[Arny Krueger]

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...ons-page1.html

"But if the source material was analog and the vinyl represents a transfer
directly from analog, the digital counterpart will have a slightly altered
dynamic range that occurs when converting from analog to digital. The
relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB."

Complete nonsense. An ADC that changes the "relationship between peak and
RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." is totally broken. Normal conversion
involves changes that are less than 0.001 %.

" This again is due to analog-to-digital conversion and the spatial
information that's lost or compromised in the conversion. With vinyl, the
better the pressing and the phono cartridge, the better the spatial
reproduction."

There is no such thing as a vinyl record/playback cycle that has anything
like the precision we get from digital. Never has been, doesn't even come
within 10:1.

"This would be related very closely to the above. Complex tonal
characteristics are usually closely related to spatial characteristics."

Actually, tonality and spatial characterists are generally thought to be
completely independent of each other. Tone can be accurately transmitted as
a mono signal, recorded in an anechoic chamber.

"One should remember that the word "analog" is derived from analogous, and
that's where digital differs significantly, in that there are actual gaps
between the samples that are larger as the frequency increases."

This is just another iteration of the "Digital Gaps" urban myth.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example. It appears to be the new
face of S&V.

[Peter Wieck]

On Dec 19, 9:59*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...ons-page1.html

"But if the source material was analog and the vinyl represents a transfer
directly from analog, the digital counterpart will have a slightly altered
dynamic range that occurs when converting from analog to digital. The
relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB."

Complete nonsense. An ADC that changes the "relationship between peak and
RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." is totally broken. Normal conversion
involves changes that are less than 0.001 %.

" This again is due to analog-to-digital conversion and the spatial
information that's lost or compromised in the conversion. *With vinyl, the
better the pressing and the phono cartridge, the better the spatial
reproduction."

There is no such thing as a vinyl record/playback cycle that has anything
like the precision we get from digital. Never has been, doesn't even come
within 10:1.

"This would be related very closely to the above. Complex tonal
characteristics are usually closely related to spatial characteristics."

Actually, tonality and spatial characterists are generally thought to be
completely independent of each other. Tone can be accurately transmitted as
a mono signal, recorded in an anechoic chamber.

"One should remember that the word "analog" is derived from analogous, and
that's where digital differs significantly, in that there are actual gaps
between the samples that are larger as the frequency increases."

This is just another iteration of the "Digital Gaps" urban myth.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example. It appears to be the new
face of S&V.

Two religious camps irretrievably divided. And what else is new? And
why should this be discussed here? It will only serve to allow both
camps to ventilate to neither purpose nor end. And at the end of some
amount of repetitive, mindless blather leavened with a certain amount
of vituperation, nothing will change, nothing will be learned and only
hard feelings will remain.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:59?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...ons-page1.html

"But if the source material was analog and the vinyl represents a transfer
directly from analog, the digital counterpart will have a slightly altered
dynamic range that occurs when converting from analog to digital. The
relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB."

Complete nonsense. An ADC that changes the "relationship between peak and
RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." is totally broken. Normal conversion
involves changes that are less than 0.001 %.


Two religious camps irretrievably divided. And what else is new? And
why should this be discussed here? It will only serve to allow both
camps to ventilate to neither purpose nor end. And at the end of some
amount of repetitive, mindless blather leavened with a certain amount
of vituperation, nothing will change, nothing will be learned and only
hard feelings will remain.

Do you make no distinction between propagation of blatant, demonstratble
falsehood (e.g, that nonsense about 4dB change in crest factor) and
expression of 'religious belief'?



--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Peter Wieck]

On Dec 20, 6:26*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:59?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...ons-page1.html

"But if the source material was analog and the vinyl represents a transfer
directly from analog, the digital counterpart will have a slightly altered
dynamic range that occurs when converting from analog to digital. The
relationship between peak and RMS will change by as much as 4 dB."

Complete nonsense. An ADC that changes the "relationship between peak and
RMS will change by as much as 4 dB." is totally broken. Normal conversion
involves changes that are less than 0.001 %.

Two religious camps irretrievably divided. And what else is new? And
why should this be discussed here? It will only serve to allow both
camps to ventilate to neither purpose nor end. And at the end of some
amount of repetitive, mindless blather leavened with a certain amount
of vituperation, nothing will change, nothing will be learned and only
hard feelings will remain.

Do you make no distinction between propagation of blatant, demonstratble
*falsehood (e.g, that nonsense about 4dB change in crest factor) and
expression of 'religious belief'?

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- *Leo Tolstoy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the difference between blatant, demonstrable falsehoods and
religious beliefs would be?

That the writer of that propaganda piece believed what was written,
demonstrably false or not, brings it into the realm of closely held
belief or received wisdom - AKA religious belief. NOTHING will be
gained by attempting to change the writer's beliefs or the beliefs of
anyone here. Posting that article for discussion is a red herring,
pure and simple, so that the OP may engage in the sort of "discussion"
that seems to drive his life. There is not even the smallest pretense
of edification here - just an opportunity to expound the same tired
lines and pontificate from the same worn and uninteresting platform.
And at the end of a few dozen or a few score posts no one is
enlightened, no one is any better off and worst of all, nothing has
changed other than some likely hard feelings.

It is a dead-end road - amply and often demonstrated. Why take it?

-r-eligion is use with a small -r- to differentiate it from Faith.
Faith is never based on received wisdom. And religion requires no
diety - only a focus/icon.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[vlad]

On Dec 20, 8:21*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
. . .

And the difference between blatant, demonstrable falsehoods and
religious beliefs would be?

That the writer of that propaganda piece believed what was written,
demonstrably false or not, brings it into the realm of closely held
belief or received wisdom - AKA religious belief.

The writer made a statement (based on his religious beliefs) that can
be verified and, according to Arni, is wrong. If I will be given a
choice between Arnie and analog/vinyl-ophile I would rather listen to
Arnie.

So the question is - should we allow the false statement to be left
unanswered if it is an expression of blind faith?

I think, Arni does a useful service to the public by exposing this
ignorant opinion.

NOTHING will be
gained by attempting to change the writer's beliefs or the beliefs of
anyone here.

I think it is the shame that serious magazine allows printing this
kind of nonsense. It is detrimental to the reputation of the magazine.

Posting that article for discussion is a red herring,
pure and simple, so that the OP may engage in the sort of "discussion"
that seems to drive his life.

If you don't like the message, kill the messenger?

There is not even the smallest pretense
of edification here - just an opportunity to expound the same tired
lines and pontificate from the same worn and uninteresting platform.

I may be uninteresting to you, it is interesting to me.

And at the end of a few dozen or a few score posts no one is
enlightened, no one is any better off and worst of all, nothing has
changed other than some likely hard feelings.

How about newbies who are trying to understand things? This kind of
discussion is useful to them.


It is a dead-end road - amply and often demonstrated. Why take it?


The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove
(again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's.

vlad

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
vlad wrote:


The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove
(again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's.

I don't see that as much as I used to. More often I see people saying
that some LPs are the best sound that they have heard at home. That's
my stance.

[Peter Wieck]

On Dec 20, 7:05*pm, vlad wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:21*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
* * . . .



And the difference between blatant, demonstrable falsehoods and
religious beliefs would be?

That the writer of that propaganda piece believed what was written,
demonstrably false or not, brings it into the realm of closely held
belief or received wisdom - AKA religious belief.

The writer made a statement (based on his religious beliefs) that can
be verified and, according to Arni, is wrong. If I will be given a
choice between *Arnie and analog/vinyl-ophile I would rather listen to
Arnie.

So the question is - should we allow the false statement to be left
unanswered if it is an expression of blind faith?

I think, Arni does a useful service to the public *by exposing this
ignorant opinion.

NOTHING will be
gained by attempting to change the writer's beliefs or the beliefs of
anyone here.

I think it is the shame that serious magazine allows printing this
kind of nonsense. It is detrimental to the reputation of the magazine.

Posting that article for discussion is a red herring,
pure and simple, so that the OP may engage in the sort of "discussion"
that seems to drive his life.

If you don't like the message, kill the messenger?

There is not even the smallest pretense
of edification here - just an opportunity to expound the same tired
lines and pontificate from the same worn and uninteresting platform.

I may be uninteresting to you, it is interesting to me.

And at the end of a few dozen or a few score posts no one is
enlightened, no one is any better off and worst of all, nothing has
changed other than some likely hard feelings.

How about newbies who are trying to understand things? This kind of
discussion is useful to them.



It is a dead-end road - amply and often demonstrated. Why take it?

*The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove
(again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's.

vlad

Vlad, with all due respect:

a) their ain't no 'newbies' here based on participants of all similar
discussion in the recent past. When you actually find one - let me
know.
b) those that choose to participate in such pointless discussions
won't change either their positions or their opinions.
c) vinyl vs. anything else won't be settled, elucidated, enlightened
or even discussed rationally here either - again based on past
performances.

So, unless you truly enjoy banging your head against a sharp rock, let
it be. Expend your efforts towards something where you might actually
make a difference. Otherwise, sit on your hands and *DO NOT* let the
mind-numbing, dull, repetitive, drab, silly, utterly predictable
blather get yet another chance to dull our senses.

You wrote it yourself. Again-and-again. Yet, drag the reddest and
smelliest of thoroughly dead herrings in front of you - and off you go
on the same futile chase all over again. Why? Absolutely nothing will
change - yet you will serve only to gratify the purveyor of said red
herring. Just like a trained circus dog. So utterly sad. So utterly
pointless.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Dec 20, 6:26 am, Steven Sullivan
wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:59?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...ons-page1.html

"But if the source material was analog and the vinyl
represents a transfer directly from analog, the
digital counterpart will have a slightly altered
dynamic range that occurs when converting from analog
to digital. The relationship between peak and RMS will
change by as much as 4 dB."

Complete nonsense. An ADC that changes the
"relationship between peak and RMS will change by as
much as 4 dB." is totally broken. Normal conversion
involves changes that are less than 0.001 %.

Two religious camps irretrievably divided.

The error here is the apparent idea that if a belief is held in a religious
sense, that all other relevant beliefs that are different, are also
religious beliefs. For example there are people who believe that the Ganges
River is holy and has curative powers. There are others who believe that the
Ganges River is polluted and a hazard to human heath, based on chemical and
biological analysis of Ganges River water, and observation of relatively
large and clearly harmful amounts of both chemical and biological pathogens
that it contains. According to this kind of erroneous thinking anyone who
believes in the potential harm indicated by the chemical and biological
analysis is not a person who understands the relevance of Science to
everyday life, but rather a person who holds to the beliefs of a
counter-religion.

And what else is new?

I've actually never before heard anybody claim that merely converting a
signal from analog to digital will cause errors on the order of 4%.

And why should this be discussed here? It
will only serve to allow both camps to ventilate to
neither purpose nor end. And at the end of some amount
of repetitive, mindless blather leavened with a certain
amount of vituperation, nothing will change, nothing
will be learned and only hard feelings will remain.

Do you make no distinction between propagation of
blatant, demonstrable
falsehood (e.g, that nonsense about 4dB change in crest
factor) and
expression of 'religious belief'?

I know that most men, including those at ease with
problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept
the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as
would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions
which they have proudly taught to others, and which they
have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their
life -- Leo Tolstoy

And the difference between blatant, demonstrable
falsehoods and religious beliefs would be?

The error here is the stated belief that all religious beliefs are false.
For example, there is a body of guidance about human conduct that is known
as "The Ten Commandments" . Being religious in nature, some might tell us
that "The Ten Commandments" are all false because they are religious in
origin and nature. If the Ten Commandments are all false, then of course we
must conclude that all of the things it prohibits, such as murder, theft,
and greed are all good things, and should be encouraged among the general
population, to no end.

That the writer of that propaganda piece believed what
was written, demonstrably false or not, brings it into
the realm of closely held belief or received wisdom - AKA
religious belief.

The error here is the idea that once a person acquires a religious belief,
that there is no chance them ever changing. Apparently some would have us
believe that religious beliefs are permanent and unchangeable because they
are religious beliefs.

NOTHING will be gained by attempting to
change the writer's beliefs or the beliefs of anyone
here.

The error here is the idea that if a person has a false religious belief
that would have negative effects if adopted by others, then there is no
benefit in general to warning others about that religious belief. For
example, if a person is a terrorist because of a religious belief, that
person should not be apprehended or identified in any way, because after all
their desire to be a terrorist is due to a religious belief.

Posting that article for discussion is a red
herring, pure and simple, so that the OP may engage in
the sort of "discussion" that seems to drive his life.

The error here is the idea that there is no benefit to an audio forum, for
its members discuss other people's ideas about audio, if there is anybody
in the known universe who believes those ideas in a religious sense.

[Greg Wormald]

In article ,
vlad wrote:

*snip*

The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove
(again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's.

vlad

Vlad,

Most vinylphiles I run across also listen to CD.
Most vinylphiles I run across may prefer vinyl to CD but don't care to
try and 'prove' anything--they are too interested in listening to music.

"Inferior" and "superior" are value judgements and without real
specifications as to **how they are inferior/superior** must be taken as
personal opinion only, and hence the whole deal is a dead-end.

I really wish this whole argument would just go away.

Greg

[Harry Lavo]

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

On Dec 20, 6:26 am, Steven Sullivan
wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:59?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...ons-page1.html

"But if the source material was analog and the vinyl
represents a transfer directly from analog, the
digital counterpart will have a slightly altered
dynamic range that occurs when converting from analog
to digital. The relationship between peak and RMS will
change by as much as 4 dB."

Complete nonsense. An ADC that changes the
"relationship between peak and RMS will change by as
much as 4 dB." is totally broken. Normal conversion
involves changes that are less than 0.001 %.

Two religious camps irretrievably divided.

The error here is the apparent idea that if a belief is held in a
religious
sense, that all other relevant beliefs that are different, are also
religious beliefs. For example there are people who believe that the
Ganges
River is holy and has curative powers. There are others who believe that
the
Ganges River is polluted and a hazard to human heath, based on chemical
and
biological analysis of Ganges River water, and observation of relatively
large and clearly harmful amounts of both chemical and biological
pathogens
that it contains. According to this kind of erroneous thinking anyone who
believes in the potential harm indicated by the chemical and biological
analysis is not a person who understands the relevance of Science to
everyday life, but rather a person who holds to the beliefs of a
counter-religion.

Not so, if the scientific evidence is mustered and presented persuasively.
On the other hand, if it is "dictated" as something obvious and in such a
way as to belittle the others "belief", without support but with moral
condescension, then it is an opposing "religion".

And what else is new?

I've actually never before heard anybody claim that merely converting a
signal from analog to digital will cause errors on the order of 4%.

And the proper approach is to ask some intelligent questions that would
unmask what the factual basis is for that assertion, since you don't know,
rather than redicuing the proponent. You may have done this...I don't
remember the specifics here. It may be that there is some work done
somewhere that you are not aware of, whether it be true or erroneous. If
erroneous, you could then demonstrate the way in which it was erroneous.
In which case you might add to your reputation and share that with others
here.


And why should this be discussed here? It
will only serve to allow both camps to ventilate to
neither purpose nor end. And at the end of some amount
of repetitive, mindless blather leavened with a certain
amount of vituperation, nothing will change, nothing
will be learned and only hard feelings will remain.

Do you make no distinction between propagation of
blatant, demonstrable
falsehood (e.g, that nonsense about 4dB change in crest
factor) and
expression of 'religious belief'?

I know that most men, including those at ease with
problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept
the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as
would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions
which they have proudly taught to others, and which they
have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their
life -- Leo Tolstoy

And the difference between blatant, demonstrable
falsehoods and religious beliefs would be?

The error here is the stated belief that all religious beliefs are false.
For example, there is a body of guidance about human conduct that is known
as "The Ten Commandments" . Being religious in nature, some might tell us
that "The Ten Commandments" are all false because they are religious in
origin and nature. If the Ten Commandments are all false, then of course
we
must conclude that all of the things it prohibits, such as murder, theft,
and greed are all good things, and should be encouraged among the general
population, to no end.

This is a complete non-sequitor, of which you are doubtless well aware. It
also frames the issue badly. One may believe in the Ten Commandments as a
superior moral code based simply on secular understanding, and challenge the
reality of whether it came from on high and was delivered to Moses on the
Mount. Thus one can challenge the "religiousity" of the belief which still
supporting its essential morality.


That the writer of that propaganda piece believed what
was written, demonstrably false or not, brings it into
the realm of closely held belief or received wisdom - AKA
religious belief.

The error here is the idea that once a person acquires a religious belief,
that there is no chance them ever changing. Apparently some would have us
believe that religious beliefs are permanent and unchangeable because they
are religious beliefs.

If you replace "no chance" with "rarely, if ever" then this is probably a
pretty valide assumption based on generalized human experience. No other
extension of our humanity has ever propogated such bloodshed and violence
upon our fellow men rather than face challenge.

NOTHING will be gained by attempting to
change the writer's beliefs or the beliefs of anyone
here.

The error here is the idea that if a person has a false religious belief
that would have negative effects if adopted by others, then there is no
benefit in general to warning others about that religious belief. For
example, if a person is a terrorist because of a religious belief, that
person should not be apprehended or identified in any way, because after
all
their desire to be a terrorist is due to a religious belief.

Not too carefully reasoneed, Arny. The person reading what you consider a
false religous belief can make his own decision and nobody is hurt other
than perhaps he/she or their families pocketbook. In a free country, we
call that freedom. A terriorist is somebody committed to acts of terror
sprung upon an unsuspecting populace who have absolutely no control (and
thus no freedom) over the situation.

Posting that article for discussion is a red
herring, pure and simple, so that the OP may engage in
the sort of "discussion" that seems to drive his life.

The error here is the idea that there is no benefit to an audio forum, for
its members discuss other people's ideas about audio, if there is anybody
in the known universe who believes those ideas in a religious sense.

Here I agree with you, so long as it is a discussion and simply not just
"shouting" at one another and engaging in defamatory personal attack. One
can say, "I disagree with that particular (religious) believe of yours, and
here is why, and here is the supporting evidence". In general, that is how
you "win" an argument. From Merriam-Webster Online:

"2a: a reason given in proof or rebuttal b: discourse intended to persuade
3b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion"

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:25:12 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
vlad wrote:


The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove
(again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's.

I don't see that as much as I used to. More often I see people saying
that some LPs are the best sound that they have heard at home. That's
my stance.


It's mine as well. Most modern CDs are far superior to the average vinyl
record, but a few records can remind one in ways that no CD ever has of why
one got into the audio hobby in the first place.

[vlad]

On Dec 20, 6:31 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Dec 20, 7:05 pm, vlad wrote:


Vlad, with all due respect:

a) their ain't no 'newbies' here based on participants of all
similar
discussion in the recent past. When you actually find one - let me
know.

You don't know how many "newbies" are lurking here. If you have a
reliable source of information, please, let us know.




b) those that choose to participate in such pointless discussions
won't change either their positions or their opinions.

You don't know it either. I believe that intelligent people can
argue, and as the result of discussion can change their views.


So, unless you truly enjoy banging your head against a sharp rock,
let
it be. Expend your efforts towards something where you might
actually
make a difference. Otherwise, sit on your hands and *DO NOT* let
the
mind-numbing, dull, repetitive, drab, silly, utterly predictable
blather get yet another chance to dull our senses.

Am I paranoid or you are trying to tell me what I should do and what
not?



You wrote it yourself. Again-and-again. Yet, drag the reddest and
smelliest of thoroughly dead herrings in front of you - and off you
go
on the same futile chase all over again. Why? Absolutely nothing
will
change - yet you will serve only to gratify the purveyor of said
red
herring. Just like a trained circus dog. So utterly sad. So utterly
pointless.

Peter, if you don't like this kind of discussions, don't read it.
As it seems to me, you are trying to police this group.

I still would like to know if false statements should go
unchallenged in this group?

vlad

[Peter Wieck]

Vlad:

Worthy questions. Please note the interpolations.

On Dec 21, 3:09*pm, vlad wrote:

* You don't know how many "newbies" are lurking here. If you have a

If there are newbies lurking, they have been subjected to this
particular discussion ad-nauseum, and certainly do not need to be
subjected to it again.

* b) those that choose to participate in such pointless discussions
* won't change either their positions or their opinions.

*You don't know it either. I believe that intelligent people can
argue, and as the result of discussion can change their views.

Perhaps. But is hasn't yet happened here. Just the same tired
repetition of the same tired positions with the same tired results. In
this case, "past performance" does happen to be a pretty good
indication of future performance.

* So, unless you truly enjoy banging your head against a sharp rock,
let
* it be. Expend your efforts towards something where you might
actually
* make a difference. Otherwise, sit on your hands and *DO NOT* let
the
* mind-numbing, dull, repetitive, drab, silly, utterly predictable
* blather get yet another chance to dull our senses.

*Am I paranoid or you are trying to tell me what I should do and what
*not?

Not hardly telling you what to do. Just *asking* you to analyze what
exactly is going on and to use that analysis to respond appropriately.
You are, I hope, a free individual gifted with free will. I am asking
you to use that free will rather than to go haring off after a red
herring.

* You wrote it yourself. Again-and-again. Yet, drag the reddest and
* smelliest of thoroughly dead herrings in front of you - and off you
go
* on the same futile chase all over again. Why? Absolutely nothing
will
* change - yet you will serve only to gratify the purveyor of said
red
* herring. Just like a trained circus dog. So utterly sad. So utterly
* pointless.

* * *Peter, if you don't like this kind of discussions, don't read it.
*As it seems to me, you are trying to police this group.

Nope. Just asking the group whether or not the group wishes to indulge
in further discussions of dead-end subject to no discernable end. That
is, break the vicious circle of predictable Versicle & mandated
Response.

* * *I still would like to know if false statements should go
*unchallenged in this group?

NO FALSE STATEMENT WAS MADE -IN THE GROUP- !

Said Statement was made in SOUND and VISION. Take your challenges
THERE where those who were subjected to said statement might have an
actual interest in its veracity or not.

THE OP BROUGHT THAT STATEMENT HERE. That, with respect, is the
particularly foul smelling Red Herring. The OP brought that here as
another opportunity go climb up on his platform in hopes of starting
the same tired discussion all over again. If you _REALLY_ want to do
some good with your facts and your truths, go to Sound and Vision.
Write to the editor, go to their blog if they have one - whatever
blows your dress up. Please just spare this group the discussion of
something already done-to-death just to gratify one individual's tired
agenda. Don't be Pavlov's dog - it demeans you.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Robert Peirce[_2_]]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:25:12 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
vlad wrote:


The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove
(again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's.

I don't see that as much as I used to. More often I see people saying
that some LPs are the best sound that they have heard at home. That's
my stance.


It's mine as well. Most modern CDs are far superior to the average vinyl
record, but a few records can remind one in ways that no CD ever has of why
one got into the audio hobby in the first place.

In my experience, the "average" vinyl has always been pretty bad. The
original "average" CDs were pretty bad as well. I think that was
because many were mastered directly from tapes EQd for LPs, but I can't
be sure of that.

Modern high end vinyl and most CDs are equally good, but different, but
not that different. It takes a lot of concentration for me to notice
any difference on most recordings and I wonder how much of that is
actually there. When I am listening to enjoy the music, I don't notice
any difference any more on 99% of the music I listen to.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
Vlad:

Worthy questions. Please note the interpolations.

On Dec 21, 3:09?pm, vlad wrote:

? You don't know how many "newbies" are lurking here. If you have a

If there are newbies lurking, they have been subjected to this
particular discussion ad-nauseum, and certainly do not need to be
subjected to it again.

To me, *you* are a newbie. That's how long I've been posting.

Your equation of factual errors with statement of religious
belief, is simply fallacious. Nor is it incumbent upong RAHE
posts to only discuss other RAHE posts. It is perfectly
reasonable to discuss articles on audio quality that are
pubklished elsewhere...in this case, S&V, which is indeed
in sad decline.

particularly foul smelling Red Herring.


Do you know what a red herring is? It is an attempt to *divert*
or *change* the subject. But the subject of RAHE is essentially
audio quality. The article is about that.

I myself have brought Mr. Fraboni's *terrible* journalism about audio
quality to the attention of several audio discussion boards. That
s where Arny saw him mentioned first, I'd wager.





--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Arny Krueger]

[Moderator's note: The subject discussed in the original post in this
thread was considered on-topic for RAHE and that is why it was approved.
Discussing what should be allowed on RAHE is NOT on-topic per the
Guidelines. Those discussions are to go to the RAHE-DISCUSS mailing
list. -- deb ]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

Vlad:

Worthy questions. Please note the interpolations.

On Dec 21, 3:09 pm, vlad wrote:

You don't know how many "newbies" are lurking here. If
you have a

If there are newbies lurking, they have been subjected to
this particular discussion ad-nauseum, and certainly do
not need to be subjected to it again.

Please define "this particular discusison".

The OP characterized it as being "Sound And Vision's Technical Decline".

The OP was based on direct quotes from S&V that appear to be new and unique.

Exactly what is "this particular discusison" and how has it been discussed
here "ad nauseum" given that it is based on fairly recent quotes from S&V.

b) those that choose to participate in such pointless
discussions won't change either their positions or
their opinions.

You don't know it either. I believe that intelligent
people can argue, and as the result of discussion can
change their views.

Perhaps.

What controversial item for discussion would be more or less "perhaps"?

But it hasn't yet happened here.

Seems reasonable, given that it appears to be a new topic.

Just the same
tired repetition of the same tired positions with the
same tired results.

But its a new topic, isn't it?

In this case, "past performance" does
happen to be a pretty good indication of future
performance.

Seems like a wet blanket argument. ;-)

So, unless you truly enjoy banging your head against a
sharp rock, let it be. Expend your efforts towards
something where you might actually make a difference.
Otherwise, sit on your hands and *DO NOT* let the
mind-numbing, dull, repetitive, drab, silly, utterly
predictable blather get yet another chance to dull our
senses.

Am I paranoid or you are trying to tell me what I should
do and what not?

More than that, it appears that we are being told that "mind-numbing, dull,
repetitive, drab, silly, utterly
predictable blather" is guaranteed to be the only possible outcome. IOW,
someone is claiming to be omniscient.

Not hardly telling you what to do. Just *asking* you to
analyze what exactly is going on and to use that analysis
to respond appropriately.

As if the people who post here wouldn't know that a priori?

You are, I hope, a free
individual gifted with free will. I am asking you to use
that free will rather than to go haring off after a red
herring.

And the red herring is exactly what?

It appears to me that there is a red herring - a claim that both sides of
the discussion suggested by the OP would be necessarily religious.

You wrote it yourself. Again-and-again. Yet, drag the
reddest and smelliest of thoroughly dead herrings in
front of you - and off you go on the same futile chase
all over again. Why? Absolutely nothing will change -
yet you will serve only to gratify the purveyor of said
red herring. Just like a trained circus dog. So utterly
sad. So utterly pointless.

Peter, if you don't like this kind of discussions, don't
read it. As it seems to me, you are trying to police
this group.

Exactly. Not only that, the police are trying to tell us that all possible
viewpoints will be necessarily religious.

pe. Just asking the group whether or not the group
wishes to indulge in further discussions of dead-end
subject to no discernable end. That is, break the vicious
circle of predictable Versicle & mandated Response.

The socially acceptable means for obtaining that outcome appears to be to
personally participate in accordance with your own preferences, and allow
others to the same.

I still would like to know if false statements should go
unchallenged in this group?

NO FALSE STATEMENT WAS MADE -IN THE GROUP- !

Really? Casual inspection found any number of false statements, both in the
OP, and also in a response to the OP.

Said Statement was made in SOUND and VISION. Take your
challenges THERE where those who were subjected to said
statement might have an actual interest in its veracity
or not.

So it is then resolved that rec.audio.high-end should never be a forum for
discussion of articles in any audio-related publication? When did this go
into the posting guidelines?

THE OP BROUGHT THAT STATEMENT HERE.

Isn't the OP within the following official RAHE guidelines:

"Within the realm of high-end audio, as defined previously, any
topic is permitted. Theories, opinions, and questions are all
appropriate if they are concerned with the reproduction of music."

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:11:26 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:25:12 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
vlad wrote:


The only dead-end road I see is for vinylophiles trying to prove
(again and again) that CD's are inferior to LP's.

I don't see that as much as I used to. More often I see people saying
that some LPs are the best sound that they have heard at home. That's
my stance.


It's mine as well. Most modern CDs are far superior to the average vinyl
record, but a few records can remind one in ways that no CD ever has of why
one got into the audio hobby in the first place.

In my experience, the "average" vinyl has always been pretty bad.

Without question. Agreed.

The original "average" CDs were pretty bad as well. I think that was
because many were mastered directly from tapes EQd for LPs, but I can't
be sure of that.

It's possible, I've heard that particular speculation before. But whatever
the reason, it's true, early CDs were mostly atrocious sounding.

Modern high end vinyl and most CDs are equally good, but different, but
not that different. It takes a lot of concentration for me to notice
any difference on most recordings and I wonder how much of that is
actually there. When I am listening to enjoy the music, I don't notice
any difference any more on 99% of the music I listen to.

Also agreed.

[vlad]

On Dec 22, 4:54*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
Vlad:

Worthy questions. Please note the interpolations.

On Dec 21, 3:09*pm, vlad wrote:

* You don't know how many "newbies" are lurking here. If you have a

If there are newbies lurking, they have been subjected to this
particular discussion ad-nauseum, and certainly do not need to be
subjected to it again.

May I conclude that your "If" means that you don't know how many
newbies (if any) are here? I must confess that I don't know either. Or
care. But I believe, as a matter of principal, that they (whoever they
are) can decide for themselves and do not need any guardian deciding
what they can be subjected to.

. . .

Perhaps. But is hasn't yet happened here. Just the same tired
repetition of the same tired positions with the same tired results. In
this case, "past performance" does happen to be a pretty good
indication of future performance.


May be I am more optimistic then you and believe that logical
arguments will prevail one day :-)

. . .

Not hardly telling you what to do. Just *asking* you to analyze what
exactly is going on and to use that analysis to respond appropriately.
You are, I hope, a free individual gifted with free will. I am asking
you to use that free will rather than to go haring off after a red
herring.

Thank you, Peter. I believe that I made my analysis and I disagree
with you about this issue.

. . .

Said Statement was made in SOUND and VISION. Take your challenges
THERE where those who were subjected to said statement might have an
actual interest in its veracity or not.


So, we are not allowed to discuss it here? Is it somewhere in a
charter? What else is out of limit to this group?

I believe that Arni was absolutely right to bring it here.

THE OP BROUGHT THAT STATEMENT HERE. That, with respect, is the
particularly foul smelling Red Herring. The OP brought that here as
another opportunity go climb up on his platform in hopes of starting
the same tired discussion all over again. If you _REALLY_ want to do
some good with your facts and your truths, go to Sound and Vision.
Write to the editor, go to their blog if they have one - whatever
blows your dress up. Please just spare this group the discussion of
something already done-to-death just to gratify one individual's tired
agenda. Don't be Pavlov's dog - it demeans you.

Peter, it does not do any good to intelligent man (and I believe
you are one) to be obnoxious and/or insulting to your opponent.

vlad


Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA