[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"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 anecdote 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.

No doubt that was the sales pitch you gave, Harry.

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.

Checking the archives I find that your description of the CD chain may be
quite incomplete.

I also can't find a post that fits your description.

Letsee: N=12 or less?

How many still listen to vinyl even once a month?

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

A formal definition of "people who have heard vinyl done properly". seems
to be elusive.

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)*

I don't trust you to be able to level-match vinyl and CD.

*They could tell the vinyl because of the tics and pops
(despite the lack thereof being one of the criteria for
source selection)*

My hearing is still good enough that I've never heard vinyl without tics or
pops.

*The mastering was the difference
(despite my having chosen recordings that were identical
in balance, frequency response, dynamic range, etc.)*

Actual recordings involved are unknown to me, despite searching google
archives.

*The comparison wasn't double blind (true, but single
blind is hardly chicken****)*

Actually, nobody with a brain has taken single blind tests seriously since
"Clever Hans".


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

The exception does not disprove the rule.

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.

Not at all. I note that the last set of RIAA stats on their site show
something like a 30% drop in vinyl sales, and sharp drops in SACD sales.
You really know how to pick the winners!

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...yrEndStats.pdf

[Alan S]

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

Thanks for the policing Arny. It was a *pot* joke. You missed it.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"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.

We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

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

LOL Another "working URL"?

[Alan S]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
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.


Now ditzy, you know you can do better than that. C'mon ... try a little
harder.

[George M. Middius]

Alan S said:

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

Alan, you missed the point

Look at that -- the Krooborg borrowed some commas from somebody.

Thanks for the policing Arny. It was a *pot* joke. You missed it.

Pot is forbidden in church.





--

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

[Alan S]

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


Man, do you ever thing before you type stuff? How can you say that playing
an LP is not 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?


You have obviously spent time in recording studios, you know what head room
is. The reason you can hit tape so hard is because it is an analog process
using millions of molecules that are not constrained by the limits of binary
recording. That is just one example of how much more information you can get
recording with analog. It's the difference between stairs and a slope.

Don't get me wrong here, as I had stated before, I am a digital recording
advocate for a number of reasons. As technology improves, hopefully we will
soon have a commercially viable playback medium that doesn't sound as cold
as CD's.

Have you ever been in a studio where someone records their tracks digitally
and then takes the final mix and runs it through tape before they send it
off for mastering? By that I mean they dump it on tape and then take it
right back off into a digital stereo track. It makes a difference. It warms
it up.


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]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"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.

We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not involve the brain?

Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

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

LOL Another "working URL"?

Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this link, too?

Here's another relevant link for you to mess up with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" wrote in message

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

Man, do you ever thing before you type stuff? How can you
say that playing an LP is not a highly precise electrical
operation?

Hhmm, about 50 years of experience with it.

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?

You have obviously spent time in recording studios, you
know what head room is. The reason you can hit tape so
hard is because it is an analog process using millions of
molecules that are not constrained by the limits of
binary recording.

Analog tape has plenty of limits of its own. One of its limitations is that
it is noisy, and another of its limitations is that it is highly imprecise.

That is just one example of how much
more information you can get recording with analog. It's
the difference between stairs and a slope.

Between the noise and the imprecision, analog tape fails to act like the
ideal straight slope that infinite resolution demands.

Don't get me wrong here, as I had stated before, I am a
digital recording advocate for a number of reasons. As
technology improves, hopefully we will soon have a
commercially viable playback medium that doesn't sound as
cold as CD's.

CDs are only as cold as you make them.

Have you ever been in a studio where someone records
their tracks digitally and then takes the final mix and
runs it through tape before they send it off for
mastering?

Yes. Analog tape is an EFX.

By that I mean they dump it on tape and then
take it right back off into a digital stereo track. It
makes a difference. It warms it up.

The better approach is to make the recording sound warm without adding
audible noise and distortion.

Point out one of your cold sounding CDs, and I'll show you how to warm it
up.

[Alan S]

Point out one of your cold sounding CDs, and I'll show you how to warm it
up.


Anything, I would very much like to hear new ideas on warming up digital
recordings.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
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.

We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not involve the brain?

Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the primary reason
that people HEAR differently (what we were discussing) is differences in
the brain?


Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

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

LOL Another "working URL"?

Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this link, too?

LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.


Here's another relevant link for you to mess up with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

No discussion of the pinna's role. If I referred you to the current
research in this matter, would you read it?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
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.

We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not
involve the brain?

Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the
primary reason that people HEAR differently (what we were
discussing) is differences in the brain?


Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

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

LOL Another "working URL"?

Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this
link, too?

LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.


Here's another relevant link for you to mess up with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

No discussion of the pinna's role.

Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

"The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is called the auricle, a
convoluted cup that arises from the opening of the ear canal on either side
of the head."

References:

http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html

"Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"


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

"The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of the ear that resides
outside of the head (this may also be referred to as the auricle)."

If I referred you to the current research in this matter, would you read
it?

Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are well-known synonyms for
each other, what could you possibly contribute?

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" wrote in message

Point out one of your cold sounding CDs, and I'll show
you how to warm it up.


Anything, I would very much like to hear new ideas on
warming up digital recordings.

It's a well-known 2-step process:

(1) Properly record something that is warm-sounding in the first place
(2) Listen to it in an unbiased state

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
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.

We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not
involve the brain?

Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the
primary reason that people HEAR differently (what we were
discussing) is differences in the brain?


Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

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

LOL Another "working URL"?

Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this
link, too?

LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.


Here's another relevant link for you to mess up with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

No discussion of the pinna's role.

Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

"The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is called the auricle, a
convoluted cup that arises from the opening of the ear canal on either side
of the head."

References:

http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html

"Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"


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

"The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of the ear that resides
outside of the head (this may also be referred to as the auricle)."

If I referred you to the current research in this matter, would you read
it?

Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are well-known synonyms for
each other, what could you possibly contribute?

LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you want to learn
something?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
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.

We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not
involve the brain?

Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the
primary reason that people HEAR differently (what we
were
discussing) is differences in the brain?


Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

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

LOL Another "working URL"?

Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this
link, too?

LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.


Here's another relevant link for you to mess up with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

No discussion of the pinna's role.

Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

"The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises from
the opening of the ear canal on either side of the head."

References:

http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html

"Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"


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

"The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of
the ear that resides outside of the head (this may also
be referred to as the auricle)."

If I referred you to the current research in this
matter, would you read it?

Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are
well-known synonyms for each other, what could you
possibly contribute?

LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you want
to learn something?

Give me a laugh, Jenn. Post the URL.

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Alan S" wrote in message

Point out one of your cold sounding CDs, and I'll show
you how to warm it up.


Anything, I would very much like to hear new ideas on
warming up digital recordings.

It's a well-known 2-step process:

(1) Properly record something that is warm-sounding in the first place
(2) Listen to it in an unbiased state

What a crock ... Bye Arny

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 06:44:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"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.

It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard vinyl
done properly.

Yes.

Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl properly. Maybe JA
tipped them off?

That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to admit they're wrong.

Exactly.

What you really have to wonder is why it's so rare to
hear the "superiority" of vinyl. Why is it so hard to
"prove" the "superiority" of vinyl?

Obviouisly, it is all in the eyes of the beholden.

What good is vinyl if it's so rarely "done properly?"


It gives bragging rights and preserves the air of mystery. It puts those of
us with hearing above 3 KHz in our places.

Hmmm... I wonder if vinyl being "done properly" also
includes the application of intoxicants?

Or inhilation?

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:25:23 +0000, Signal
wrote:

Here in Ohio wrote:

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

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.

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.

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

Except when Enid Lumley is in the room.


Oh, so that's what you meant when you were telling Arny
about vinyl being "done properly." You just keep Enid
Lumley in your listening room and vinyl sounds wonderful.

Lots of luck with that.

...especially since I hear that Enid has not aged particularly well.

[Jenn]

In article ,
Here in Ohio wrote:

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:27:48 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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 overall apparatus (internal and external) are similar enough that
we can all use them to accomplish the same things.

Yes, barring abnormalities.

Detecting predators
and prey are usually the important things, although speech has become
very important to humans.

Exactly.

Sure, there are minute physical differences,
but they're not enough to make one person prefer 1W SET amps over more
accurate amps. (Just as an example.)

I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the evidence is very clear
that physical differences in the apparatus can and do cause differences
in the amount of reflected sound that reaches inner ear.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

ig
y.
com
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.

We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not
involve the brain?

Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the
primary reason that people HEAR differently (what we
were
discussing) is differences in the brain?


Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

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

LOL Another "working URL"?

Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this
link, too?

LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.


Here's another relevant link for you to mess up with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

No discussion of the pinna's role.

Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

"The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises from
the opening of the ear canal on either side of the head."

References:

http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html

"Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"


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

"The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of
the ear that resides outside of the head (this may also
be referred to as the auricle)."

If I referred you to the current research in this
matter, would you read it?

Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are
well-known synonyms for each other, what could you
possibly contribute?

LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you want
to learn something?

Give me a laugh, Jenn.

Why would it be "a laugh", Arny?

Post the URL.

The research that I have as part of a study by a scholarly study through
UCLA of which I am a participant (I've mentioned this here before)
aren't as yet on the web. The basic information is in books. Would you
like a list. I'll also ask the research team what I am allowed to place
here at this point, as the study is not completed and it isn't yet,
AFAIK, copyrighted.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Here in Ohio wrote:

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.

He actually played better when well oiled up. Several shots of Jack
Daniels slowed him down and he wasn't as able to try to impress you
every second with his speed. He got much better tone when he was
playing slower.

There is a film clip of Glenn Gould drinking a healthy shot of whiskey
before playing a note-perfect take of the last movement of Bach's
Italian Concerto. The trick is to be Glenn Gould before you drink, I
guess.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

ig
y.
com
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.

We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not
involve the brain?

Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the
primary reason that people HEAR differently (what we
were
discussing) is differences in the brain?


Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

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

LOL Another "working URL"?

Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this
link, too?

LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.


Here's another relevant link for you to mess up
with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

No discussion of the pinna's role.

Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

"The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises from
the opening of the ear canal on either side of the
head."

References:

http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html

"Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"


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

"The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of
the ear that resides outside of the head (this may also
be referred to as the auricle)."

If I referred you to the current research in this
matter, would you read it?

Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are
well-known synonyms for each other, what could you
possibly contribute?

LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you want
to learn something?

Give me a laugh, Jenn.

Why would it be "a laugh", Arny?

See above.

Post the URL.

The research that I have as part of a study by a
scholarly study through UCLA of which I am a participant
(I've mentioned this here before) aren't as yet on the
web. The basic information is in books. Would you like
a list. I'll also ask the research team what I am
allowed to place here at this point, as the study is not
completed and it isn't yet, AFAIK, copyrighted.

IOW, you really had nothing in hand to share.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message


I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the
evidence is very clear that physical differences in the
apparatus can and do cause differences in the amount of
reflected sound that reaches inner ear.

It's all about perception, Jenn. The ear isn't exactly simple, but it pales
in comparison to the brain. Suffice it to say that there is a lot that
happens in the brain that tends to significantly modify, and even nullify
fairly significant changes in the sound that reaches the inner ear and
beyond.

This is one reason why the PCABX site spends so much time on training people
how to hear differences in SQ due to technical differences in how it is
reproduced.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

od
ig
y.
com
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.

We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not
involve the brain?

Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the
primary reason that people HEAR differently (what we
were
discussing) is differences in the brain?


Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

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

LOL Another "working URL"?

Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this
link, too?

LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.


Here's another relevant link for you to mess up
with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

No discussion of the pinna's role.

Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

"The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises from
the opening of the ear canal on either side of the
head."

References:

http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html

"Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"


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

"The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of
the ear that resides outside of the head (this may also
be referred to as the auricle)."

If I referred you to the current research in this
matter, would you read it?

Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are
well-known synonyms for each other, what could you
possibly contribute?

LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you want
to learn something?

Give me a laugh, Jenn.

Why would it be "a laugh", Arny?

See above.

lol


Post the URL.

The research that I have as part of a study by a
scholarly study through UCLA of which I am a participant
(I've mentioned this here before) aren't as yet on the
web. The basic information is in books. Would you like
a list. I'll also ask the research team what I am
allowed to place here at this point, as the study is not
completed and it isn't yet, AFAIK, copyrighted.

IOW, you really had nothing in hand to share.

I have tons on hand to share. Do you want the list of the books or not?

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the
evidence is very clear that physical differences in the
apparatus can and do cause differences in the amount of
reflected sound that reaches inner ear.

It's all about perception, Jenn. The ear isn't exactly simple, but it pales
in comparison to the brain. Suffice it to say that there is a lot that
happens in the brain that tends to significantly modify, and even nullify
fairly significant changes in the sound that reaches the inner ear and
beyond.

This is one reason why the PCABX site spends so much time on training people
how to hear differences in SQ due to technical differences in how it is
reproduced.

But there are differences in what reaches the inner ear (BEFORE it
reaches the brain).

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

od
ig
y.
com
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.

We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does
not involve the brain?

Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that
the primary reason that people HEAR differently
(what we were
discussing) is differences in the brain?


Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

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

LOL Another "working URL"?

Are you saying that you've botched up accessing
this link, too?

LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.


Here's another relevant link for you to mess up
with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

No discussion of the pinna's role.

Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

"The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises from
the opening of the ear canal on either side of the
head."

References:

http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html

"Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"


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

"The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of
the ear that resides outside of the head (this may
also be referred to as the auricle)."

If I referred you to the current research in this
matter, would you read it?

Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are
well-known synonyms for each other, what could you
possibly contribute?

LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you
want to learn something?

Give me a laugh, Jenn.

Why would it be "a laugh", Arny?

See above.

lol

Post the URL.

The research that I have as part of a study by a
scholarly study through UCLA of which I am a participant
(I've mentioned this here before) aren't as yet on the
web. The basic information is in books. Would you like
a list. I'll also ask the research team what I am
allowed to place here at this point, as the study is not
completed and it isn't yet, AFAIK, copyrighted.

IOW, you really had nothing in hand to share.

I have tons on hand to share. Do you want the list of
the books or not?

Save your keyboard time for your usual trolling, Jenn.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

od
ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message
.
pr
od
ig
y.
com
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.

We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does
not involve the brain?

Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that
the primary reason that people HEAR differently
(what we were
discussing) is differences in the brain?


Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

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

LOL Another "working URL"?

Are you saying that you've botched up accessing
this link, too?

LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.


Here's another relevant link for you to mess up
with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

No discussion of the pinna's role.

Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

"The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises from
the opening of the ear canal on either side of the
head."

References:

http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html

"Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"


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

"The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of
the ear that resides outside of the head (this may
also be referred to as the auricle)."

If I referred you to the current research in this
matter, would you read it?

Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are
well-known synonyms for each other, what could you
possibly contribute?

LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you
want to learn something?

Give me a laugh, Jenn.

Why would it be "a laugh", Arny?

See above.

lol

Post the URL.

The research that I have as part of a study by a
scholarly study through UCLA of which I am a participant
(I've mentioned this here before) aren't as yet on the
web. The basic information is in books. Would you like
a list. I'll also ask the research team what I am
allowed to place here at this point, as the study is not
completed and it isn't yet, AFAIK, copyrighted.

IOW, you really had nothing in hand to share.

I have tons on hand to share. Do you want the list of
the books or not?

Save your keyboard time for your usual trolling, Jenn.

lol As usual, you don't want to know the truth. You never disappoint.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com

I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the
evidence is very clear that physical differences in the
apparatus can and do cause differences in the amount of
reflected sound that reaches inner ear.

It's all about perception, Jenn. The ear isn't exactly
simple, but it pales in comparison to the brain. Suffice
it to say that there is a lot that happens in the brain
that tends to significantly modify, and even nullify
fairly significant changes in the sound that reaches the
inner ear and beyond.

This is one reason why the PCABX site spends so much
time on training people how to hear differences in SQ
due to technical differences in how it is reproduced.

But there are differences in what reaches the inner ear
(BEFORE it reaches the brain).

Not but, but of course. Nobody who is knowlegable about how we perceive
bymeans of hearing thinks differently.

Then you would disagree with "Ohio's" statement. I'm glad that we agree.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the
evidence is very clear that physical differences in the
apparatus can and do cause differences in the amount of
reflected sound that reaches inner ear.

It's all about perception, Jenn. The ear isn't exactly
simple, but it pales in comparison to the brain. Suffice
it to say that there is a lot that happens in the brain
that tends to significantly modify, and even nullify
fairly significant changes in the sound that reaches the
inner ear and beyond.

This is one reason why the PCABX site spends so much
time on training people how to hear differences in SQ
due to technical differences in how it is reproduced.

But there are differences in what reaches the inner ear
(BEFORE it reaches the brain).

Not but, but of course. Nobody who is knowlegable about how we perceive
bymeans of hearing thinks differently.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

od
ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn"
wrote in message
.
pr
od
ig
y.
com
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.

We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does
not involve the brain?

Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that
the primary reason that people HEAR differently
(what we were
discussing) is differences in the brain?


Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

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

LOL Another "working URL"?

Are you saying that you've botched up accessing
this link, too?

LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.


Here's another relevant link for you to mess up
with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

No discussion of the pinna's role.

Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

"The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises
from the opening of the ear canal on either side
of the head."

References:

http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html

"Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"


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

"The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part
of the ear that resides outside of the head (this
may also be referred to as the auricle)."

If I referred you to the current research in this
matter, would you read it?

Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle
are well-known synonyms for each other, what could
you possibly contribute?

LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you
want to learn something?

Give me a laugh, Jenn.

Why would it be "a laugh", Arny?

See above.

lol

Post the URL.

The research that I have as part of a study by a
scholarly study through UCLA of which I am a
participant (I've mentioned this here before) aren't
as yet on the web. The basic information is in
books. Would you like a list. I'll also ask the
research team what I am allowed to place here at this
point, as the study is not completed and it isn't
yet, AFAIK, copyrighted.

IOW, you really had nothing in hand to share.

I have tons on hand to share.

It seems thjat you have nothng here that is readily obtainable or readily
sharable.

Do you want the list of the books or not?

Save your keyboard time for your usual trolling, Jenn.

lol As usual, you don't want to know the truth.

Jenn there is no such thing as "the truth". There is a lot of truth of one
kind or the other out there, but none of it is the truth.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to DebatingTradeBorg:

I have tons on hand to share. Do you want the list of
the books or not?

Save your keyboard time for your usual trolling, Jenn.

lol As usual, you don't want to know the truth. You never disappoint.

Arnii is so busy "working" on Usenet that he can't spare the time to read
a book. Especially on a subject in which he claims expertiese™.




--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.


Sure, there are minute physical differences,
but they're not enough to make one person prefer 1W SET amps over
more
accurate amps. (Just as an example.)

I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the
evidence is very clear that physical differences in
the apparatus can and do cause differences in the
amount of reflected sound that reaches inner ear.

It's all about perception, Jenn. The ear isn't exactly
simple, but it pales in comparison to the brain.
Suffice it to say that there is a lot that happens in
the brain that tends to significantly modify, and even
nullify fairly significant changes in the sound that
reaches the inner ear and beyond.

This is one reason why the PCABX site spends so much
time on training people how to hear differences in SQ
due to technical differences in how it is reproduced.

But there are differences in what reaches the inner ear
(BEFORE it reaches the brain).

Not but, but of course. Nobody who is knowlegable about
how we perceive bymeans of hearing thinks differently.

Then you would disagree with "Ohio's" statement.

Non sequitor.

If you said that there are physical differences in the hearing apparatus of
people with normal hearing that would make one person prefer 1W SET amps
over more accurate amps, you're jumping to conclusions.

The ear is connected to a very powerful and dominant organ that undergoes a
lifetime of training and conditioning. That conditioning tends to equalize
many perceptions, up until the person's hearing falls well out of the normal
range.

Most people will develop a distaste for amps that produce inharmonic
distortion that they keep until they lose the ability to hear anything like
normally.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg reveals the core truth of the "debating trade".

Jenn there is no such thing as "the truth".

Of course there isn't, Turdy. That's why you always "win".




--

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

[Ayn Marx]

Neither are we........................

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net


Arnii is so busy "working" on Usenet that he can't spare the time to read
a book. Especially on a subject in which he claims expertiese„¢.


LOL!

Middusi its like, theres existing anything worthy of, knowlege outside
off Goggle Midius, NoT ! ;-)

ROTFLMEEEOOOW ;-(

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

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

Arnii is so busy "working" on Usenet that he can't spare the time to read
a book. Especially on a subject in which he claims expertiese™.

LOL!

In Krooglish, one says "That's LOL!"

Middusi its like, theres existing anything worthy of, knowlege outside
off Goggle Midius, NoT ! ;-)

ROTFLMEEEOOOW ;-(

Would you like to be the Official Usenet Belt Sander?




--

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

[John Atkinson]

Sander deWaal wrote:
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
Arnii is so busy "working" on Usenet that he can't spare the time to read
a book. Especially on a subject in which he claims expertiese™.

LOL!

Middusi its like, theres existing anything worthy of, knowlege outside
off Goggle Midius, NoT ! ;-)

That's one for the Archives! LOtS! ;-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Eeyore]

Ayn Marx wrote:

Neither are we........................

Does anyone give a damn ?

Graham

[Jenn]

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Sander deWaal said:

Arnii is so busy "working" on Usenet that he can't spare the time to read
a book. Especially on a subject in which he claims expertiese™.

LOL!

In Krooglish, one says "That's LOL!"

Middusi its like, theres existing anything worthy of, knowlege outside
off Goggle Midius, NoT ! ;-)

ROTFLMEEEOOOW ;-(

Would you like to be the Official Usenet Belt Sander?

Craftsman?

[Peter Wieck]

Eeyore wrote:
Does anyone give a damn ?

No one but the three fleas. Funny how they orbit about each other and
are getting less and less traction.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Not at all. I note that the last set of RIAA stats on their site show
something like a 30% drop in vinyl sales, and sharp drops in SACD sales.
You really know how to pick the winners!

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...yrEndStats.pdf

Seems to me we went over this same ground last year, and nobody could verify
that the RIAA statistics included a complete tally (or any tally, for that
matter) of web sales.