huge headroom it can offer
that's hardly a problem.

Graham