[George M. Middius]

Alan S said:

End of discussion.

That is your concept of a discussion? It felt more like I was being
attacked for no reason.

Why should you be any different from the rest of us?

Very sad display there Arny-poo.

Arnii's pastor told him to set aside more time for contemplative prayer.
Maybe that's why he ended your "discussion".





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could
easily encounter similar situations.

Of course. I thought that discussion here was about
home hi-fi, however.


and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have
exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things,
or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
easily hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch,
which is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
mismatched synch between the alternatives being
listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn
to cloth.

How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
preference.

Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context
quote. Here's the whole enchelada:

"The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down,
though the average listener doesn't usually notice."

Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why?

Probably because you think you should.

I don't know, big deal.

No different from saying that you can run a 2 minute mile.

I do know that I hear a difference
in music that I record at 32/96 and music I record at
16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me
why, and I have talked with a lot of engineers about it.

OK, I've got an open mind. By some means send me a sound clip of one of your
32/96 files and I'll see if people can really hear a difference when it is
downsampled to 16/44.

Here's your chance to make your point very unambigiously.

[Alan S]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:19:16 GMT, "Alan S" wrote:

the cheapies and it sounds just fine. Eric Johnson says he can tell what
kind of batteries are in his effects pedals by the tone. Sounds a little
far
fetched to me, but then again, I'm not Eric. I will say this, Ray Hennig
here in Austin (he owns Heart of Texas Music) says that Eric can stand in
one room and tell you which type of Fender amp you are playing in another
room just by tone. Maybe if everything was set flat or something, I dunno.
Ray says he has seen him do it.


Telling the difference between models of Fender amps isn't so
far-fetched.

Telling what kind of batteries are powering an effects pedal is rather
off the wall though. I'd need some proof before biting on that one.


I hear ya. And I felt the same way about the amps, but when you think about
it, a Deluxe Reverb can sound one hell of a lot like a Vibrolux. Maybe he
was comparing Twins to Champs or something. I have heard Deville's sound
just like Black face Twins. I wasn't there.

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Alan S" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could
easily encounter similar situations.

Of course. I thought that discussion here was about
home hi-fi, however.


and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have
exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things,
or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
easily hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch,
which is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
mismatched synch between the alternatives being
listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn
to cloth.

How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
preference.

Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context
quote. Here's the whole enchelada:

"The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down,
though the average listener doesn't usually notice."

Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why?

Probably because you think you should.

That is your assumption, believe what you wish.

I don't know, big deal.

No different from saying that you can run a 2 minute mile.

Yes it is very different. You could prove one way or another whether or not
I could run a 2 minute mile, you could never prove how red looks to me.

I do know that I hear a difference
in music that I record at 32/96 and music I record at
16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me
why, and I have talked with a lot of engineers about it.

OK, I've got an open mind. By some means send me a sound clip of one of
your 32/96 files and I'll see if people can really hear a difference when
it is downsampled to 16/44.

Here's your chance to make your point very unambigiously.

Thank you for the offer, but I don't care enough to bother with it. The
stuff I hear at 32/96 is in a mix that is multi-tracked on a hard drive in a
proprietary format that will ultimately be mixed down to 44.1 kHZ 16 bit
stereo for CD. (I know, the .wav files aren't anything special but I would
have to export them and upload them and all that). If I get a wild hair,
I'll let you know, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Beside that, my point has been proven to me already since sound is
subjective, and it's my ears I am using to draw my conclusions about what I
am hearing. Anything else would just be an effort to get you to agree. I
would rather spend my time in the studio either making money or spending it.
Cheers!

[TT]

"Alan S" wrote in message
et...
snip

End of discussion.

That is your concept of a discussion? It felt more like I
was being
attacked for no reason. Very sad display there Arny-poo.

IMHO there are a lot more people here agreeing with what you
are saying than with Arny.

I really can't see why Arny has a problem with anyone
working with 32/96or192 files, doing all their editing etc
and *then* final stage downmixing to 16/44.1. There is a
lot to be said about coping with the barest acceptable
quality or being able to use near infinite resolution and an
over abundance of headroom.

Imagine if Da Vinci did all his painting in Windows 16
colours and 1" square pixels? Probably acceptable (as Arny
will say) once you shrink the Mona Lisa down to a postage
stamp size and look at it at arms length.

BTW I think Arny should be locked in a room with a whole
stack of early CDs that were all mastered on the first
generation digital gear and made to listen to them on his
Sony CDP101 ;-)

Regards TT

[dizzy]

Eeyore wrote:

Bret Ludwig wrote:

We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we will but use it.

I'm sure it's no accident that many top recording studios use 24/96 and now 192
as well.

And that's no doubt useful, in the studio. In the music-delivery
system, the silver disk, CD sounds like good enough.

[dizzy]

Sander deWaal wrote:

All my stuff sounds wonderful to me, because I like to listen to music
on it.

Not accurate? No hifi? Why should anyone care, as long as it sounds
good to me?

Yes! Like using tone controls! 8)

[Harry Lavo]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...


BTW to quote from the above again "Sampling audio signals at
192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate" so it
would appear he says the optimal rate is approx 64kHz. So
where does that leave your 44.1kHz which is perfect in your
opinion? I believe I could live with 64/24 CDs quite nicely


64 would put the Nyquist limit at 30 kHz and that IMO would be a big
improvement over CD, and in fact, 96 really is probably enough. The
primary point is that 44 is NOT.


64 was actually settled upon by the DVD-A consortium in Japan in the
early-mid '90's as sufficient. Whether they did any actual testing to
support this I don't know.

[dizzy]

Alan S wrote:

That is your concept of a discussion? It felt more like I was being
attacked for no reason. Very sad display there Arny-poo.

Well, whatever you meant, the fact of the matter is that 16 bits is
plenty for the final, "music-delivery" version of the music*, so your
"dithering down" comments were false.

The only possible knock on CD, as a music-delivery system, is the
22kHz bandwidth. And even that's highly suspect as mattering.

[dizzy]

Alan S wrote:

Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why? I don't know, big deal.
I do know that I hear a difference in music that I record at 32/96 and music
I record at 16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me why, and
I have talked with a lot of engineers about it. You would think that if the
music is going to be dithered down to 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit anyway then it
would be just fine to record it at that resolution.

This shows your utter ignorance. Best to keep quiet.

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

"Listener" not "hearer". There's an obvious difference.

Don't start acting like Arny, Jenn.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Alan S" wrote:

I have never noticed any. Bad connections maybe, but never the speaker
cables themselves. Some folks claim they hear it, the last one I met was at
a store that sold very high end car audio products. He swore up and down
that my sound would be much better with the thirty dollar cables. I bought
the cheapies and it sounds just fine. Eric Johnson says he can tell what
kind of batteries are in his effects pedals by the tone. Sounds a little far
fetched to me, but then again, I'm not Eric. I will say this, Ray Hennig
here in Austin (he owns Heart of Texas Music) says that Eric can stand in
one room and tell you which type of Fender amp you are playing in another
room just by tone. Maybe if everything was set flat or something, I dunno.
Ray says he has seen him do it.

The battery thing has an explanation, something about a reduced output
after a certain period of use.

Eric does put his wallet where his ears are, aside from the guitars,
gear, and home studio, he remixed "Ah Via Musicom" when his record
company issued a substandard DVD release.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Here in Ohio wrote:

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:19:16 GMT, "Alan S" wrote:

the cheapies and it sounds just fine. Eric Johnson says he can tell what
kind of batteries are in his effects pedals by the tone. Sounds a little far
fetched to me, but then again, I'm not Eric. I will say this, Ray Hennig
here in Austin (he owns Heart of Texas Music) says that Eric can stand in
one room and tell you which type of Fender amp you are playing in another
room just by tone. Maybe if everything was set flat or something, I dunno.
Ray says he has seen him do it.


Telling the difference between models of Fender amps isn't so
far-fetched.

Telling what kind of batteries are powering an effects pedal is rather
off the wall though. I'd need some proof before biting on that one.

I think that's about regular vs alkaline or something. His website
claims he can "smell a dying battery a mile away" a more reasonable if
hyperbolic assertion.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" wrote in message

Jenn wrote:

"Listener" not "hearer". There's an obvious difference.

Don't start acting like Arny, Jenn.

Actually, our local specialist in that kind of hair-splitting is Stephen.

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" wrote in message
et
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Alan S" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to
get the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could
easily encounter similar situations.

Of course. I thought that discussion here was about
home hi-fi, however.


and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have
exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things,
or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
easily hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch,
which is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels,
and/or mismatched synch between the alternatives
being listened to. Likely as not, their ears
suddenly turn to cloth.

How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices
and desire to be perceived as having exceptional
hearing"? Sounds to me like the OP simply made a
statement of preference.

Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context
quote. Here's the whole enchelada:

"The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down,
though the average listener doesn't usually notice."

Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why?

Probably because you think you should.

That is your assumption, believe what you wish.

I don't know, big deal.

No different from saying that you can run a 2 minute
mile.

Yes it is very different. You could prove one way or
another whether or not I could run a 2 minute mile, you
could never prove how red looks to me.

Well if you want to claim that its all illusion and perception, and there's
no real hearing involved, fine with me.

I do know that I hear a difference
in music that I record at 32/96 and music I record at
16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me
why, and I have talked with a lot of engineers about it.

OK, I've got an open mind. By some means send me a sound
clip of one of your 32/96 files and I'll see if people
can really hear a difference when it is downsampled to
16/44. Here's your chance to make your point very unambigiously.

Thank you for the offer, but I don't care enough to
bother with it. The stuff I hear at 32/96 is in a mix
that is multi-tracked on a hard drive in a proprietary
format that will ultimately be mixed down to 44.1 kHZ 16
bit stereo for CD. (I know, the .wav files aren't
anything special but I would have to export them and
upload them and all that). If I get a wild hair, I'll let
you know, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

OK, I'll put you down on the no-show list.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" wrote in message

"Alan S" declines Arnolds offer of being sucked into a
nightmare :

I would rather spend my time in the studio either
making money or spending it.

That's a very nasty thing to say.

It's one of the few actually sensible things that he's said! What's wrong
with you, Paul?

[Sander deWaal]

dizzy said:


All my stuff sounds wonderful to me, because I like to listen to music
on it.

Not accurate? No hifi? Why should anyone care, as long as it sounds
good to me?


Yes! Like using tone controls! 8)



And you'll never hear me complain about them.
However, some tone controls are more useful than others.

I still think you should try to get hold of one of those old Lux
preamps.
It shouldn't be too difficult to DIY a remote control for it, IMO.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

While there is no up side to operation at excessive speeds, there are
further disadvantages:

In a short news article Marantz reported increases in
fidelity up to 500 KHz... a 260% increase over 192
MHz.

1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data (impacting data
storage and data transmission speed requirements).

I recently read about a studio in England that discarded
master tapes into a garbage bin due to a lack of physical
storage, without giving notice to owners... but they were
scarfed up by someone in the public.

Certainly storing information (music) digitally, regardless
of the size, is far more cost effective than tape.


2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase
in the required processing power, resulting in very costly gear and/or
further compromise in audio quality.

Those are only momentary technological problems. I guess
your new video production interests won't include HD
then.

Speaking of "processing power," the current fastest computer
in the world (IBM's BlueGene) will be leapfrogged with a new
super computer (Roadrunner). It uses 16,000 cell possessors
(used in Playstation 3) and 16,000 AMD Opteron
microprocessors achieving 1.6 petaflops (1,600 trillion)
calculations per second. And the operating system you ask,
Linux of course.


The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal
bandwidth. Audio industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal
rates. The promotion of such ideas is based on the fallacy that faster
rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail.
Physics theory would suggest that sampling rates are only
excessive if they exceed the energy pack rate in which sound
travels through the air. At its most fundamental level all analog
sound is digital/packet. IMO, what's needed is a new algorithm
for trans-coding analog to digital using these even higher rates.


Weather motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the
industry in the wrong direction, are stating the opposite of what is true.

You have never been an early user (empirical knowledge) of
new technologies, Arny.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

While there is no up side to operation at excessive
speeds, there are further disadvantages:

In a short news article Marantz reported increases in
fidelity up to 500 KHz... a 260% increase over 192
MHz.

Yes, there is an apocryphal story about Ken Ishiwata from Marantz blowing
that kind of smoke. Of course KI is well-known for his publicity and
marketing, not his knowlege of audio technology.


snip quacking

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message



IMHO there are a lot more people here agreeing with what
you are saying than with Arny.

I really can't see why Arny has a problem with anyone
working with 32/96or192 files, doing all their editing
etc and *then* final stage downmixing to 16/44.1.

I don't have any problem with people wasting their time that way. Indeed
I've did a fair amount of work like that until I smartened up.

There
is a lot to be said about coping with the barest
acceptable quality or being able to use near infinite
resolution and an over abundance of headroom.

This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill" format. 12/32 would IMO
and IME be "barest aqcceptable quality". Note that 12/32 still outperforms
vinyl and all consumer analog tape formats.

I don't see that there's any problem with working with
32/96 or whatever. Feel free. :-)


Just wastes time and disk space. I work with recordings that are like 16
channels and run for an hour. That's gigabytes of data. Less data have
practical advantages, such as being able to fit the whole set of data on one
DVD instead of more than 1 DVD. Also, even with large, fast systems it can
take a while to downsample an hour's worth of mixdown for burning onto a CD.

However, I haven't seen anything to indicate why it would
sound better than 16/44.1. In the absense of that, we may
conclude it's some sort of effect in the listener's mind,
or that perhaps your 16/44.1 gear is defective or poorly
made.

Agreed.

Subjective, sighted listening tests are not reliable, nor
are they conclusive. As I keep mentioning, there was the
case where people at a show heard beneficial effects from
a pizza box tripod being placed on top of a CD player.
People _heard_ the effect when it was demonstrated by
Enid Lumley. Later, in the absense of Enid, there was an
absense of effects to the sound of CD players.

Agreed.

That just completely destroys the validity of the claims
of anyone who says "I like it" or "it sounds good to me."

Yes, the global significance of findings like that has a long unhappy
history of being negligable. When people post their findings for others to
read and comment on, there's an inherent implication that the findings could
be useful to a larger audience. But if the findings are based on experiences
that apply to just one person, or that go away when enough well-known
variables are properly managed, then those findings are futile.

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message

On 1 Nov 2006 17:13:36 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

far smoother transitions. (HP now supports three
different architectures for serious business-Itanic,
Alpha, PA-RISC- PLUS x86. Broad Restructuring indeed!)

I bet they were really ticked off at AMD for making a go
of AMD64. I also wonder when Intel is going to pull the
plug on i64 and what HP will do then.

Are they still supporting the Alpha?

See below.

I know most of the
design engineers moved over to Intel, and they evidently
sold the technology to them too.

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

"The Alpha series was sold, along with DEC as a whole, to Compaq in 1998.
Compaq, already an Intel customer, decided to phase out Alpha in favor of
the forthcoming Intel Itanium architecture, and sold all Alpha intellectual
property to Intel in 2001, effectively "killing" the product.
Hewlett-Packard purchased Compaq later that same year, continuing
development of the existing product line until 2004, and promising to
continue selling Alpha-based systems, largely to the existing customer base,
until 2006."

[Alan S]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:19:50 GMT, "Alan S" wrote:


No different from saying that you can run a 2 minute mile.

Yes it is very different. You could prove one way or another whether or
not
I could run a 2 minute mile, you could never prove how red looks to me.

That's a bit of a red herring.

Unless you're some kind of freak or perhaps color blind, your visual
apparatus and neurological system are much the same as in any other
member of the species you belong to.

Red is red.


Sure it is, but it's interpretation is still subjective. Just because it is
a measured frequency doesn't mean it is always interpreted the same way. Or
moreover, if it is you couldn't say that it was the same for everyone
because we all have different bodies and minds. Maybe we agree on what it
is, (which is fine outside conversations like this) but there is no way to
prove that it "looks" the same to you as it does to me.

For example, I have a friend whole is color blind in some odd way that
causes him to see colors in ways that are somehow different. I think he sees
blue as grey or something, I don't remember the details, but it's something
like that. He is a very talented artist. He paints things unlike anyone I
have ever seen and his art is pleasing to the eye. People buy his stuff and
he makes a living at it because it is "good" art. If it's a nice day
outside - it's a nice day! Who cares if you get into the wind and I get into
the sun, the nice day is the sum of it's parts, but their interpretation is
still subjective.


The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that people hear things
differently and thus anything goes in the sales of audio equipment -
even stuff that is objectively crap.


C'mon, if you put a bowl of cherry Jello-O in front of next to a piece of
well made New York Cheesecake and try to convince me that they are equal
then you should be selling crappy audio gear to idiots Even if you did the
"unbiased blind taste test" the difference would be obvious. (I wouldn't buy
crap because you said it was good, but you can bet there's plenty of folks
who would!).


Beside that, my point has been proven to me already since sound is
subjective, and it's my ears I am using to draw my conclusions about what
I
am hearing. Anything else would just be an effort to get you to agree. I
would rather spend my time in the studio either making money or spending
it.
Cheers!


Doesn't this make you horribly insecure about your skills in the
studio? After all, if sound is totally subjective, how do you know
what you're doing in the studio is right? Your ears could be really
screwed up and what you think is wonderful sounds like dreck to
everyone else.


Nope, it makes me confident. People ask me to mix for them. They ask me to
play my music, they call me to sit in at gigs at the last minute because
they know I'm a professional, they call me in for session work to lay down
either guitar, keyboard, bass, vocals or percussion tracks or mix their
stuff down for them, they ask me to set their stereo and entertainment
centers up, in short, people that know me respect my ear. I guess what they
are listening for is simular to what I am listening for. I never waste my
time worrying about whether or not my performance is "good" or not, it
inhibits my creativity. When I cut a dud, it's obvious and we do it again
until it kicks ass.

You know what's good and what isn't, who cares how you get there? Life is
too short to waste it niggling over pointless details.

Beyond all that, I am damned grateful I don't have perfect pitch! Good
relative pitch suits me fine.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest aqcceptable
quality".

It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.

Note that 12/32 still outperforms vinyl and all
consumer analog tape formats.

Only in abstract ("on paper").

No, for real.

Many people agree vinyl sounds better than CD.

Be truthful - give us a relative fraction of all music lovers who think that
way. Note that vinyl sales have again taken a nosedive, as have SACD and
DVD-A sales.

I'll repeat that- Many people agree vinyl sounds better than CD.

Say it over and over again until it makes you feel good, if that's what it
takes to improve your thinking.

[Alan S]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:10:41 GMT, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
"Alan S" wrote:

I have never noticed any. Bad connections maybe, but never the speaker
cables themselves. Some folks claim they hear it, the last one I met was
at
a store that sold very high end car audio products. He swore up and down
that my sound would be much better with the thirty dollar cables. I
bought
the cheapies and it sounds just fine. Eric Johnson says he can tell what
kind of batteries are in his effects pedals by the tone. Sounds a little
far
fetched to me, but then again, I'm not Eric. I will say this, Ray Hennig
here in Austin (he owns Heart of Texas Music) says that Eric can stand
in
one room and tell you which type of Fender amp you are playing in
another
room just by tone. Maybe if everything was set flat or something, I
dunno.
Ray says he has seen him do it.

The battery thing has an explanation, something about a reduced output
after a certain period of use.

Most effects pedals are reasonably immune to differing voltage IME.
I've seen them hooked up to the wrong wall wart with a difference of
1.5-3V from what they're supposed to have and they sounded the same.


Me too, I have used wrong power supplies and noticed no difference until
after the gig when I realized I was using the wrong power supply. That was
the only difference. Batteries on the other hand only work one way way for
me. They sound fine until the battery starts to lose it, and then the whole
thing starts to sound terrible.


The battery chemistry itself is what is responsible for the discharge
curve. I'm finding it hard to believe that any slight differences in
construction will change that curve enough to matter. Also, the
battery industry is very competitive and they all do much the same
thing at the consumer 9V alkaline battery level.


Once the discharge reaches a point where it can no longer support the load,
it's starts to break up and crackle (at least with digital gear, I have
never used any all analog, battery powered gear, maybe there is a difference
there, I don't know. It would make sense, sort of the dim bulb effect).
Perhaps that's the tone varient he notices - sounds fine with good
batteries - sounds awful with half dead ones.


Eric does put his wallet where his ears are, aside from the guitars,
gear, and home studio, he remixed "Ah Via Musicom" when his record
company issued a substandard DVD release.

No argument there. I'm sure he does care about his music and how it
sounds.

I'm just reminded of one guitar player in a band that I did onstage
mix for. He had a wah-wah pedal that he insisted was noisy. So, he had
his roadie give it a shot of WD-40 before every performance. I even
did it for him a few times. Now, the pot was sealed inside the body of
the pedal and there was no way a shot of WD-40 from outside at the
pivot of the pedal was going to make it into the inside of the pot.

The guy would come out, smell the WD-40 and nod his head. Everything
was ok. He'd then perceive that the "noise" was gone.

In actuality, the pedal wasn't noisy before or after the application
of some, in essense, snake oil. :-)

That's funny. Did he ever replace his pot? Oh, wait ... he probably did
before every gig!

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Signal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest aqcceptable
quality".

It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.

Note that 12/32 still outperforms vinyl and all
consumer analog tape formats.


That is just simply not possible. It's a molecular verses binary issue. The
molecules will win simply because of math. And if you shuffle through your
data long enough to produce anything mathematically valid to dispute that
comment ... oh, you won't because of head room.

Only in abstract ("on paper").

No, for real.

Many people agree vinyl sounds better than CD.

That's because it does. Why? Higher resolution.

Be truthful - give us a relative fraction of all music lovers who think
that way. Note that vinyl sales have again taken a nosedive, as have SACD
and DVD-A sales.

A relative fraction? Man, please ... stop it. Ya killin' me ovah heah!

I'll repeat that- Many people agree vinyl sounds better than CD.

Say it over and over again until it makes you feel good, if that's what it
takes to improve your thinking.

Awww, Arny. That's to bad. Are you saying that in all of your experience you
have never heard a great record played through well balanced, high quality
gear? Give it a shot and then come back and honestly tell me it's the same
as a cd.

Maybe you record, rap? or disposable, juke box country music? That would
explain all of this. You record and mix hip-hop at 16/44 and it sound just
as good as higher resolutions. Right?

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Here in Ohio wrote:

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:10:41 GMT, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
"Alan S" wrote:

I have never noticed any. Bad connections maybe, but never the speaker
cables themselves. Some folks claim they hear it, the last one I met was
at
a store that sold very high end car audio products. He swore up and down
that my sound would be much better with the thirty dollar cables. I bought
the cheapies and it sounds just fine. Eric Johnson says he can tell what
kind of batteries are in his effects pedals by the tone. Sounds a little
far
fetched to me, but then again, I'm not Eric. I will say this, Ray Hennig
here in Austin (he owns Heart of Texas Music) says that Eric can stand in
one room and tell you which type of Fender amp you are playing in another
room just by tone. Maybe if everything was set flat or something, I dunno.
Ray says he has seen him do it.

The battery thing has an explanation, something about a reduced output
after a certain period of use.

Most effects pedals are reasonably immune to differing voltage IME.
I've seen them hooked up to the wrong wall wart with a difference of
1.5-3V from what they're supposed to have and they sounded the same.

Well, the claim is about batteries. It could be that pedals don't care
about excess voltage but are sensitive to reductions.

The battery chemistry itself is what is responsible for the discharge
curve. I'm finding it hard to believe that any slight differences in
construction will change that curve enough to matter. Also, the
battery industry is very competitive and they all do much the same
thing at the consumer 9V alkaline battery level.

The claim is that he can hear a "dying" battery, so that other stuff
isn't germane despite the original story.

Eric does put his wallet where his ears are, aside from the guitars,
gear, and home studio, he remixed "Ah Via Musicom" when his record
company issued a substandard DVD release.

No argument there. I'm sure he does care about his music and how it
sounds.

I'm just reminded of one guitar player in a band that I did onstage
mix for. He had a wah-wah pedal that he insisted was noisy. So, he had
his roadie give it a shot of WD-40 before every performance. I even
did it for him a few times. Now, the pot was sealed inside the body of
the pedal and there was no way a shot of WD-40 from outside at the
pivot of the pedal was going to make it into the inside of the pot.

The guy would come out, smell the WD-40 and nod his head. Everything
was ok. He'd then perceive that the "noise" was gone.

In actuality, the pedal wasn't noisy before or after the application
of some, in essense, snake oil. :-)

Better to oil the pedal than the guitarist.

Stephen

[Jenn]

In article ,
Here in Ohio wrote:

snip
Red is red.

The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that people hear things
differently snip

Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the differences among people
in sound reflection times.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to RibbetBorg:

The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that people hear things
differently snip

Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the differences among people
in sound reflection times.

I think you two are talking past one another. Your position, which is
based on empirical evidence gleaned through actual tests, is completely at
odds with Ribbet's. Our little froggie's opinions are informed only by
what he wishes were true -- that humans were as indistinguishable as Hivie
drones. Of course all 'borgs hear things the same; that's because they all
have the same implants and wetware. But humans, who haven't suffered the
"improvements" adduced by assimilation, have varying abilities to hear, as
well as to do virtually everything else that humans do as individuals.

You can't defeat faith with facts, Jenn. Your experiences with the
Krooborg should have shown you that very plainly.






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article ,
Signal wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:

The claim is that he can hear a "dying" battery

By "dying" do you mean a battery that is running out of juice? If
that's his claim, isn't not very remarkable. Easily audible with many
pedals.

And some DI boxes, for example.

[dizzy]

Signal wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill" format. 12/32 would IMO
and IME be "barest aqcceptable quality".

It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.

LOL!

If that's true, vinyl must be way WAY below acceptable for serious
listening.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Signal wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:

The claim is that he can hear a "dying" battery

By "dying" do you mean a battery that is running out of juice? If
that's his claim, isn't not very remarkable. Easily audible with many
pedals.

Yes, but not the final gasping, spitting stage, I assume. I think one
old story is that he could tell alkaline from non-alkaline but that may
be exaggerated.

To be literal, the claim is that he can *smell* a dying battery a mile
away.

Some of his gear:

http://www.ericjohnson.com/flash/amps.html

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" wrote in message


"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
...

I'm just reminded of one guitar player in a band that I
did onstage mix for. He had a wah-wah pedal that he
insisted was noisy. So, he had his roadie give it a shot
of WD-40 before every performance. I even did it for him
a few times. Now, the pot was sealed inside the body of
the pedal and there was no way a shot of WD-40 from
outside at the pivot of the pedal was going to make it
into the inside of the pot. The guy would come out, smell the WD-40 and
nod his
head. Everything was ok. He'd then perceive that the
"noise" was gone.

In actuality, the pedal wasn't noisy before or after the
application of some, in essense, snake oil. :-)

That's funny. Did he ever replace his pot? Oh, wait ...
he probably did before every gig!

Alan, you missed the point, which is that the guitar player based his
judgement of sound quality on his sighted evaluation of the condition of the
pot in his wah-wah pedal. He saw the WD-40 applied and then *heard* that
the pot was working properly.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
Here in Ohio wrote:

snip
Red is red.

The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that people
hear things differently snip

Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the
differences among people in sound reflection times.

The primary reason that different people perceive things differently, given
that they have a reasonable opportunity to hear at all, is the difference in
the state of their brains. Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Signal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest aqcceptable
quality".

It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.

Note that 12/32 still outperforms vinyl and all
consumer analog tape formats.

That is just simply not possible.

Its a fact.

It's a molecular verses binary issue.

It's dragging a rock over a piece of plastic that deforms while the rock is
dragged over it, versus a highly precise electrical operation.

The molecules will win simply because of
math. And if you shuffle through your data long enough to
produce anything mathematically valid to dispute that
comment ... oh, you won't because of head room.

Wanna try that again and make sense this time?

Only in abstract ("on paper").

No, for real.

Many people agree vinyl sounds better than CD.

That's because it does. Why? Higher resolution.

That has been totally debunked many times.

Be truthful - give us a relative fraction of all music
lovers who think that way. Note that vinyl sales have
again taken a nosedive, as have SACD and DVD-A sales.

A relative fraction? Man, please ... stop it. Ya killin'
me ovah heah!

I think you're already dead, at least from the neck up.

I'll repeat that- Many people agree vinyl sounds better
than CD.

Say it over and over again until it makes you feel good,
if that's what it takes to improve your thinking.

Awww, Arny. That's to bad. Are you saying that in all of
your experience you have never heard a great record
played through well balanced, high quality gear?

Any number of people have demonstrated to me what they called "a great
record
played through well balanced, high quality gear" I spent two days at HE2005
listening to this dog-and-pony show being repeated over and over again.

Give it
a shot and then come back and honestly tell me it's the
same as a cd.

No, typically a LP sounds worse than a CD being played on a $39 DVD player,
all other things being equal.

Maybe you record, rap? or disposable, juke box country
music? That would explain all of this. You record and mix
hip-hop at 16/44 and it sound just as good as higher
resolutions. Right?

Wrong.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote:

If you want to talk percentages you'll need to reduce
that group down to people who have heard vinyl done
properly. Of those, I estimate 88% prefer the sound of
vinyl compared to CD.

Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who have heard vinyl done
properly" to a carefully-selected group.

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" wrote in message

Signal wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest acceptable
quality".

It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.

LOL!

If that's true, vinyl must be way WAY below acceptable
for serious listening.

Older audiophiles put up with vinyl for way too long for most of us.

Just about every music lover in the world abandoned the LP as quickly as
they could, once CDs became generally available. It was all about sound
quality.

I guess it is fair to question whether we actually could listen seriously to
music until we had digital. Until then there were many audible artifacts
that stood in the way of serious listening.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"dizzy" wrote in message

Signal wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest acceptable
quality".

It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.

LOL!

If that's true, vinyl must be way WAY below acceptable
for serious listening.

Older audiophiles put up with vinyl for way too long for most of us.

Just about every music lover in the world abandoned the LP as quickly as
they could, once CDs became generally available. It was all about sound
quality.

I guess it is fair to question whether we actually could listen seriously
to music until we had digital. Until then there were many audible
artifacts that stood in the way of serious listening.

Arny finally reveals the truth...he simply doesn't love *any* form of music,
or he would realize the utter nonsense he just spouted above.

[George M. Middius]

Harry Lavo said:

I guess it is fair to question whether we actually could listen seriously
to music until we had digital. Until then there were many audible
artifacts that stood in the way of serious listening.

Arny finally reveals the truth...he simply doesn't love *any* form of music,
or he would realize the utter nonsense he just spouted above.

Not unless he got over the insanity problem also.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"dizzy" wrote in message

Signal wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest acceptable
quality".

It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.

LOL!

If that's true, vinyl must be way WAY below acceptable
for serious listening.

Older audiophiles put up with vinyl for way too long for
most of us. Just about every music lover in the world abandoned the
LP as quickly as they could, once CDs became generally
available. It was all about sound quality.

I guess it is fair to question whether we actually could
listen seriously to (recorded) music until we had digital. Until
then there were many audible artifacts that stood in the
way of serious listening.

Arny finally reveals the truth...he simply doesn't love
*any* form of music, or he would realize the utter
nonsense he just spouted above.

Rather than just spouting off Harry, why not provide a logically-worked out
explanation of what you're trying to say. Note that the context of what I
was saying was obviously recorded music (which I've clarified), and that I
said nothing about my emotional reactions to music.

I don't know about you Harry, but for the first dozen or so years of my
life, reproduced music generally sounded pretty nasty to me. I regluarly
heard tons of live music, and every reproduced source fell well short. What
was there to love about reproduced music other than that I could recognize
the tunes and some of the voices and instruments?

Until recorded slipped the surly bonds of the LP format, there were always
clearly audible artifacts that traced back to the distribution media. That
distribution medium still has those audible artifacts, at least it did
through my 2-day visit to HE2005. has there been a signficiant general
upgrade to the LP format since then?

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Signal" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote:

If you want to talk percentages you'll need to reduce
that group down to people who have heard vinyl done
properly. Of those, I estimate 88% prefer the sound of
vinyl compared to CD.

Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who have heard vinyl
done properly" to a carefully-selected group.

Bull**** Arny. I told an antidote years ago on RAHE about having several
sets of friends over who were into music, but had never had vinyl. I
demonstrated via several pristine records (via Linn/Syrinx/Accuphase/Marcof)
and their CD equivalent (via Marantz 63SE/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP) which were
level matched (by markings on the volume know) and blind (not double blind).
All were bowled over and preferred the vinyl. All went out and bought
high-quality turntable/arm/cartridge combos within the next two years. One
has become an avid collector of records...newer audiophile versions, as well
as older, used versions.

*That* is what Signal meant when he said "people who have heard vinyl done
properly". That's the only valid universe.

BTW, do you remember your and your fellow "objectivist" responses:

*It was not a definitive test (I never claimed it was "definitive" nor
anything but an anecdote)*
*The volume had to be mismatched (it wasn't)*
*They could tell the vinyl because of the tics and pops (despite the lack
thereof being one of the criteria for source selection)*
*The mastering was the difference (despite my having chosen recordings that
were identical in balance, frequency response, dynamic range, etc.)*
*The comparison wasn't double blind (true, but single blind is hardly
chicken****)*
*It was "nonsense"*
*It was only preference, and said nothing about "reality"...."
*It was simply added distortion....probably true, but..."
*I was leading them on*
*They were being polite...*

Anything but the truth.....they preferred the *sound* emanating from the
vinyl over that of a very good CD system. For whatever reason...

I had a very similar experience (but not controlled) years earlier with a
neighbor (who is now the CEO of a major company). He had just bought a new,
state-of-the-then-art stereo system, CD based. Top of the line B&W
speakers. Conrad Johnson electronics, etc. Top of the line Sony CD player
(don't remember the model). His wife and he were vaguely
disappointed...they invited me to listen. I brought over my second system
turntable combo (Thorens TD-160super, Glassmat, Grace 747 arm, Dynavector
Ruby cartridge, Marcof headamp). Played same matched records/CD's (one of
which is Paul Simon's Graceland...can't remember the others). Wife: "Now
that's music". They went out and bought a high-end turntable system. This
was back in the mid-late '80's, at the height of "perfect sound forever".

This simple fact...that given a good comparison...many if not most people
prefer LP to CD, drove (and continues to drive) you (Arny) crazy.