[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse
sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound
quality and realism.

It is impossible to be the former, without the latter delusion.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
The fact is is that when best practices were followed throughout the
chain, vinyl wasn't too bad, but it was never intended to equal 30
ips half inch half track, and it never did.

So true.

To this day GOOD analog
tape is the gold standard of recording, and neither vinyl nor CD
equals it.

Yeah right :-)
As long as you ignore all the problems with tape, and don't actually have a
clue about the ACTUAL performance of tape Vs digital recording.

MrT

[Mr.T]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Some people prefer the treble digital artifacts of CD

And some people like to pluck quasi-scientific sounding terms out of their
arse :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
The SACD and DVD-A advocates have missed a tremendous sales demonstration
opportunity.

All they have to do is set up a booth or room at the AES or some high end
show (e.g. HE 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008...), composed of
one
of their new and nifty players playing one of their new and nifty discs
thorugh a great audio system in a great room. Of course, there would be a
back-to-back 16/44 KHz converter pair (example: Midiman's Flying Cow)
operating at unity gain and with minimal delay, that listeners could
switch
in and out of the signal path. A blind demonstration facility would be an
available option.


But since that doesn't work for their purpose, what they first do is totally
REMASTER the sound before going to DVDA/SACD so that it MUST sound
different.
Then people can pick the difference, when compared to a standard CD. :-)

Fortunately for once the number of people conned seems to be well short of
expectations :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
I have an mechanical engineer friend that worked on the
Orenda engine project (basically an aluminum BB Chevy
certified as an aircraft engine.) He was assigned the
cylinder heads, which had to have two spark plugs per
cylinder. He immediately sent off a memo stating that he
felt that this would decrease reliability by making
another stress riser to form cracks. They wrote the
Canada Transport people and they wrote back: It's not our
job to prove that two ignition systems are more reliable:
it's your job to prove they are less reliable. it's our
job to determine what constitutes proof. And since there
are thirty thousand airplanes with dual ignition in
Canada we will have to make change over if you do, we
will require really good proof. Now if you would like to
continue.....

This relates to the audio topic how???????????????


Not at all, but at least it was an interesting read, unlike most of this
thread :-)

MrT.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely
virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given
that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality
audio.

And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent* people.

If by "quality audio" you mean technical superiority, then I would go
with that. Past that, we're talking preference, and therefore
intelligence has nothing to do with it.


Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem they
have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually INFERIOR
to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince themselves.

No, it's very simple: if a person likes the sound of some recording,
based on his/her experience of that music, "inferior" has nothing to do
with it. By definition, for that person, it is "superior".


Such people even prefer vinyl, and valve amps to live music concerts without
PA, but I don't see so many debates on that issue. Even they have trouble
arguing that case :-)

I think that it's a perfectly legit preference. Now if your ideal is
reproducing, as closely as you can, the live music experience in your
home, then what you say above seems odd.

[Robert Orban]

In article ,
says...


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

It should be pretty obvious to an unbiased reader (not Stephen or Jen for
example) that the second paragraph refers to undamaged, even completely
virgin LPs. The point of the first paragraph is that Orban has very high
standards for choosing and preparing LPs for digitizing. But even given
that, the LP format still falls way short of modern standards for quality
audio.

Arny, every time I read one of your posts I get the impression that all
you listen to is the equipment and technology, and and that you rarely
listen to the music. There is much great and worthwhile music that
comes to us by way 78s, a format with even lower standards than the LPs
you so decry.

Your listing of Bob Orban's patents is very impressive, and I have
always admired and respected Bob's inventiveness and creativity. But
while several of Bob's inventions are indispensable, most of them are
sort of like guns, in that they are not always used for their intended
purpose and are also often used for evil, as they commonly are in
today's audio world.

Bob himself seems to espouse this philosophy of misuse in his post
describing the extensive processing he does to the sound of the original
LP when transferring it to digital. I would be happier with a basically
straight transfer from LP to digital, with the only special processing
applied being some modest declicking.

In my opinion (and that of my colleague Greg Ogonowski, an aficionado of
music from that era as well as an audio processing designer who is well
respected in the industry) the majority of popular music LPs from the late
'60s sound mediocre or worse. Because of a lack of standardized control room
monitoring and haphazard acoustic treatment, tonal balances from one LP to
the next were *grossly* (and unmusically) inconsistent. Many records had
sibilance distortion cut into them (I base this statement on the fact that I
have heard sibilance breakup during the first play of a surprising number of
virgin, factory-sealed LPs with a well set up Shure V15VXMR).

Sibilance distortion could be cut into the vinyl for several reasons.
"Acceleration limiters" of the era (like the Fairchild Conax) were crude at
best and not always used as required, and channel-strip de-essers were almost
unknown outside of cinema re-recording stages. So vocals in LPs of the era
tended to be boxy-sounding (although with natural sibilance balances) or to
be equalized to have more presence. The latter technique allowed sibilance to
sound clean on 15 ips and 30 ips master tapes (which have plenty of high
frequency headroom) but could cause major problems in cutting because the HF
headroom characteristic of vinyl (expressed in terms of cutting stylus
velocity) basically follows a 75 microsecond de-emphasis curve (i.e. -3 dB at
2122 Hz with a 6 dB/octave rolloff above that frequency), which is the high
frequency pole of RIAA playback EQ. I created the first Orban/Parasound de-
esser after watching mixers wrestle with the "vocal presence vs. sibilance"
problem. Admittedly, some engineers of the era coped reasonably well with the
presence/sibilance tradeoff, mostly by choice and placement of microphones,
but a surprising number did not. (My hat is off to Chuck Britz, who recorded
the Beach Boys at Capitol during this era.)

A surprising number of records from this era had hum cut on them, mostly from
instrument amplifiers (noise gates on individual mixer inputs were uncommon
in those days) or even from problems in the cutting chain. (The first time I
heard a major-label LP hum all the way through, including in the bands
between cuts, I could scarcely believe my ears.) A good restoration suite
will have a hum-removal comb filter available, which can be applied
selectively to the areas in the music where the hum is not psychoacoustically
masked by the music.

I have had a certain amount of personal experience engineering records in the
early '70s (with Beaver & Krause for Warner Bros.) and I recall inconsistent
control room monitoring environments, mediocre cutting chains that yielded
vinyl that sounded disappointing compared to the master tapes, and low
headroom recording tape that, combined with unavailability in many studios of
Dolby A noise reduction on the multitrack tape recorders, led to noise levels
on vinyl that were dominated by tape hiss. (We used Dolby A noise reduction
everywhere on all of the Warner Bros. B&K recordings, which paid off
particularly well when these were re-released on CD a number of years back
because they did not need aggressive single-ended noise reduction to sound
clean and quiet on CD.)

By 1980, the above limitations had disappeared. De-essers were widely used
during mixdown, noise reduction was available in every major studio for
tracking and mixing, monitors were calibrated, control room acoustics were
engineered instead of being catch-as-catch-can, and cutting chains had
improved immensely.

In 2007, people expect better sound than most pop music studios were able to
produce in the mid to late '60s. That is why my philosophy in transferring
LPs is to also remaster them to take advantage of signal processing tools
that engineers in the late '60s didn't have available. I know that some
people have a fetish for maintaining the original sound as much as possible,
but most folks who were actually studio engineers at the time have no
nostalgia for the technical limitations of the studios back in the day. As
for me, my transfers have gotten a lot of favorable comments from serious
collectors of obscure late '60s music. As far as I am concerned, the highest
praise I can get is "your transfer sounds like a good modern remastering of
the original master tape" (assuming, of course, that said "modern
remastering" does not include additional digital peak limiting, which I never
use in these transfers). To me, this requires a low, uncolored noise floor
and a spectral balance that allows the musical details to be heard clearly.
If I have done my job well, the music should appear to have snapped into
focus, no matter how murky or badly equalized the original LP sounded.
Percussion should sound punchy. Vocals should sound present but not sibilant.
The technical quality of the recording should never get in the way of the
music.

Bob Orban

[Mr.T]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...
Two track masters have been generally used since about a decade before
1965.

Since most releases then were mono, they were one track masters.
Mono LPs were available until well into the rock era. And in fact
most people prefer mono Beatles and Stones LPs (of that era)
sonically.

And in fact most of the Beatles and stones MONO releases were made on FOUR
track tape, just as many albums of the era were.
The Original Sgt Peppers mix was MONO, and master recordings made using TWO
by FOUR track tape machines synced together.

The mix down tape, and the original master tapes are not the same.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com...
Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem
they
have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually
INFERIOR
to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince
themselves.


I've been to enough live rock concerts to know that if not being true
to the original sound is inferior, I'll take inferiority....no, I'll
demand
it.

But of course live ROCK concerts involve so many variables as far as sound
reinforcement equipment and venue acoustics, that EVERY gig is unique.
(even ignoring the performance itself)

YOU of course are welcome to demand inferior sound, just don't expect the
rest of us to do so.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" wrote in message
news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent*
people.

If by "quality audio" you mean technical superiority, then I would go
with that. Past that, we're talking preference,

Which is what I said.

Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem
they
have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually
INFERIOR
to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince
themselves.

No, it's very simple: if a person likes the sound of some recording,
based on his/her experience of that music, "inferior" has nothing to do
with it. By definition, for that person, it is "superior".

And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality.
The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.

Such people even prefer vinyl, and valve amps to live music concerts
without
PA, but I don't see so many debates on that issue. Even they have
trouble
arguing that case :-)

I think that it's a perfectly legit preference. Now if your ideal is
reproducing, as closely as you can, the live music experience in your
home, then what you say above seems odd.

??? What YOU say seems odd!

But keep trying, I'm sure you will convince yourself sooner or later.

MrT.

[Scott Dorsey]

Robert Orban wrote:
In my opinion (and that of my colleague Greg Ogonowski, an aficionado of
music from that era as well as an audio processing designer who is well
respected in the industry) the majority of popular music LPs from the late
'60s sound mediocre or worse.

Oh, absolutely. BUT, it was typical of the times. In the case of classical
music, in which there was a reference to go by, it's clear that you can make
sonic changes to the originals.

But in the case of pop and rock music in which the reference was only in
the head of the producer, I am really reluctant to see sonic changes,
because they affect the music. Whether those changes are adverse or not
is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but I think the first rule is
to do no harm.

A couple examples: first, the Leon Russell live album. It has _no_ low
end. Someone just ran it through a sharp high-pass in the cutting room,
maybe to get rid of some low end problems in the live tapes. The CD
issue has the low end restored, more or less to what we would consider
concert level today... and it totally changes the impact of the music.
I think it does so in a bad way. You could argue it does so in a good
way, but either way it changes it.

Itchykoo Park used to be famous for the really, really deep kick drum,
which sounded like cardboard on small speakers. It was the lowest I
had ever seen anyone cut on a 45, and there was no way that record could
be played on a typical record player of the sixties. The CD reissue
turns it into a modern-style kick drum. It's a totally different song
when you do this.

Because of a lack of standardized control room
monitoring and haphazard acoustic treatment, tonal balances from one LP to
the next were *grossly* (and unmusically) inconsistent. Many records had
sibilance distortion cut into them (I base this statement on the fact that I
have heard sibilance breakup during the first play of a surprising number of
virgin, factory-sealed LPs with a well set up Shure V15VXMR).

Absolutely.

Sibilance distortion could be cut into the vinyl for several reasons.
"Acceleration limiters" of the era (like the Fairchild Conax) were crude at
best and not always used as required, and channel-strip de-essers were almost
unknown outside of cinema re-recording stages. So vocals in LPs of the era
tended to be boxy-sounding (although with natural sibilance balances) or to
be equalized to have more presence. The latter technique allowed sibilance to
sound clean on 15 ips and 30 ips master tapes (which have plenty of high
frequency headroom) but could cause major problems in cutting because the HF
headroom characteristic of vinyl (expressed in terms of cutting stylus
velocity) basically follows a 75 microsecond de-emphasis curve (i.e. -3 dB at
2122 Hz with a 6 dB/octave rolloff above that frequency), which is the high
frequency pole of RIAA playback EQ. I created the first Orban/Parasound de-
esser after watching mixers wrestle with the "vocal presence vs. sibilance"
problem. Admittedly, some engineers of the era coped reasonably well with the
presence/sibilance tradeoff, mostly by choice and placement of microphones,
but a surprising number did not. (My hat is off to Chuck Britz, who recorded
the Beach Boys at Capitol during this era.)

This is where microscopic examination comes into play because it allows you
to see if the sibilance is due to groove geometry or due to something wrong
in the mixing room. If it's due to groove geometry, there is often something
that you can do about it in playback (sometimes involving major changes to
the cartridge alignment to compensate for misaligned cutting heads).

In 2007, people expect better sound than most pop music studios were able to
produce in the mid to late '60s. That is why my philosophy in transferring
LPs is to also remaster them to take advantage of signal processing tools
that engineers in the late '60s didn't have available. I know that some
people have a fetish for maintaining the original sound as much as possible,
but most folks who were actually studio engineers at the time have no
nostalgia for the technical limitations of the studios back in the day.

I understand the technical limitations of the day, but I think those technical
limitations affect the music stylistically and they need to be retained. I
also think Bach should be played on original instruments for the same time.

If I have done my job well, the music should appear to have snapped into
focus, no matter how murky or badly equalized the original LP sounded.
Percussion should sound punchy. Vocals should sound present but not sibilant.
The technical quality of the recording should never get in the way of the
music.

I'd agree with this in the case of classical music, but with some rock, the
recording does get in the way of the music and that's what makes the music
what it is.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mr.T]

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com...
I don't think symphonys are all that consistent and venue acoustics
are also highly variable.

Yes, true. So what?

YOU of course are welcome to demand inferior sound, just don't expect
the
rest of us to do so.

Of course it does take a superior system to create a more
pleasing experience from inferior sound.

For "superior" read "more expensive" anyway :-)

For technical audible accuracy....an iPod will probably do.

Sure, using non compressed files, they can be damn good.
Better than a $100k turntable, which always amuses me.
But no need to spend the money Apple charge, a cheap CD player will do just
as well :-)

MrT.

[George M. Middius]

My God -- is Krooglish kontagious?

And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality.
The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.

Maybe she didn't mean "superior" in a "technical" sense, you fatuous
fart.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 29, 5:13 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Aug 29, 1:27 pm, wrote:
On Aug 29, 1:56 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:37 am, John Byrns wrote:
Exactly what is the CD sample rate not high enough for, and how do you
justify that statement? If the audio is first run through a 20 kHz
brick-wall filter the CD sample rate is plenty high. Brick-wall filters
can be built with today's digital techniques that do not contribute
phase distortion to the filtered signal.

How does one implement an anti-aliasing filter on the
input before a signal is digitized.....digitally?

Yes, in essence.

Put in a VERY gentle analog filter whose low-pass is at,
say, 64x that of your base sample rate. Oversample the
A/D at 64x

Is the A/D output changing at every sample or is constant
for 64 samples?

Irrelevant, all the data in the other 63 samples represents
information that's above the baseband, and whether it's
constant, changing or simply zeros, it's not in the baseband.

If its constant....then how does this prevent aliasing
that gets past the digital antialiasing filter?

Because the digital anti-aliasing filter IS A FILTER.
Its low-pass is at 20+ kHz. The aliasing issue
will only occur at 64x that, or at 1.28 MHz, and above.
Now, a simple, gentle, low-order analog filter is all
that's needed prior to the oversampler to prevent
this from generating aliases. That 1280 Mhz band
limit for the oversampler is SIX OCTAVES away
from from the baseband limit of 20+ kHz.

It, by the way, has been routinely this for the last couple
of decades in one form or another.

Which seems to indicate that the CD sample rate is
truly insufficient for the entire process.

It would seem that way if you don't understand the
process. The oversampling is done NOT because
of the bandwidth requirements, or any nonsense
like "capturing the stuff between the samples," it
is done because a 20 kHz anti-aliasing filter is
SO much better done in the digital domain than
in the analog domain.

One of the outcomes of the Nyquist/Shannon principles
is that once you know the bandwidth, sampling at a rate
just greater than that bandwidth will COMPLETELY capture
the entire waveform, contrary to the nonsense that
Ludwig claims. That's because it is the bandwidth AND
THE BANDWIDTH ALONE (all other things being equal)
that determines the trajectory of the signal between the
two sample intervals. If the bandwidth is limited to
less than 1/2 the sample rate, than what the signal
does between each sample is FULLY determined:
it can only take one path. Therefore, sampling at a rate
higher than that will NOT get you ANY more information,
it will only give you more data (and, that data is effectively
redundant: it contains nothing new or different than what
the minimally required sample rate already gave you).

With no intent on being insulting, if you feel that
oversampling means "indicate that the CD sample
rate is truly insufficient for the entire process," than you
clearly do not understand the process at all. If you feel
the need to make that comment, I might suggest you
study up on the principles involved, If you still believe
your view to be correct, be prepared to make the criticism
with the same degree of mathematical and scientific rigor
that Shannon, Nyquist, Blesser and others have used in
developing that foundation.

Me, I absolutely would NOT take the bet that you'd have
any success.

[Mr.T]

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
...
And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from
reality.
The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.

Maybe she didn't mean "superior" in a "technical" sense,

Just the "Alice in Wonderland" sense then?

you fatuous fart.

Looking in the mirror are you?

MrT.

[Robert Orban]

In article , says...


But in the case of pop and rock music in which the reference was only in
the head of the producer, I am really reluctant to see sonic changes,
because they affect the music. Whether those changes are adverse or not
is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but I think the first rule is
to do no harm.

A couple examples: first, the Leon Russell live album. It has _no_ low
end. Someone just ran it through a sharp high-pass in the cutting room,
maybe to get rid of some low end problems in the live tapes. The CD
issue has the low end restored, more or less to what we would consider
concert level today... and it totally changes the impact of the music.
I think it does so in a bad way. You could argue it does so in a good
way, but either way it changes it.

Itchykoo Park used to be famous for the really, really deep kick drum,
which sounded like cardboard on small speakers. It was the lowest I
had ever seen anyone cut on a 45, and there was no way that record could
be played on a typical record player of the sixties. The CD reissue
turns it into a modern-style kick drum. It's a totally different song
when you do this.

I understand your point, but I would ask you this -- *what* sound was in the
head of the producer? Was it as heard on Altec A7's? UREI's? JBL's? All of
those speakers were significantly colored and all sounded different from each
other, so the sound "in the producer's head" might be quite different than the
sound we hear on modern, well-engineered loudspeakers and might have been
different if the producer had mixed in a different control room with different
acoustics and/or a different model of loudspeaker.

As I stated in my post, I prefer to try to "correct" spectral balances that I
believe were probably caused by colored loudspeakers in the original mixdown
room or in the mastering room. I can only justify this by (1) my personal
preference (I'm not getting paid for my restoration work :-) and (2)
experiments done by Sean Olive and Floyd Toole on consumer loudspeaker
preference. With reference to the "remastering" controversy, what I take away
from Olive and Toole's work is that people seem to have a pretty well-defined
model in their brains of what a natural spectral balance should sound like and
they consistently prefer loudspeakers that supply this to them. Thanks largely
to O&T's work, today's popular loudspeakers are not only less colored than any
time in the past but also sound closer to each other regarding spectral
balance. It's amazing what you can get in a $250 loudspeaker today (from
companies like PSB, Mirage, Energy, etc., not to mention the speaker
manufacturers under the Harman banner) compared to what you could get even 10
years ago.

Bob Orban

[hank alrich]

Robert Casey wrote:


I submit the CD does too. And in the case of pop music made after
1965 or so, we shouldn't have to go from a vinyl release but the
original two track tape masters.


This assumes that those tapes were kept in good enviroments all this
time. And that the tape was of good quality and was able to last
without chemical breakdown and such.

Assuming they could even be found.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[George M. Middius]

First it's derivative Krooglish, then it's a lame IKYABWAI. Audio
'borgism is definitely viral.

The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.

Maybe she didn't mean "superior" in a "technical" sense,

Just the "Alice in Wonderland" sense then?

No, in the human sense, you putz.

you fatuous fart.

Looking in the mirror are you?

sigh

Why don't you ask yourself this simple question: "Why am I so threatened
by the viability of vinyl and turntables?"

Much better than a feeble-minded IKYABWAI, don't you "think"?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 29, 9:04 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse
sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound
quality and realism.

Then it's war, and rightfully so!

[dizzy]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

The rule of analog accuracy is five times bandwidth, as
every old Tektronix catalog stated,

No, you misunderstand. What you need your scope to have "5X
bandwidth" is to see the *harmonics* which may be in the signal that
you want to see. You do *not* need 100kHz bandwidth in your scope to
see a 20kHz sine wave. Indeed, a scope with 20kHz bandwidth would
work (see note).

You *do* need 5X or more the bandwidth (relative to the fundamental)
of a *complex* wave, for example a square wave, since, as you should
know, a complex wave is a sine wave with added harmonics, in this
example 60kHz, 100kHz, 140kHz, etc. Without enough bandwidth in the
scope to handle the harmonics, the display will show a gross
distortion of what's really there - perhaps showing only a sine wave
when the signal is in fact a square wave.

You can see that the above situation does *not* apply to audible
sound, since your ears do not hear anything above around 20kHz. Your
ears literally don't give a rats ass (can't tell) the difference
between a 20kHz sine wave and a 20kHz square wave, so there's *no*
need for anything like 5X "bandwidth headroom".

but a 23 kHz brick wall for 20
kHz repro is obvious horse**** on its face.

As is your entire erroneous "case", it seems.

(Note: the analog bandwidth rating of a scope is the -3dB point of
it's vertical amplifiers, so you would not expect to get an accurate
measurement of your signal's amplitude if you were looking at a signal
over about 80% of the scope's bandwidth, i.e. if accurately measuring
the amplitude of your 20kHz sine wave was something you wanted to do,
you'd want at least a 25kHz scope. In practice this is rarely an
issue - the far more common issues are distortion of the displayed
signal due to capacitive loading of the circuit by the scope-probe,
and sometimes, yes, insufficient bandwidth to capture the higher
harmonics required to accurately display the true waveform.)

[dizzy]

ScottW wrote:

It is only sufficient for storage and playback.

Duh, that's what the CD is for.

The CD is indeed quite sufficient, for the job it needs to do - store
and distribute audio.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
And that debate was finished a decade or two ago for *intelligent*
people.

If by "quality audio" you mean technical superiority, then I would go
with that. Past that, we're talking preference,

Which is what I said.

Anyone may still PREFER to listen to anything they like, the problem
they
have is accepting that they may PREFER something that is actually
INFERIOR
to the original sound. Hence their continued need to convince
themselves.

No, it's very simple: if a person likes the sound of some recording,
based on his/her experience of that music, "inferior" has nothing to do
with it. By definition, for that person, it is "superior".

And that's the problem, you still can't seperate PREFERENCE from reality.
The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.

Of course. But when I sit back in my chair and listen, what medium is
"technically superior" matters not a bit. What matters is how the music
sounds. YMMV, of course.


Such people even prefer vinyl, and valve amps to live music concerts
without
PA, but I don't see so many debates on that issue. Even they have
trouble
arguing that case :-)

I think that it's a perfectly legit preference. Now if your ideal is
reproducing, as closely as you can, the live music experience in your
home, then what you say above seems odd.

??? What YOU say seems odd!

How so?


But keep trying, I'm sure you will convince yourself sooner or later.

I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. I know what I listen for
in music. You seem to want me to listen for "technical superiority".

[Mr.T]

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
...
Maybe she didn't mean "superior" in a "technical" sense,

Just the "Alice in Wonderland" sense then?

No, in the human sense, you putz.
you fatuous fart.

Name calling, the last resort of those who have no rational argument.


Why don't you ask yourself this simple question: "Why am I so threatened
by the viability of vinyl and turntables?"

Since I already said you are welcome to YOUR *preference*, why don't you ask
YOURSELF why you cannot just accept YOUR OWN *preference* without trying to
change the rest of the worlds opinion? Or somehow feel the need to justify a
preference with total bull****!
Insecurity issues perhaps?

MrT.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said to TurdBorg:

The problem comes when a tiny minority of vinyl bigots confuse
sentimentality for LP's well-known audible foilbles with improved sound
quality and realism.

Then it's war, and rightfully so!

Arnii appreciates the free flow of information....
http://www.nogw.com/images/fox_septic.jpg

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" wrote in message
news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.

Of course. But when I sit back in my chair and listen, what medium is
"technically superior" matters not a bit. What matters is how the music
sounds.

Which is fine, that's why we all get to choose our own preferences.
But then there is no need to argue suedo scientific bull**** to justify a
*preference*.

I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. I know what I listen for
in music. You seem to want me to listen for "technical superiority".

In fact I couldn't give a rat's what you prefer to listen to, just your
continuing need to justify it.

MrT.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
The recording that most closely matches the original input signal is
technically "superior" no matter what YOU might PREFER.

Of course. But when I sit back in my chair and listen, what medium is
"technically superior" matters not a bit. What matters is how the music
sounds.

Which is fine, that's why we all get to choose our own preferences.

Exactly.

But then there is no need to argue suedo scientific bull**** to justify a
*preference*.

Perhaps you should address that to someone who has actually done what
you accuse, rather than to me.


I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. I know what I listen for
in music. You seem to want me to listen for "technical superiority".

In fact I couldn't give a rat's what you prefer to listen to, just your
continuing need to justify it.

And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either. Again, I suggest
that you relax, have a cookie, and complain to those who actually DO
have a need to justify their preferences.

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" wrote in message

et...
Perhaps you should address that to someone who has actually done what
you accuse, rather than to me.

Maybe you can tell us again what you were actually disagreeing with then?

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message


Since that cite isn't important enough to your argument
for you to quote, I will wait for you to actually state a
case.

You're cornered and talking trash Stephen. I win.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message


And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either.

If preferences are so worthless, why do you keep bothering us with yours,
Jen?

[Peter Wieck]

Keeerist....

Ninety-two (92) post including this one to-date.

Fly-poop to the right.
Pepper to the left.

Ain't none of you gonna change your closely held beliefs or reach any
sort of religious, vinyl, analog or digital epiphany.

Give it up, already!

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
. com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in

odigy.net


That's based on the highest authority for the purposes
of my music listening: my ears.

No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way
too loud.

Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage.

It is a fact classical musicians suffer even more
hearing damage than rock musicians in many cases.

No, it's not.

Proof by assertion?

Simple denial is miles from an intelligent argument.

You're really saying that the average
classical musician suffers more hearing damage than the
average rock band musician?

Jenn proves once again that she can paraphrase what others write. Trouble
is, she's again adding nothing of substance to the discussion.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message


Anyway watching George defend vinyl is as intolerable
to vinylphiles

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people.

as objectivists must find Arny representing objectivism.

Why would I bother trying to represent objectivism when I am a subjectivist?

You seem to be very badly confused, Scott.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u

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

The fact is is that when best practices were followed
throughout the chain, vinyl wasn't too bad, but it was
never intended to equal 30 ips half inch half track, and
it never did.

So true.

To this day GOOD analog
tape is the gold standard of recording, and neither
vinyl nor CD equals it.

Yeah right :-)

I still remember the days when people were serious about distributing
pre-recorded open reel tapes.

Compared to vinyl, a 7.5 ips half or quarter track tape could be quite a
treat. Especially the half tracks.

But, compared to the CD format, 7.5 ips quarter track is a very sonically
limited medium. Frankly, it sometimes has a tendency to take some of the
life out of LPs transcribed with it.

As long as you ignore all the problems with tape, and
don't actually have a clue about the ACTUAL performance
of tape Vs digital recording.

Agreed. Relevant evidence:

16/44 is sonically transparent:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

Very high quality high speed analog tape isn't sonically transparent:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
. com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Aug 29, 10:28 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
.
pr
odigy.net


That's based on the highest authority for the purposes
of my music listening: my ears.

No doubt damaged by exposure to too much live music way
too loud.

Jenn does not deny that she has hearing damage.

I don't feel the need to counter every ridiculous claim that is made.


It is a fact classical musicians suffer even more
hearing damage than rock musicians in many cases.

No, it's not.

Proof by assertion?

Gee, why don't you make the same assertion about Bret's statement just
above mine?


Simple denial is miles from an intelligent argument.

Making an unsupported statement like Bret's is miles from an intelligent
argument.


You're really saying that the average
classical musician suffers more hearing damage than the
average rock band musician?

Jenn proves once again that she can paraphrase what others write. Trouble
is, she's again adding nothing of substance to the discussion.

It's called "asking for clarification".

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either.

If preferences are so worthless, why do you keep bothering us with yours,
Jen?

Who said that preferences are worthless, Army? And I keep "bothering"
you with my preferences because the name of the group is
rec.audio.OPINION. If that "bothers" you, you are clearly free not to
read it.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

et...
Perhaps you should address that to someone who has actually done what
you accuse, rather than to me.

Maybe you can tell us again what you were actually disagreeing with then?

MrT.

At what point of the nearly 100 post thread? Concerning the above, I'm
disagreeing that I argued "suedo scientific bull**** to justify a
*preference*."

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either.

If preferences are so worthless, why do you keep
bothering us with yours, Jen?

Who said that preferences are worthless, Army?

I guess that means that you aren't aware of the meaning of what you said,
Jenn.

And I keep "bothering" you with my preferences because the name
of the group is rec.audio.OPINION.

But, the name of the group is not
rec.audio.opinion.bore.us.all.to.death.with.the.sa me.old.same.old.vynalista.propaganda
..

[Andrew Barss]

In rec.audio.tech Bret Ludwig wrote:

: You don't NEED an all aluminum, wet linered, gear driven DOHC V12
: with a one piece girdle lower end, dry sump, three valve and two plug
: per cylinder engine with fully mechanical timed fuel injection with
: dual redundant supervisory electronic control in a car. But if you are
: paying three or four hundred grand for a sports car that's the kind of
: overkill you want.

But a Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc. goes faster and handles differently than
a Toyota. If SACD indeed doesn't produce audible differences from
regular CD, then it's like paying a premium for a car engine that
has exactly the same performance properties as a regular Toyota engine.
Which even an extreme gearhead wouldn't do.


-- Andy Barss

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net

And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either.

If preferences are so worthless, why do you keep
bothering us with yours, Jen?

Who said that preferences are worthless, Army?

I guess that means that you aren't aware of the meaning of what you said,
Jenn.

I responded Mr. T's statement. He doesn't care what I prefer, and I
don't care what he prefers. To you this means that I believe that
preferences are worthless?


And I keep "bothering" you with my preferences because the name
of the group is rec.audio.OPINION.

But, the name of the group is not
rec.audio.opinion.bore.us.all.to.death.with.the.sa me.old.same.old.vynalista.pr
opaganda

I'm responding to YOUR posts, Arny.

BTW, why don't you post in this manner over at RAHE?

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Aug, 19:13, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either.
If preferences are so worthless, why do you keep
bothering us with yours, Jen?
Who said that preferences are worthless, Army?

I guess that means that you aren't aware of the meaning of what you said,
Jenn.

And I keep "bothering" you with my preferences because the name
of the group is rec.audio.OPINION.

But, the name of the group is not
rec.audio.opinion.bore.us.all.to.death.with.the.sa me.old.same.old.vynalista.propaganda
.


But, the name of the group is
rec.audio.opinion.arny's.is.the.only.one.that is.right