[Rob Tweed]

On 15 Nov 2008 17:13:30 GMT, "C. Leeds" wrote:


You are starting to sound very bitter. Sour grapes, perhaps?


Not at all. I just find it all laughable that anyone can be so daft as
to spend so much money on .....well, on what? Each to their own I
suppose, but isn't it great that these days you actually don't have to
be taken in by such twaddle and still get great sound for only a small
outlay of cash.


---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[C. Leeds]

in
Rob Tweed wrote (about Wadia components):

...I just find it all laughable that anyone can be so daft as
to spend so much money on .....well, on what?

Clearly, it's a lot of money for you to spend on an audio component.
Perhaps it doesn't seem like a lot of money to others. It's interesting
that you participate in a high end newsgroup, yet consider this sort of
equipment "laughable." After all, people spend all sorts of money on all
sorts of luxury products.

...isn't it great that these days you actually don't have to
be taken in by such twaddle...

For some audiophiles, the "twaddle" is cheapie, disposable audio equipment.

[C. Leeds]

Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all. And Arny's remark overlooks a
simple truth about most vinylphiles: in addition to LPs, we also listen
to things like CDs and even iPods.

Yesterday, I listened to a tape on a Tandberg TD20A reel-to-reel. It's
an historic recording. Perhaps someday I'll bother to transfer it to
digital, for convenience. More likely, I'll use the time to listen to
something else rather than fiddle about.

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 15, 5:22*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Given that you eschew the personal application of bias-controlled listening
techniques Harry, how do we know that your perceptions are due to the
technology, as compared to your biases?

With apologies in advance to the moderators:

Because, for the record, it %^&*() doesn't matter.

When you actually get that point, you*just* might be able to enjoy the
hobby for itself - rather than attempting to spread anger and
stupidity because you cannot enjoy it otherwise.

Harry has his point of view. Whether you agree with it or not, it
remains his and is valid for him. I truly hope that he doesn't give a
tinker's dam for your opinion(s) as it (they) are entirely worthless
outside of your tiny little world.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Mike Gilmour[_2_]]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is their undying hatred for
digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all. And Arny's remark overlooks a
simple truth about most vinylphiles: in addition to LPs, we also listen to
things like CDs and even iPods.

Yesterday, I listened to a tape on a Tandberg TD20A reel-to-reel. It's an
historic recording. Perhaps someday I'll bother to transfer it to digital,
for convenience. More likely, I'll use the time to listen to something
else rather than fiddle about.

Well said. I also find many vinylphiles listen to CDs as well as to other
formats within their music collection.
I listen to both vinyl, CD, RTR, DAT even some cassettes from time to time,
dependant where the music I want to listen to is as some recordings are not
available on the required format. Yesterday I listened to the voice of Josef
Locke on both LP and LP, the quality was poor but just as expected,
enjoyable nevertheless. However when I played Paul Robeson (The Special
Magic of ....) - excellent recording btw - it again showed me again what it
was all about!
My enjoyment comes from primarily from the music but it really is a bonus
when it's well recorded and mastered to give some reality to imaging, stage
width x depth. Hey, its just an enjoyable hobby, nothing to get hung up
about - lifes too short for that!

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:13:30 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

in
Rob Tweed wrote:

Come on now, let's admit it. Wadia will actually justify its price to
dimwits with more money than sense...

I don't know if that's true or not. Some audiophiles just don't like
cheapie audio equipment, and they have the money to afford gear that's
better built. That their values (and perhaps bank accounts) aren't the
same as yours doesn't necessarily make either of you "dimwits" or
lacking in common sense.

...who want to flaunt their wealth...

I don't know how putting an expensive audio component in a listening
room equates with "flaunting wealth." Not many people are ever likely to
see it.

and who assume that if it costs that much money, includes that much
apparently important technology and looks that good, then it *must* be
better...

You're just guessing, aren't you? You don't really know that this is
what Wadia purchasers think.

...people who don't realise that you don't even *need* a CD
player these days if you just rip your CDs into ITunes or whatever on
a PC-based music system or streaming media system....

It's quite likely that Wadia purchasers are aware of these technologies.

....so they won't need
to clutter up their opulent designer furniture with 15lbs of thick
brushed aluminium with loads of nasty cables poking out of it.

You are starting to sound very bitter. Sour grapes, perhaps?

Errrr.....hands up any readers with a Wadia?

Not me.


Me neither, but I do have a Sony XA777ES SACD player which was a high-end
player when new. It meets all of my CD/SACD needs

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:49:24 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 15 Nov 2008 17:13:30 GMT, "C. Leeds" wrote:


You are starting to sound very bitter. Sour grapes, perhaps?


Not at all. I just find it all laughable that anyone can be so daft as
to spend so much money on .....well, on what? Each to their own I
suppose, but isn't it great that these days you actually don't have to
be taken in by such twaddle and still get great sound for only a small
outlay of cash.

It is great, but OTOH, its also great to have the choice of being able to
purchase "nice things" if one chooses.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:10:55 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


in
wrote:

As you have demonstrated with your invention of terms
like "measurementalist rituals" and other examples.

I did not invent the term "measurementalist," but merely
rediscovered it after perusing some old r.a.h-e posts. I
think it's a fine word, though, to describe those for
whom measurements are more important than any other
aspect of audio.

If those people even exist. Speaking for myself, the love of music and the
sensation of recorded events proceeded my appreciation for measurements.
Measurements are a well-known, well-respected and highly effective means for
obtaining high quality sonic reproduction.

I understand that there are people who have phobias related to audio
measurements and bias-controlled listening tests.

There are also people who do not care about those things and simply enjoy the
music through components that they bought because they wanted them.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:25:53 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

in
Rob Tweed wrote (about Wadia components):

...I just find it all laughable that anyone can be so daft as
to spend so much money on .....well, on what?

Clearly, it's a lot of money for you to spend on an audio component.
Perhaps it doesn't seem like a lot of money to others. It's interesting
that you participate in a high end newsgroup, yet consider this sort of
equipment "laughable." After all, people spend all sorts of money on all
sorts of luxury products.

...isn't it great that these days you actually don't have to
be taken in by such twaddle...

For some audiophiles, the "twaddle" is cheapie, disposable audio equipment.

There is a lot of psychology involved in this aspect of consumerism. There is
a such thing as something being "too cheap" and there is an aspect of wealth
that makes wealthy people gravitate toward the "high-end' of everything.
Believe me, to a very rich person, spending $100,000 on a pair of speakers,
or $30,000 on an amplifier, or $4 million on a classic Ferrari at auction
won't change their lifestyle one iota. They will no more miss that money than
you or I would miss that quarter that fell out of our pocket and rolled down
between the cushions of our seat. That being the case, why buy cheap when
expensive and cheap are all the same to your particular pocketbook?

[Rob Tweed]

On 16 Nov 2008 15:25:53 GMT, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Clearly, it's a lot of money for you to spend on an audio component.
Perhaps it doesn't seem like a lot of money to others. It's interesting
that you participate in a high end newsgroup, yet consider this sort of
equipment "laughable." After all, people spend all sorts of money on all
sorts of luxury products.


Ahah! So that's it. High End newsgroup means "luxury high end cost
newsgroup", not "high end sound quality regardless of whether or not
it costs much" newsgroup, eh?

In that case maybe it's time I left

[moderator's note: the Guidelines state " Price is generally not
significant in determining whether or not a given component may be
considered 'high-end'." -- dsr]

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:12:42 -0800, Mike Gilmour wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is their undying hatred for
digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all. And Arny's remark overlooks a
simple truth about most vinylphiles: in addition to LPs, we also listen to
things like CDs and even iPods.

Yesterday, I listened to a tape on a Tandberg TD20A reel-to-reel. It's an
historic recording. Perhaps someday I'll bother to transfer it to digital,
for convenience. More likely, I'll use the time to listen to something
else rather than fiddle about.

Well said. I also find many vinylphiles listen to CDs as well as to other
formats within their music collection.
I listen to both vinyl, CD, RTR, DAT even some cassettes from time to time,
dependant where the music I want to listen to is as some recordings are not
available on the required format. Yesterday I listened to the voice of Josef
Locke on both LP and LP, the quality was poor but just as expected,
enjoyable nevertheless. However when I played Paul Robeson (The Special
Magic of ....) - excellent recording btw - it again showed me again what it
was all about!
My enjoyment comes from primarily from the music but it really is a bonus
when it's well recorded and mastered to give some reality to imaging, stage
width x depth. Hey, its just an enjoyable hobby, nothing to get hung up
about - lifes too short for that!



Exactly. I find the fact that I can get pleasure out of listening to an LP,
as well as a CD or an SACD, or a DVD-A or even a reel-to-reel tape or a DAT
to be positive thing, not a negative thing as Arny and some others seem to
think. And when I say I get pleasure from these "obsolete" technologies, I
don't just mean because the artist or performance is NOT available on CD, I
mean that I actually enjoy the SOUND from an LP or a R-to-R tape because they
can sound GOOD.

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern SOTA, or
the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself. The LP format has to
look way upstairs when it casts its technical gaze on a well-exploited
iPod.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Nov 15, 5:22 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Given that you eschew the personal application of
bias-controlled listening techniques Harry, how do we
know that your perceptions are due to the technology, as
compared to your biases?

With apologies in advance to the moderators:

Because, for the record, it %^&*() doesn't matter.

It is true that for some people, Solipisism is the only life's philosopy
that they can understand.

When you actually get that point, you*just* might be able
to enjoy the hobby for itself

Depends where one thinks that the audio hobby is about making one's own
perceptions the center of the universe, and forcing everybody else to agree
with you or suffer insult.

rather than attempting to
spread anger and stupidity because you cannot enjoy it otherwise.

?????????????

Harry has his point of view.

It is solipsism.

Whether you agree with it or
not, it remains his and is valid for him.

Believe it or not, I have no problems with that.

People who cannot see the need for a larger view, a reliable view that many
can share, do have the right to identify themselves.

I truly hope that he doesn't give a tinker's dam for your opinion(s)
as it (they) are entirely worthless outside of your tiny little world.

The tinyist world is a world that is defined by only one's own perceptions.
Society is based on agreements, shared experiences and shared opinions.
Solipsism can never lead there. It is the tyrany of self over one's image of
others.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern SOTA, or
the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself. The LP format has to
look way upstairs when it casts its technical gaze on a well-exploited
iPod.


It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic pleasure from it, but MP3
makes me grit my teeth. It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who tells
me that they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me that they cannot
hear. No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is that they can
tolerate different kinds of distortion than I can. I don't mind a little
surface noise, a few ticks and pops, etc. but the digital artifacts of MP3
ruin the music for me. I suspect that someone who prefers MP3 over LP, finds
the digital artifacts acceptable and the LP noises unacceptable. I guess
that's what makes horse-races. :-)

[Rob Tweed]

On 17 Nov 2008 03:14:14 GMT, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern SOTA, or
the best recordings possible.


I'm with you there, Arny!

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[Rob Tweed]

On 16 Nov 2008 22:22:28 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:49:24 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 15 Nov 2008 17:13:30 GMT, "C. Leeds" wrote:


You are starting to sound very bitter. Sour grapes, perhaps?


Not at all. I just find it all laughable that anyone can be so daft as
to spend so much money on .....well, on what? Each to their own I
suppose, but isn't it great that these days you actually don't have to
be taken in by such twaddle and still get great sound for only a small
outlay of cash.

It is great, but OTOH, its also great to have the choice of being able to
purchase "nice things" if one chooses.

Yes I've no problem with people knowingly and willingly throwing their
money away on "nice things" that do no more than low price commodity
items. But let's recognise that's all they are these days -
unecessary, trumped up "nice things": ie luxury items.

Personally I'll use that surplus cash for other rather more necessary
purposes thank you, but it doesn't make me any less interested in
obtaining high-end sound.

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

Exactly. I find the fact that I can get pleasure out of
listening to an LP, as well as a CD or an SACD, or a
DVD-A or even a reel-to-reel tape or a DAT to be positive
thing, not a negative thing as Arny and some others seem
to think.

Again the failure to communicate rears its ugly head.

The issue is not whether one can get pleasure out of legacy audio, but
whether it compares to modern alternatives or is even as has been asserted
here lately over and over again, has superior sound quality.

And when I say I get pleasure from these
"obsolete" technologies, I don't just mean because the
artist or performance is NOT available on CD, I mean that
I actually enjoy the SOUND from an LP or a R-to-R tape
because they can sound GOOD.

I didn't think that high end audio is about sounding merely good, or good
enough. I thought that superior sound quality was of the essence.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Nov 15, 5:22 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Given that you eschew the personal application of
bias-controlled listening techniques Harry, how do we
know that your perceptions are due to the technology, as
compared to your biases?

With apologies in advance to the moderators:

Because, for the record, it %^&*() doesn't matter.

It is true that for some people, Solipisism is the only life's philosopy
that they can understand.

When you actually get that point, you*just* might be able
to enjoy the hobby for itself

Depends where one thinks that the audio hobby is about making one's own
perceptions the center of the universe, and forcing everybody else to
agree
with you or suffer insult.

rather than attempting to
spread anger and stupidity because you cannot enjoy it otherwise.

?????????????

Harry has his point of view.

It is solipsism.

Whether you agree with it or
not, it remains his and is valid for him.

Believe it or not, I have no problems with that.

People who cannot see the need for a larger view, a reliable view that
many
can share, do have the right to identify themselves.

I truly hope that he doesn't give a tinker's dam for your opinion(s)
as it (they) are entirely worthless outside of your tiny little world.

The tinyist world is a world that is defined by only one's own
perceptions.
Society is based on agreements, shared experiences and shared opinions.
Solipsism can never lead there. It is the tyrany of self over one's image
of
others.

************************************8

Arny, once again you are attacking people's motives and personality because
they do not agree with your own view of the world, so let me set the record
straight.

* You do not know me. Those who do, know that I am not a solipsist. Not
even close.
* What I am, in Jungian terms, is an introverted intuitive-extraverted
thinking-judgemental type (INTJ). That means I am good at dealing with the
external world in a logical fashion (my dominant function), and I have a
capacity to "connecting the dots" in that world in an original fashion (my
secondary function). That "connection" may be highly accurate but not
widely perceived by others, or it may be wildly wrong. To know which is
true requires a scientific test.
* What drives you crazy is that I don't accept your ABX test as the
ultimate arbiter to determine whether or not differences exist in gear that
helps reproduce music. You claim that since you and your fellow engineers
accept it, I am out of line and that my line of reasoning is, in fact,
"wildly wrong".
* I don't accept it because of what we know about music....that it is a
perception of the arrangement of sound that has meaning to us as
humans...even to the point of being hard-wired into our brains in some
respect. Yet ABX attempts to measure differences DIRECTLY and CONSCIOUSLY
rather than indirectly, which is how you have to measure a compiicated
psychological perception. Context matters, and having a test that focus
conscious thought as opposed to holistic reaction is a flawed test, since it
presents an intervening variable which we KNOW changes perception.
* As partial refutation that I am a solipsist, I freely acknowledge that
others have recognized and formulated this same objection. Recognizing that
ideas exist in an external reality other than oneself runs counter to every
definition of solipsism. Moreover, if I were a solipsist, I wouldn't be
stating that something exists "in the brain" since I wouldn't believe the
brain existed. Essentially, you are name-calling and accusing me of
"pathological solipsism" which is another (not widely accepted) term for
extreme ecocentrism. Thank you very much (and moderators....????).
* The fact remains that NOBODY has done the kind of testing necessary to
validate ABX as a test for determining if it is capable of catching all
meaningful musical experience, much less differentiating between two pieces
of gear under test. Such differences are likely to make themselves known
only as fleeting holistic impressions, and the more subtle, the less
frequent they will appear. And under conscious scrutiny they may not exist
at all. BUT, this doesn't mean they don't exist in the world of music
reproduction.

So there we are. You think one thing. I think another. I am in the
minority. Does that make me wrong? No. Can I prove myself right? No.
Could I lay out the kinds of testing that could prove myself right or wrong?
Yes! I have done so at some length in theis forum several years ago, and
have touched up it several times in other forums as well, under the general
rubric of "validation testing". I will not be drawn into any such lengthy
discussion again, since it is moot...such testing requires a large budget
and is logistically such a nightmare that it will probably never be
undertaken.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being
the modern SOTA, or the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself.
The LP format has to look way upstairs when it casts its
technical gaze on a well-exploited iPod.


It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic
pleasure from it, but MP3 makes me grit my teeth.

Until its shown otherwise, that could easily be accurately attributed to
personal biases.

It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who tells me that
they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me that
they cannot hear.

Pardon me while I take advantage of the opportunity to not let your
prejudices rule my life. If you want to insult me by implication with
broad-brush statements like that, please be my guest. However, you do so at
considerable risk to your credibility.

Here, enjoy your shoes, with a bit of polishing to make them modern:

"It's funny. I can listen to MP3s and get great sonic pleasure from them
but LPs make me grit my teeth.
It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who tells me that they'd rather
listen to LP rather than MP3 has just told me that they cannot hear."

If I went back 30 years, I was saying:

"It's funny. I can listen to LPs and get great sonic pleasure from them but
cassettes make me grit my teeth.
Cassettes are just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who tells me that they'd
rather listen to a cassette rather than a LP has just told me that they
cannot hear."

OTOH, a good 2 track 15 ips master has always been a thing of beauty to me.
The good news is that I can get even better sound quality from a $25 digital
audio interface than a $15,000 two track analog recorder.

Truth be known, I can invariably tell when some good piece of music has been
through the LP sonic Mixmaster, even if I hear it off of a CD, even if it
has been nicely denoised.

Furthermore, I've never had any problems hearing differences during blind
tests comparing a commercial CD with a CD that was made from the same basic
recording transcribed from a LP. Level matching, time-synching, and
addressing such prejudices as I might have, don't change the outcome. The LP
format is like cassettes, in that the violence that it does to good music is
fortunately a thing of the past.

OTOH, if I have to compare a well-made 320 K MP3 to the CD it was made from
properly; in a blind, level matched, time synched test, it is tough going,
both for both me and just about everybody else on this planet. Good
carefully-run comparisons have always been big ego busters for people who
overestimate their hearing abilities, and it seems like they always will.

And of course, when I've done similar blind comparisons involving so-called
high resolution recordings downsampled to the CD's format, again reliably
hearing differences just doesn't happen. Oh, I may think I'm hearing a
difference, but random guessing shows up like a sore thumb. This is true
both for both me and just about everybody else on this planet.

The big difference between the few of us with serious blind listening test
experience under our belts is that we were at least brave enough to put our
perceptions to the test. For our trouble, we obtained valuable practical
knowledge about what matters and what doesn't.

[vlad]

On Nov 17, 5:22*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):



"C. Leeds" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern SOTA, or
the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself. The LP format has to
look way upstairs when it casts its technical *gaze on a well-exploited
iPod.

It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic pleasure from it, but MP3
makes me grit my teeth. It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who tells
me that they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me that they cannot
hear. No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is that they can
tolerate different kinds of distortion than I can. I don't mind a little
surface noise, a few ticks and pops, etc. but the digital artifacts of MP3
ruin the music for me. I suspect that someone who prefers MP3 over LP, finds
the digital artifacts acceptable and the LP noises unacceptable. I guess
that's what makes horse-races. :-)

You are trying to create impression that "little surface noise, a few
ticks and pops" is all that is added by LP to the original sound.

LP itself has multiple well documented distortions. Cartridge adds its
own distortions. So it is something different from what mastering
engineer intended you to hear. If you like it on not it is the matter
of your personal preference. For me knowing all this destroys
illusion of the "sweet" sound of LP.

I understand that you can live with these distortions (and respect
it :-), but at least do not pretend that "clicks and pops" is the only
thing that separates LP from the perfect reproduction of the sound.

vova

[[email protected]]

On Nov 17, 10:06�am, vlad wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:22�am, Sonnova wrote:


LP itself has multiple well documented distortions. Cartridge adds its
own distortions. So it is something different from what mastering
engineer intended you to hear.

If you are listening to a different system than the one used by the
mastering engineer then you are hearing something different than what
the mastering engineer intended you to hear. And that is in a
"perfect" world. In reality things are not nearly so pure or so
simple. The fact is in the days when LPs dominated the market the
sound of LP test pressing was the final reference point used for the
artists and producers to judge. Not the master tape. This judgement
process was also in and of itself most often a matter of compramise.
Any notion that artsists, recording engineers and mastering engineers
are all omnipotent masters in complete control of their medium and can
regularly turn out exactly what they invision without compramise is a
bit of a naive assumption on the part of any consumers. In the messy
real world artist's intent, mastering engineer's intent etc etc are
far too elusive and indeterminable to cite as any meaningful
reference.
Even worse, we now live in an age where most commercial music is
dominated by that plague known as the loudness wars. I doubt many of
the mastering engineers get much chance these days to really master
CDs they way they would want to consumer to hear them. an appeal to
artist's or recording engineer's or mastering engineer's intent is
meaningless without hearing directly from those individuals.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:23:02 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 16 Nov 2008 22:22:28 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:49:24 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 15 Nov 2008 17:13:30 GMT, "C. Leeds" wrote:


You are starting to sound very bitter. Sour grapes, perhaps?


Not at all. I just find it all laughable that anyone can be so daft as
to spend so much money on .....well, on what? Each to their own I
suppose, but isn't it great that these days you actually don't have to
be taken in by such twaddle and still get great sound for only a small
outlay of cash.

It is great, but OTOH, its also great to have the choice of being able to
purchase "nice things" if one chooses.

Yes I've no problem with people knowingly and willingly throwing their
money away on "nice things" that do no more than low price commodity
items. But let's recognise that's all they are these days -
unecessary, trumped up "nice things": ie luxury items.

Personally I'll use that surplus cash for other rather more necessary
purposes thank you, but it doesn't make me any less interested in
obtaining high-end sound.

Most of us have to live within budgets, but there are people who don't and
that's who I was talking about. To make an odious comparison, a Honda FIT
will get one anywhere that any car will go, yet many people still buy Rolls
Royces and Jaguars, and Mercedes-Benz and BMWs, etc.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:21:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Nov 15, 5:22 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Given that you eschew the personal application of
bias-controlled listening techniques Harry, how do we
know that your perceptions are due to the technology, as
compared to your biases?

With apologies in advance to the moderators:

Because, for the record, it %^&*() doesn't matter.

It is true that for some people, Solipisism is the only life's philosopy
that they can understand.

When you actually get that point, you*just* might be able
to enjoy the hobby for itself

Depends where one thinks that the audio hobby is about making one's own
perceptions the center of the universe, and forcing everybody else to agree
with you or suffer insult.

rather than attempting to
spread anger and stupidity because you cannot enjoy it otherwise.

?????????????

Harry has his point of view.

It is solipsism.

Pot-kettle-black.

Whether you agree with it or
not, it remains his and is valid for him.

Believe it or not, I have no problems with that.

People who cannot see the need for a larger view, a reliable view that many
can share, do have the right to identify themselves.

I think I have a larger view, yet I agree with Harry's conclusions about this
particular subject because I believe that he is 100% correct and that you are
simply being a contrarian on this issue.

I truly hope that he doesn't give a tinker's dam for your opinion(s)
as it (they) are entirely worthless outside of your tiny little world.

The tinyist world is a world that is defined by only one's own perceptions.
Society is based on agreements, shared experiences and shared opinions.
Solipsism can never lead there. It is the tyrany of self over one's image of
others.

You might do well to keep that in mind, Arny, as you dismiss, out of hand,
things that you don't seem to have any direct experience with.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Nov 15, 5:22 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Given that you eschew the personal application of
bias-controlled listening techniques Harry, how do we
know that your perceptions are due to the technology,
as compared to your biases?

With apologies in advance to the moderators:

Because, for the record, it %^&*() doesn't matter.

It is true that for some people, Solipisism is the only
life's philosophy that they can understand.

When you actually get that point, you*just* might be
able
to enjoy the hobby for itself

Depends where one thinks that the audio hobby is about
making one's own perceptions the center of the universe,
and forcing everybody else to agree
with you or suffer insult.

rather than attempting to
spread anger and stupidity because you cannot enjoy it
otherwise.

?????????????

Harry has his point of view.

It is solipsism.

Whether you agree with it or
not, it remains his and is valid for him.

Believe it or not, I have no problems with that.

People who cannot see the need for a larger view, a
reliable view that many
can share, do have the right to identify themselves.

I truly hope that he doesn't give a tinker's dam for
your opinion(s) as it (they) are entirely worthless
outside of your tiny little world.

The tiniest world is a world that is defined by only
one's own perceptions.
Society is based on agreements, shared experiences and
shared opinions. Solipsism can never lead there. It is
the tyranny of self over one's image of
others.

************************************8

Arny, once again you are attacking people's motives and
personality because they do not agree with your own view
of the world,

As if that isn't an attack on motives and personality.

so let me set the record straight.

* You do not know me. Those who do, know that I am not
a solipsist. Not even close.

One of the behaviors of a solipsist is that the universe exists only in his
mind. If he perceives something, it must be so.

Applied to audio, a listener who practices solipsism has no need for
measurements or bias-controlled listening tests because the universe is
always as the solipsist naively perceives it to be. The concepts of illusion
and veridical are irrelevant.

* What I am, in Jungian terms, is an introverted
intuitive-extraverted thinking-judgmental type (INTJ).

Irrelevant on the grounds that it does not necessarily bear on the presence
or absence of solipsism.

Solipsists may or may not be intuitive and/or extraverted and/or thinking
and/or judgmental.

That means I am good at dealing with the external world
in a logical fashion (my dominant function),

That would appear to be inconsistent with your posts. The
generally-agreed-up and dominant logical way to deal with the external world
is called science. Science is about making judgments that take advantage of
available means to be as comprehensive, reliable and bias-free as possible.
One would expect to find an audiophile who wants to be logical to be relying
on existing science, scientific listening tests, and scientific measurements
as much as is possible.

and I have a
capacity to "connecting the dots" in that world in an
original fashion (my secondary function).

That would be consistent with your posts, only the world that you perform
this in seems to be intentionally disconnected from the world where modern
science rules. The world you report on seems to be based on naive
perceptions.

That "connection" may be highly accurate but not widely
perceived by others, or it may be wildly wrong.

It appears to be a very personal world, as opposed to the mainstream world
where science rules.

To know
which is true requires a scientific test. *

Been there, done that. Kept abreast of modern relevant scientific journals
and forums in order to optimize that.

What drives
you crazy is that I don't accept your ABX test as the
ultimate arbiter to determine whether or not differences
exist in gear that helps reproduce music.

Not at all. First off, I'm not crazy. I'm not inconsistent with the
mainstream professional world of audio. I'm not unhappy or sick, or unable
to maintain close relationships, hold a job, nor am I significantly
dysfunctional in any way.

Secondly, I'm not married to ABX, nor is it the only evaluation technique
that I practice. It is all about the proper tool for the job at hand. This
contrasts with people who abhor the use of any modern evaluation tools, e.g.
people who have bad dreams about "measurementalists".

You claim that since you and your fellow engineers accept it, I am out
of line and that my line of reasoning is, in fact,
"wildly wrong". *

Thanks Harry for admitting that your beliefs are at odds with current and
recent trends in audio engineering.

I don't accept it because of what we
know about music....that it is a perception of the
arrangement of sound that has meaning to us as
humans...even to the point of being hard-wired into our
brains in some respect.

I accept it exactly because of what we
know about music....that it is a perception of the
arrangement of sound that has meaning to us as
humans...even to the point of being hard-wired into our
brains in some respect.

Yet ABX attempts to measure
differences DIRECTLY and CONSCIOUSLY rather than
indirectly, which is how you have to measure a
complicated psychological perception.

You're inventing new age science. I've been reading Jourdain's book about
music and the brain, and it contains a lot of information that supports many
of the things we've found out about how people listen to differences between
audio gear.

Context matters,

There's no evidence that making a test reliable has to disrupt the musical
context.

and having a test that focus conscious thought as opposed
to holistic reaction is a flawed test,

No matter, music is written and arranged and played and listened to
consciously.

And, there is no evidence that people's responses to bias-controlled
listening tests need not be based on holistic reactions. In fact, that's how
many if not all listeners do it best.

since it presents
an intervening variable which we KNOW changes perception.

That criticism applies to any listening evaluation that is known by the
listener to be a listening evaluation.

* As partial refutation that I am a solipsist, I freely
acknowledge that others have recognized and formulated
this same objection.

I believe that JJ introduced the idea some years back.

Recognizing that ideas exist in an
external reality other than oneself runs counter to every
definition of solipsism.

That can be nothing more than lip service.

Moreover, if I were a
solipsist, I wouldn't be stating that something exists
"in the brain" since I wouldn't believe the brain
existed.

I suggest that you reread a formal definition of solipsism:

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

"Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that
"My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an
epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside
the mind is unjustified. "

Solipsists by definition believe that their minds or if you will, their
brains exist.

Essentially, you are name-calling and accusing
me of "pathological solipsism" which is another (not
widely accepted) term for extreme egocentrism.

This is very solipsistic of you. You are claiming that I am as you believe,
without reference to any evidence outside of your mind.

Thank you
very much (and moderators....????). * The fact remains
that NOBODY has done the kind of testing necessary to
validate ABX as a test for determining if it is capable
of catching all meaningful musical experience,

That's not required because we test equipment, not music.

much less
differentiating between two pieces of gear under test.

Outside of your mind Harry, we do have quite a bit of testing of
differentiating between two piece of gear providing that there are any other
sound technical reasons to believe that they should sound different.

Such differences are likely to make themselves known only
as fleeting holistic impressions, and the more subtle,
the less frequent they will appear.

That's why ABX tests can be composed of many trials extending over
arbitrarily long time periods.

And under conscious
scrutiny they may not exist at all.

That's a hypothesis, not a proven fact.

BUT, this doesn't
mean they don't exist in the world of music reproduction.

Now you're criticizing scientific listening testing on the grounds that they
can't prove negative hypothesis. Of course, nobody with a clue about science
will fall into that trap.

So there we are. You think one thing. I think another.

We reach conclusions very differently, yes.

I am in the minority. Does that make me wrong? No.

Appeal to a truism noted.

Can I prove myself right? No.

Futility noted.

Could I lay out the kinds of
testing that could prove myself right or wrong? Yes!

What we don't know is whether you would accept results obtained that way if
you disagreed with them.

I have done so at some length in thesis forum several years
ago, and have touched up it several times in other forums
as well, under the general rubric of "validation
testing".

What I've seen is an attempt to avoid accepting outside authorities by
obliging them to jump through any number of expensive hoops that they are
unlikely to jump through.

I will not be drawn into any such lengthy
discussion again, since it is moot...such testing
requires a large budget and is logistically such a
nightmare that it will probably never be undertaken.

Exactly. It's a nightmare that was created to avoid the more significant
personal nightmare of admitting that much that has been claimed has already
been widely discredited by mainstream science and technology.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:32:46 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Nov 15, 5:22 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Given that you eschew the personal application of
bias-controlled listening techniques Harry, how do we
know that your perceptions are due to the technology, as
compared to your biases?

With apologies in advance to the moderators:

Because, for the record, it %^&*() doesn't matter.

It is true that for some people, Solipisism is the only life's philosopy
that they can understand.

When you actually get that point, you*just* might be able
to enjoy the hobby for itself

Depends where one thinks that the audio hobby is about making one's own
perceptions the center of the universe, and forcing everybody else to
agree
with you or suffer insult.

rather than attempting to
spread anger and stupidity because you cannot enjoy it otherwise.

?????????????

Harry has his point of view.

It is solipsism.

Whether you agree with it or
not, it remains his and is valid for him.

Believe it or not, I have no problems with that.

People who cannot see the need for a larger view, a reliable view that
many
can share, do have the right to identify themselves.

I truly hope that he doesn't give a tinker's dam for your opinion(s)
as it (they) are entirely worthless outside of your tiny little world.

The tinyist world is a world that is defined by only one's own
perceptions.
Society is based on agreements, shared experiences and shared opinions.
Solipsism can never lead there. It is the tyrany of self over one's image
of
others.

************************************8

Arny, once again you are attacking people's motives and personality because
they do not agree with your own view of the world, so let me set the record
straight.

* You do not know me. Those who do, know that I am not a solipsist. Not
even close.

If you are, I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it here. The irony is
that Arny seems to be exhibiting far more the very characteristics that he is
accusing you of exhibiting.

* What I am, in Jungian terms, is an introverted intuitive-extraverted
thinking-judgemental type (INTJ). That means I am good at dealing with the
external world in a logical fashion (my dominant function), and I have a
capacity to "connecting the dots" in that world in an original fashion (my
secondary function). That "connection" may be highly accurate but not
widely perceived by others, or it may be wildly wrong. To know which is
true requires a scientific test.

Reasonable.

* What drives you crazy is that I don't accept your ABX test as the
ultimate arbiter to determine whether or not differences exist in gear that
helps reproduce music. You claim that since you and your fellow engineers
accept it, I am out of line and that my line of reasoning is, in fact,
"wildly wrong".

Here I have to side with Arny. Logic would dictate that if, on direct
comparison, no statistically significant differences are detected, then it
stands to reason that none exist.

* I don't accept it because of what we know about music....that it is a
perception of the arrangement of sound that has meaning to us as
humans...even to the point of being hard-wired into our brains in some
respect. Yet ABX attempts to measure differences DIRECTLY and CONSCIOUSLY
rather than indirectly, which is how you have to measure a compiicated
psychological perception.

I'm afraid that you have lost me. I used to believe as you do that only long
term listening could reveal the often subtle nuances between electronic
components until two things occured:
1) I was shown that a disparate group of listeners (of which I was one) could
not reliably tell a $200 power amplifier from a highly touted and respected
$8000 amplifier of similar power. They sounded the same on sample after
sample of music.

2) I started to realize that the longer I listened with a "new" piece of
equipment in my "reference" system, (using the standard audiophile approach
of replacing, for instance, one's everyday or "reference" amp with the amp
under test) and then listening critically, the more I imagined that the new
amp was better, when in reality, in a controlled, double-blind test, they
were indistinguishable from one another.

Context matters, and having a test that focus
conscious thought as opposed to holistic reaction is a flawed test, since it
presents an intervening variable which we KNOW changes perception.

Knowing that the "new" component is new and different from the one regularly
in one's system definitely changes perceptions. Same with cables. They all
sound the same, but when ones puts an expensive set of speaker cables in
one's system, one EXPECTS them to sound different from the cables that they
replace, and so, they do.

Interesting case in point. The latest Absolute Sound has a "review" of some
treated plastic foam blocks cut so as to lift speaker cables off the floor.
Now this plastic foam seems to be the conducting kind often used to ship
integrated circuits to keep them from getting damaged by static electricity.
The company making these things has a "white paper'" full of more technical
gibberish than this engineer has seen in a 'coon's age. According to this
techno-babble, speaker cables lying on the floor build up a static potential
between the floor and the conductors in the cable equaling tens of thousands
of volts. The "white paper" goes on to say that using the "Unified Electric
Field Theory" (whatever the hell that is) this difference of potential
interacts with the audio signal going to the speakers and causes gross
intermodulation distortion! These blocks are sold by the dozen and a dozen of
them cost $300! The reviewer went on to say that they actually worked
(although he wasn't sure that it was because of what the manufacturer said
was happening)! IOW, expecting there to be a difference, he heard one. Of
course, its absolute rubbish, but I'll almost guarantee that anybody who buys
a set of these (or anybody else's) cable-lifts will hear a difference. The
difference doesn't exist, in fact, it can't exist, but buyers of this product
will hear one anyway!

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:12:37 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

Exactly. I find the fact that I can get pleasure out of
listening to an LP, as well as a CD or an SACD, or a
DVD-A or even a reel-to-reel tape or a DAT to be positive
thing, not a negative thing as Arny and some others seem
to think.

Again the failure to communicate rears its ugly head.

The issue is not whether one can get pleasure out of legacy audio, but
whether it compares to modern alternatives or is even as has been asserted
here lately over and over again, has superior sound quality.

It CAN have superior sound quality and several examples of where it ACTUALLY
DOES have superior sound quality have been provided.

And when I say I get pleasure from these
"obsolete" technologies, I don't just mean because the
artist or performance is NOT available on CD, I mean that
I actually enjoy the SOUND from an LP or a R-to-R tape
because they can sound GOOD.

I didn't think that high end audio is about sounding merely good, or good
enough. I thought that superior sound quality was of the essence.

When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end audio, IOW it has superior
sound quality in that it sounds more like real, live music, played in a real
space and has a you-are-there palpability that the average recording (even
digital) lacks.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:33:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being
the modern SOTA, or the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself.
The LP format has to look way upstairs when it casts its
technical gaze on a well-exploited iPod.


It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic
pleasure from it, but MP3 makes me grit my teeth.

Until its shown otherwise, that could easily be accurately attributed to
personal biases.

It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who tells me that
they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me that
they cannot hear.

Pardon me while I take advantage of the opportunity to not let your
prejudices rule my life. If you want to insult me by implication with
broad-brush statements like that, please be my guest. However, you do so at
considerable risk to your credibility.

Here, enjoy your shoes, with a bit of polishing to make them modern:

"It's funny. I can listen to MP3s and get great sonic pleasure from them
but LPs make me grit my teeth.
It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who tells me that they'd rather
listen to LP rather than MP3 has just told me that they cannot hear."

If I went back 30 years, I was saying:

"It's funny. I can listen to LPs and get great sonic pleasure from them but
cassettes make me grit my teeth.
Cassettes are just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who tells me that they'd
rather listen to a cassette rather than a LP has just told me that they
cannot hear."

OTOH, a good 2 track 15 ips master has always been a thing of beauty to me.
The good news is that I can get even better sound quality from a $25 digital
audio interface than a $15,000 two track analog recorder.

Truth be known, I can invariably tell when some good piece of music has been
through the LP sonic Mixmaster, even if I hear it off of a CD, even if it
has been nicely denoised.

Furthermore, I've never had any problems hearing differences during blind
tests comparing a commercial CD with a CD that was made from the same basic
recording transcribed from a LP. Level matching, time-synching, and
addressing such prejudices as I might have, don't change the outcome. The LP
format is like cassettes, in that the violence that it does to good music is
fortunately a thing of the past.

OTOH, if I have to compare a well-made 320 K MP3 to the CD it was made from
properly; in a blind, level matched, time synched test, it is tough going,
both for both me and just about everybody else on this planet. Good
carefully-run comparisons have always been big ego busters for people who
overestimate their hearing abilities, and it seems like they always will.

And of course, when I've done similar blind comparisons involving so-called
high resolution recordings downsampled to the CD's format, again reliably
hearing differences just doesn't happen. Oh, I may think I'm hearing a
difference, but random guessing shows up like a sore thumb. This is true
both for both me and just about everybody else on this planet.

The big difference between the few of us with serious blind listening test
experience under our belts is that we were at least brave enough to put our
perceptions to the test. For our trouble, we obtained valuable practical
knowledge about what matters and what doesn't.



How disingenuous of you to construct a strawman argument by omitting the rest
of my comments which modifies the above. To keep you honest, I continued my
above thought by saying:

"No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is that they can
tolerate different kinds of distortion than I can. I don't mind a little
surface noise, a few ticks and pops, etc. but the digital artifacts of MP3
ruin the music for me. I suspect that someone who prefers MP3 over LP, finds
the digital artifacts acceptable and the LP noises unacceptable. I guess
that's what makes horse-races. :-)"

One wonders why you would purposely omit the bulk of a comment which
completely disarms your above rant. Whatever the motivation, it certainly
strikes me as more than a little dishonest.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:22:40 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 17 Nov 2008 03:14:14 GMT, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern SOTA,
or
the best recordings possible.


I'm with you there, Arny!

Everyone agrees. Even mediocre digital is better than the best LP with a few
exceptions. These exceptions have been pointed out here, but Arny, without
having heard the LPs in question, has simply dismissed the whole idea out of
hand.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 17, 10:06�am, vlad
wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:22�am, Sonnova
wrote:


LP itself has multiple well documented distortions.
Cartridge adds its own distortions. So it is something
different from what mastering engineer intended you to
hear.

If you are listening to a different system than the one
used by the mastering engineer then you are hearing
something different than what the mastering engineer
intended you to hear. And that is in a "perfect" world.

So resolved, we'll use the highly colored and distorted LP format rather
than the sonically-transparent CD format so that those differences can be
multiplied and magnified, right?

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
Sonnova writes:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern SOTA, or
the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself. The LP format has to
look way upstairs when it casts its technical gaze on a well-exploited
iPod.


It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic pleasure from it, but MP3
makes me grit my teeth. It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who tells
me that they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me that they cannot
hear. No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is that they can
tolerate different kinds of distortion than I can. I don't mind a little
surface noise, a few ticks and pops, etc. but the digital artifacts of MP3
ruin the music for me. I suspect that someone who prefers MP3 over LP, finds
the digital artifacts acceptable and the LP noises unacceptable. I guess
that's what makes horse-races. :-)

I guess I missed anyone mentioning MP3s above. Ipods can play
losslessly compressed and uncompressed digital audio.

And something that has been mentioned many times here before, I doubt
anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s one buys online from most sites
as anything resembling high-end.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

Everyone agrees. Even mediocre digital is better than the best LP with a few
exceptions.

I'm almost aligned with you here. I think that on average, CDs sound
better than LPs. I own many more CDs than LPs. But the best sound I've
heard in my home or any other has come from a few very wonderful LPs,
especially for the musical aspects that are especially important to me.
I've said this repeatedly, but one person has written that I am a "vinyl
bigot". lol

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:22:40 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 17 Nov 2008 03:14:14 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs
being the modern SOTA, or
the best recordings possible.


I'm with you there, Arny!

Everyone agrees. Even mediocre digital is better than the
best LP with a few exceptions.

No, not everybody agrees with that.

These exceptions have been
pointed out here, but Arny, without having heard the LPs
in question, has simply dismissed the whole idea out of
hand.

I've given the LP a heck of a try, and like low-feedback SET amplifiers, it
has never failed to fail to satisfy.

[bob]

On Nov 17, 7:56*pm, (David E. Bath) wrote:

And something that has been mentioned many times here before, I doubt
anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s one buys online from most sites
as anything resembling high-end.

Agreed, MP3s are not the best sound you can get, so don't qualify as
high-end. (Panasonic DVD players, OTOH...)

But MP3s, esp. at higher bit rates (some of which are available for
download) come very close, and probably are indistinguishable from CD
for most people—including most audiophiles—most of the time.

I'd like to see Sonnova put 256 kbps MP3s to the same honest test he
did for amplifiers.

bob

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:06:41 -0800, vlad wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 17, 5:22*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):



"C. Leeds" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern SOTA,
or
the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself. The LP format has
to
look way upstairs when it casts its technical *gaze on a well-exploited
iPod.

It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic pleasure from it, but MP3
makes me grit my teeth. It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who tells
me that they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me that they
cannot
hear. No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is that they can
tolerate different kinds of distortion than I can. I don't mind a little
surface noise, a few ticks and pops, etc. but the digital artifacts of MP3
ruin the music for me. I suspect that someone who prefers MP3 over LP, finds
the digital artifacts acceptable and the LP noises unacceptable. I guess
that's what makes horse-races. :-)

You are trying to create impression that "little surface noise, a few
ticks and pops" is all that is added by LP to the original sound.

Not really, but those are the artifacts that I hear people complain about the
most on what are otherwise good sounding LPs. Other things like warp-wow,
flutter, eccentric center holes, underfill, poor pressing quality, pinch
effect, etc, make the records unplayable, and thus disqualifies them from
consideration.

LP itself has multiple well documented distortions. Cartridge adds its
own distortions. So it is something different from what mastering
engineer intended you to hear. If you like it on not it is the matter
of your personal preference. For me knowing all this destroys
illusion of the "sweet" sound of LP.

I understand that you can live with these distortions (and respect
it :-), but at least do not pretend that "clicks and pops" is the only
thing that separates LP from the perfect reproduction of the sound.

I didn't do that. You interpreted my omission of other things as pretending
that they don't exist, when they merely remove any records that have those
other faults completely from consideration in the first place.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:22:37 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 17, 10:06�am, vlad wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:22�am, Sonnova wrote:


LP itself has multiple well documented distortions. Cartridge adds its
own distortions. So it is something different from what mastering
engineer intended you to hear.

If you are listening to a different system than the one used by the
mastering engineer then you are hearing something different than what
the mastering engineer intended you to hear.

That's also true with reel-to-reel tape, CD, SACD, DAT, a music server, or
any other source. Ande it's even more true on music types that exist ONLY as
recordings (most rock-n-roll using electronic instruments). If you don't have
the same speakers as the recording was mixed on, you aren't hearing what the
musicians, producer and recording engineers heard when they put the mix
together.

And that is in a
"perfect" world. In reality things are not nearly so pure or so
simple. The fact is in the days when LPs dominated the market the
sound of LP test pressing was the final reference point used for the
artists and producers to judge. Not the master tape. This judgement
process was also in and of itself most often a matter of compramise.
Any notion that artsists, recording engineers and mastering engineers
are all omnipotent masters in complete control of their medium and can
regularly turn out exactly what they invision without compramise is a
bit of a naive assumption on the part of any consumers. In the messy
real world artist's intent, mastering engineer's intent etc etc are
far too elusive and indeterminable to cite as any meaningful
reference.
Even worse, we now live in an age where most commercial music is
dominated by that plague known as the loudness wars. I doubt many of
the mastering engineers get much chance these days to really master
CDs they way they would want to consumer to hear them. an appeal to
artist's or recording engineer's or mastering engineer's intent is
meaningless without hearing directly from those individuals.


Also true.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end audio,
IOW it has superior sound quality in that it sounds more
like real, live music, played in a real space and has a
you-are-there palpability that the average recording
(even digital) lacks.

Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal of audible noise and
distortion can be heard. In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom
from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound. IOW
it is necessary, but not sufficient.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


"No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is
that they can tolerate different kinds of distortion than
I can.

Given that absence of audible noise and distortion in media is feasible and
often implemented, there is no way that media with audible noise can be
compared to it in this way.

It's not a matter of tolerating different kinds of distortion, it is a
matter of comparing a medium that is well known to be free of audible noise
and distortion to one that is well-known to have copious amounts of noise
and distortion.

I don't mind a little surface noise, a few ticks
and pops, etc.

They simply have no place in a SOTA musical storage and reproduction medium.

but the digital artifacts of MP3 ruin the music for me.

It has been proven that modern MP3 coders can be free of audible artifacts.

MP3 coding is be performed under the control of various settings that
dictate the degree of data reduction. If one reduces the data too much, then
there will be audible artifacts. However, by exercising due caution,
data-reduced recordings with no audible artifacts can be produced.
Regrettably, many commercial sources of recordings do not have these lofty
goals.

[Steven Sullivan]

David E. Bath wrote:
In article ,
Sonnova writes:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern SOTA, or
the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself. The LP format has to
look way upstairs when it casts its technical gaze on a well-exploited
iPod.


It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic pleasure from it, but MP3
makes me grit my teeth. It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who tells
me that they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me that they cannot
hear. No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is that they can
tolerate different kinds of distortion than I can. I don't mind a little
surface noise, a few ticks and pops, etc. but the digital artifacts of MP3
ruin the music for me. I suspect that someone who prefers MP3 over LP, finds
the digital artifacts acceptable and the LP noises unacceptable. I guess
that's what makes horse-races. :-)

I guess I missed anyone mentioning MP3s above. Ipods can play
losslessly compressed and uncompressed digital audio.

And something that has been mentioned many times here before, I doubt
anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s one buys online from most sites
as anything resembling high-end.

I doubt Sonnova could tell a well-made MP3 from source, in a proper blind test,
unless a 'killer sample' was used.

--
-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

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:56:58 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

Everyone agrees. Even mediocre digital is better than the best LP with a
few
exceptions.

I'm almost aligned with you here. I think that on average, CDs sound
better than LPs. I own many more CDs than LPs. But the best sound I've
heard in my home or any other has come from a few very wonderful LPs,
especially for the musical aspects that are especially important to me.
I've said this repeatedly, but one person has written that I am a "vinyl
bigot". lol


That's exactly my experience too. I do live recordings digitally, at least
once a week and I make some jaw droppingly good ones, but the best recording
I've ever heard is a vinyl reissue of one particular Mercury recording.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:37:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message

On Nov 17, 10:06�am, vlad
wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:22�am, Sonnova
wrote:


LP itself has multiple well documented distortions.
Cartridge adds its own distortions. So it is something
different from what mastering engineer intended you to
hear.

If you are listening to a different system than the one
used by the mastering engineer then you are hearing
something different than what the mastering engineer
intended you to hear. And that is in a "perfect" world.

So resolved, we'll use the highly colored and distorted LP format rather
than the sonically-transparent CD format so that those differences can be
multiplied and magnified, right?


We use what sounds the most like real music. If that's CD in one case and LP
in another, so be it. Anything else is letting your prejudice rule your life.