[[email protected]]

On Jul 8, 4:37 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:


And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you probably wouldn't hear them either?


and you are now flip flopping


I do hear the difference!!!

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Jul 8, 4:37 pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:


And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the
best codecs at 192kbps and above, you probably wouldn't
hear them either?


and you are now flip flopping


I do hear the difference!!!

Since when did you reverse your position on ABX?

[[email protected]]

On Jul 8, 3:16 pm, "jer0en" wrote:
actually error correction is what definitively sets aside digital from
analogue data.
...
without adding error correction information, digital data simply reverts to
being another AC signal,
...
but without error correction, exactly the same happens to digitally as to
analoguely interpretable signals,
they deteriorate with every other
millimeter that they travel, in short you only loose and loose signal
information until the signal is eventually depleted.

...

now due to the protection of copyright law, no error correction information
is added to the data on commercial CDs and DVDs, and the OS stored on these
media does not halt the system in case of a misread. it just substitutes a
zero.

due to all kinds of circumstances; the quality of the laser unit, the read
speed, the number of parallel processes running, etc. etc., the number of
zeros "read" is bound to increase.

but the root of the matter is that once the data is read, the resulting AC
signal will then be travelling through the digital device (cd/dvd player)
completely unprotected, through nanometerwide signal paths that could in
fact only make sense in an environment in which error correction is
consistently applied.

If they gave out Nobel prizes in pure hogwash, you'd
most certainly be awash in pure hogs.

Your little novella on error correction is at once entertaining,
fantastic, rambling, largely irrelevant and, fortunately, wrong.

[Arny Krueger]

"jer0en" wrote in message


signal deterioration of course depending on the amplitude
(strength) and frequency (speed) of the signal, magnetic
interference along the signal path (warded off by
shielding) and, first of all, the material composition
and mass of the conductor, i.e. the width of the signal
path, and the number of clamped removable connections
along it, that act as width bottlenecks.

Bad prose, bad rhetoric, bad facts, bad conclusions.

If the width of conductors was a problem, no modern computer would boot, let
alone compute.

If any of the items you mentioned were irresolvable problems, nothing would
work.

Most data paths in modern digital equipment is not error-checked because it
doesn't need to be. Short lengths of wire are really pretty good stuff -
highly reliable and accurate.

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
"jer0en" wrote
signal deterioration of course depending on the amplitude
(strength) and frequency (speed) of the signal, magnetic
interference along the signal path (warded off by
shielding) and, first of all, the material composition
and mass of the conductor, i.e. the width of the signal
path, and the number of clamped removable connections
along it, that act as width bottlenecks.

Bad prose, bad rhetoric, bad facts, bad conclusions.

"jer0en" is actually a sophisticated automated random phrase
generator in development by some AI graduate students with
too much time on their hands over the summer break. It is to
their credit that so many of us were fooled into thinking that it
was a real human. But clearly no real human is that uninformed
of technical facts. Or else "Radium" is using a new alias.

Plonk the noise source and help improve Usenet.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 9, 6:43 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Jul 8, 4:37 pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the
best codecs at 192kbps and above, you probably wouldn't
hear them either?

and you are now flip flopping

I do hear the difference!!!

Since when did you reverse your position on ABX?

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Les Cargill wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey wrote:
I hate to tell you this, but it is very, very obvious to hear the differences
between mp3 and CD files. I suggest you first of all go and listen on a
decent playback system, and secondly I suggest you get the AES disc that
gives exaggerated examples of various lossy compression artifacts. Once you
learn what they sound like, they will start driving you up the wall until
soon you will not be able to stand mp3 encoding any longer.
The AES disc dates from *how* many years ago? (I have it too, but not at hand)

It's been a while, I admit.

MP3 codecs have come a long way in just the past five years.

This is true, but you will STILL hear plenty of the same kinds of artifacts,
as well as some new ones.

No, I probably won't hear them, if the mp3 is well-made, because the codecs have gotten THAT
much better. I can still hear them on mediocre 128kbs downloads of unknown provenance, though.

And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you
probably wouldn't hear them either?





Couldn't you generate this sort of thing by taking the difference signal
between an MP3 and the original PCM dataset?



No, because the mp3 is certainly *measurably different* from the source.
But that doesn't mean you can necessarily hear the differnece...
even if you can hear the 'difference signal' in isolation.

mp3s are based on psymodels of what gets masked during typical hearing.
That's the whole 'trick' of good lossy compression...it's based on
psychoacoustics.




--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Scott Dorsey wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the best codecs at 192kbps and above, you
probably wouldn't hear them either?

On the best codecs at 192kbps, the tonal problems aren't so severe but I
bet you can still hear repeating modulation on the sound of a triangle.

At the higher rates with modern codecs, the tonality is a whole lot better
than it used to be, and only the stereo image goes to pot. This is a big
improvement, but it's still not transparency.

Well, a good set of ABX comparisons would tell us that, yes?



--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 9, 6:43 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Jul 8, 4:37 pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the
best codecs at 192kbps and above, you probably wouldn't
hear them either?

and you are now flip flopping

I do hear the difference!!!

Since when did you reverse your position on ABX?

no reversal,
I do not accept _hardware switchers_ for ABX.
any hardware in the audio circuit adds it's coloration and nulls any
differences.
I used itunes, nothing mechanical in the signal path.
same song, different formats, matched levels, no open GUI window
switched by keyboard.

the term _probably_ is where I say flip flop
And dare I posit that in an ABX comparison using the
best codecs at 192kbps and above, you probably wouldn't
hear them either?

either there is or is not a difference
if there is material removed, there is a difference.
I hear a difference
Scott hears a difference (independent verification)

my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and lp's
its the same music she says. therefore ... !
now would my own mother lie to me?
or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle differences?
Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


either there is or is not a difference

There is always a difference. The interesting question is whether the
difference is audible.


if there is material removed, there is a difference.

So what? There is always a difference.

I hear a difference

Based on what, the above flawed logic?

Scott hears a difference (independent verification)

It's not clear that you were comparing comparable things.

my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and lp's

My regrets.

its the same music she says. therefore ... !
now would my own mother lie to me?
or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle
differences?

Or, she has some age-related hearing impairments. Or whatever.

Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!

How do you know that?

[[email protected]]

On Jul 9, 4:50 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



either there is or is not a difference

There is always a difference. The interesting question is whether the
difference is audible.

if there is material removed, there is a difference.

So what? There is always a difference.

I hear a difference

Based on what, the above flawed logic?

Scott hears a difference (independent verification)

It's not clear that you were comparing comparable things.

my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and lp's

My regrets.

its the same music she says. therefore ... !
now would my own mother lie to me?
or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle
differences?

Or, she has some age-related hearing impairments. Or whatever.

Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!

How do you know that?

you do not hear any difference!!!

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Jul 9, 4:50 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



either there is or is not a difference

There is always a difference. The interesting question
is whether the difference is audible.

if there is material removed, there is a difference.

So what? There is always a difference.

I hear a difference

Based on what, the above flawed logic?

Scott hears a difference (independent verification)

It's not clear that you were comparing comparable things.

my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and
lp's

My regrets.

its the same music she says. therefore ... !
now would my own mother lie to me?
or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle
differences?

Or, she has some age-related hearing impairments. Or
whatever.

Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!

How do you know that?

you do not hear any difference!!!

Delusions of omniscience noted. In fact you don't know any such thing, nor
is there a reason for you to believe that you do.

You're just trolling. :-(

[[email protected]]

On Jul 10, 6:46 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message





On Jul 9, 4:50 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



either there is or is not a difference

There is always a difference. The interesting question
is whether the difference is audible.

if there is material removed, there is a difference.

So what? There is always a difference.

I hear a difference

Based on what, the above flawed logic?

Scott hears a difference (independent verification)

It's not clear that you were comparing comparable things.

my mom can not hear a difference between cassettes and
lp's

My regrets.

its the same music she says. therefore ... !
now would my own mother lie to me?
or are her ears not trained to discern the subtle
differences?

Or, she has some age-related hearing impairments. Or
whatever.

Kinda like you Arny!!!!!!

How do you know that?

you do not hear any difference!!!

Delusions of omniscience noted. In fact you don't know any such thing, nor
is there a reason for you to believe that you do.

You're just trolling. :-(

154,000 posts for arny krueger
who trolls quite well.

[jer0en]

sorry guys, this is as far as it goes.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 03:57:35 -0700, jer0en wrote
(in article ):

no I was talking different models, in one of which a single 29th cy ffa
metalfoil 3.3R resistor would be replaced with plain uncompressed carbon of
the same size. I could tell in which channel.

ffa = frequency filtering alloy

but you can say low noise if you like



I thought FFA meant "Fast-Fourier Analysis" ?

[Richard Crowley]

"Sonnova" wrote ...
jer0en wrote
no I was talking different models, in one of which a single 29th cy ffa
metalfoil 3.3R resistor would be replaced with plain uncompressed carbon
of
the same size. I could tell in which channel.

ffa = frequency filtering alloy

but you can say low noise if you like



I thought FFA meant "Fast-Fourier Analysis" ?

Judging by the technical knowledge of some people here,
it is Future Farmers of America.

[Les Cargill]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote ...
jer0en wrote
no I was talking different models, in one of which a single 29th cy ffa
metalfoil 3.3R resistor would be replaced with plain uncompressed carbon
of
the same size. I could tell in which channel.

ffa = frequency filtering alloy

but you can say low noise if you like


I thought FFA meant "Fast-Fourier Analysis" ?

Judging by the technical knowledge of some people here,
it is Future Farmers of America.



Don't be so sure about that. Farming's gettin' pretty
techie.

--
Les Cargill

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:43:08 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote ...
jer0en wrote
no I was talking different models, in one of which a single 29th cy ffa
metalfoil 3.3R resistor would be replaced with plain uncompressed carbon
of
the same size. I could tell in which channel.

ffa = frequency filtering alloy

but you can say low noise if you like



I thought FFA meant "Fast-Fourier Analysis" ?

Judging by the technical knowledge of some people here,
it is Future Farmers of America.



There is that....

[jer0en]

people do not typically discuss the tactics of an ongoing planetary war in
the acronym finder, but ffa of course would have its roots in transistor
design, after germanium was abandonned for silicon, the industry struggling
for one decennium to arrive at the quality required to have man eat the
bait, and in the next decennia to tune down the quality required to have man
eat the **** of his perpetual submission. why bother with micro-sizing logic
if you can do the same if not better on the molecular level, even if the
current year would be 2008?