"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Obviously, you've never done much mixing, Ruud. I've mixed 100's of hours
of music. Figure 8 hours and up of mixing time for every hour of finished
recording.Tat little bit of experience leaves me at the tyro level, but I
have some idea of how the game goes, based on hands-on expereince.


Thanks for admitting you learned about mixing recordings
by knitting doilies.

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

I've mixed 100's of hours of
music.

Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper way to
write
this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to make fun of you
before
you finally realize your mistake and fix it?

Boon

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

I've mixed 100's of hours of
music.

Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper way to
write
this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to make fun of you
before
you finally realize your mistake and fix it?


Not only 'tat'.

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


From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 1/8/2005 7:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"ThePorkyGeorge" wrote in message


Our local legal genius Scott Wheeler apparently has a new alias.
Presumably it is self-descriptive.

Idiots make many such stupid presumptions. It's the name of our
Bulldog.

Like I said, self-descriptive.

The last guy I recall from around here to pick his alias up from a dog,
came to a kind of unfortunate even cataclysmic end.


I decided to use my cat's name for an alias.

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Arny said:

I've mixed 100's of hours of
music.

Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper way
to write this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to make
fun of you before you finally realize your mistake and fix it?

This is informal writing, Phillips. If you want to play English
Composition
teacher, get a degree in teaching and find a job in your local school
system.









"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Arny said:

I've mixed 100's of hours of
music.

Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper way
to write this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to make
fun of you before you finally realize your mistake and fix it?

This is informal writing, Phillips.

No, it's not, you ****ing moron.

If you want to play English Composition
teacher, get a degree in teaching and find a job in your local school
system.

And make half as much money as I do now? Would that be known as The
Krueger
Plan?

From his perspective, it would increase his earnings. So, he
projected it onto you.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



I'm talking real government money Phillips, not the imaginary play money
that you throw around Usenet.


The king of the government handouts speaks his mind, such as it is.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"ThePorkyGeorge" wrote in message


From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 1/8/2005 7:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"ThePorkyGeorge" wrote in message


Our local legal genius Scott Wheeler apparently has a new alias.
Presumably it is self-descriptive.

Idiots make many such stupid presumptions. It's the name of our
Bulldog.

Like I said, self-descriptive.

You are an idiot.



The last guy I recall from around here to pick his alias up from a
dog, came
to a kind of unfortunate even cataclysmic end.

So what?



From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 1/8/2005 11:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Obviously, you've never done much mixing, Ruud. I've mixed 100's
of
hours of music. Figure 8 hours and up of mixing time for every
hour
of finished recording.That little bit of experience leaves me
at
the tyro level, but I have some idea of how the game goes, based
on
hands-on experience.

Doesn't make your opinion any more valid really.

Out-of-hand, unqualified, unjustified dismissal of significant
hands-on experience with mixing noted.

It wasn't dismissal just a basic fact.

Your idea of facts is pretty strange, Scott. Ask the California
Superior
Court if you need a reminder about that.


Having trouble following the thread I see.



Many people with a little hands on experience are still fools.

Which makes people who talk big based on zero hands-on experience
like you
Scott, exactly what?

It doesn't make me one thing or another dip****. Are you really this
stupid?



If you blow it in the mix, you've very likely wounded the music
in
ways that no LP mastering job or so-called euphonic tubed amp
can
fix.

If you "blow it" perhaps. But the bottom line is there is a vast
gray area between an ideal mix and a "blown mix."

True, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand because we're not
talking about the gray area between an ideal mix and a blown mix.
Instead we're trying to understand an apparent claim that a bad or
undesirable mix can be repaired by the use of what amounts to
being
arbitrarily-designed EFX boxes, AKA vacuum tube audio equipment.

Wrong on every count. A Blown mix to one person may be a moderately
bad mix to another.

Scott, your inane continuing to blather about blown mixes doesn't
make them
relevant.

Could you repeat this is English please.



The point of tubes inst to balance bad mixes in
recordings though it is to balance the playback end of things.

This isn't a comprehendible sentence, Scott.

Actually it is. It may not be pretty but, unlike many of your sentneces
in this thread, it is gramatically correct. Sorry you couldn't
understand it.

Go talk to your buddy Marc
Phillips and learn how to write.

Hmm, are you saying that by talking to Marc I will learn how to write?
It never worked for you. Besides, you are hardly one to be a writing
critic. You cant even understand a basic compound sentence.

He's begging for people to ask him how to
write, since he doesn't seem to have a lot to say about audio.

You are lying again. Business as usual.



Specifically, a stereo mix of a common multitrack master is the
result of a many-to-few process.

Not really sure what you are trying to say here.

I explain it in more detail Scott, but I get the feeling its way over
your
head.

You could jusrt write something that makes sense. Well. maybe not.


Not much math in your educational background, right?

Actually plenty. Unlike you I went to a top notch universtity instead
of a third tier local college. Is that why you keep bringing up the
issue of education? Do you fell shamed by your pathetic third rate
education? It's good enough for a life on Usenet isn't it? Or is it?



Considerable information is in essence irretrievably
lost during mixdown.

Multitrack recordings are recorded usually with a mix down in mind.

Doooh!

Over your head.



Some information is lost on purpose.

Dooh!

Over your head.


But there in lies the vagueness of the whole thing.

Nope.

Yep.

A multitrack master arguably has far more detail and far more
information in it than what a person will hear in an equivalent live
performance.

You can argue that all you want but it doesn't make much sense. But you
wouldn't undrstand why I suspect. I suppose you think you get more
information if you stick your head inside a tuba whn listening to a
brass band.

The name of the game is to select the information contained
therein in such a way that you result in a believable and useful
representation of the live performance.

Duh.



Now Scott, you can't possibly have any real world experience with
this, so I
understand why these words are incomprehensible to you.



Lying again. It's so ....you. I can understand why your wife beats you
on a daily basis.




One's blown mix is another person's masterpiece.

I don't think so.

Yeah but you are an idiot.

There is a range of mixes that are acceptable, but some
will be preferable over others to various people based on individual
tastes.

You are missing the scope of personal taste. But you are also missing
the scope of mixing multitrack recordings.


A truly blown mix will be missing information that is required to
make the
mix to anybody who understands the music.

That may be *your* idea of a blown mix. You have no exclusive on
opinions about what is and is not a blown mix.



The thing is not all artists have good ears for sound.

To some degree, multitrack mixing steps around many aspects of that
problem.

No it doesn't.


For example, if a member of a vocal group is not singing well (e.g.
off
key), they can be pretty much excluded from the mix.

If a maemebr is not singing well he or she is a bad artist regardless
of their ear.

If one or more members
of the group are singing too loud, a proper balance can generally be
put
back into the mix. It's very difficult or impossible to do these
things in
the mastering phase.

For example, I am in the habit of mixing down 12 (twelve)
32/44,100
Hz sample rate channels down into two channels of 16/44,100 audio
(normal CD audio). The input information rate is 16,934,400 bits
per
second (bps) but the output information rate is merely 1,411,200
bps.

The claim has in essence been made that a more-or-less arbitrarily
designed EFX box otherwise known as a vacuum tube amplifier can
somehow recover some or all of the missing 15,52,3200 bps.

Really? Who claimed that?

You did Scott.

Liar.


Not in exactly those words, but that's the probably essence
of what you were trying to say with this almost unintelligible mess:

"The point of tubes inst to balance bad mixes in recordings though it
is to
balance the playback end of things."



It isn't. Over your head.



Cite a quote please. I'll get in line right
behind you and call them on that, if that is the actual claim.

You can start cleaning up your act any time, Scott.


What are you babbling about? I see you have no quote to support your
bull****. Are you trying to cover for it by babbling about nothing in
particular?

Please start out by
limiting your discussion to things you have at least the foggiest
notion
about.

Please stop mangling the English language.



This is of course completely
ludicrous. But, it is the kind of claim that Scott Wheeler might
make.

Nonsense.

Agreed, nonsense or completely ludicrous.

A moment of clarity or did you not understand that you agreed with me
that your claim was nonsense?



IOW, if some people on some occasion blow the mixdown phase, you
really have little choice but to take their work for what it is
worth.

No, the mastering engineer can still make improvements. Better is
better.

Given the huge amounts of information that are lost in the mixdown
process, the purported improvement is like spitting into the wind.

That is highly subjective.

Actually its pretty factual and agreed upon by mixing engineers.



Bull****. Feel free to prove it though.



It is possible to do some fixup in the mastering step, but you
can
only go so far.

Actually some mastering engineers have worked miracles and some
have
turned good recordings into garbage.Different masterings of the
same
recordings have been known to cover the range of awful to
wonderful.

Again, the amount of data loss that is inherent in the mixing
process puts severe constraints on the improvements that can be
made
during remastering of an existing recording.

Not at all.

For sure.

Wrong.




Maybe you don't really get the idea behind multitrack
recording. It is a means to an end.

Agreed.

In the ideal mix all the
information there is all that is desired. With the multitude of
mixes
that are somewhere in between blown and ideal there is more than
enough information on the tape for the mastering engineer to make a
good or a bad final product

First off Scott, you've got the context wrong. very little mixing is
done
off of tapes any more. I guess you never heard of Pro Tools or DAWs,
but
they do exist and they are pretty much how things are done these
days.

WTF does this little babble session have to do with the content of my
post? Nothing.


Of
course you may not be aware of them because you live in a dream world
where
tubes are all that matter.



No, I am aware of them.



Often one longs for the raw tracks to work with.

Sometimes mastering engineers get them.

If they do, then they aren't mastering, they are mixing.

Did I say otherwise?

Yes, Scott you said that mastering engineers get them.

Yes I said they get them. They are still mastering engineers dip****
even if they are doing some mixing first they still do the nmastering
job later. Is this a little to abstract for your pin headed brain?


As soon as a
mastering engineer gets stops working with a multitrack master he
stops
mastering and starts mixing.

In English please.

Perhaps that isn't how things are in your
all-tubes dream world, but back in the real world...

What would you know about the real world of mixing and mastering Arny?
Hint, your home brewed amateur projects are not the same as real world
mixing and mastering. You have no added credibility because you like to
play with recordings as a hobby.



Scott, I suggest
that you try to keep the technical terminology straight.

I suggest you work on your reading comprehension.

Reading comprehension can't fix the fact that you don't really
understand
what you are talking about, Scott.

You definitely need to work on your logic skills.


Your recent confusion of mastering and
mixing is just another example of your limited understanding of audio

production.

No, it's just another example of you making things up when you are
losing an argument.



Unfortunately you
are trying to pretend to having expertise in an area that is far
from your real-world occupation or formal training.

No. But you are. That's funny.

Wrong again Scott. Perhaps you missed John Atkinson's evaluation of
one of
my multitrack projects?

LOL You think that makes you an expert? That is funny. I guess you have
been secretly admiring John, no worshiping him. I mean to give him so
much power that a kind word from him about your amateur recordings
makes you an expert is really a clear sign of hero worship. The cat is
out of the bag.



I've never seen you even claim to
have any hands-on experience at all with any phase of audio
production.

That's because I haven't.

I'll bet that telling that much truth hurt your mouth, Scott.



If you had any money to bet you would lose it quickly.



OTOH for you to claim your dabbling somehow
makes you some kind of expert is quite laughable.

I specifically excluded such a claim earlier in this thread.



No. I guess you don't even understand what you write.



Thanks for your
tacit admission that your memory is so short that you've already
forgotten
it, Scott. Do I need to repeat it, or can you find it on your own?

You mean this little bit of your post?
"Out-of-hand, unqualified, unjustified dismissal of significant
hands-on experience with mixing noted." Maybe you are the one with
memory issues.




The thing is, one does not have to have any hands on experience to
have a
legitimate
opinion on the quality of work

This isn't about quality of work Scott, its about what various steps
in the
production process can possibly accomplish well.



Do you have any idea how stupid that last sentence was?


You've already proven that
you are confused about the difference between mixing and mastering,
so your
comments are just errors and trash.

You are an idiot on every level.



and a little bit of hobbyist hands on
experience doesn't give one's opinion any more legitimacy.

Fact is Scott that I've actually done 100's of mixdowns, which while
small
compared to an experienced professional, is a lot more than a little
bit.

No.



Given that you are yet to do your first mixdown, I can see why you
have no
appreciation for what I'm saying.



No, I appreciate the show you put on for us Arny. I get the humor even
if you don't.



Infact
standing on a soapbox built out of a little amateur dabbling only
hurts your credibility. Not that you had any left.

Scott, accusing me of your grotesque technical errors and
misapprehensions
isn't going to help you.

Clearly you don't understand what I am saying.


Maybe you should get Richman, Middius or Phillips
to add a lot of trashy posts to this thread right away so that people
won't
see all over your ridiculous errors and ignorant claims.



I think they are too busy laughing at you.



Why
are you trying to contradict people who have been doing various
kinds of audio production for decades?

The question is why are you doing it?

I'm not doing that, Scott.

Yes you are. You are just too ignorant to know it.


I'm just disagreeing with you and your confused
perceptions about audio production.

So says the guy who lives his life on Usenet. You might want to get out
and talk to real pros about the whole thing some day. You really
shouldn't get so excited just because your hero, Atkinson threw you a
doggy treat.



I'm just disagreeing with an amateur wannabe who never was.

It is true that you are even disagreeing with your recent statements,
Scott.
So I agree, you are just disagreeing with an amateur wannabe who
never was.

Put your head between your knees and maybe you will get enough blood to
your brain to allow you to make some sense. Right now you just sound
confused.



At any rate, the vacuum tube amplifier that you have been
recommending as a means for correcting or changing mixdowns is a
far
cry from an intelligent mixing engineer working with many times as
much information.

I have made no such recommendation. You are completely out of touch
with reality.

Come on Scott, you tell us that vacuum tubes rule and that they can
fix up
badly mixed recordings.



You are quite delusional, still. But feel free to cite any quote where
I say this.



OTOH Scott,
perhaps the mixing or mastering engineers that you have been
conversing with are no more intelligent than a vacuum tube
amplifier.

The ones I converse with are proven pros who have produced great
sounding commercial releases. What have you done Arny?

I'm sorry that you've missed some fairly significant things that have
been
posted on RAO, Scott.



Thanks for admitting you have done nothing of note.



Perhaps someday raw tracks of great legacy recordings will be
released, so that people with the time and energy can have it
their
way.

Actually in some cases they have been made available to some very
talented mastering engineers and the results have been stunning.
I
would rather leave that job to such experts.

Given your demonstrated lack of audio technical expertise Scott, I
agree that you should not even think about trying to do a mixdown,
should somehow a proper set of audio tracks fall into the demented
regime of your acutely limited technical capabilities. I suggest
that you stick to the practice of law.

Um, I am a makeup artist Arny, and I intend to stick with it.

No Scott,

Yes Arny, I am a makeup artist. you really need to seek help quickly.
You might not be getting enough oxygen in your basement.


you've claimed that you are qualified "..to have a legitimate
opinion on the quality of work (on mixdowns and mastering)".


You can't get anything right can you? Funny that you would quote half
the sentence. Could it be that the whole sentence in it's context says
something competely different? Could be. But anyone who buys a
commercial recording has a legitimate opinion about the quality of the
mix and mastering since the commercial recording was purchased for
their enjoyment. Is that simple fact beyond you?



You OTOH seem to be getting more and more out of touch with
reality.

All the RAO Middius dupes and Richman drone-alikes say stuff like
that.
Yawn!



They are right.



At least you can make vain attempts at legal action.

Scott won't own up to his failed libel suit against me, that he
filed and
attempted to try in California Superior Court. He believed on the
basis of
his readings that he would be able to prevail in my absence by
default. In
fact, his case was thrown out of court and he lost his legal costs



Still having trouble with facts. Oh well. Such is the mindset of a
loser who lives for Usenet. Funny that you take pride in being sued for
making false accusations of pedophilia. Most people who have a life
outside of Usenet would be quite ashamed of something like that.





Scott, I seriously doubt that you can even make vain attempts at
mixing down a multitrack master as you practice audio technology
in
accordance with your backward preferences using outdated
retro-technology.

I seriously doubt you could ever do a decent job of mixing down any
sort of multitrack recording yourself.

Go argue with Atkinson, Scott.

Your hero? I think you have made far to much out of that doggy treat he
threw you. At least we know how you really feel about him now.



At least I don't pretend to be a legitimate mixing engineer.

But you do claim to be a legitimate critic and audio expert, Scott.

No. I claim to have a legitimate opinion as does any other consumer.



Man, get a life. If you think you got
the chops to be a recording/mixing engineer get outin the real
world
and prove yourself. Home brewed amateurs are a dime a dozen.

Scott, I am out in the real world.

Then act like it.


I've even been in Los Angeles in the past
week.

Anyone hire you as a recording engineer? I thought not.


Scott, I am amusing myself with the thought of you trying to
record
or mix down a multrack master to modern standards with your
hobby-horse outdated vacuum tube technology.

I find it amusing that you would confuse an Audio Research D-115 Mk
II amp and SP 10 preamp with a mixing console. You really are
losing it.

I never did such a thing Scott.

Yes you did dip****.

I specifically excluded that possibility
when I said that you had zero experience or tools in your possession
for
mixing.

Nice try but this is what you said. "Scott, I am amusing myself with
the thought of you trying to record or mix down a multrack master to
modern standards with your hobby-horse outdated vacuum tube
technology."



For one thing there never were any appreciable
number of multitrack vacuum tube analog tape recorders with
anything
like modern capabilities. The world upgraded to solid state before
the track count became large enough to be interesting by modern
standards.

Oh really? So you think commercial recordings were sounding better
after SS multitrack consoles were widely used? That's funny.

That's the real world Scott. That's the genesis of the vast majority
of
mainstream recordings.


Obviouisly a world you know little about. But hey if you want to say
that commercial recordings were mostly better after SS mixing consoles
were widely used, go ahead. Your foot and your mouth.




Historically speaking, most vacuum tube tape recorders for audio
production had two tracks, or less.

And they tended to produce better sounding final product.

Irrelevant since almost all recordings are made from multitrack
masters, and
therefore are produced almost entirely or entirely on SS equipment.



I guess you are missing the point, as usual.



How do
you erase the imprint of SS that you have so many misapprehensions
about
from the recordings you listen to, Scott?



I guess the fact that I was trying to compare the quality of recordings
made without such junk to recordings made with it went right over your
head.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "ThePorkyGeorge" wrote in message
:
:
: Our local legal genius Scott Wheeler apparently has a new alias. Presmably
: it is self-descriptive.
:
: From: "Arny Krueger"
: Date: 1/8/2005 11:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
: Message-id:
:
:
: Obviously, you've never done much mixing, Ruud. I've mixed 100's of
: hours of music. Figure 8 hours and up of mixing time for every hour
: of finished recording.That little bit of experience leaves me at the
: tyro level, but I have some idea of how the game goes, based on
: hands-on expereince.
:
: Doesn't make your opinion any more valid really.
:
: Out-of-hand, unqualified, unjustified dismissal of significiant hands-on
: experience with mixing noted.
:
: If you blow it in the mix, you've very likely wounded the music in
: ways that no LP mastering job or so-called euphonic tubed amp can
: fix.
:
: If you "blow it" perhaps. But the bottom line is there is a vast grey
: area between an ideal mix and a "blown mix."
:
: True, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand because we're not talking
: about the grey area between an ideal mix and a blown mix. Instead we're
: trying to understand an apparent claim that a bad or undesireable mix can be
: repaired by the use of what amounts to being arbitraily-designed EFX boxes,
: AKA vacuum tube audio equipment.
:
: Specifically, a stereo mix of a common multitrack master is the result of a
: many-to-few process. Considerable information is in essence irretrievably
: lost during mixdown.
:
: For example, I am in the habit of mixing down 12 (twleve) 32/44,100 Hz
: sample rate channels down into two channels of 16/44,100 audio (normal CD
: audio). The input infomation rate is 16,934,400 bits per second (bps) but
: the output information rate is merely 1,411,200 bps.

Arny, you seem to do a lot in the hundreds. Now, why am i not particularly
impressed ??
could it be a hundred hours of work to produce 100 Hz sample rate material
is one of the better definitions of "wasting time, bigtime" ??:-)
Rudy

to *do* the transcript'n , ??
Bingo!!
RB

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
: Well, there is also to consider the fact that a lot of material
: has, up to now, only been published in LP format
:
: Given that LPs were about all we had from about 1950 to 1983, why
: would this be significant?
:
: Ehhm, if the question is : "why would people *want* to keep using
: record players in the age of CD & DVD "
: it seems to be clear enough..
:
: In fact almost nobody wants to use record players in the age of CD &
: DVD. Now that people can transcribe their old LPs to digital
: formats, LP playback will become even rarer.
:
: oo, let's give the man a hand.. and the transcription is done by
: ???
:
: Both do-it-yourself and independent contractors.
:
:

Marc Phillips a écrit :

Scott Wheeler is tall and thin.

Envious ?

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:
Arny said:

Our local legal genius Scott Wheeler apparently has a new alias.
Presmably
it is self-descriptive.


No, it's a take on his bulldog, you ****ing moron. Scott Wheeler is
tall and
thin.

Thin? I'm getting there. I'm still about 15 lbs over my college weight.

Boon

Scott Wheeler

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Crushing sameness, thumping bass, but then Lauren has ten times the
voice.

I couldn't say Lauren has "ten times the voice" of Alicia Keys, but
she makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck.

Not much in the way of a mix.

???

Give me something like Astral Weeks,
Moondance, or Santana and I'm a happy audiophile and a happy listener.

Bleugh!
It's what I grew up with, much like a major portion of what you like is.

Compared to the mix on the Alicia Keyes album, they are light years ahead.

Don't confuse sentimentality for objectivity ;-)


I don't believe I am, I think they are mixed better, especially Astral
Weeks.
Morrison's voice got better IMO later, but the recording is top notch. It
would be interesting (possibly only to me) if that album could be
re-recorded using all the modern advantages of digital recording.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
m

"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Sander deWaal Said :

I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote:
In article ,

The visceral reaction to the out-of-phase low frequency sounds
(i.e. rumble) that flood the room, providing auditory cues of
"you're in a large space", the intertrack IM distortions that
create new images and enhance the originally recorded ones, the
low random HF noise level that creates a sense of 'something
is happening', etc, etc.

IOW, if you want to run your entire musical experience through a
musician's
EFX box, get tubed audio equipment.

No.. not in-other-words what you just said.

The subject JJ was talking about was the euphonics of vinyl that make
people feel good :-)


Some people, not all.

Arny Krueger wrote in message
George M. Middius wrote in message
JBorg said to ****-for-Brains:



Do you still go to church on Sunday? Are you no longer Catholic?

As we all know, Mr. ****...

The well-known Middius coprophilia strikes again!



How's the altar looking today ?

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "Paul Dormer" wrote in message
: "Paul Dormer" wrote in message
:
:
: "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
:
: Sander deWaal Said :
:
: I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
: Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs
: with LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.
:
: jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote:
: In article ,
:
: The visceral reaction to the out-of-phase low frequency sounds
: (i.e. rumble) that flood the room, providing auditory cues of
: "you're in a large space", the intertrack IM distortions that
: create new images and enhance the originally recorded ones, the
: low random HF noise level that creates a sense of 'something
: is happening', etc, etc.
:
: IOW, if you want to run your entire musical experience through a
: musician's EFX box, get tubed audio equipment.
:
: No.. not in-other-words what you just said.
:
: Letsee what your logic is here, Dormer. My statement isn't because I
said it
: is true, but instead it is false because you said its false. So, who
: promoted you to God?
:
: The subject JJ was talking about was the euphonics of vinyl that make
: people feel good :-)
:
: I guess you'd die if you ever thought deeply about the cosmic meaning
of
: euphonics, or anything for that matter, Dormer.
:
: The basic fallacy of euphonic audio reproduction equipment is that it
: diminishes the role of musicians and production people. Musicans are
: supposed to make good sounding music. Production people are supposed to
make
: good sounding recordings. Listeners are supposed to have audio systems
that
: expose the inner goodness of music and recordings, not slavishly apply
a
: gloss coat to everything.

But then, one could just as easily say it is slavish to belief the
mixdown done by
some people, somewhere, on some occasion is *the autority* on capturing
the essence of the performance at hand.
Rudy

If you think that the artist(s) got what they want from the recording and
the mix. It is true that many pop performers in particular say that their
music means whatever you want it to mean. I never liked that POV. I want
the artist to write music that has a meaning to him or her and share what
that meaning is. I think one of the reasons for the incredible success of
the song "Living Years" was that it was obvious what the POV was and that it
touched a nearly universal feeling in people. YMMV.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
m

"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Sander deWaal Said :

I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs
with
LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
wrote:
In article ,

The visceral reaction to the out-of-phase low frequency sounds
(i.e. rumble) that flood the room, providing auditory cues of
"you're in a large space", the intertrack IM distortions that
create new images and enhance the originally recorded ones, the
low random HF noise level that creates a sense of 'something
is happening', etc, etc.

IOW, if you want to run your entire musical experience through a
musician's
EFX box, get tubed audio equipment.

No.. not in-other-words what you just said.

The subject JJ was talking about was the euphonics of vinyl that
make
people feel good :-)


Some people, not all.

He didn't say all, but you can't resist picking fights with others, can
you? Anything for a flame, right Mikey? Your handlers should know
better than to let you out of your cage, even for the weekends. Maybe
your latest attacks and frothing at the mouth will convince them to
give you 24=hour supervision.

(Chuckle)




(

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The basic fallacy of euphonic audio reproduction equipment is that it
diminishes the role of musicians and production people. Musicans are
supposed to make good sounding music. Production people are supposed
to make good sounding recordings. Listeners are supposed to have
audio systems that expose the inner goodness of music and
recordings, not slavishly apply a gloss coat to everything.

But then, one could just as easily say it is slavish to belief the
mixdown done by
some people, somewhere, on some occasion is *the autority* on
capturing the essence of the performance at hand.

Obviously, you've never done much mixing, Ruud. I've mixed 100's of hours
of music. Figure 8 hours and up of mixing time for every hour of finished
recording.Tat little bit of experience leaves me at the tyro level, but I
have some idea of how the game goes, based on hands-on expereince.

If you blow it in the mix, you've very likely wounded the music in ways
that no LP mastering job or so-called euphonic tubed amp can fix.

IOW, if some people on some occasion blow the mixdown phase, you really
have little choice but to take their work for what it is worth.


That reminds me, I understand the first Billy Joel album Cold Spring Harbor
was done with the tape that the mother disc was made from being set fast.
This made his voice sound to high and the only way in the old days was to
play it back on a TT and slow it down. Did they ever fix that?

Sorry, I digressed.

It is possible to do some fixup in the mastering step, but you can only go
so far. Often one longs for the raw tracks to work with.

Perhaps someday raw tracks of great legacy recordings will be released,
so that people with the time and energy can have it their way.

"JBorg" wrote in message
m
Arny Krueger wrote in message
George M. Middius wrote in message
JBorg said to ****-for-Brains:



Do you still go to church on Sunday? Are you no longer Catholic?

As we all know, Mr. ****...

The well-known Middius coprophilia strikes again!

How's the altar looking today ?

Wrong again, Borglet. You ought to get out more. A lot of churches lack
altars these days, even as a matter of conservative theology.

Arny Krueger" wrote in message
JBorg" wrote in message




Wrong again, Borglet. You ought to get out more. A lot of churches lack altars these
days, even as a matter of conservative theology.


I'm referring to altars that you fondle when the mothers aren't looking.

~~wink~ ~wink~ ~wink~~

Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message





While it is admittedly hard to define nad rather vague, I think that you'll find that
a lot of vinyl enthusiasts will tell you that compared to
the sound of live performances, vinyl comes closer. IOW, it sounds more "real".


That's part of the problem I have with such descriptions, how can more distorted sound
more real?

In reality, part of the problem here is due to your interminable confusion
resulting from your inability to read simple sentence structure. I admit
that as I read further into your many responses, the more torpidly freaky
you become. You are so timid to absorb what you read and thus,
senselessly mind**** yourself unnecessarily too many times.

" ... IOW, it sounds more 'real'." See that? How many
ways do you think should reality depict sound freq betw 20 - 20kHz ?


I suspect this has to do with a mixture of both depth perception re. the
soundstage in many cases, and also a sense of more "body", whether it be in the sound
of the vocalist or of instruments. While these things are difficult to operationally
define in terms of specific measurements, these observations appear to be quite
common among vinyl enthusiasts. It also appears that this experience occurs among
some younger listeners, who, after hearing some vinyl comparisons vs. digital
playback of the same material, decide to invest in
vinyl playback equipment.

Another variable that sometimes is raised, although less so in newer digital
recordings, is the well-known "digititis" or overly bright sound of some digital
recordings compared to the same recordings on vinyl. This, of course, is a matter of
taste, as well.


And most likely has to with the fact that digital can record and playback such sounds
with much more accuracy.

Do you mean to say that digital can record and playback well-known
"digititis" much more accurately?

Then the problem becomes how well can the speakers handle such sounds.

How well do you think they should?

JBorg wrote:
Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message





While it is admittedly hard to define nad rather vague, I think
that you'll find that
a lot of vinyl enthusiasts will tell you that compared to
the sound of live performances, vinyl comes closer. IOW, it
sounds more "real".


That's part of the problem I have with such descriptions, how can
more distorted sound
more real?

In reality, part of the problem here is due to your interminable
confusion
resulting from your inability to read simple sentence structure. I
admit
that as I read further into your many responses, the more torpidly
freaky
you become. You are so timid to absorb what you read and thus,
senselessly mind**** yourself unnecessarily too many times.

" ... IOW, it sounds more 'real'." See that? How many
ways do you think should reality depict sound freq betw 20 - 20kHz ?


I suspect this has to do with a mixture of both depth perception
re. the
soundstage in many cases, and also a sense of more "body", whether
it be in the sound
of the vocalist or of instruments. While these things are
difficult to operationally
define in terms of specific measurements, these observations
appear to be quite
common among vinyl enthusiasts. It also appears that this
experience occurs among
some younger listeners, who, after hearing some vinyl comparisons
vs. digital
playback of the same material, decide to invest in
vinyl playback equipment.

Another variable that sometimes is raised, although less so in
newer digital
recordings, is the well-known "digititis" or overly bright sound
of some digital
recordings compared to the same recordings on vinyl. This, of
course, is a matter of
taste, as well.


And most likely has to with the fact that digital can record and
playback such sounds
with much more accuracy.

Do you mean to say that digital can record and playback well-known
"digititis" much more accurately?

Then the problem becomes how well can the speakers handle such
sounds.

How well do you think they should?

Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can
be measured on various instruments. And of course, those with an
anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion
than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based
on measurements alone. OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear that
distortion at their listening positions, and therefore continue to
invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae releases are
available - as is the case with many popular recording artists whose
current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and more importantly,
new analog playback equipment. Nor does this seem to be partricularly
related to age, since there are a number of younger viewers - both on
this forum and others - that have reported a preference for vinyl
playback in general. Distortions that show up on a electronic
measuring instrument are not necessarily perceivable by listeners who
have not preconditioned to expect distortion - any more than the
so-called "audible distortion" cited by a few anti-tube bigots is
audible to most owners ot that equipment.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com

Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can
be measured on various instruments.

It can also be heard.

And of course, those with an
anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion
than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based
on measurements alone.

The CD format has zero audible inherent distortion. The LP format has
readily audible inherent distortion. If you read the technical literature
related to vinyl, you will find confirmation of the sad truth about vinyl.
Vinyl was supplanted for a reason - it was an audibly defective technology
that had reached the end of its development cycle.

OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear
that distortion at their listening positions, and therefore continue
to invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae
releases are available - as is the case with many popular recording
artists whose current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and
more importantly, new analog playback equipment.

It's just a matter of having ears that are forgiving enough. Loud noises and
advanced age are common means for obtaining ears that are forgiving enough
to tolerate the audible distortions inherent in vinyl.

Nor does this seem
to be partricularly related to age, since there are a number of
younger viewers - both on this forum and others - that have reported
a preference for vinyl playback in general.

OK, so there are such things as young steamfitters, construction workers and
affcianados of loud rock music. Ear damage among the young is rampant today.

Distortions that show up
on a electronic measuring instrument are not necessarily perceivable
by listeners who have not preconditioned to expect distortion - any
more than the so-called "audible distortion" cited by a few anti-tube
bigots is audible to most owners ot that equipment.

This is a giant run-on sentence. Who can imagine what it might mean?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com

Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this
can
be measured on various instruments.

It can also be heard.

And of course, those with an
anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion
than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl
based
on measurements alone.

The CD format has zero audible inherent distortion. The LP format has

readily audible inherent distortion. If you read the technical
literature
related to vinyl, you will find confirmation of the sad truth about
vinyl.
Vinyl was supplanted for a reason - it was an audibly defective
technology
that had reached the end of its development cycle.

OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear
that distortion at their listening positions, and therefore
continue
to invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae
releases are available - as is the case with many popular recording
artists whose current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and
more importantly, new analog playback equipment.

It's just a matter of having ears that are forgiving enough. Loud
noises and
advanced age are common means for obtaining ears that are forgiving
enough
to tolerate the audible distortions inherent in vinyl.


Which would not explain the fact that young ears are purchasing both
vinyl and the means for its playback. Record producers that
munufacturer 150g and 180g vinyl from current recording artists are not
planning to lose money by issuing their products with the hopes that an
older audience will buy it. Similarly, the active used record market
on both eBay and in many major cities is probably not catering to an
older audience that already has many of the records they sell.


Nor does this seem
to be partricularly related to age, since there are a number of
younger viewers - both on this forum and others - that have
reported
a preference for vinyl playback in general.

OK, so there are such things as young steamfitters, construction
workers and
affcianados of loud rock music. Ear damage among the young is rampant
today.



And there is no evidence indicating that this is the younger audience
purchasing vinyl or the equipment to play it. One could also argue
that those young folks imparied by large rock are the purchasers of the
latest CDs since that's what their boomboxes play. And if their
hearing is impaired, why bother with more than 1 type of media?



Distortions that show up
on a electronic measuring instrument are not necessarily
perceivable
by listeners who have not preconditioned to expect distortion - any
more than the so-called "audible distortion" cited by a few
anti-tube
bigots is audible to most owners ot that equipment.

This is a giant run-on sentence. Who can imagine what it might mean?

Anybody that has better things to do than end a post with a gratuitous
insult just to keep one's record of personal insults current.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com

Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this
can
be measured on various instruments.

It can also be heard.

And of course, those with an
anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion
than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl
based
on measurements alone.

The CD format has zero audible inherent distortion. The LP format has

readily audible inherent distortion. If you read the technical
literature
related to vinyl, you will find confirmation of the sad truth about
vinyl.
Vinyl was supplanted for a reason - it was an audibly defective
technology
that had reached the end of its development cycle.

So says the amateur. Top pros who make living by producing the best
sounding recordings and masterings like Stan Ricker quite disagree.
Guys like Stan say that there is audible loss of information from
master tape to CD. He also says the LP is transfer is often preferable.
But what does he know? I'm sure you have more experience transfering
master tapes to CD and LP than he does. I'm sure you have a much more
widely respected than he is. LOL.





OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear
that distortion at their listening positions, and therefore
continue
to invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae
releases are available - as is the case with many popular recording
artists whose current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and
more importantly, new analog playback equipment.

It's just a matter of having ears that are forgiving enough. Loud
noises and
advanced age are common means for obtaining ears that are forgiving
enough
to tolerate the audible distortions inherent in vinyl.

Really? Want to put it to the test? I'll bet $1,000.00 that my hearing
is superior to yours. Come on, put up or shut up. I'll give you two to
one odds. I'll bet $2,000.00 against your $1,000.00. Let's see if you
stand behind your bull****.



Nor does this seem
to be partricularly related to age, since there are a number of
younger viewers - both on this forum and others - that have
reported
a preference for vinyl playback in general.

OK, so there are such things as young steamfitters, construction
workers and
affcianados of loud rock music. Ear damage among the young is rampant
today.

Put up or shut up. 2 to 1 odds Arny.

Scott Wheeler

Bruce J. Richman wrote in message
JBorg wrote:
Michael McKelvy wrote in message



Then the problem becomes how well can the speakers handle such
sounds.

How well do you think they should?

Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can
be measured on various instruments. And of course, those with an
anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion
than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based
on measurements alone. OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear that
distortion at their listening positions, and therefore continue to
invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae releases are
available - as is the case with many popular recording artists whose
current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and more importantly,
new analog playback equipment. Nor does this seem to be partricularly
related to age, since there are a number of younger viewers - both on
this forum and others - that have reported a preference for vinyl
playback in general. Distortions that show up on a electronic
measuring instrument are not necessarily perceivable by listeners who
have not preconditioned to expect distortion - any more than the
so-called "audible distortion" cited by a few anti-tube bigots is
audible to most owners ot that equipment.


Yes, and I like to add that experience listener are able to listen selectively
and focus their ears to the distinctive sound of certain audio gears
that suit their (specific) preferences.

wrote
S8, is that you?

Arny Krueger wrote:
Bruce J. Richman wrote






The CD format has zero audible inherent distortion. The LP format
has readily audible inherent distortion. If you read the technical
literature related to vinyl, you will find confirmation of the sad truth
about vinyl. Vinyl was supplanted for a reason - it was an audibly
defective technology that had reached the end of its development
cycle.

So says the amateur. Top pros who make living by producing the best
sounding recordings and masterings like Stan Ricker quite disagree.
Guys like Stan say that there is audible loss of information from
master tape to CD. He also says the LP is transfer is often preferable.
But what does he know? I'm sure you have more experience transfering
master tapes to CD and LP than he does. I'm sure you have a much more
widely respected than he is. LOL.


Absolutely agree.

I see no chance that a vinyl bigot would ever conform to what you just
said.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com

Arny Krueger wrote:

It's just a matter of having ears that are forgiving enough. Loud
noises and advanced age are common means for obtaining ears that are
forgiving enough to tolerate the audible distortions inherent in
vinyl.

Which would not explain the fact that young ears are purchasing both
vinyl and the means for its playback.

Except of course it does, because young ears are well-known to be exposed to
loud sounds.

A lot of vinyl that is being sold to young ears are being used by
turntablists for scratching and back-cuing. Said operations take place in
dance clubs where the sound levels are pushing or exceeding OSHA standards
for ear damage.

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com

Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this
can
be measured on various instruments.

It can also be heard.

And of course, those with an
anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion
than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl
based
on measurements alone.

The CD format has zero audible inherent distortion. The LP format has

readily audible inherent distortion. If you read the technical
literature related to vinyl, you will find confirmation of the sad
truth about vinyl. Vinyl was supplanted for a reason - it was an
audibly defective technology that had reached the end of its
development cycle.

So says the amateur.

So says the JAES.

Top pros who make living by producing the best
sounding recordings and masterings like Stan Ricker quite disagree.

Some old dogs don't want to learn new tricks.

Guys like Stan say that there is audible loss of information from
master tape to CD.

AFAIK, Stan Ricker is quite a bit older than I am. I seriously doubt that he
has much critical listening ability left. Word has it that he's turned
hands-on mastering over to younger ears.

He also says the LP is transfer is often preferable.

It's a business, Scott.

But what does he know?

He wants to sell vinyl. It's what he does.

I'm sure you have more experience
transfering master tapes to CD and LP than he does. I'm sure you have
a much more widely respected than he is. LOL.

Posture on, dude!

OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear
that distortion at their listening positions, and therefore continue
to invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae
releases are available - as is the case with many popular recording
artists whose current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and
more importantly, new analog playback equipment.

It's just a matter of having ears that are forgiving enough. Loud
noises and advanced age are common means for obtaining ears that are
forgiving enough to tolerate the audible distortions inherent in
vinyl.

Really? Want to put it to the test? I'll bet $1,000.00 that my hearing
is superior to yours.

Scott, I'll bet that your hearing is far better then Stan Ricker's. He's got
to be pushing 70 or more.

Come on, put up or shut up. I'll give you two to
one odds. I'll bet $2,000.00 against your $1,000.00. Let's see if you
stand behind your bull****.

There's no BS here Scott. I make no claims about having the best ears in the
world. However there's the slight matter of the billions of actual people
who dumped vinyl for digital.

Nor does this seem
to be partricularly related to age, since there are a number of
younger viewers - both on this forum and others - that have reported
a preference for vinyl playback in general.

OK, so there are such things as young steamfitters, construction
workers and affcianados of loud rock music. Ear damage among the
young is rampant today.

Put up or shut up. 2 to 1 odds Arny.

I'll settle for your court costs on your failed libel suit against me,
Scott.

;-)

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com

Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this
can
be measured on various instruments.

It can also be heard.

And of course, those with an
anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more
distortion
than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl
based
on measurements alone.

The CD format has zero audible inherent distortion. The LP format
has

readily audible inherent distortion. If you read the technical
literature related to vinyl, you will find confirmation of the sad
truth about vinyl. Vinyl was supplanted for a reason - it was an
audibly defective technology that had reached the end of its
development cycle.

So says the amateur.

So says the JAES.

So says you. The amateur with an agenda.



Top pros who make living by producing the best
sounding recordings and masterings like Stan Ricker quite disagree.

Some old dogs don't want to learn new tricks.

That would have nothing to do with Stan Ricker. Or do you think he has
never mastered a SOTA CD? Get a clue.



Guys like Stan say that there is audible loss of information from
master tape to CD.

AFAIK, Stan Ricker is quite a bit older than I am. I seriously doubt
that he
has much critical listening ability left. Word has it that he's
turned
hands-on mastering over to younger ears.

Nice try at attacking the man. A few problems with your silly attack on
Stan. He's been doing this for quite some time so he has made many a
comparison well before his 70th birthday, His track record is
unimpeachable so any attack on his hearing is a joke. And if he is
hearing information loss at 70 from the CDs he masters compared to the
original masters then that would only support the notion that the loss
is substantial.



He also says the LP is transfer is often preferable.

It's a business, Scott.

So is mastering CDs. Duh.


But what does he know?

He wants to sell vinyl. It's what he does.

Her doesn't sell vinyl dimwit. He masters vinyl. But he also masters
CDs


I'm sure you have more experience
transfering master tapes to CD and LP than he does. I'm sure you
have
a much more widely respected than he is. LOL.

Posture on, dude!

Reality bites you in the ass again dude.



OTOH, many listeners apparently don't hear
that distortion at their listening positions, and therefore
continue
to invest in both vinyl (even when digital copies of hte smae
releases are available - as is the case with many popular
recording
artists whose current output is available on 180 gram vinyl), and
more importantly, new analog playback equipment.

It's just a matter of having ears that are forgiving enough. Loud
noises and advanced age are common means for obtaining ears that
are
forgiving enough to tolerate the audible distortions inherent in
vinyl.

Really? Want to put it to the test? I'll bet $1,000.00 that my
hearing
is superior to yours.

Scott, I'll bet that your hearing is far better then Stan Ricker's.
He's got
to be pushing 70 or more.

Lack of reading comprehension noted. as someone who generally prefers
vinyl your post questions my hearing ability and suggests your hearing
ability is superior to anybody's with a preference for vinyl. So put up
or shut up. Prove that your hearing is better than mine. 2 to 1 odds
dude.



Come on, put up or shut up. I'll give you two to
one odds. I'll bet $2,000.00 against your $1,000.00. Let's see if
you
stand behind your bull****.

There's no BS here Scott.

Yes there is Arny. The your BS poasturing about the hearing ability of
those who prefer vinyl.


I make no claims about having the best ears in the
world.

No you just claim that those who prefer vinyl must have inferior
hearing to yours. Prove it. I am waving 2 grand infront of your face.


However there's the slight matter of the billions of actual people
who dumped vinyl for digital.

No, it is irrelevant. Are you stupid enough to buy this ridiculous
argument or are you simply not confident in the merits of a legitimate
argument? Either way you lose.



Nor does this seem
to be partricularly related to age, since there are a number of
younger viewers - both on this forum and others - that have
reported
a preference for vinyl playback in general.

OK, so there are such things as young steamfitters, construction
workers and affcianados of loud rock music. Ear damage among the
young is rampant today.

Put up or shut up. 2 to 1 odds Arny.

I'll settle for your court costs on your failed libel suit against
me,
Scott.

;-)

Posture on dude. Bottom line is you can't back your bull****.
Scott Wheeler

Bruce J. Richman wrote in message

JBorg wrote:

Michael McKelvy wrote in message



Then the problem becomes how well can the speakers handle such
sounds.

How well do you think they should?

Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can
be measured on various instruments. And of course, those with an
anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion
than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based
on measurements alone.

You have audable distortion, lack of dynamics, and of course,
the ever present hiss and pop and crackle of the medium
itself.

It's not even close. Good tape(hi-fi vcr or simmilar)
eats vinyl for lunch and CD is much better. I think that
you really need to listen to your records again and
see how much noisier they are.

People forget. People get nostalgic. Take a 1964 Mustang.
Looks nice, but the fact is, it's a piece of junk to actually
drive compared to our never vehicles. A brand new Civic will
equal or better it in almost every way, and as far as driveability
goes, it's no contest which is a smoother and quieter ride.

What was great then - try using it now. We just thought it was
great because coming from 1970's era cassettes, 8-track, and
older technologies like wire recorders, vinyl sounded better.

But that was then. This is now. That you are even discussing
which sounds better(let alone the convience factor) is amazing.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Bruce J. Richman wrote in message

JBorg wrote:

Michael McKelvy wrote in message



Then the problem becomes how well can the speakers handle such
sounds.

How well do you think they should?

Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this
can
be measured on various instruments. And of course, those with an
anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion
than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl
based
on measurements alone.

You have audable distortion, lack of dynamics, and of course,
the ever present hiss and pop and crackle of the medium
itself.

It's not even close. Good tape(hi-fi vcr or simmilar)
eats vinyl for lunch and CD is much better. I think that
you really need to listen to your records again and
see how much noisier they are.

I listen to them on a regular basis and compare various LPs and CDs of
the same title in search of the best sound available for any given
title. CD usually are quite inferior despite the surface noise that can
be found on various LPs. Of course that noise varies from LP to LP.



People forget. People get nostalgic. Take a 1964 Mustang.
Looks nice, but the fact is, it's a piece of junk to actually
drive compared to our never vehicles. A brand new Civic will
equal or better it in almost every way, and as far as driveability
goes, it's no contest which is a smoother and quieter ride.

It's not about nostalgia. I get nostalgic about some things too. I know
that it is nostalgia though.



What was great then - try using it now.

My Leica M-6 comes to mind. I'll be doing some test shots with some B&W
film that is throw back to the 30s and 40s along with some film that is
a throw back to the 20s.

We just thought it was
great because coming from 1970's era cassettes, 8-track, and
older technologies like wire recorders, vinyl sounded better.

Um, vinyl preceded cassettes and 8 tracks. your argument just fell
apart.



But that was then. This is now. That you are even discussing
which sounds better(let alone the convience factor) is amazing.
That you aren't is amazing. Use your ears man.

Scott Wheeler

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

OK Art, so you like really bad-driving cars only because they are old.
Fits pretty well with your love for tubes.


No, then I would like all old cars. I have no use for old
Corvairs, Falcons, Chevy II's, Beetles or Valiants.

Joseph Oberlander wrote
?
Bruce J. Richman wrote
JBorg wrote:
Michael McKelvy wrote




Then the problem becomes how well can the speakers handle such sounds.

How well do you think they should?

Re. "distortions" concerning vinyl playback, I have no doubt this can
be measured on various instruments. And of course, those with an
anti-vinyl bias, will always claim that they "hear" more distortion
than with CDs - especially after years of arguing against vinyl based
on measurements alone.

You have audable distortion, lack of dynamics, and of course,
the ever present hiss and pop and crackle of the medium
itself.

It's not even close. Good tape(hi-fi vcr or simmilar)
eats vinyl for lunch and CD is much better. I think that
you really need to listen to your records again and
see how much noisier they are.

People forget. People get nostalgic. Take a 1964 Mustang.
Looks nice, but the fact is, it's a piece of junk to actually
drive compared to our never vehicles. A brand new Civic will
equal or better it in almost every way, and as far as driveability
goes, it's no contest which is a smoother and quieter ride.

What was great then - try using it now. We just thought it was
great because coming from 1970's era cassettes, 8-track, and
older technologies like wire recorders, vinyl sounded better.

But that was then. This is now. That you are even discussing
which sounds better(let alone the convience factor) is amazing.


I am not so sure what pertains to who over here. And what is
where should be or who is speaking specifically about what
should be. Mustang, Civics and 8-tracks-- I like them all.
Vinyl is good for the soul. In the 1970's, I remember disco.

wrote:

I listen to them on a regular basis and compare various LPs and CDs of
the same title in search of the best sound available for any given
title. CD usually are quite inferior despite the surface noise that can
be found on various LPs. Of course that noise varies from LP to LP.

Ad 99.99% of the world disagrees with you. The noise is
the biggest detractor there is - it's like watching a tv station
that has ghosting versus a clean one from a cable TV feed.

Clarity of sound is a measurement of "quality", no matter what
spin you put on it.

And god forbid you get a scratch on it - you are hosed.
click - click - click... It also wears out over time,
while I have a 15 year old CD(I think I have older ones)
that plays just like it did when it was new.

Arny Krueger wrote:

I have a friend with a perfectly-restored 428 Cougar of the era. It's a lot
of fun but its a real beast to drive. It was fast in its day but its modern
competitor is quikcer and faster, gets better fuel economy, runs smoother,
requires far less maintenance, will probably last longer in equal use, is
far more pollution free, and completely blows it away when it comes to ride,
stopping, and handling.

Isn't technology great?

My dad's Buick has almost as much power as a stock 60's GTO and
weighs less. 0-60 times are almost identical. You'd never guess
that it is as fast given the way it looks. Then there are
real vehicles like the WRX and AMG Mercedes and so on that go
0-60 in a heartbeat.

Drive the new Infiniti G Coupe. It's shocking, actually.
300HP with stick, rwd, and suspension that almost is
as good as a 911 - at half the price.

Nothing in the 60s or 70s outside of a real racecar
comes close to what you can buy at your local dealer and
drive home. And it's not considered a "sportscar"
or "exotic" - just another Infiniti.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
wrote:

I listen to them on a regular basis and compare various LPs and CDs
of
the same title in search of the best sound available for any given
title. CD usually are quite inferior despite the surface noise that
can
be found on various LPs. Of course that noise varies from LP to LP.

Ad 99.99% of the world disagrees with you.

Where did you get that figure? What ever the percentege may be it is
likely quite proportional to the percentage of people who have not
heard good vinyl played back on world class TTs. I thought CDs were
much better than LPs until I ran into a high end turntable on a good
high end system and then made comparisons. Given the fact that most of
those people have never had that experience the numbers are
meaningless.


The noise is
the biggest detractor there is - it's like watching a tv station
that has ghosting versus a clean one from a cable TV feed.

I don't agree with your analogy. Certianly if the noise is excessive it
is a problem. It isn't always excessive.Average surface noise on a high
end system is not nearly so intrusive (I'm not even talking about SOTA
pressings here just average ones.) On a good system with a world class
TT the noise is quite seperate from the music in the soundstage. That
makes it far more tolerable for me. Of course I'd rather not have it.
The thing is there is more to it than just surface noise. If all else
were equal every time then that would be the deciding factor. That
isn't the reality of things though. There are other problems that are
common on CDs that are more intrucive to me than average surface noise
of an LP.



Clarity of sound is a measurement of "quality", no matter what
spin you put on it.

Many LPs have far greater clarity than their CD counterparts. But I
agree that clarity is *a* measure of quality amoung many measures of
quality in audio. If I didn't think so I wouldn't own Sound Lab A3s.



And god forbid you get a scratch on it - you are hosed.

Don't use them as diner plates. Basic care will prevent record ruining
scratches.


click - click - click... It also wears out over time,
while I have a 15 year old CD(I think I have older ones)
that plays just like it did when it was new.
I have some 50 year old records that do the same.

Scott Wheeler

wrote in message
ups.com


Where did you get that figure? What ever the percentege may be it is
likely quite proportional to the percentage of people who have not
heard good vinyl played back on world class TTs. I thought CDs were
much better than LPs until I ran into a high end turntable on a good
high end system and then made comparisons.

The good news is that on the day someone tried that spiel on me, my ears
were working just fine. The tic-tic-tic, hiss and rumble were still there.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net
Arny Krueger wrote:

I have a friend with a perfectly-restored 428 Cougar of the era.
It's a lot of fun but its a real beast to drive. It was fast in its
day but its modern competitor is quikcer and faster, gets better
fuel economy, runs smoother, requires far less maintenance, will
probably last longer in equal use, is far more pollution free, and
completely blows it away when it comes to ride, stopping, and
handling.

Isn't technology great?

Yes.


My dad's Buick has almost as much power as a stock 60's GTO and
weighs less. 0-60 times are almost identical. You'd never guess
that it is as fast given the way it looks. Then there are
real vehicles like the WRX and AMG Mercedes and so on that go
0-60 in a heartbeat.

Yes.

Drive the new Infiniti G Coupe. It's shocking, actually.
300HP with stick, rwd, and suspension that almost is
as good as a 911 - at half the price.

I wish.

Nothing in the 60s or 70s outside of a real racecar
comes close to what you can buy at your local dealer and
drive home. And it's not considered a "sportscar"
or "exotic" - just another Infiniti.

Agreed.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:03:15 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Scott, the fact that you want to compare your ears to those of a guy who is
almost 60 says a lot. Could you set the mark lower? Well yes you could, I
guess. You could challenge Art.

So, you're in the catagory of Rupert Neve and Walter Sear. So when you
were talking about them being "over the hill", it was really just
self-projection, right?

BTW, I know that this will go right over your head, but here's a very
perceptive quote from Walter Becker of Steely Dan at Mix Magazine (
speaking about Walter Sear reminded me of Steely Dan):

What are some of your feelings about surround sound and high-res
release formats?

Becker: Regarding surround sound, I know musicians too well to want
them behind my back. But because of the additional speaker separation,
the surround mixes I've worked on can make 2-channel sound somewhat
low-fi by comparison. But I still prefer stereo overall. The music
holds together better.

It's funny, but as the sonics improve, the focus on music doesn't
improve. For example, there are a lot of ways to record piano, and a
lot of people do much better piano recordings than Rudy Van Gelder
ever did. But when you listen to a Van Gelder piano recording, you're
listening to the sound of the guy's piano and the notes in his solo.
When you listen to more hi-fi recordings of pianos, you might hear
more high-end detail and clarity, but you may be listening more to the
overtones of the piano and less focused on the intention of the
musician, which is in the fundamental pitches of the notes, rather
than the often-clangorous overtones.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:14:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Nothing in the 60s or 70s outside of a real racecar
comes close to what you can buy at your local dealer and
drive home. And it's not considered a "sportscar"
or "exotic" - just another Infiniti.

Agreed.

Of course, there are other intangibles at work when it comes to cars.
I think the last statement comes close to boiling it down quite well -
"just another Infiniti". Nothing wrong with that per se. However,
there's a different level of satisfaction that's derived when
maintaining a piece of auto history, as well as a certain evocative
vibe that transends such things as skid pad performance or high tech
seating.

Nothing wrong with people who don't care about such things, but
there's also nothing wrong with people who like vintage cars either.
I'm comforted when I see such cars on the road.

I remember driving my bright red '64 Chevy Impala SS 327 in Germany in
the late 80s. That was fun. Of course, finding parking for it was
quite difficult, since the car is 20 feet long. That was part of the
fun though. The gas mileage was a killer though.