[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:47:54 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


Harry, are you really trying to talk sense to a bunch
of tech. school graduates venting their childish
views about music reproduction, here, where no one can
stop them? Let them argue with each other about tube impendances
and such. When they try to venture into the country of
the real pioneers of audio they come up with idiocies
like explaining to us why d'Appolito and Meitner see
fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why?
Simple: because they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE
products for "megabucks". Incredible as this may sound
that's exactly what one of them said. And repeated. Ludovic Mirabel


Yeah, I saw that.... grin


So you have a better suggestion as to why a (presumably)
competent engineer would ignore reality and claim that
vinyl is superior to CD? Although, perhaps my presumption of competency
is not
correct. It's either that or they were just into selling
snake oil. Oh, and are you both saying that Krell products weren't
selling for very high (and unwarrentedly so) prices?

You may not say it is a better suggestion, but I would
suggest that they say what they say because they believe
it to be true. Why is that so hard for *you* to believe?

I'm willing to believe that Meitner and D'Augustino believe in the
technical trash that they spew. Write it off to a desire to make a living.
We have politicians who tell even worse falsehoods, you know! ;-)

Yes, but many of them know it *isn't* true, and still say it.



And yes, they are competent. Very few, if any, engineers
would claim that Krell or Meitner equipment is
incompetently designed or manufactured.

You forgot D'Augustino's true genius - the marketing.


Glad you agree that their work is competent, Arny.

And you seem to share the objectivist bias against marketing. Kind of like
being against capitalism as an economic system, isn't it Arny? Marketing is
a set of tools and knowledge, nothing more. It can be used ethically, or
un-ethically. It can be done effectively, or ineffectively. It can be the
best investment a company makes, or a complete waste of money. But it is
one of the mainstays of our economic system.

You know, when others mentioned this years ago I wasn't sure I bought it,
but I am beginning to think that they are right.....there appears to be a
fair amount of just plain economic envy in your desire to "pull down"
anything that carries a high price tag....even as in the case of Meitner and
Krell where you *KNOW* their performance is above reproach.

See below.



And yes, both product lines sell for very high prices. But unwarrentedly?
Not to the many thousands of people
who buy the products and get fantastic sound, pride of
ownership, little obsolesence, and little urge to
upgrade. It's called value. Its called cache'. Yes, it
requires a good income; many people have it, and it is no
more extravagant than buying a BMW 325 versus a Honda
Civic.

Actually, its measureably worse.

www.autos.yahoo.com

2006 BMW 325i $29,777

2007 Honda Civi Sedan $15,010-$21,260

Quotient about 2:1 to 1.5:1

Well....Arny discovers an amazing economic truth....that of diminishing
returns. How novel.


http://www.audiophileliquidator.com

Krell KAV 2250 250 wpc at 8 ohms power amp $4,000

Parasound 2250 250 wpc at 8 ohms power amp $949

Quotient about 4:1


Oh, how awful!



Perhaps you think all the recording engineers that favor
Millenia Media preamps are also fools, and that the
manufacturer is a charlatan? Same for Grace? Or Manley? Or John Hardy?
If so, then I am sad for you.

Just because its done, doesn't mean it is right. I can tell that Harry
told his folks that they should supply him with crack or whatever was
current then, because that's what "All the other kids did".

Once again, Arny is familiar enough with the pro audio business to know I am
right, so we get a diversionary tactic. To which I reply:

You wish, Arny. I was the one in my family who broke the "tobacco chain" so
that my younger sisters never smoked. Or used anything else, for that
matter.

[Harry Lavo]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Harry Lavo wrote:

It's called value. Its called cache'. Yes, it requires a good income;
many
people have it, and it is no more extravagant than buying a BMW 325
versus a
Honda Civic.

Cachet actually. You computer has a cache.

Graham

Yep, caught me. Know the difference, but didn't bring it into focus.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:07:13 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

I should more accurately have said "massed strings", as
I think this is what Jenn is referring to. Most
classical listeners will tell you that nothing tends to
brittleness and hardness so often in the digital domain
as massed strings.

Of course the real source of the problem is with the
preconceived notions of the listener, starting with the
weird idea that massed strings should be any kind of a
problem for a modern digital format.

No, the problem is the result of the modern digital
format, not the other way around/

Whatever that means.

If it doesn't make sense one way, it doesn't make sense the other.

Stephen's ultra reference recording appears to date back
to 1966, when for example a lot of tubed equipment in
questionable stages of maintenance (proper maintenance
is far more critical with tubes) was still in use. Old
dudes like me were in college in those days and at least
listening seriously to classical music (regrettably
clouded by the many noises and distortions inherent in
vinyl). I seriously doubt that is true of Stephen or
Jenn.

Yes, we might have fresher ears than you.

You might have different prejudices, and far more of them.

Why more? Surely you have an infinite number of prejudices.

Since this is obviously a remastered CD of a recording
that was made well before digital audio was a commercial
reality, a lot rests in the hands of people who probably
had little to do with the original production.

I hope that the transfer is transparent. Why shouldn't it
be?

Because it was done by humans who wanted it to sound their way.

I think there have been more than one digital transfers of this
recording. If you are familiar with the others (non-GROC), please post a
comparison.

It is indeed the hardest thing to "digitize".

No way, Jose. Paul obviously wants us to believe that
he's some kind of world-class technical expert about
digital audio.

In fact violins aren't a problem for equipment with flat
power bandwidth such as digital recording and power
amplifiers.

Do you think the problem is elsewhere in the recording
chain, mics, for instance?

The most problematical parts of recording relate to rooms, mics, and micing.

Which of these did the Mercury folks get wrong?

And no, to answer Arnie's question elsewhere, I have no
technical clue as to why that might be, other than the
fact that massed strings are the sweetest sounding
section of the orchestra and thus reveal any lack of
sweetness in the sound quicker than any other section.

The real problem is that micing and acoustics can be
issues. That really doesn't have a lot to do with
recording format except that in the days of vinyl,
people carried the technical limitations of vinyl back
through the production process, sometimes even arranging
music so that it would not stess the relatively weak
technical underpinings of vinyl. In 1966 record
companies could not presume that the average customer
had a high-trackability cartrdidge for example. So,
various artful dodges were used to fit 5 pounds of music
in vinyl's 3 pound bag.

I have a cd. I think there's a late 70s lp pressing
probably good for "4 pounds."

Dream on.

Please post a sound quality to pound chart so we can communicate better.

Stephen

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


You know why those preamps are bought/used by the pros?

(1) Bragging rights
(2) Carriage trade
(3) Money to burn
(4) Impresses prospective clients and contributors
(5) May actually do something audible a tiny percentage of the time

THEY SOUND BETTER!

Maybe, maybe not. They won't turn a Shure SM58 into a Neumann, and for the
price they should.

The engineers know it.

There is actually a controversy

The musicians who record with them know it.

Only the ones who are into technological name-dropping who do definately
exist but are probably a minority.

When people talk about all
the low-quality crap in the studio recording chain, they
are talking Project Studio.

Some of which are listed at http://www.mil-media.com/docs/custlist.shtml

It's just that if you are BabS, you don't have a lot of Behringer sitting
around.

Serious recording is done
with mics that cost $1500-4000 each and mic preamps that
cost at least $1000 per input, feeding digital converters
that cost mucho dinero.

There's some of that around. But it is not what working recordists use as
a rule.

The equivalent to "high end" audio gear.

A tiny minority of that which is in use.

So why shouldn't it be listened to with the same, if you can afford it?

Because the money you don't blow on your stereo, you can give to charity.


Arny, the discussion was about classical recording. Did you miss that?
Your points are totally irrelevant and wrong for classical recording.

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
message
paul packer wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

Just as how anyone can pretend that the sound of
violins (for example) on CD is hi-fi is beyond me.
My opinion on that was reinforced again at Disney
Hall. But YMMV, and that's fine, in my opinion.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the
digital domain more than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't
something I routinely listen to so I'm a little in the
dark here.

Yes, Paul is as usual making it up as he goes along.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my
next-door neighbour ( professional musician ) playing
his violin on my Mini-disc a while back and it sounded
Ok to me.

I do know that massed violins and choirs are very
effective at making SETs do their intermodulation
thingie. They can be pretty good for detecting timbre
changes in the midrange. However, in the PCABX tests,
it was generally found that the Trumpets sample that
Jenn hates snip

I don't hate your "Trumpets" file Arny. I simply
correctly stated that it isn't a recording of real
trumpets.

Look Jenn, I could prove you wrong again

Never happened, but you're "free" to believe that it did.

about pulling all of the bile you
posted about the trumpets samples on www.pcabx.com but
what good would that do?

If by "bile" you mean that I correctly pointed out that
the file isn't a recording of real trumpets, then yes I
posted "bile".

Dream on.

Are you still trying to say that those are real trumpets?

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Royer, Microtech-Gefell, Josephson, and T.H.E. are
antiques? What world do you live in?

A lot of them are definately retro-designs. Well those of us who have kept
up know that, but not apparently Harry.

What I do know is that the Royer's are based on the B&O mic's I used in the
70's, and which have never been matched for certain uses. And that the
Gefell's mimic the Shoeps and Neumann three-ways I used in those days, which
would be (and often are) right at home in any mic closet nowadays. There
has been little overall improvment in condenser mics since the
mid-seventies, other than the appearance of the technology at lower price
points (but also with generally acknowledged lesser performance).

[Harry Lavo]

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham


Agreed.

Cool.... more used records available for me.

More evidence of ear damage.

Incorrect; more evidence of a preference for the sound of
good LPs.

Compared to CDs there are no good LPs in the sense that none are
objectivly
even comparable.

Incorrect according to my ears. Your ear may vary, and that's fine.
You should enjoy the sound of what you listen to just as I should.

And STFU about it.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
oups.com
On Oct 9, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Stuart Krivis" wrote in
message

Some questions:
Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so
low lin level that it's swamped by the noise
floor?

Neither. When very gross (in the millisecond range)
pre-echo is swamped by temporal masking. When fall
smaller (in the microsecond range) pre-echo is
removed by the ear before it hits the nerves.

This subject was covered in the January 2006 issue
of Stereophile (see
http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/ ),
complete with blind listening tests. The filter that
was downgraded in the blind auditioning was the one
where all the ringing was in the form
of pre-echo. These results align with those in an
AES paper co-authored by Roger Lagadec and the late
Tom Stockham in the 1980s. (See R. Lagadec and T.G.
Stockham, "Dispersive Models
for A-to-D and D-to-A Conversion Systems," Preprint
2097, 75th Audio Engineering Society Convention
(1984).)

I'd be interested in learning of Mr. Krueger's own
listening test results on this phenomenon.

My results were similar to those in the cited
article:

Really. You performed listening tests where the only
variable was the time-domain nature of the
reconstruction filter.

In the sense that my tests the major variable the
corner frequency of the reconstruction frequency.

A very different subject.

Only if one majors in minors.

Not at all. Your tests examined the audible effect of the
change in corner frequency, with the time-domain behavior
held constant. In the Stereophile tests, the corner
frequency was held contant and the time-domain behavior
became the variable. Do you
really not grasp that the two are different? That your
mentioning of tests that examined the corner frequency is
not relevant to the subject of filter dispersion?

In the Stereophile tests, the
passbands of the filters were all the same. They
differed in their time-domain behavior.

As if there is no connection between the frequency domain
and the time domain! ;-)

Perhaps you didn't read the article describing the tests.
It
was clearly mentioned that the variable under test was the
time-domain performance four low-pass filters that had
identical frequency-domain behavior, one of which
featured pure pre-echo behavior of the type Mr. Krivis
was asking about above.

When was this work done and where was it
published.

See Usenet, RAP, RAT, and RAO.

I Googled various combinations of "pre-echo" "filter"
"dispersion" "digital" "ringing" "listening tests" "ABX"
"tests" and "Krueger" and got no confirmation that you
have ever performed formal blind tests on filter
dispersion, Mr. Krueger. Can you give a more precise
URL please.

I'm unwilling to do the work required because it isn't
at all of the same importance to me as your magazine is
to you, John.

How hard can it be for you to give the URL of a published
test where you examined the audibility of digital filter
dispersion, Mr. Krueger?

Didn't I give you some URLs on my www.pcabx.com domain?

You made the claim that this was something
you had tested and that the test results had been
published.

Oh yes, and I gave you a URL for a page on the ABX web site too.

But in the absence of any postings from you discussing
such tests, the only conclusion a reasonable person could
come to
is that at worst, you are simply making things up or at
best, you are confusing your filter corner frequency
tests (which you did perform) with tests of filter
dispersion (which you haven't).

Yup, its John Atkinson again claiming that there's no relationship between
filter existence, filter corner frequency, and filter transient response.
Sad.

In the real world no filter has far worse pre-ringing than one that is
actually in the signal path.

In the real world, a filter of a given design has more pre-ringing measured
in units of time when its corner frequency is lower.

I have no problem with people who choose to design a filter to have
unrealistic amounts of pre-ringing. But claiming that they are relevant to
modern well-designed digital gear is a bit misleading. Ditto for tests that
claim to prove some hypothesis but give no numerical details about the
outcomes of the tests.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

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

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

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore"
wrote in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
because it is the only digital system for home use
that produces natural-sounding transient response,
as opposed to pcm which produces transients with
pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and
we do know the ear-brain complex is highly
oriented to transient information and very
sensitive to *any* type of sound that is
"un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
instinct, I suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has
ever provided a shred of proof that it's true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low
lin level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is
it therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos
easy to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions
all the time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them,
Jenn.

SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that moon
isn't made of cheese, Arny.

There are about 20 posts of mine related to that, the
earliest of which seems to be:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a2d3d82815cb18

Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:

"Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of green
cheese, and anybody
with a few simple tools and a good understanding of
Newtonian Physics (and a
sample of green cheese) has been able to do so for maybe
100 years or so." OK, Jenn now put up or admit that you're wrong!

Four year old stuff, Arny. Grow up!


Umm Harry I don't know how to break it to you, but this is 2006, not 2002.

The post in question is more like 8 year old stuff, not 4 year old stuff.

If you read the posts, you'd know that I picked the earliest example of
many.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

Unh, suffers from freedom of audible distortions that
can be common with vinyl.

No, because if that were so it would sound more like
real violins.

So speaks a world authority on the sound of real
violins.

If cd is transparent, shouldn't it?

Should and does.

Idle speculation suggests a problem with
harmonically complex high frequency sounds.

Next.

Weird DAC distortions.

Next.

Lack of sufficiently high frequency range to properly
form combinant tones.

Next.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore"
wrote in
message
paul packer wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

Just as how anyone can pretend that the sound of
violins (for example) on CD is hi-fi is beyond me.
My opinion on that was reinforced again at Disney
Hall. But YMMV, and that's fine, in my opinion.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the
digital domain more than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't
something I routinely listen to so I'm a little in
the dark here.

Yes, Paul is as usual making it up as he goes along.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my
next-door neighbour ( professional musician )
playing his violin on my Mini-disc a while back and
it sounded Ok to me.

I do know that massed violins and choirs are very
effective at making SETs do their intermodulation
thingie. They can be pretty good for detecting timbre
changes in the midrange. However, in the PCABX tests,
it was generally found that the Trumpets sample that
Jenn hates snip

I don't hate your "Trumpets" file Arny. I simply
correctly stated that it isn't a recording of real
trumpets.

Look Jenn, I could prove you wrong again

Never happened, but you're "free" to believe that it
did.

about pulling all of the bile you
posted about the trumpets samples on www.pcabx.com but
what good would that do?

If by "bile" you mean that I correctly pointed out that
the file isn't a recording of real trumpets, then yes I
posted "bile".

Dream on.

Are you still trying to say that those are real trumpets?

You've got me confused with someone who cares. The purpose of the
www.pcabx.com Trumpet samples is to enhance human abilities to hear certain
common kinds of audible differences, not sell brass trumpets.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:38:39 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:



I would have to say that CD is about as close to the
final master as most people can get.

You can't have heard a good multichannel SACD or DVD-A
system to be able to
say that.


The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to plain
old CD, so I don't see why you would be supporting it.

Because it sounds better.

Well, that's what the press releases that Harry uses as
his only technical resources tell him.

Which press releases would that be, Arny?

Sony and Philips press releases relating to SACD, it seems.

Biggest reason, IMO, is
because it is the only digital system for home use that
produces natural-sounding transient response, as opposed
to pcm which produces transients with pre-echo.

That's nonsense. The transient reproduction of a digital
system that is reasonably linear (and both CD, SACD, and
DVD-A are more than reasonbly linear) is dependent on
its bandpass. DVD-A at 24/192 has easily as good
bandpass and therefore transient response as SACD.

I guess Arny doesn't read very well before he shoots. I
included 192/24 pcm as well as SACD, having said that
that is were agreement among audio pros is that the sound
between PCM and SACD becomes indestinquishable.

YOu missed your own shift of the discussion to just SACD.

There was a time in life when DACs had reconstruction
filters that adversely affected transient response.
However, even modest-priced DACs have reconstruction
filters with minimal group delay. They can have ideal
phase response up to 95% of the Nyquist frequency which
is more than adequate to provide good transent response,
given whatever the Nyquist frequency is.

Some audiophiles may believe that SACD does not have
anything that limits it in similar ways as the Nyquist
frequency limits PCM. This is false. For SACD the
equivalent to the Nyquist frequency is around 100 KHz.
This is about the same as the Nyquist frequency as
24/192 DVD-A PCM.

A total strawman that has not been any part of the
discussion thread.

Dissemble on, dude.

The latter exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
ear-brain complex is highly oriented to transient
information and very sensitive to *any* type of sound
that is "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
instinct, I suppose).

Your proof that this is not true? It is a well know,
accepted scientific fact. Even your objectivist brethren
agree.

I'm sure that someone someplace agrees with just about anything. Without
distinct references, we're probably dealing with the likes of Meitner. That
would be Cryogenic CD Meitner.

This is Lavo-science, not real-world science. In fact
the ear is highly tolerant of transients that appear to
be highly mangled. That's because the ear is basically a
spectrum analyzer. The ear does not follow acoustical
waveforms at high frequencies. It performs a spectrum
analysis of waveforms which pretty well loses a lot of
the information about phase, and therefore the actual
shape of the waveform. IOW there are many high frequency
transients that while looking different on a 'scope,
will sound the same.

Let's look at Arny-science. He knows of test results
that show that one cannot tell a triangular wave from a
square wave from a sine wave at 10,000 or 15,000 or
20,000hz. From that he concludes we can't possible hear
a difference in massed violin reproduction from a medium
that begins to distort waveform about ~2000hz.

Where did I say that?

As for proof? Arny doesn't need any. For he has often
said "theory=evidence".

Something I can say when I have the evidence at hand.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
" wrote:

A few observartions:
1) About cryogenics. No doubt Krivis investigated the
subject and published his results in a respectable
peer revieved audio journal. I don't know if Meitner
did. But if neither did it we have to decide whose
authority to take seriously: Meitner of Museatex or
Krivis of RAO.

Any clown who considers freezing something to make it
sound better ought to be locked up and the key thrown
away.

I suspect that Meitner hopes to laugh all the way to
the bank. Remember that in addition to cryogenic CDs
Meitner also promotes the magical properties of the
SACD format.

I've never bothered with it. Sounds mainly like an
excuse to make you buy the same back catalogue all over
again.

Surround sound is potentially a major improvement.

And this gratuitous massive shift of topic was brought to you by Stephen.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

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

"Eeyore"
wrote in
message
paul packer wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:03:49 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

Just as how anyone can pretend that the sound of
violins (for example) on CD is hi-fi is beyond me.
My opinion on that was reinforced again at Disney
Hall. But YMMV, and that's fine, in my opinion.

It's true that violins do seem to suffer in the
digital domain more than most instruments.

Can anyone put a finger on this ? Violins aren't
something I routinely listen to so I'm a little in
the dark here.

Yes, Paul is as usual making it up as he goes along.

Having said that, I made a brief recording of my
next-door neighbour ( professional musician )
playing his violin on my Mini-disc a while back and
it sounded Ok to me.

I do know that massed violins and choirs are very
effective at making SETs do their intermodulation
thingie. They can be pretty good for detecting timbre
changes in the midrange. However, in the PCABX tests,
it was generally found that the Trumpets sample that
Jenn hates snip

I don't hate your "Trumpets" file Arny. I simply
correctly stated that it isn't a recording of real
trumpets.

Look Jenn, I could prove you wrong again

Never happened, but you're "free" to believe that it
did.

about pulling all of the bile you
posted about the trumpets samples on www.pcabx.com but
what good would that do?

If by "bile" you mean that I correctly pointed out that
the file isn't a recording of real trumpets, then yes I
posted "bile".

Dream on.

Are you still trying to say that those are real trumpets?

You've got me confused with someone who cares. The purpose of the
www.pcabx.com Trumpet samples is to enhance human abilities to hear certain
common kinds of audible differences, not sell brass trumpets.

I simply asked a question. My only gripe with your "Trumpets" files is
that it doesn't sound like real trumpets, because they aren't real
trumpets. Other than that, I don't care about them. If they serve your
purpose, fine. But they shouldn't be labeled "Trumpets" for they most
assuredly aren't trumpets.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

Unh, suffers from freedom of audible distortions that
can be common with vinyl.

No, because if that were so it would sound more like
real violins.

So speaks a world authority on the sound of real
violins.

If cd is transparent, shouldn't it?

Should and does.

Idle speculation suggests a problem with
harmonically complex high frequency sounds.

Next.

Weird DAC distortions.

Next.

Lack of sufficiently high frequency range to properly
form combinant tones.

Next.

Brick-wall filtering artifacts.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
" wrote:

A few observartions:
1) About cryogenics. No doubt Krivis investigated the
subject and published his results in a respectable
peer revieved audio journal. I don't know if Meitner
did. But if neither did it we have to decide whose
authority to take seriously: Meitner of Museatex or
Krivis of RAO.

Any clown who considers freezing something to make it
sound better ought to be locked up and the key thrown
away.

I suspect that Meitner hopes to laugh all the way to
the bank. Remember that in addition to cryogenic CDs
Meitner also promotes the magical properties of the
SACD format.

I've never bothered with it. Sounds mainly like an
excuse to make you buy the same back catalogue all over
again.

Surround sound is potentially a major improvement.

And this gratuitous massive shift of topic was brought to you by Stephen.

It's not? It's surely one of the "magical properties of the SACD format."

Stephen

[AZ Nomad]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:31:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:




dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:30:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Ed Meitner, designer of the Museatex line of electronics, has discovered
that cryogenically freezing a CD changes the physical structure of
polycarbonate, the plastic material from which CDs are made. The result is
reportedly an audible improvement in sound quality. In this process, CDs are
placed in a cryogenic freezing chamber and the temperature is slowly reduced
over eight hours to 75 Kelvins, or about -300 degrees Fahrenheit. This is
approximately the temperature of liquid nitrogen, the chamber's cooling
agent. The temperature is then slowly brought back to room temperature over
another eight hours."

How much damning evidence does any reasonable person need?

So sayeth Arnold the Luddite.

Let's hear your explanation then.

Incidentally I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that freezing polycarbonate
does anything to it at all ( even if it could make a difference ! ).

Obviously it opens a wormhole in space to the time and location of the
original recording, takes a new sample of the music, then corrects all those
little frozen ones and zeros being also very carefull to update the checksums.
All that just by freezing the disk. Amazing stuff, really.

[AZ Nomad]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:31:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:




dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:30:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Ed Meitner, designer of the Museatex line of electronics, has discovered
that cryogenically freezing a CD changes the physical structure of
polycarbonate, the plastic material from which CDs are made. The result is
reportedly an audible improvement in sound quality. In this process, CDs are
placed in a cryogenic freezing chamber and the temperature is slowly reduced
over eight hours to 75 Kelvins, or about -300 degrees Fahrenheit. This is
approximately the temperature of liquid nitrogen, the chamber's cooling
agent. The temperature is then slowly brought back to room temperature over
another eight hours."

How much damning evidence does any reasonable person need?

So sayeth Arnold the Luddite.

Let's hear your explanation then.

Incidentally I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that freezing polycarbonate
does anything to it at all ( even if it could make a difference ! ).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80462773187994
should explain it all.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in
message

In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Unh, suffers from freedom of audible distortions
that can be common with vinyl.

No, because if that were so it would sound more like
real violins.

So speaks a world authority on the sound of real
violins.

If cd is transparent, shouldn't it?

Should and does.

Idle speculation suggests a problem with
harmonically complex high frequency sounds.

Next.

Weird DAC distortions.

Next.

Lack of sufficiently high frequency range to properly
form combinant tones.

Next.

Brick-wall filtering artifacts.

Next.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message


My only gripe with your
"Trumpets" files is that it doesn't sound like real
trumpets, because they aren't real trumpets.

Where did I say that they are real trumpets, and where is it written on
stone that they have to be real trumpets for the intended purpose, which is
hearing differences?

Other than that, I don't care about them.

You cared about so much that you tried to use them to impugn my abilities as
a recordist.

If they serve your purpose, fine.

It's not just my purpose Jenn, its a purpose that relates to audio in
general.

But they shouldn't be labeled "Trumpets" for they most assuredly aren't
trumpets.

Why aren't you complaining about this to the people who designed the voices
for general MIDI?

http://www.csm.uwe.ac.uk/~lrlang/mus...sx/gmlist.html

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore"
wrote
" wrote:

A few observartions:
1) About cryogenics. No doubt Krivis investigated
the subject and published his results in a
respectable peer revieved audio journal. I don't
know if Meitner did. But if neither did it we have
to decide whose authority to take seriously:
Meitner of Museatex or Krivis of RAO.

Any clown who considers freezing something to make it
sound better ought to be locked up and the key thrown
away.

I suspect that Meitner hopes to laugh all the way to
the bank. Remember that in addition to cryogenic CDs
Meitner also promotes the magical properties of the
SACD format.

I've never bothered with it. Sounds mainly like an
excuse to make you buy the same back catalogue all over
again.

Surround sound is potentially a major improvement.

And this gratuitous massive shift of topic was brought
to you by Stephen.

It's not? It's surely one of the "magical properties of
the SACD format."

But not uniquely so. It's also a property of AC3 and DVD-A for two.

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
oups.com
On Oct 9, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Stuart Krivis" wrote in
message

Some questions:
Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so
low lin level that it's swamped by the noise
floor?

Neither. When very gross (in the millisecond range)
pre-echo is swamped by temporal masking. When fall
smaller (in the microsecond range) pre-echo is
removed by the ear before it hits the nerves.

This subject was covered in the January 2006 issue
of Stereophile (see
http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/ ),
complete with blind listening tests. The filter that
was downgraded in the blind auditioning was the one
where all the ringing was in the form
of pre-echo. These results align with those in an
AES paper co-authored by Roger Lagadec and the late
Tom Stockham in the 1980s. (See R. Lagadec and T.G.
Stockham, "Dispersive Models
for A-to-D and D-to-A Conversion Systems," Preprint
2097, 75th Audio Engineering Society Convention
(1984).)

I'd be interested in learning of Mr. Krueger's own
listening test results on this phenomenon.

My results were similar to those in the cited
article:

Really. You performed listening tests where the only
variable was the time-domain nature of the
reconstruction filter.

In the sense that my tests the major variable the
corner frequency of the reconstruction frequency.

A very different subject.

Only if one majors in minors.

Not at all. Your tests examined the audible effect of the
change in corner frequency, with the time-domain behavior
held constant. In the Stereophile tests, the corner
frequency was held contant and the time-domain behavior
became the variable. Do you
really not grasp that the two are different? That your
mentioning of tests that examined the corner frequency is
not relevant to the subject of filter dispersion?

No response from Arny Krueger. Yet this is the crux of
the matter, illustrating his confusion.

In the Stereophile tests, the
passbands of the filters were all the same. They
differed in their time-domain behavior.

As if there is no connection between the frequency domain
and the time domain! ;-)

Perhaps you didn't read the article describing the tests. It
was clearly mentioned that the variable under test was the
time-domain performance four low-pass filters that had
identical frequency-domain behavior, one of which
featured pure pre-echo behavior of the type Mr. Krivis
was asking about above.

No response from Arny Krueger. Yet this is the crux of
the matter, illustrating his confusion.

When was this work done and where was it
published.

See Usenet, RAP, RAT, and RAO.

I Googled various combinations of "pre-echo" "filter"
"dispersion" "digital" "ringing" "listening tests" "ABX"
"tests" and "Krueger" and got no confirmation that you
have ever performed formal blind tests on filter
dispersion, Mr. Krueger. Can you give a more precise
URL please.

I'm unwilling to do the work required because it isn't
at all of the same importance to me as your magazine is
to you, John.

How hard can it be for you to give the URL of a published
test where you examined the audibility of digital filter
dispersion, Mr. Krueger?

Didn't I give you some URLs on my www.pcabx.com domain?

Yes. Unless I missed something, not one of them concerned the
audibility of digital filter dispersion.

You made the claim that this was something
you had tested and that the test results had been
published.

Oh yes, and I gave you a URL for a page on the ABX web site too.

Again, there were no tests examing the audibility of digital filter
dispersion, contrary to your claims.

But in the absence of any postings from you discussing
such tests, the only conclusion a reasonable person could
come to is that at worst, you are simply making things up
or at best, you are confusing your filter corner frequency
tests (which you did perform) with tests of filter
dispersion (which you haven't).

Yup, its John Atkinson again claiming that there's no
relationship between filter existence, filter corner frequency,
and filter transient response.

As I said, Mr. Krueger, and as shown by the Stereophile
article ands the Stockham and Lagadec AES preprint, it
is possible to examine the audibility of these factors
separately.

Sad.

What is sad is witnessing you continuing to deny the obvious,
Mr. Krueger.

Incidentally, given your reference to your websites, a while
back you claimed your sites got as much traffic as
www.stereophile.com. Our website's visitor statistics are
audited by the Niesen organization. We currently get nearly
300,000 unique visitors each month and 2 million page
views each month. Do you continue to claim that your
websites are equally successful as www.stereophile.com?
If so, who audits your traffic statistics?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[dave weil]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:49:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

However to people with sufficiently low
brows, such as those whose life's accomplishment has been to wait on tables
in bars, it may seem to be more.

Except that when it's your "life's accomplishment" to be waited on at
greasy Detroit meat and threes, more is sometimes better.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in
message

In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Unh, suffers from freedom of audible distortions
that can be common with vinyl.

No, because if that were so it would sound more like
real violins.

So speaks a world authority on the sound of real
violins.

If cd is transparent, shouldn't it?

Should and does.

Idle speculation suggests a problem with
harmonically complex high frequency sounds.

Next.

Weird DAC distortions.

Next.

Lack of sufficiently high frequency range to properly
form combinant tones.

Next.

Brick-wall filtering artifacts.

Next.

That's it for idle speculation. More would be effortful, not idle.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore"
wrote
" wrote:

A few observartions:
1) About cryogenics. No doubt Krivis investigated
the subject and published his results in a
respectable peer revieved audio journal. I don't
know if Meitner did. But if neither did it we have
to decide whose authority to take seriously:
Meitner of Museatex or Krivis of RAO.

Any clown who considers freezing something to make it
sound better ought to be locked up and the key thrown
away.

I suspect that Meitner hopes to laugh all the way to
the bank. Remember that in addition to cryogenic CDs
Meitner also promotes the magical properties of the
SACD format.

I've never bothered with it. Sounds mainly like an
excuse to make you buy the same back catalogue all over
again.

Surround sound is potentially a major improvement.

And this gratuitous massive shift of topic was brought
to you by Stephen.

It's not? It's surely one of the "magical properties of
the SACD format."

But not uniquely so. It's also a property of AC3 and DVD-A for two.

Sorry, I don't remember claiming it to be an exclusive property of SACD.

I saw a closeout on Onkyo receivers for under $70. One could get a $200
universal player and the $30 Infinity Primus 150s at circuitcity.com and
be in the surround game for not much money.

Stephen

[dave weil]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:35:35 GMT, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:31:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:




dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:30:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Ed Meitner, designer of the Museatex line of electronics, has discovered
that cryogenically freezing a CD changes the physical structure of
polycarbonate, the plastic material from which CDs are made. The result is
reportedly an audible improvement in sound quality. In this process, CDs are
placed in a cryogenic freezing chamber and the temperature is slowly reduced
over eight hours to 75 Kelvins, or about -300 degrees Fahrenheit. This is
approximately the temperature of liquid nitrogen, the chamber's cooling
agent. The temperature is then slowly brought back to room temperature over
another eight hours."

How much damning evidence does any reasonable person need?

So sayeth Arnold the Luddite.

Let's hear your explanation then.

Incidentally I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that freezing polycarbonate
does anything to it at all ( even if it could make a difference ! ).

Obviously it opens a wormhole in space to the time and location of the
original recording, takes a new sample of the music, then corrects all those
little frozen ones and zeros being also very carefull to update the checksums.
All that just by freezing the disk. Amazing stuff, really.

Gotta love that geek humor.

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


My only gripe with your
"Trumpets" files is that they don't sound like real
trumpets, because they aren't real trumpets.

Where did I say that they are real trumpets,

Sept. 25, 2006
Jenn: By the way, for truth in advertising purposes on your site,
you should
relabel "trumpets" "violin" etc. as "synth trumpet" "synth violin" etc.

Arny: Those are recordigns of real instruments. They are just recorded
in a way
that you lack the mental abilities to recognize as being the sound of a
real
instrument.

and where is it written on
stone that they have to be real trumpets for the intended purpose, which is
hearing differences?

Nowhere.


Other than that, I don't care about them.

You cared about so much that you tried to use them to impugn my abilities as
a recordist.

But not because of the quality of the file, but rather because you
didn't know that you could't hear that they weren't real trumpets. It
seems to me that anyone who records trumpets ought to know the
difference.


If they serve your purpose, fine.

It's not just my purpose Jenn, its a purpose that relates to audio in
general.

But they shouldn't be labeled "Trumpets" for they most assuredly aren't
trumpets.

Why aren't you complaining about this to the people who designed the voices
for general MIDI?

http://www.csm.uwe.ac.uk/~lrlang/mus...sx/gmlist.html

It's not the purpose of general MIDI to make an accurate imitation of
acoustic instruments.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
oups.com
On Oct 9, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Stuart Krivis" wrote in
message

Some questions:
Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so
low lin level that it's swamped by the noise
floor?

Neither. When very gross (in the millisecond
range) pre-echo is swamped by temporal masking.
When fall smaller (in the microsecond range)
pre-echo is removed by the ear before it hits
the nerves.

This subject was covered in the January 2006 issue
of Stereophile (see
http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/ ),
complete with blind listening tests. The filter
that was downgraded in the blind auditioning was
the one where all the ringing was in the form
of pre-echo. These results align with those in an
AES paper co-authored by Roger Lagadec and the
late Tom Stockham in the 1980s. (See R. Lagadec
and T.G. Stockham, "Dispersive Models
for A-to-D and D-to-A Conversion Systems,"
Preprint 2097, 75th Audio Engineering Society
Convention (1984).)

I'd be interested in learning of Mr. Krueger's own
listening test results on this phenomenon.

My results were similar to those in the cited
article:

Really. You performed listening tests where the only
variable was the time-domain nature of the
reconstruction filter.

In the sense that my tests the major variable the
corner frequency of the reconstruction frequency.

A very different subject.

Only if one majors in minors.

Not at all. Your tests examined the audible effect of
the change in corner frequency, with the time-domain
behavior held constant. In the Stereophile tests, the
corner frequency was held contant and the time-domain
behavior became the variable. Do you
really not grasp that the two are different? That your
mentioning of tests that examined the corner frequency
is not relevant to the subject of filter dispersion?

No response from Arny Krueger. Yet this is the crux of
the matter, illustrating his confusion.

In the Stereophile tests, the
passbands of the filters were all the same. They
differed in their time-domain behavior.

As if there is no connection between the frequency
domain and the time domain! ;-)

Perhaps you didn't read the article describing the
tests. It was clearly mentioned that the variable under
test was the time-domain performance four low-pass
filters that had identical frequency-domain behavior,
one of which
featured pure pre-echo behavior of the type Mr. Krivis
was asking about above.

No response from Arny Krueger. Yet this is the crux of
the matter, illustrating his confusion.

Actually, this is an example of John Atkinson's typical rush to judgement,
and narrow understanding of audio technology.

When was this work done and where was it
published.

See Usenet, RAP, RAT, and RAO.

I Googled various combinations of "pre-echo" "filter"
"dispersion" "digital" "ringing" "listening tests"
"ABX" "tests" and "Krueger" and got no confirmation
that you have ever performed formal blind tests on
filter dispersion, Mr. Krueger. Can you give a more
precise URL please.

I'm unwilling to do the work required because it isn't
at all of the same importance to me as your magazine is
to you, John.

How hard can it be for you to give the URL of a
published test where you examined the audibility of
digital filter dispersion, Mr. Krueger?

Didn't I give you some URLs on my www.pcabx.com domain?

Yes. Unless I missed something, not one of them concerned
the audibility of digital filter dispersion.

Yup, its John Atkinson again claiming that there's no
relationship between filter existence, filter corner
frequency, and filter transient response.


You made the claim that this was something
you had tested and that the test results had been
published.

Oh yes, and I gave you a URL for a page on the ABX web
site too.

Again, there were no tests examing the audibility of
digital filter dispersion, contrary to your claims.

Yup, it is John Atkinson again claiming that there's no
relationship between filter presence in the signal path, filter corner
frequency, and filter transient response.


But in the absence of any postings from you discussing
such tests, the only conclusion a reasonable person
could come to is that at worst, you are simply making
things up or at best, you are confusing your filter
corner frequency tests (which you did perform) with
tests of filter dispersion (which you haven't).

Yup, its John Atkinson again claiming that there's no
relationship between filter existence, filter corner
frequency, and filter transient response.

As I said, Mr. Krueger, and as shown by the Stereophile
article ands the Stockham and Lagadec AES preprint, it
is possible to examine the audibility of these factors
separately.

Finally Atkinson comes around to admitting, if ever so obliquely that there
is a
relationship between filter presence in the signal path, filter corner
frequency, and filter transient response.

Sad.

What is sad is witnessing you continuing to deny the
obvious,
Mr. Krueger.

John, you were doing so well, or so it seemed. It looked for a second like
you had come around to admitting, if ever so obliquely that there is a
relationship between filter presence in the signal path, filter corner
frequency, and filter transient response.

So with this renewed denial, we see that it is John Atkinson again claiming
that there's no
relationship between filter presence in the signal path, filter corner
frequency, and filter transient response.


Incidentally, given your reference to your websites, a
while back you claimed your sites got as much traffic as
www.stereophile.com. Our website's visitor statistics are
audited by the Niesen organization. We currently get
nearly 300,000 unique visitors each month and 2 million
page views each month. Do you continue to claim that your
websites are equally successful as www.stereophile.com?

I never claimed that my websites were as sucessful as SPs, just because I
made some comparisons between page hits. I haven't seriously looked at the
stats for them for several years.

If so, who audits your traffic statistics?

No, need, since I don't sell advertising.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


My only gripe with your
"Trumpets" files is that they don't sound like real
trumpets, because they aren't real trumpets.

Where did I say that they are real trumpets,

Sept. 25, 2006
Jenn: By the way, for truth in advertising purposes on
your site, you should
relabel "trumpets" "violin" etc. as "synth trumpet"
"synth violin" etc.

Arny: Those are recordigns of real instruments. They are
just recorded in a way
that you lack the mental abilities to recognize as being
the sound of a real
instrument.

and where is it written on
stone that they have to be real trumpets for the
intended purpose, which is hearing differences?

Nowhere.


Other than that, I don't care about them.

You cared about so much that you tried to use them to
impugn my abilities as a recordist.

But not because of the quality of the file, but rather
because you didn't know that you could't hear that they
weren't real trumpets. It seems to me that anyone who
records trumpets ought to know the difference.


If they serve your purpose, fine.

It's not just my purpose Jenn, its a purpose that
relates to audio in general.

But they shouldn't be labeled "Trumpets" for they
most assuredly aren't trumpets.

Why aren't you complaining about this to the people who
designed the voices for general MIDI?

http://www.csm.uwe.ac.uk/~lrlang/mus...sx/gmlist.html

It's not the purpose of general MIDI to make an accurate
imitation of acoustic instruments.

Well in a way you're right. General MIDI is a specification of a meta
language of sorts, and accurate imitation of acoustic instruments is a
function of synthesizers that it is used to control. If we go with that
approach Jenn, then you were being deceptive.

However, it is quite clear that the goal of some synthesizers is an accurate
imitation of acoustic instruments:

http://lonestar.texas.net/~mr88cet/r...uningVl70.html

"Some of the VLs' simulations are really quite extraordinary. If adjusted
carefully, the best handful of these simulations truly are difficult to
distinguish from the real instruments themselves (or from recordings of
those instruments at least). That is, provided that - and this is a very
important criterion - you make an effort to play them in a manner
characteristic of that instrument and of its performers."

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in
message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore"
wrote
" wrote:

A few observartions:
1) About cryogenics. No doubt Krivis investigated
the subject and published his results in a
respectable peer revieved audio journal. I don't
know if Meitner did. But if neither did it we
have to decide whose authority to take seriously:
Meitner of Museatex or Krivis of RAO.

Any clown who considers freezing something to make
it sound better ought to be locked up and the key
thrown away.

I suspect that Meitner hopes to laugh all the way to
the bank. Remember that in addition to cryogenic CDs
Meitner also promotes the magical properties of the
SACD format.

I've never bothered with it. Sounds mainly like an
excuse to make you buy the same back catalogue all
over again.

Surround sound is potentially a major improvement.

And this gratuitous massive shift of topic was brought
to you by Stephen.

It's not? It's surely one of the "magical properties of
the SACD format."

But not uniquely so. It's also a property of AC3 and
DVD-A for two.

Sorry, I don't remember claiming it to be an exclusive
property of SACD.

I saw a closeout on Onkyo receivers for under $70. One
could get a $200 universal player and the $30 Infinity
Primus 150s at circuitcity.com and be in the surround
game for not much money.

Why waste money on a universal player when it is so obvious that SACD is a
dead format walking, well... hobbling or crawling.

[Arny Krueger]

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:31:44 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:




dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:30:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Ed Meitner, designer of the Museatex line of
electronics, has discovered that cryogenically
freezing a CD changes the physical structure of
polycarbonate, the plastic material from which CDs are
made. The result is reportedly an audible improvement
in sound quality. In this process, CDs are placed in a
cryogenic freezing chamber and the temperature is
slowly reduced over eight hours to 75 Kelvins, or
about -300 degrees Fahrenheit. This is approximately
the temperature of liquid nitrogen, the chamber's
cooling agent. The temperature is then slowly brought
back to room temperature over another eight hours."

How much damning evidence does any reasonable person
need?

So sayeth Arnold the Luddite.

Let's hear your explanation then.

Incidentally I'm not aware of any scientific evidence
that freezing polycarbonate does anything to it at all (
even if it could make a difference ! ).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80462773187994
should explain it all.

Got it! ;-)

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Incidentally, I've just been comparing my 1989 Denon
DCD-1700 to my 2004 ? Pioneer DV-360 DVD player playing
CD.

I expected the Pioneer ( a quite respectable unit )
perhaps to match the Denon ( an award winner in its day
) but initial results show the Denon to totally have the
upper hand.

Compared by what means?

My ears ! I hope that's not too radical ?

Without proper level-matching and time-synching its a risky stance to
take.

That's what I plan to do.


It surprised me a bit actually. I'm curious as to the
technical basis for it. There must be one. Bear in mind I
have no axe to grind in this regard.

Let's start out with level matching.

Agreed.


Incidentally, the DCD-1700 is well recognised as a very
competent CD player of its era. In fact it was the first
CD player I thought sounded 'real' hence why I bought it.
I gather the DV-360 is a 'better than average' DVD
player, indeed the Pioneers seem well thought of but I
have no knowledge of its internals unlike the Denon. Do
you have any info on this ?

I'd like to see the results of some representative technical tests.

Me too.


Wannbe fjukktard


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Arny Krueger wrote:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/822/

"Ed Meitner, designer of the Museatex line of electronics, has
discovered that cryogenically freezing a CD changes the physical
structure of polycarbonate, the plastic material from which CDs are
made. The result is reportedly an audible improvement in sound
quality. In this process, CDs are placed in a cryogenic freezing
chamber and the temperature is slowly reduced over eight hours to 75
Kelvins, or about -300 degrees Fahrenheit. This is approximately the
temperature of liquid nitrogen, the chamber's cooling agent. The
temperature is then slowly brought back to room temperature over
another eight hours."

How much damning evidence does any reasonable person need?

Obviously it must make better zeroes and ones !

I wonder who it was who came up with this idea. It's sheer genius.


netkkkoping piece of ****


Bertie

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in
message

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore"
wrote
" wrote:

A few observartions:
1) About cryogenics. No doubt Krivis investigated
the subject and published his results in a
respectable peer revieved audio journal. I don't
know if Meitner did. But if neither did it we
have to decide whose authority to take seriously:
Meitner of Museatex or Krivis of RAO.

Any clown who considers freezing something to make
it sound better ought to be locked up and the key
thrown away.

I suspect that Meitner hopes to laugh all the way to
the bank. Remember that in addition to cryogenic CDs
Meitner also promotes the magical properties of the
SACD format.

I've never bothered with it. Sounds mainly like an
excuse to make you buy the same back catalogue all
over again.

Surround sound is potentially a major improvement.

And this gratuitous massive shift of topic was brought
to you by Stephen.

It's not? It's surely one of the "magical properties of
the SACD format."

But not uniquely so. It's also a property of AC3 and
DVD-A for two.

Sorry, I don't remember claiming it to be an exclusive
property of SACD.

I saw a closeout on Onkyo receivers for under $70. One
could get a $200 universal player and the $30 Infinity
Primus 150s at circuitcity.com and be in the surround
game for not much money.

Why waste money on a universal player when it is so obvious that SACD is a
dead format walking, well... hobbling or crawling.

Cause it's universal for the same money? And you need a source to play
discs.

Stephen

[Harry Lavo]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:50:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



I guess he forgot he was the one championing Meitner as a
"pioneer" in the field of audio.

I think Ludo also managed to drag Harry into his little swamp of
ignorance,
or not?


Briefly, then he seems to have bowed out. Oh well.

Nope, just went off and spent three beautiful, sunny days on Cape Cod. :-)

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

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

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

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore"
wrote in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
because it is the only digital system for home use
that produces natural-sounding transient response,
as opposed to pcm which produces transients with
pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and
we do know the ear-brain complex is highly
oriented to transient information and very
sensitive to *any* type of sound that is
"un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
instinct, I suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has
ever provided a shred of proof that it's true.

Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low
lin level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is
it therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos
easy to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions
all the time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them,
Jenn.

SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that moon
isn't made of cheese, Arny.

There are about 20 posts of mine related to that, the
earliest of which seems to be:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a2d3d82815cb18

Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:

"Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of green
cheese, and anybody
with a few simple tools and a good understanding of
Newtonian Physics (and a
sample of green cheese) has been able to do so for maybe
100 years or so." OK, Jenn now put up or admit that you're wrong!

Four year old stuff, Arny. Grow up!


Umm Harry I don't know how to break it to you, but this is 2006, not 2002.

The post in question is more like 8 year old stuff, not 4 year old stuff.

If you read the posts, you'd know that I picked the earliest example of
many.

Ummm, Arny, I don't know how to break it to you.....but I was speaking of
your behavior in child-years!

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com

My only gripe with your
"Trumpets" files is that they don't sound like real
trumpets, because they aren't real trumpets.

Where did I say that they are real trumpets,

Sept. 25, 2006
Jenn: By the way, for truth in advertising purposes on
your site, you should
relabel "trumpets" "violin" etc. as "synth trumpet"
"synth violin" etc.

Arny: Those are recordigns of real instruments. They are
just recorded in a way
that you lack the mental abilities to recognize as being
the sound of a real
instrument.

and where is it written on
stone that they have to be real trumpets for the
intended purpose, which is hearing differences?

Nowhere.


Other than that, I don't care about them.

You cared about so much that you tried to use them to
impugn my abilities as a recordist.

But not because of the quality of the file, but rather
because you didn't know that you could't hear that they
weren't real trumpets. It seems to me that anyone who
records trumpets ought to know the difference.


If they serve your purpose, fine.

It's not just my purpose Jenn, its a purpose that
relates to audio in general.

But they shouldn't be labeled "Trumpets" for they
most assuredly aren't trumpets.

Why aren't you complaining about this to the people who
designed the voices for general MIDI?

http://www.csm.uwe.ac.uk/~lrlang/mus...sx/gmlist.html

It's not the purpose of general MIDI to make an accurate
imitation of acoustic instruments.

Well in a way you're right. General MIDI is a specification of a meta
language of sorts, and accurate imitation of acoustic instruments is a
function of synthesizers that it is used to control.

Exactly.

If we go with that
approach Jenn, then you were being deceptive.

How so, Arny?


However, it is quite clear that the goal of some synthesizers is an accurate
imitation of acoustic instruments:

Of course. Ultimately they all fail.


http://lonestar.texas.net/~mr88cet/r...uningVl70.html

"Some of the VLs' simulations are really quite extraordinary. If adjusted
carefully, the best handful of these simulations truly are difficult to
distinguish from the real instruments themselves (or from recordings of
those instruments at least). That is, provided that - and this is a very
important criterion - you make an effort to play them in a manner
characteristic of that instrument and of its performers."

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

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

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

In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore"
wrote in
message
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior
to plain old CD, so I don't see why you would
be supporting it.

Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO,
is because it is the only digital system for
home use that produces natural-sounding
transient response, as opposed to pcm which
produces transients with pre-echo. The latter
exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
ear-brain complex is highly oriented to
transient information and very sensitive to
*any* type of sound that is "un-natural" (our
heriditary self-preservation instinct, I
suppose).

I've heard this speculation before, but nobody
has ever provided a shred of proof that it's
true. Some questions:

Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so
low lin level that it's swamped by the noise
floor? Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at
all produces sound right before a transient?

Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is
it therefore very noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl
give pre-echo though !

Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos
easy to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions
all the time), they are easy to hear.

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them,
Jenn.

SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that
moon isn't made of cheese, Arny.

There are about 20 posts of mine related to that, the
earliest of which seems to be:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a2d3d82815cb18

Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:

"Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of
green cheese, and anybody
with a few simple tools and a good understanding of
Newtonian Physics (and a
sample of green cheese) has been able to do so for
maybe 100 years or so." OK, Jenn now put up or admit
that you're wrong!

Four year old stuff, Arny. Grow up!


Umm Harry I don't know how to break it to you, but this
is 2006, not 2002. The post in question is more like 8 year old stuff,
not
4 year old stuff. If you read the posts, you'd know that I picked the
earliest example of many.

Ummm, Arny, I don't know how to break it to you.....but I
was speaking of your behavior in child-years!

Oh yeah Harry, whenever there's a possibility of a snide meaning to one of
your posts, I should presume...

[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/822/

"Ed Meitner, designer of the Museatex line of electronics, has discovered
that cryogenically freezing a CD changes the physical structure of
polycarbonate, the plastic material from which CDs are made. The result is
reportedly an audible improvement in sound quality. In this process, CDs are
placed in a cryogenic freezing chamber and the temperature is slowly reduced
over eight hours to 75 Kelvins, or about -300 degrees Fahrenheit. This is
approximately the temperature of liquid nitrogen, the chamber's cooling
agent. The temperature is then slowly brought back to room temperature over
another eight hours."

How much damning evidence does any reasonable person need?

Obviously it must make better zeroes and ones !

The ones are straighter and the zeroes rounder. hehe :-)

I wonder who it was who came up with this idea. It's sheer genius.

Graham

It must have been Ed Meitner. Stereophile said so.

I wonder if I could interest John Atkinson in my new method of *heat treatment* of
CDs to 'release the internal stresses' ?

Sod aligning the molecules the hard way !

Of course it has to be done at midnight on a full moon for the best effect.

Graham

[Eeyore]

MiNe 109 wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
" wrote:

A few observartions:
1) About cryogenics. No doubt Krivis investigated the
subject and published his results in a respectable peer
revieved audio journal. I don't know if Meitner did. But
if neither did it we have to decide whose authority to
take seriously: Meitner of Museatex or Krivis of RAO.

Any clown who considers freezing something to make it
sound better ought to be locked up and the key thrown
away.

I suspect that Meitner hopes to laugh all the way to the bank. Remember that
in addition to cryogenic CDs Meitner also promotes the magical properties of
the SACD format.

I've never bothered with it. Sounds mainly like an excuse to make you buy the
same back catalogue all over again.

Surround sound is potentially a major improvement.

Surround sound is a gimmick mainly.

Graham