Current audio systems do not reproduce the entire wavefront that
creates the listener's experience in the concert hall. At best, they
measure a few channels and reproduce those, inexactly, through a few
speakers.

Yet the playback experience can be enjoyable and thrilling. Obviously
something of the original sonic event is preserved. Something of the
original time-evolving spectrum of sonic energy is reproduced.

Ignoring for now the question of reproducing a wavefront, let's look at
just how the signal in one channel is handled. It can be quite
distorted and yet still recognizable. What aspects of a signal must be
preserved for it to be recognizable? What aspects must be preserved
for it to sound good, and to sound very much like the original signal?

Engineers have addressed this question in many ways, for example
designing compression algorithms. Some details of the original signal
can be thrown away without losing much, perceptually.

MP3's sound sorta like the orignal files. I'm interested in addressing
the question "what makes an accurate signal" at a higher level of
quality than that.

For example, I've always preferred analog sources to digital, finding
the former more lifelike. Does an analog recorder preserve some aspect
of the signal better than a digital recorder? I know that many of you
will say categorically not. Fine. Let's look anyway at one aspect of
the signal.

Intuitively, a musical signal is made of many "events"...for example
attacks of notes. Intuitively I hear even sustained notes as made of
events...little shifts of timbre, and so on. This idea is confirmed
when we look at an audio signal and see periodic spikes, and also
confirmed by the success of "granular synthesis" (a technique for
synthesizing sustained sounds by summing many individual wavelets).

Perhaps an important dimension of accurate sound reproduction is the
accurate reproduction of the *relative timing* of these events. To
clarify, perhaps we could conceive of each event as being recognized by
the neural machinery and triggering a neuron to fire. And something
about the pattern of this firing, the timing contained therein, is
important to defining the sound quality.

How does a particular recording/playback process affect the timing of
transients? Recording processes are sometimes characterized in terms
of frequency response. Digital has a very flat response in the region
audible to the ear, meaning it doesn't introduce much distortion.
However, it does introduce some distortion. And if we were somehow
able to examine the relative firing times of neurons in response to a
recorded/played-back signal, how much would a digital playback process
distort those times? How much would an analog process distort those
times?

This is not a question about jitter. Certainly jitter is one
distortion mechanism in digital (and analog) playback, but this more
about how even a linear playback system will distort transients because
it is band-limited. Changing the shape of the transient will likely
have a small effect on neural timing. Both digital and analog
recording processes distort the shape of the transient, but perhaps one
of them does so in a way that better preserves the relative timing of
neural events.

My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing
of neural events. However, I would need to know more about
neuroscience and non-linear systems to have a good answer to this, but
perhaps someone reading is interested.

Best,
Mike

Michael Mossey wrote:
Current audio systems do not reproduce the entire wavefront that
creates the listener's experience in the concert hall. At best, they
measure a few channels and reproduce those, inexactly, through a few
speakers.

Yet the playback experience can be enjoyable and thrilling. Obviously
something of the original sonic event is preserved. Something of the
original time-evolving spectrum of sonic energy is reproduced.

Ignoring for now the question of reproducing a wavefront, let's look at
just how the signal in one channel is handled. It can be quite
distorted and yet still recognizable. What aspects of a signal must be
preserved for it to be recognizable? What aspects must be preserved
for it to sound good, and to sound very much like the original signal?

Engineers have addressed this question in many ways, for example
designing compression algorithms. Some details of the original signal
can be thrown away without losing much, perceptually.

MP3's sound sorta like the orignal files. I'm interested in addressing
the question "what makes an accurate signal" at a higher level of
quality than that.

For example, I've always preferred analog sources to digital, finding
the former more lifelike. Does an analog recorder preserve some aspect
of the signal better than a digital recorder? I know that many of you
will say categorically not. Fine. Let's look anyway at one aspect of
the signal.

Intuitively, a musical signal is made of many "events"...for example
attacks of notes. Intuitively I hear even sustained notes as made of
events...little shifts of timbre, and so on. This idea is confirmed
when we look at an audio signal and see periodic spikes, and also
confirmed by the success of "granular synthesis" (a technique for
synthesizing sustained sounds by summing many individual wavelets).

Perhaps an important dimension of accurate sound reproduction is the
accurate reproduction of the *relative timing* of these events. To
clarify, perhaps we could conceive of each event as being recognized by
the neural machinery and triggering a neuron to fire. And something
about the pattern of this firing, the timing contained therein, is
important to defining the sound quality.

How does a particular recording/playback process affect the timing of
transients? Recording processes are sometimes characterized in terms
of frequency response. Digital has a very flat response in the region
audible to the ear, meaning it doesn't introduce much distortion.
However, it does introduce some distortion. And if we were somehow
able to examine the relative firing times of neurons in response to a
recorded/played-back signal, how much would a digital playback process
distort those times? How much would an analog process distort those
times?

This is not a question about jitter. Certainly jitter is one
distortion mechanism in digital (and analog) playback, but this more
about how even a linear playback system will distort transients because
it is band-limited. Changing the shape of the transient will likely
have a small effect on neural timing. Both digital and analog
recording processes distort the shape of the transient, but perhaps one
of them does so in a way that better preserves the relative timing of
neural events.

My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing
of neural events. However, I would need to know more about
neuroscience and non-linear systems to have a good answer to this, but
perhaps someone reading is interested.

Best,
Mike

There were experiments done where the output of a vinyl rig is captured
and digitized using the CD standard. Then the listeners tried to tell
the analog playback from the digitized verison. The difference was
indistingusihable by the most vigorous vinyl supporters. Do a search on
the Lip****z article to read more about this.

Many of us have digitally recorded vinyl LP's with great success,
achieving results that are virtually identical to the original. That
should tell you a lot about how good digital recording is.

You prefer analog (vinyl) because the distortions associated with vinyl
equipment are euphonic to you. It's really quite simple.

Read up on the sampling theorem to learn how accurate digital recording
can be.

Chung wrote:

There were experiments done where the output of a vinyl rig is captured
and digitized using the CD standard. Then the listeners tried to tell
the analog playback from the digitized verison. The difference was
indistingusihable by the most vigorous vinyl supporters. Do a search on
the Lip****z article to read more about this.

Many of us have digitally recorded vinyl LP's with great success,
achieving results that are virtually identical to the original. That
should tell you a lot about how good digital recording is.

You prefer analog (vinyl) because the distortions associated with vinyl
equipment are euphonic to you. It's really quite simple.

Read up on the sampling theorem to learn how accurate digital recording
can be.


When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog
grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment
the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start
jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is
present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program
signal.


I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
floor (along with the wider frequency response).


In any event, to me the CD's sound essentially the same as the records
when I monitor using headphones.


michael

michael wrote:

I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
floor (along with the wider frequency response).

The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter
than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not
infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this
all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears.

That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be
responding to other factors, just to agree that better
reproduction is not always pleasant to hear.

Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

On 23 Dec 2004 19:03:57 GMT, Mike Prager wrote:

michael wrote:

I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
floor (along with the wider frequency response).

The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter
than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not
infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this
all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears.

That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be
responding to other factors, just to agree that better
reproduction is not always pleasant to hear.

Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

Hear hear! Go to a normal classical concert with a symphony orchestra,
and you hear a pleasant, balanced sound. Listen to the same on a
normal record - CD or vinyl - and all of a sudden the highs have a
sort of exaggerated fizzing quality. This is very unpleasant, but can
usually be fixed quite easily if you are prepared to take the trouble
of running the recording through a DAW to re-equalise.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On 23 Dec 2004 19:03:57 GMT, Mike Prager wrote:

michael wrote:

I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
floor (along with the wider frequency response).

The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter
than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not
infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this
all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears.

That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be
responding to other factors, just to agree that better
reproduction is not always pleasant to hear.

Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

Hear hear! Go to a normal classical concert with a symphony orchestra,
and you hear a pleasant, balanced sound. Listen to the same on a
normal record - CD or vinyl - and all of a sudden the highs have a
sort of exaggerated fizzing quality. This is very unpleasant, but can
usually be fixed quite easily if you are prepared to take the trouble
of running the recording through a DAW to re-equalise.

And you're sure this is due to the recording, and not the vastly
different room acoustics?

--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.

of abortion clinics
thrive and hot French bread is always available.

2 cleaned fetuses, head on
2 eggs
1 tablespoon yellow mustard
1 cup seasoned flour
oil enough for deep frying
1 loaf French bread
Lettuce
tomatoes
mayonnaise, etc.

Marinate the fetuses in the egg-mustard mixture.
Dredge thoroughly in flour.
Fry at 375° until crispy golden brown.
Remove and place on paper towels.



Holiday Youngster

One can easily adapt this recipe to ham, though as presented,
it violates no religious taboos against swine.

1 large toddler or small child, cleaned and de-headed
Kentucky Bourbon Sauce (see index)
1 large can pineapple slices
Whole cloves

Place him (or ham) or her in a large glass baking dish, buttocks up.
Tie with butcher string around and across so that he looks like
he?s crawling.
Glaze, then arrange pineapples and secure with cloves.
Bake uncovered in 350° oven till thermometer reaches 160°.



Cajun Babies

Just like crabs or crawfish, babies are boiled alive!
You don?t need silverware, the hot spicy meat comes off in your hands.

6 live babies
1 lb. smoked sausage
4 lemons
whole garlic
2 lb. new potatoes
4 ears corn
1 box salt
crab boil

Bring 3 gallons of water to a boil.
Add sausage, salt, crab boil, lemons and garlic.
Drop potatoes in, boil for 4 minutes.
Corn is added next, boil an additional 11 minutes.
Put the live babies into the boiling water and cover.
Boil t

the lifeless unfortunate available immediately after delivery,
or use high quality beef or pork roasts (it is cheaper and better to
cut up a whole roast than to buy stew meat).

1 stillbirth, de-boned and cubed
¼ cup vegetable oil
2 large onions
bell pepper
celery
garlic
½ cup red wine
3 Irish potatoes
2 large carrots

This is a simple classic stew that makes natural gravy,
thus it does not have to be thickened.
Brown the meat quickly in very hot oil, remove and set aside.
Brown the onions, celery, pepper and garlic.
De-glaze with wine, return meat to the pan and season well.
Stew on low fire adding small amounts of water and
seasoning as necessary.
After at least half an hour, add the carrots and potatoes,
and simmer till root vegetables break with a fork.
Cook a fresh pot of long grained white rice.



Pre-mie Pot Pie

When working with prematurely delivered newborns (or chicken) use sherry;
red wine with beef (buy steak or roast, do not pre-boil).

Pie crust (see index)

From: michael
Date: 12/21/2004 8:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Chung wrote:

There were experiments done where the output of a vinyl rig is captured
and digitized using the CD standard. Then the listeners tried to tell
the analog playback from the digitized verison. The difference was
indistingusihable by the most vigorous vinyl supporters. Do a search on
the Lip****z article to read more about this.

Many of us have digitally recorded vinyl LP's with great success,
achieving results that are virtually identical to the original. That
should tell you a lot about how good digital recording is.

You prefer analog (vinyl) because the distortions associated with vinyl
equipment are euphonic to you. It's really quite simple.

Read up on the sampling theorem to learn how accurate digital recording
can be.


When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog
grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment
the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start
jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is
present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program
signal.

Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think?



I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
floor (along with the wider frequency response).

That striles me as a rather absurd claim given that most said vinyl enthusiasts
at least claim that live music is their reference. What is the noise floor of
the real thing?



In any event, to me the CD's sound essentially the same as the records
when I monitor using headphones.


michael

S888Wheel wrote:

From: michael

When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog
grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment
the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start
jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is
present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program
signal.


Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think?

You tell me, then. I'm guessing that the "silent grooves" of a record
are the baseline and represent the actual noise floor of the
record/diamond interface. Would not this "baseline" (if indeed it is
such) be present throughout the recording but masked during louder
passages? In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
non-musical program noise.

I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
floor (along with the wider frequency response).


That striles me as a rather absurd claim given that most said vinyl enthusiasts
at least claim that live music is their reference.

Well...that's what they claim in any case. When one listens to a live
performance there are all kinds of noise artifacts present which may not
be heard on a recording. But we are speaking and writing of two
different things. First, I was speaking of inherent vinyl noise which
is NOT present in any live venue. Second, in a "live" recording ambient
acoustical noise is (or should be) recorded along with the program.

I am a Wagner fan. Let's look at two different recordings: first, the
Boulez Bayreuth Ring (Phillips) and, second, the Levine Met Ring
(DGG-the CD version and not the DVD live recording). The first was an
all digital (except Gotterdammerung) 'rehearsal' recording and exhibits
all one would expect from a live performance except audience artifacts
(since no audience was present). That is, stage noises from the cast
jumping around on the floor, and sets moving, etc. This is caught on
the digital tape quite clearly and can be heard apart from any
additional vinyl artifacts. The Levine set, on the other hand, being a
studio recording arises from an imperceptible noise floor and one hears
nothing but the musical notes (and singing).

When making a CD copy of both I can attest to the vinyl noise of the
former (which I have records of), but the latter is a CD version and my
subsequent copies have no additional noise (simply copying digit for
digit).

On the other hand, the Levine set has an eerie, almost unnatural aural
feeling about it due to "digital silence". It is true that we do not
experience, in life, sound emanating from a zero noise floor. That is
what I meant when I suggested that maybe digital is "too good" for the
analog crowd. Not that digital cannot capture a "live music reference"
to use your words, but that, at times and from the studio, what is
presented IS artificial due to a lack of background noise. Maybe analog
front ends supply enough background grundge to allow us to
psychologically better integrate what we are hearing vis-a-vis our
normal experience.

Now, in the analog world we also experience studio recordings, but they
always have some tape hiss along with the heretofore mentioned vinyl
background crud. Listening to them is nothing like listening to a CD.
Often the vinyl background crud is high enough to mask the master analog
tape hiss (assuming no Dolby or dbx was used in which case tape hiss may
not be a factor).

As an aside, I am reminded of, many many years ago and when digital was
quite young, purchasing a CD copy of a Yes album. Upon listening to the
CD I found that on a particular tune one side of the stereo track
abruptly drops out. Tape hiss (clearly audible on the CD) from this
"silent" channel was quite startling. I checked my Lp version but
because of surface noise I could not hear any tape hiss. This was my
first indication that digital really does capture everything.

michael

michael wrote:
S888Wheel wrote:

From: michael

When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog
grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment
the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start
jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is
present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program
signal.


Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think?

You tell me, then. I'm guessing that the "silent grooves" of a record
are the baseline and represent the actual noise floor of the
record/diamond interface. Would not this "baseline" (if indeed it is
such) be present throughout the recording but masked during louder
passages? In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
non-musical program noise.

There's no question that even the quietest vinyl will show visible
'grunge' in a wavform or spectral view, during the supposed silences
before and after tracks...in contrast to digital silence. This is just
one of several ways of demonstrating technically that digital
beats vinyl in the S/N department hands down.

I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
floor (along with the wider frequency response).


That striles me as a rather absurd claim given that most said vinyl enthusiasts
at least claim that live music is their reference.

Well...that's what they claim in any case. When one listens to a live
performance there are all kinds of noise artifacts present which may not
be heard on a recording. But we are speaking and writing of two
different things. First, I was speaking of inherent vinyl noise which
is NOT present in any live venue. Second, in a "live" recording ambient
acoustical noise is (or should be) recorded along with the program.

It used to be common for CDs to have the disclaimer like, '
the higher resolution of digital transfer may reveal imperfections
in the source' .

On the other hand, the Levine set has an eerie, almost unnatural aural
feeling about it due to "digital silence". It is true that we do not
experience, in life, sound emanating from a zero noise floor. That is
what I meant when I suggested that maybe digital is "too good" for the
analog crowd. Not that digital cannot capture a "live music reference"
to use your words, but that, at times and from the studio, what is
presented IS artificial due to a lack of background noise. Maybe analog
front ends supply enough background grundge to allow us to
psychologically better integrate what we are hearing vis-a-vis our
normal experience.

Along the same lines, it has often been suggested that what vinylphiles
prefer about the LP medium is what it *adds* to the recording --
midrange phasiness and other so-called 'euphonic' distortion.

As an aside, I am reminded of, many many years ago and when digital was
quite young, purchasing a CD copy of a Yes album. Upon listening to the
CD I found that on a particular tune one side of the stereo track
abruptly drops out. Tape hiss (clearly audible on the CD) from this
"silent" channel was quite startling. I checked my Lp version but
because of surface noise I could not hear any tape hiss. This was my
first indication that digital really does capture everything.

ah...Perpetual Change. ;

--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.

From: michael
Date: 12/23/2004 8:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: michael

When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog
grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment
the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start
jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is
present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program
signal.


Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think?

You tell me, then. I'm guessing that the "silent grooves" of a record
are the baseline and represent the actual noise floor of the
record/diamond interface.

Again it is a bit broad. I am sure the TT system, the cutting lathe and the
quality of the pressing all come into play. You cannot take any old record and
plop it on any old record player and assume that this is any kind of standard
for the medium.

Would not this "baseline" (if indeed it is
such)

If indeed.

be present throughout the recording but masked during louder
passages?

Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line
though.

In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
non-musical program noise.

I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the
universitality of it.


I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
floor (along with the wider frequency response).


That striles me as a rather absurd claim given that most said vinyl
enthusiasts
at least claim that live music is their reference.

Well...that's what they claim in any case.

It certainly is what I claim. It is the truth in my case. I cannot speak for
all others.

When one listens to a live
performance there are all kinds of noise artifacts present which may not
be heard on a recording.

Really? That would sem to me to be a defective recording then. What else is
missing I wonder?

But we are speaking and writing of two
different things. First, I was speaking of inherent vinyl noise which
is NOT present in any live venue. Second, in a "live" recording ambient
acoustical noise is (or should be) recorded along with the program.

You were speaking of what people are acustomed to. If people who generally
prefer vinyl are acustomed to live music as a reference then your argument that
they are not used to the lower noise floor of digital holds no water. The
higher noise floor of vinyl clearly is not present in the cited reference, live
music.


I am a Wagner fan. Let's look at two different recordings: first, the
Boulez Bayreuth Ring (Phillips) and, second, the Levine Met Ring
(DGG-the CD version and not the DVD live recording). The first was an
all digital (except Gotterdammerung) 'rehearsal' recording and exhibits
all one would expect from a live performance except audience artifacts
(since no audience was present). That is, stage noises from the cast
jumping around on the floor, and sets moving, etc. This is caught on
the digital tape quite clearly and can be heard apart from any
additional vinyl artifacts. The Levine set, on the other hand, being a
studio recording arises from an imperceptible noise floor and one hears
nothing but the musical notes (and singing).

When making a CD copy of both I can attest to the vinyl noise of the
former (which I have records of), but the latter is a CD version and my
subsequent copies have no additional noise (simply copying digit for
digit).

We still don't know how good your records/TT playback system are so we cannot
take it as representative of SOTA. Your findings are valid for your transfers.
they are not neccessarliy representative of the thresholds of the medium
itself.


On the other hand, the Levine set has an eerie, almost unnatural aural
feeling about it due to "digital silence".

What do you consider "digital silence" to be? How is it eerie or unnatural?

It is true that we do not
experience, in life, sound emanating from a zero noise floor. That is
what I meant when I suggested that maybe digital is "too good" for the
analog crowd.

If it is capturing the ambient sound of the venue then it shouldn't be eerie or
unnatural sounding. It should not present any problem for the "analog crowd" if
live music is their reference (it is mine).

Not that digital cannot capture a "live music reference"
to use your words, but that, at times and from the studio, what is
presented IS artificial due to a lack of background noise. Maybe analog
front ends supply enough background grundge to allow us to
psychologically better integrate what we are hearing vis-a-vis our
normal experience.

Normal experience being experience with live music?


Now, in the analog world we also experience studio recordings, but they
always have some tape hiss along with the heretofore mentioned vinyl
background crud. Listening to them is nothing like listening to a CD.

Depends on the recording, mastering, pressing and playback equipment.

Often the vinyl background crud is high enough to mask the master analog
tape hiss (assuming no Dolby or dbx was used in which case tape hiss may
not be a factor).

As an aside, I am reminded of, many many years ago and when digital was
quite young, purchasing a CD copy of a Yes album. Upon listening to the
CD I found that on a particular tune one side of the stereo track
abruptly drops out. Tape hiss (clearly audible on the CD) from this
"silent" channel was quite startling. I checked my Lp version but
because of surface noise I could not hear any tape hiss. This was my
first indication that digital really does capture everything.

I happen to be a major Yes fan. I will happily recomend specific pressings of
any Yes album that sonically clobber any and all fo the available CD versions
of any given title.

is the perfect solution.
But if you are still paranoid, you can substitute pork butt.

5 lb. lean chuck roast
3 lb. prime baby butt
2 tablespoons each:
salt
black, white and cayenne peppers
celery salt
garlic powder
parsley flakes
brown sugar
1 teaspoon sage
2 onions
6 cloves garlic
bunch green onions, chopped

Cut the children?s butts and the beef roast into pieces
that will fit in the grinder.
Run the meat through using a 3/16 grinding plate.
Add garlic, onions and seasoning then mix well.
Add just enough water for a smooth consistency, then mix again.
Form the sausage mixture into patties or stuff into natural casings.



Stillborn Stew

By definition, this meat cannot be had altogether fresh,
but have the lifeless unfortunate available immediately after delivery,
or use high quality beef or pork roasts (it is cheaper and better to
cut up a whole roast than to buy stew meat).

1 stillbirth, de-boned and cubed
¼ cup vegetable oil
2 large onions
bell pepper
celery
garlic
½ cup red wine
3 Irish potatoes
2 large carrots

This is a simple classic stew that makes natural gravy,
thus it does not have to be thickened.
Brown the meat quickly in very hot oil, remove and set aside.
Brown the onions, celery, pepper and garlic.
De-glaze with wine, return meat to the pan and season well.
Stew on low fire adding small amounts of water and
seasoning as necessary.
After at least half an hour, add the carrots and potatoes,
and simmer till root vegetables break with a fork.
Cook a fresh pot of long grained white rice.



Pre-mie Pot Pie

When working with prematurely delivered newborns (or chicken) use sherry;
red wine with beef (buy steak or roast, do not pre-boil).

Pie crust (see index)
Whole fresh pre-m

are boiled alive!
You don?t need silverware, the hot spicy meat comes off in your hands.

6 live babies
1 lb. smoked sausage
4 lemons
whole garlic
2 lb. new potatoes
4 ears corn
1 box salt
crab boil

Bring 3 gallons of water to a boil.
Add sausage, salt, crab boil, lemons and garlic.
Drop potatoes in, boil for 4 minutes.
Corn is added next, boil an additional 11 minutes.
Put the live babies into the boiling water and cover.
Boil till meat comes off easily with a fork.



Oven-Baked Baby-Back Ribs

Beef ribs or pork ribs can be used in this recipe,
and that is exactly what your dinner guests will assume!
An excellent way to expose the uninitiated to this highly misunderstood
yet succulent source of protein.

2 human baby rib racks
3 cups barbecue sauce or honey glaze (see index)
Salt
black pepper
white pepper
paprika

Remove the silverskin by loosening from the edges,
then stripping off.
Season generously, rubbing the mixture into the baby?s flesh.
Place 1 quart water in a baking pan, the meat on a wire rack.
Bake uncovered in 250° oven for 1½ hours.
When browned, remove and glaze,
return to oven and bake 20 minutes more to form a glaze.
Cut ribs into individual pieces and serve with extra sauce.



Fresh Sausage

If it becomes necessary to hide the fact that you are eating
human babies, this is the perfect solution.
But if you are still paranoid, you can substitute pork butt.

5 lb. lean chuck roast
3 lb. prime baby butt
2 tablespoons each:
salt
black, white and cayenne peppers
celery salt
garlic powder
parsley flakes
brown sugar
1 teaspoon sage
2 onions
6 cloves garlic
bunch green onions, chopped

Cut the children?s butts and the beef roast into pieces
that will

with whole roasted children replete with apples in mouths -
and babies? heads stuffed with wild rice. Or keep it simple with a
hearty main course such as stew, lasagna, or meat loaf.

Some suggestions

Pre-mie pot pies, beef stew, leg of lamb, stuffed chicken, roast pork spiral ham,
Cranberry pineapple salad, sweet potatoes in butter, vegetable platter, tossed salad with tomato and avocado, parsley new potatoes, spinich cucumber salad, fruit salad
Bran muffins, dinner rolls, soft breadsticks, rice pilaf, croissants
Apple cake with rum sauce, frosted banana nut bread sherbet, home made brownies
Iced tea, water, beer, bloody marys, lemonade, coffee

The guests select food, beverages, silverware... everything from the buffet table.
They move to wherever they are comfortable, and sit with whoever they choose.
Provide trays so your guests will not spill everything all over your house from
carrying too much, nor will they have to make 10 trips back and fourth from the
service stations.



Roast Leg of Amputee

By all means, substitute lamb or a good beef roast if the haunch
it is in any way diseased. But sometimes surgeons make mistakes,
and if a healthy young limb is at hand, then don?t hesitate to cook
it to perfection!

1 high quality limb, rack, or roast
Potatoes, carrot
Oil
celery
onions
green onions
parsley
garlic
salt, pepper, etc
2 cups beef stock

Marinate meat (optional, not necessary with better cuts).
Season liberally and lace w

Michael Mossey wrote:
Current audio systems do not reproduce the entire wavefront that
creates the listener's experience in the concert hall. At best, they
measure a few channels and reproduce those, inexactly, through a few
speakers.

Yet the playback experience can be enjoyable and thrilling. Obviously
something of the original sonic event is preserved. Something of the
original time-evolving spectrum of sonic energy is reproduced.

Ignoring for now the question of reproducing a wavefront, let's look
at just how the signal in one channel is handled. It can be quite
distorted and yet still recognizable. What aspects of a signal must
be preserved for it to be recognizable? What aspects must be
preserved for it to sound good, and to sound very much like the
original signal?

Engineers have addressed this question in many ways, for example
designing compression algorithms. Some details of the original signal
can be thrown away without losing much, perceptually.

MP3's sound sorta like the orignal files. I'm interested in
addressing the question "what makes an accurate signal" at a higher
level of quality than that.

For example, I've always preferred analog sources to digital, finding
the former more lifelike. Does an analog recorder preserve some
aspect of the signal better than a digital recorder? I know that
many of you will say categorically not. Fine. Let's look anyway at
one aspect of the signal.

Intuitively, a musical signal is made of many "events"...for example
attacks of notes. Intuitively I hear even sustained notes as made of
events...little shifts of timbre, and so on. This idea is confirmed
when we look at an audio signal and see periodic spikes, and also
confirmed by the success of "granular synthesis" (a technique for
synthesizing sustained sounds by summing many individual wavelets).

Perhaps an important dimension of accurate sound reproduction is the
accurate reproduction of the *relative timing* of these events. To
clarify, perhaps we could conceive of each event as being recognized
by the neural machinery and triggering a neuron to fire. And
something about the pattern of this firing, the timing contained
therein, is important to defining the sound quality.

How does a particular recording/playback process affect the timing of
transients? Recording processes are sometimes characterized in terms
of frequency response. Digital has a very flat response in the region
audible to the ear, meaning it doesn't introduce much distortion.
However, it does introduce some distortion. And if we were somehow
able to examine the relative firing times of neurons in response to a
recorded/played-back signal, how much would a digital playback process
distort those times? How much would an analog process distort those
times?

This is not a question about jitter. Certainly jitter is one
distortion mechanism in digital (and analog) playback, but this more
about how even a linear playback system will distort transients
because it is band-limited. Changing the shape of the transient will
likely have a small effect on neural timing. Both digital and analog
recording processes distort the shape of the transient, but perhaps
one of them does so in a way that better preserves the relative
timing of neural events.

My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing
of neural events. However, I would need to know more about
neuroscience and non-linear systems to have a good answer to this, but
perhaps someone reading is interested.


These are your speculations. I deny your whole idea.
You can test it yourself. Use your turntable and play one of your favourite
tunes. At the same time record from the tape out receptacle with your
soundcard. Keep the level low, like -12dB so there is some headroom. Then
burn s CD from the wave-file.
Now you can set up a comparison. I do this with a small mixer, but you can
switch also on your (pre)amp, if you fade out before switching and then
adjust the volume knob, so both sources have exactly the same volume. Start
the CD first and pause it at a significant point, so you can synchronize the
two sources.
Try to listen carefully if there is any difference.
Do this with a friend without you knowing which is which.

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

"Both digital and analog
recording processes distort the shape of the transient, but perhaps one
of them does so in a way that better preserves the relative timing of
neural events.

My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing of
neural events. However, I would need to know more about neuroscience and
non-linear systems to have a good answer to this, but"

There is a simple test, record an analog source unto a digital one and
using listening alone see if they can be distinguished. We can save
time, it was done and they can not.

First the differences have to be audible.

Nonetheless, it is generally the case that if a device has a well
behaved frequency response curve, then it probably doesn't distort
transients very much. Of course you can concoct devices which disobey
this rule (such as echo chambers and goofy filters), but I don't think
they are typically part of a basic audio recorder.

There is a widespread misconception that something is lost in between
the data points measured by a digital recorder. This is not the case.
If the input signal is bandwidth-limited by reasonable analog means,
then the digital data accurately preserves *all* of the temporal
content. (Other experts on this forum can probably state this more
precisely).

Chances are, digital does a better job of preserving timing because the
phase response can be quite flat. Hope this helps.

Michael Mossey wrote:

My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing
of neural events. However, I would need to know more about
neuroscience and non-linear systems to have a good answer to this,
but
perhaps someone reading is interested.