Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...ons-page1.html
"But if the source material was analog and the vinyl represents a transfer directly from analog, the digital counterpart will have a slightly altered dynamic range that occurs when converting from analog to digital. The relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." Complete nonsense. An ADC that changes the "relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." is totally broken. Normal conversion involves changes that are less than 0.001 %. " This again is due to analog-to-digital conversion and the spatial information that's lost or compromised in the conversion. With vinyl, the better the pressing and the phono cartridge, the better the spatial reproduction." There is no such thing as a vinyl record/playback cycle that has anything like the precision we get from digital. Never has been, doesn't even come within 10:1. "This would be related very closely to the above. Complex tonal characteristics are usually closely related to spatial characteristics." Actually, tonality and spatial characterists are generally thought to be completely independent of each other. Tone can be accurately transmitted as a mono signal, recorded in an anechoic chamber. "One should remember that the word "analog" is derived from analogous, and that's where digital differs significantly, in that there are actual gaps between the samples that are larger as the frequency increases." This is just another iteration of the "Digital Gaps" urban myth. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example. It appears to be the new face of S&V. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
On Dec 19, 9:59*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...ons-page1.html "But if the source material was analog and the vinyl represents a transfer directly from analog, the digital counterpart will have a slightly altered dynamic range that occurs when converting from analog to digital. The relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." Complete nonsense. An ADC that changes the "relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." is totally broken. Normal conversion involves changes that are less than 0.001 %. " This again is due to analog-to-digital conversion and the spatial information that's lost or compromised in the conversion. *With vinyl, the better the pressing and the phono cartridge, the better the spatial reproduction." There is no such thing as a vinyl record/playback cycle that has anything like the precision we get from digital. Never has been, doesn't even come within 10:1. "This would be related very closely to the above. Complex tonal characteristics are usually closely related to spatial characteristics." Actually, tonality and spatial characterists are generally thought to be completely independent of each other. Tone can be accurately transmitted as a mono signal, recorded in an anechoic chamber. "One should remember that the word "analog" is derived from analogous, and that's where digital differs significantly, in that there are actual gaps between the samples that are larger as the frequency increases." This is just another iteration of the "Digital Gaps" urban myth. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example. It appears to be the new face of S&V. Two religious camps irretrievably divided. And what else is new? And why should this be discussed here? It will only serve to allow both camps to ventilate to neither purpose nor end. And at the end of some amount of repetitive, mindless blather leavened with a certain amount of vituperation, nothing will change, nothing will be learned and only hard feelings will remain. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:59?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...ons-page1.html "But if the source material was analog and the vinyl represents a transfer directly from analog, the digital counterpart will have a slightly altered dynamic range that occurs when converting from analog to digital. The relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." Complete nonsense. An ADC that changes the "relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." is totally broken. Normal conversion involves changes that are less than 0.001 %. Two religious camps irretrievably divided. And what else is new? And why should this be discussed here? It will only serve to allow both camps to ventilate to neither purpose nor end. And at the end of some amount of repetitive, mindless blather leavened with a certain amount of vituperation, nothing will change, nothing will be learned and only hard feelings will remain. Do you make no distinction between propagation of blatant, demonstratble falsehood (e.g, that nonsense about 4dB change in crest factor) and expression of 'religious belief'? -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
On Dec 20, 6:26*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote: On Dec 19, 9:59?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...ons-page1.html "But if the source material was analog and the vinyl represents a transfer directly from analog, the digital counterpart will have a slightly altered dynamic range that occurs when converting from analog to digital. The relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." Complete nonsense. An ADC that changes the "relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." is totally broken. Normal conversion involves changes that are less than 0.001 %. Two religious camps irretrievably divided. And what else is new? And why should this be discussed here? It will only serve to allow both camps to ventilate to neither purpose nor end. And at the end of some amount of repetitive, mindless blather leavened with a certain amount of vituperation, nothing will change, nothing will be learned and only hard feelings will remain. Do you make no distinction between propagation of blatant, demonstratble *falsehood (e.g, that nonsense about 4dB change in crest factor) and expression of 'religious belief'? -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- *Leo Tolstoy- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And the difference between blatant, demonstrable falsehoods and religious beliefs would be? That the writer of that propaganda piece believed what was written, demonstrably false or not, brings it into the realm of closely held belief or received wisdom - AKA religious belief. NOTHING will be gained by attempting to change the writer's beliefs or the beliefs of anyone here. Posting that article for discussion is a red herring, pure and simple, so that the OP may engage in the sort of "discussion" that seems to drive his life. There is not even the smallest pretense of edification here - just an opportunity to expound the same tired lines and pontificate from the same worn and uninteresting platform. And at the end of a few dozen or a few score posts no one is enlightened, no one is any better off and worst of all, nothing has changed other than some likely hard feelings. It is a dead-end road - amply and often demonstrated. Why take it? -r-eligion is use with a small -r- to differentiate it from Faith. Faith is never based on received wisdom. And religion requires no diety - only a focus/icon. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
On Dec 20, 8:21*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
. . . And the difference between blatant, demonstrable falsehoods and religious beliefs would be? That the writer of that propaganda piece believed what was written, demonstrably false or not, brings it into the realm of closely held belief or received wisdom - AKA religious belief. The writer made a statement (based on his religious beliefs) that can be verified and, according to Arni, is wrong. If I will be given a choice between Arnie and analog/vinyl-ophile I would rather listen to Arnie. So the question is - should we allow the false statement to be left unanswered if it is an expression of blind faith? I think, Arni does a useful service to the public by exposing this ignorant opinion. NOTHING will be gained by attempting to change the writer's beliefs or the beliefs of anyone here. I think it is the shame that serious magazine allows printing this kind of nonsense. It is detrimental to the reputation of the magazine. Posting that article for discussion is a red herring, pure and simple, so that the OP may engage in the sort of "discussion" that seems to drive his life. If you don't like the message, kill the messenger? There is not even the smallest pretense of edification here - just an opportunity to expound the same tired lines and pontificate from the same worn and uninteresting platform. I may be uninteresting to you, it is interesting to me. And at the end of a few dozen or a few score posts no one is enlightened, no one is any better off and worst of all, nothing has changed other than some likely hard feelings. How about newbies who are trying to understand things? This kind of discussion is useful to them. It is a dead-end road - amply and often demonstrated. Why take it? The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove (again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's. vlad |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
In article ,
vlad wrote: The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove (again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's. I don't see that as much as I used to. More often I see people saying that some LPs are the best sound that they have heard at home. That's my stance. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
On Dec 20, 7:05*pm, vlad wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:21*am, Peter Wieck wrote: * * . . . And the difference between blatant, demonstrable falsehoods and religious beliefs would be? That the writer of that propaganda piece believed what was written, demonstrably false or not, brings it into the realm of closely held belief or received wisdom - AKA religious belief. The writer made a statement (based on his religious beliefs) that can be verified and, according to Arni, is wrong. If I will be given a choice between *Arnie and analog/vinyl-ophile I would rather listen to Arnie. So the question is - should we allow the false statement to be left unanswered if it is an expression of blind faith? I think, Arni does a useful service to the public *by exposing this ignorant opinion. NOTHING will be gained by attempting to change the writer's beliefs or the beliefs of anyone here. I think it is the shame that serious magazine allows printing this kind of nonsense. It is detrimental to the reputation of the magazine. Posting that article for discussion is a red herring, pure and simple, so that the OP may engage in the sort of "discussion" that seems to drive his life. If you don't like the message, kill the messenger? There is not even the smallest pretense of edification here - just an opportunity to expound the same tired lines and pontificate from the same worn and uninteresting platform. I may be uninteresting to you, it is interesting to me. And at the end of a few dozen or a few score posts no one is enlightened, no one is any better off and worst of all, nothing has changed other than some likely hard feelings. How about newbies who are trying to understand things? This kind of discussion is useful to them. It is a dead-end road - amply and often demonstrated. Why take it? *The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove (again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's. vlad Vlad, with all due respect: a) their ain't no 'newbies' here based on participants of all similar discussion in the recent past. When you actually find one - let me know. b) those that choose to participate in such pointless discussions won't change either their positions or their opinions. c) vinyl vs. anything else won't be settled, elucidated, enlightened or even discussed rationally here either - again based on past performances. So, unless you truly enjoy banging your head against a sharp rock, let it be. Expend your efforts towards something where you might actually make a difference. Otherwise, sit on your hands and *DO NOT* let the mind-numbing, dull, repetitive, drab, silly, utterly predictable blather get yet another chance to dull our senses. You wrote it yourself. Again-and-again. Yet, drag the reddest and smelliest of thoroughly dead herrings in front of you - and off you go on the same futile chase all over again. Why? Absolutely nothing will change - yet you will serve only to gratify the purveyor of said red herring. Just like a trained circus dog. So utterly sad. So utterly pointless. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
On Dec 20, 6:26 am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Dec 19, 9:59?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...ons-page1.html "But if the source material was analog and the vinyl represents a transfer directly from analog, the digital counterpart will have a slightly altered dynamic range that occurs when converting from analog to digital. The relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." Complete nonsense. An ADC that changes the "relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." is totally broken. Normal conversion involves changes that are less than 0.001 %. Two religious camps irretrievably divided. The error here is the apparent idea that if a belief is held in a religious sense, that all other relevant beliefs that are different, are also religious beliefs. For example there are people who believe that the Ganges River is holy and has curative powers. There are others who believe that the Ganges River is polluted and a hazard to human heath, based on chemical and biological analysis of Ganges River water, and observation of relatively large and clearly harmful amounts of both chemical and biological pathogens that it contains. According to this kind of erroneous thinking anyone who believes in the potential harm indicated by the chemical and biological analysis is not a person who understands the relevance of Science to everyday life, but rather a person who holds to the beliefs of a counter-religion. And what else is new? I've actually never before heard anybody claim that merely converting a signal from analog to digital will cause errors on the order of 4%. And why should this be discussed here? It will only serve to allow both camps to ventilate to neither purpose nor end. And at the end of some amount of repetitive, mindless blather leavened with a certain amount of vituperation, nothing will change, nothing will be learned and only hard feelings will remain. Do you make no distinction between propagation of blatant, demonstrable falsehood (e.g, that nonsense about 4dB change in crest factor) and expression of 'religious belief'? I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy And the difference between blatant, demonstrable falsehoods and religious beliefs would be? The error here is the stated belief that all religious beliefs are false. For example, there is a body of guidance about human conduct that is known as "The Ten Commandments" . Being religious in nature, some might tell us that "The Ten Commandments" are all false because they are religious in origin and nature. If the Ten Commandments are all false, then of course we must conclude that all of the things it prohibits, such as murder, theft, and greed are all good things, and should be encouraged among the general population, to no end. That the writer of that propaganda piece believed what was written, demonstrably false or not, brings it into the realm of closely held belief or received wisdom - AKA religious belief. The error here is the idea that once a person acquires a religious belief, that there is no chance them ever changing. Apparently some would have us believe that religious beliefs are permanent and unchangeable because they are religious beliefs. NOTHING will be gained by attempting to change the writer's beliefs or the beliefs of anyone here. The error here is the idea that if a person has a false religious belief that would have negative effects if adopted by others, then there is no benefit in general to warning others about that religious belief. For example, if a person is a terrorist because of a religious belief, that person should not be apprehended or identified in any way, because after all their desire to be a terrorist is due to a religious belief. Posting that article for discussion is a red herring, pure and simple, so that the OP may engage in the sort of "discussion" that seems to drive his life. The error here is the idea that there is no benefit to an audio forum, for its members discuss other people's ideas about audio, if there is anybody in the known universe who believes those ideas in a religious sense. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
In article ,
vlad wrote: *snip* The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove (again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's. vlad Vlad, Most vinylphiles I run across also listen to CD. Most vinylphiles I run across may prefer vinyl to CD but don't care to try and 'prove' anything--they are too interested in listening to music. "Inferior" and "superior" are value judgements and without real specifications as to **how they are inferior/superior** must be taken as personal opinion only, and hence the whole deal is a dead-end. I really wish this whole argument would just go away. Greg |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Peter Wieck" wrote in message On Dec 20, 6:26 am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Dec 19, 9:59?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...ons-page1.html "But if the source material was analog and the vinyl represents a transfer directly from analog, the digital counterpart will have a slightly altered dynamic range that occurs when converting from analog to digital. The relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." Complete nonsense. An ADC that changes the "relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." is totally broken. Normal conversion involves changes that are less than 0.001 %. Two religious camps irretrievably divided. The error here is the apparent idea that if a belief is held in a religious sense, that all other relevant beliefs that are different, are also religious beliefs. For example there are people who believe that the Ganges River is holy and has curative powers. There are others who believe that the Ganges River is polluted and a hazard to human heath, based on chemical and biological analysis of Ganges River water, and observation of relatively large and clearly harmful amounts of both chemical and biological pathogens that it contains. According to this kind of erroneous thinking anyone who believes in the potential harm indicated by the chemical and biological analysis is not a person who understands the relevance of Science to everyday life, but rather a person who holds to the beliefs of a counter-religion. Not so, if the scientific evidence is mustered and presented persuasively. On the other hand, if it is "dictated" as something obvious and in such a way as to belittle the others "belief", without support but with moral condescension, then it is an opposing "religion". And what else is new? I've actually never before heard anybody claim that merely converting a signal from analog to digital will cause errors on the order of 4%. And the proper approach is to ask some intelligent questions that would unmask what the factual basis is for that assertion, since you don't know, rather than redicuing the proponent. You may have done this...I don't remember the specifics here. It may be that there is some work done somewhere that you are not aware of, whether it be true or erroneous. If erroneous, you could then demonstrate the way in which it was erroneous. In which case you might add to your reputation and share that with others here. And why should this be discussed here? It will only serve to allow both camps to ventilate to neither purpose nor end. And at the end of some amount of repetitive, mindless blather leavened with a certain amount of vituperation, nothing will change, nothing will be learned and only hard feelings will remain. Do you make no distinction between propagation of blatant, demonstrable falsehood (e.g, that nonsense about 4dB change in crest factor) and expression of 'religious belief'? I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy And the difference between blatant, demonstrable falsehoods and religious beliefs would be? The error here is the stated belief that all religious beliefs are false. For example, there is a body of guidance about human conduct that is known as "The Ten Commandments" . Being religious in nature, some might tell us that "The Ten Commandments" are all false because they are religious in origin and nature. If the Ten Commandments are all false, then of course we must conclude that all of the things it prohibits, such as murder, theft, and greed are all good things, and should be encouraged among the general population, to no end. This is a complete non-sequitor, of which you are doubtless well aware. It also frames the issue badly. One may believe in the Ten Commandments as a superior moral code based simply on secular understanding, and challenge the reality of whether it came from on high and was delivered to Moses on the Mount. Thus one can challenge the "religiousity" of the belief which still supporting its essential morality. That the writer of that propaganda piece believed what was written, demonstrably false or not, brings it into the realm of closely held belief or received wisdom - AKA religious belief. The error here is the idea that once a person acquires a religious belief, that there is no chance them ever changing. Apparently some would have us believe that religious beliefs are permanent and unchangeable because they are religious beliefs. If you replace "no chance" with "rarely, if ever" then this is probably a pretty valide assumption based on generalized human experience. No other extension of our humanity has ever propogated such bloodshed and violence upon our fellow men rather than face challenge. NOTHING will be gained by attempting to change the writer's beliefs or the beliefs of anyone here. The error here is the idea that if a person has a false religious belief that would have negative effects if adopted by others, then there is no benefit in general to warning others about that religious belief. For example, if a person is a terrorist because of a religious belief, that person should not be apprehended or identified in any way, because after all their desire to be a terrorist is due to a religious belief. Not too carefully reasoneed, Arny. The person reading what you consider a false religous belief can make his own decision and nobody is hurt other than perhaps he/she or their families pocketbook. In a free country, we call that freedom. A terriorist is somebody committed to acts of terror sprung upon an unsuspecting populace who have absolutely no control (and thus no freedom) over the situation. Posting that article for discussion is a red herring, pure and simple, so that the OP may engage in the sort of "discussion" that seems to drive his life. The error here is the idea that there is no benefit to an audio forum, for its members discuss other people's ideas about audio, if there is anybody in the known universe who believes those ideas in a religious sense. Here I agree with you, so long as it is a discussion and simply not just "shouting" at one another and engaging in defamatory personal attack. One can say, "I disagree with that particular (religious) believe of yours, and here is why, and here is the supporting evidence". In general, that is how you "win" an argument. From Merriam-Webster Online: "2a: a reason given in proof or rebuttal b: discourse intended to persuade 3b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:25:12 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ): In article , vlad wrote: The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove (again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's. I don't see that as much as I used to. More often I see people saying that some LPs are the best sound that they have heard at home. That's my stance. It's mine as well. Most modern CDs are far superior to the average vinyl record, but a few records can remind one in ways that no CD ever has of why one got into the audio hobby in the first place. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
On Dec 20, 6:31 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Dec 20, 7:05 pm, vlad wrote: Vlad, with all due respect: a) their ain't no 'newbies' here based on participants of all similar discussion in the recent past. When you actually find one - let me know. You don't know how many "newbies" are lurking here. If you have a reliable source of information, please, let us know. b) those that choose to participate in such pointless discussions won't change either their positions or their opinions. You don't know it either. I believe that intelligent people can argue, and as the result of discussion can change their views. So, unless you truly enjoy banging your head against a sharp rock, let it be. Expend your efforts towards something where you might actually make a difference. Otherwise, sit on your hands and *DO NOT* let the mind-numbing, dull, repetitive, drab, silly, utterly predictable blather get yet another chance to dull our senses. Am I paranoid or you are trying to tell me what I should do and what not? You wrote it yourself. Again-and-again. Yet, drag the reddest and smelliest of thoroughly dead herrings in front of you - and off you go on the same futile chase all over again. Why? Absolutely nothing will change - yet you will serve only to gratify the purveyor of said red herring. Just like a trained circus dog. So utterly sad. So utterly pointless. Peter, if you don't like this kind of discussions, don't read it. As it seems to me, you are trying to police this group. I still would like to know if false statements should go unchallenged in this group? vlad |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
Vlad:
Worthy questions. Please note the interpolations. On Dec 21, 3:09*pm, vlad wrote: * You don't know how many "newbies" are lurking here. If you have a If there are newbies lurking, they have been subjected to this particular discussion ad-nauseum, and certainly do not need to be subjected to it again. * b) those that choose to participate in such pointless discussions * won't change either their positions or their opinions. *You don't know it either. I believe that intelligent people can argue, and as the result of discussion can change their views. Perhaps. But is hasn't yet happened here. Just the same tired repetition of the same tired positions with the same tired results. In this case, "past performance" does happen to be a pretty good indication of future performance. * So, unless you truly enjoy banging your head against a sharp rock, let * it be. Expend your efforts towards something where you might actually * make a difference. Otherwise, sit on your hands and *DO NOT* let the * mind-numbing, dull, repetitive, drab, silly, utterly predictable * blather get yet another chance to dull our senses. *Am I paranoid or you are trying to tell me what I should do and what *not? Not hardly telling you what to do. Just *asking* you to analyze what exactly is going on and to use that analysis to respond appropriately. You are, I hope, a free individual gifted with free will. I am asking you to use that free will rather than to go haring off after a red herring. * You wrote it yourself. Again-and-again. Yet, drag the reddest and * smelliest of thoroughly dead herrings in front of you - and off you go * on the same futile chase all over again. Why? Absolutely nothing will * change - yet you will serve only to gratify the purveyor of said red * herring. Just like a trained circus dog. So utterly sad. So utterly * pointless. * * *Peter, if you don't like this kind of discussions, don't read it. *As it seems to me, you are trying to police this group. Nope. Just asking the group whether or not the group wishes to indulge in further discussions of dead-end subject to no discernable end. That is, break the vicious circle of predictable Versicle & mandated Response. * * *I still would like to know if false statements should go *unchallenged in this group? NO FALSE STATEMENT WAS MADE -IN THE GROUP- ! Said Statement was made in SOUND and VISION. Take your challenges THERE where those who were subjected to said statement might have an actual interest in its veracity or not. THE OP BROUGHT THAT STATEMENT HERE. That, with respect, is the particularly foul smelling Red Herring. The OP brought that here as another opportunity go climb up on his platform in hopes of starting the same tired discussion all over again. If you _REALLY_ want to do some good with your facts and your truths, go to Sound and Vision. Write to the editor, go to their blog if they have one - whatever blows your dress up. Please just spare this group the discussion of something already done-to-death just to gratify one individual's tired agenda. Don't be Pavlov's dog - it demeans you. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:25:12 -0800, Jenn wrote (in article ): In article , vlad wrote: The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove (again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's. I don't see that as much as I used to. More often I see people saying that some LPs are the best sound that they have heard at home. That's my stance. It's mine as well. Most modern CDs are far superior to the average vinyl record, but a few records can remind one in ways that no CD ever has of why one got into the audio hobby in the first place. In my experience, the "average" vinyl has always been pretty bad. The original "average" CDs were pretty bad as well. I think that was because many were mastered directly from tapes EQd for LPs, but I can't be sure of that. Modern high end vinyl and most CDs are equally good, but different, but not that different. It takes a lot of concentration for me to notice any difference on most recordings and I wonder how much of that is actually there. When I am listening to enjoy the music, I don't notice any difference any more on 99% of the music I listen to. -- Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883 bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac] rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office] |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
Peter Wieck wrote:
Vlad: Worthy questions. Please note the interpolations. On Dec 21, 3:09?pm, vlad wrote: ? You don't know how many "newbies" are lurking here. If you have a If there are newbies lurking, they have been subjected to this particular discussion ad-nauseum, and certainly do not need to be subjected to it again. To me, *you* are a newbie. That's how long I've been posting. Your equation of factual errors with statement of religious belief, is simply fallacious. Nor is it incumbent upong RAHE posts to only discuss other RAHE posts. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss articles on audio quality that are pubklished elsewhere...in this case, S&V, which is indeed in sad decline. particularly foul smelling Red Herring. Do you know what a red herring is? It is an attempt to *divert* or *change* the subject. But the subject of RAHE is essentially audio quality. The article is about that. I myself have brought Mr. Fraboni's *terrible* journalism about audio quality to the attention of several audio discussion boards. That s where Arny saw him mentioned first, I'd wager. -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
[Moderator's note: The subject discussed in the original post in this
thread was considered on-topic for RAHE and that is why it was approved. Discussing what should be allowed on RAHE is NOT on-topic per the Guidelines. Those discussions are to go to the RAHE-DISCUSS mailing list. -- deb ] "Peter Wieck" wrote in message Vlad: Worthy questions. Please note the interpolations. On Dec 21, 3:09 pm, vlad wrote: You don't know how many "newbies" are lurking here. If you have a If there are newbies lurking, they have been subjected to this particular discussion ad-nauseum, and certainly do not need to be subjected to it again. Please define "this particular discusison". The OP characterized it as being "Sound And Vision's Technical Decline". The OP was based on direct quotes from S&V that appear to be new and unique. Exactly what is "this particular discusison" and how has it been discussed here "ad nauseum" given that it is based on fairly recent quotes from S&V. b) those that choose to participate in such pointless discussions won't change either their positions or their opinions. You don't know it either. I believe that intelligent people can argue, and as the result of discussion can change their views. Perhaps. What controversial item for discussion would be more or less "perhaps"? But it hasn't yet happened here. Seems reasonable, given that it appears to be a new topic. Just the same tired repetition of the same tired positions with the same tired results. But its a new topic, isn't it? In this case, "past performance" does happen to be a pretty good indication of future performance. Seems like a wet blanket argument. ;-) So, unless you truly enjoy banging your head against a sharp rock, let it be. Expend your efforts towards something where you might actually make a difference. Otherwise, sit on your hands and *DO NOT* let the mind-numbing, dull, repetitive, drab, silly, utterly predictable blather get yet another chance to dull our senses. Am I paranoid or you are trying to tell me what I should do and what not? More than that, it appears that we are being told that "mind-numbing, dull, repetitive, drab, silly, utterly predictable blather" is guaranteed to be the only possible outcome. IOW, someone is claiming to be omniscient. Not hardly telling you what to do. Just *asking* you to analyze what exactly is going on and to use that analysis to respond appropriately. As if the people who post here wouldn't know that a priori? You are, I hope, a free individual gifted with free will. I am asking you to use that free will rather than to go haring off after a red herring. And the red herring is exactly what? It appears to me that there is a red herring - a claim that both sides of the discussion suggested by the OP would be necessarily religious. You wrote it yourself. Again-and-again. Yet, drag the reddest and smelliest of thoroughly dead herrings in front of you - and off you go on the same futile chase all over again. Why? Absolutely nothing will change - yet you will serve only to gratify the purveyor of said red herring. Just like a trained circus dog. So utterly sad. So utterly pointless. Peter, if you don't like this kind of discussions, don't read it. As it seems to me, you are trying to police this group. Exactly. Not only that, the police are trying to tell us that all possible viewpoints will be necessarily religious. pe. Just asking the group whether or not the group wishes to indulge in further discussions of dead-end subject to no discernable end. That is, break the vicious circle of predictable Versicle & mandated Response. The socially acceptable means for obtaining that outcome appears to be to personally participate in accordance with your own preferences, and allow others to the same. I still would like to know if false statements should go unchallenged in this group? NO FALSE STATEMENT WAS MADE -IN THE GROUP- ! Really? Casual inspection found any number of false statements, both in the OP, and also in a response to the OP. Said Statement was made in SOUND and VISION. Take your challenges THERE where those who were subjected to said statement might have an actual interest in its veracity or not. So it is then resolved that rec.audio.high-end should never be a forum for discussion of articles in any audio-related publication? When did this go into the posting guidelines? THE OP BROUGHT THAT STATEMENT HERE. Isn't the OP within the following official RAHE guidelines: "Within the realm of high-end audio, as defined previously, any topic is permitted. Theories, opinions, and questions are all appropriate if they are concerned with the reproduction of music." |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:11:26 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ): In article , Sonnova wrote: On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:25:12 -0800, Jenn wrote (in article ): In article , vlad wrote: The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove (again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's. I don't see that as much as I used to. More often I see people saying that some LPs are the best sound that they have heard at home. That's my stance. It's mine as well. Most modern CDs are far superior to the average vinyl record, but a few records can remind one in ways that no CD ever has of why one got into the audio hobby in the first place. In my experience, the "average" vinyl has always been pretty bad. Without question. Agreed. The original "average" CDs were pretty bad as well. I think that was because many were mastered directly from tapes EQd for LPs, but I can't be sure of that. It's possible, I've heard that particular speculation before. But whatever the reason, it's true, early CDs were mostly atrocious sounding. Modern high end vinyl and most CDs are equally good, but different, but not that different. It takes a lot of concentration for me to notice any difference on most recordings and I wonder how much of that is actually there. When I am listening to enjoy the music, I don't notice any difference any more on 99% of the music I listen to. Also agreed. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sound And Vision's Technical Decline
On Dec 22, 4:54*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
Vlad: Worthy questions. Please note the interpolations. On Dec 21, 3:09*pm, vlad wrote: * You don't know how many "newbies" are lurking here. If you have a If there are newbies lurking, they have been subjected to this particular discussion ad-nauseum, and certainly do not need to be subjected to it again. May I conclude that your "If" means that you don't know how many newbies (if any) are here? I must confess that I don't know either. Or care. But I believe, as a matter of principal, that they (whoever they are) can decide for themselves and do not need any guardian deciding what they can be subjected to. . . . Perhaps. But is hasn't yet happened here. Just the same tired repetition of the same tired positions with the same tired results. In this case, "past performance" does happen to be a pretty good indication of future performance. May be I am more optimistic then you and believe that logical arguments will prevail one day :-) . . . Not hardly telling you what to do. Just *asking* you to analyze what exactly is going on and to use that analysis to respond appropriately. You are, I hope, a free individual gifted with free will. I am asking you to use that free will rather than to go haring off after a red herring. Thank you, Peter. I believe that I made my analysis and I disagree with you about this issue. . . . Said Statement was made in SOUND and VISION. Take your challenges THERE where those who were subjected to said statement might have an actual interest in its veracity or not. So, we are not allowed to discuss it here? Is it somewhere in a charter? What else is out of limit to this group? I believe that Arni was absolutely right to bring it here. THE OP BROUGHT THAT STATEMENT HERE. That, with respect, is the particularly foul smelling Red Herring. The OP brought that here as another opportunity go climb up on his platform in hopes of starting the same tired discussion all over again. If you _REALLY_ want to do some good with your facts and your truths, go to Sound and Vision. Write to the editor, go to their blog if they have one - whatever blows your dress up. Please just spare this group the discussion of something already done-to-death just to gratify one individual's tired agenda. Don't be Pavlov's dog - it demeans you. Peter, it does not do any good to intelligent man (and I believe you are one) to be obnoxious and/or insulting to your opponent. vlad Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
decline of civilzation? Vinyl Revival | High End Audio | |||
"Room" sound : technical question | Pro Audio | |||
The Decline of Audio Mags | Pro Audio | |||
Surround Sound - an Indepth Primer and technical reference | High End Audio |