[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ps.com

Just for interest- what phono preamps do Krell and
Meitner sell?

Do your homework.

And if find one don't they sell many times more solid
state preamps.?

Again in English?

What kind of the mad RAO scientist logic
would they follow to boost phono over solid state?

Again, in English?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

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.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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 scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion
for you too. :-)

Maybe you should have taken better care of your records.


Many of them came that way from the factory.

No wonder klutzes like you went running toward the CD
when it came out.

Alternative - caught in a loop running to the record store hoping for
improved replacements for the very many flawed LPs that were sold.

[Jenn]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear it
differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any historic discussions
about this, would you run those by me pls ?

Graham

It was recently done again: everything above about C6 sounds wrong to
me IRT the timbre of instruments and voices. These frequencies sound
more real to me on good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.

Really just that ?

Not JUST that; it's my biggest complaint, as I said. But the JUST that
is VERY important to me. I understand that it's not too important to
others.


What's your CD player btw ?

Rotel RCD 1070. I also have an Arcam on loan.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com

I remember one poster here who refused to believe that I
have several LPs that are of "ticks and pops".

Not me.

It made me wonder how he handled his LPs.

I handled them so that they were relatively free of tics and pops, which
meant that tics and pops were still audible at times.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
.com,
"Jenn" wrote:

I remember one poster here who refused to believe that I
have several LPs that are of "ticks and pops".

Opps, obviously it should read "LPs that are free of
'ticks and pops'"

Obviously, a Freudian slip.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

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.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com

I remember one poster here who refused to believe that I
have several LPs that are of "ticks and pops".

Not me.

Yes, it was you.


It made me wonder how he handled his LPs.

I handled them so that they were relatively free of tics and pops, which
meant that tics and pops were still audible at times.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"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.

Why spend nutty amounts when you can get excellent kit for a fraction of the
price ?

Who can actually say a McClaren or Koenigsegg or Bugatti is really a better car
than say a Merc or Lexus or Cadillac ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"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.

And some of the ones there are *actual* antiques too.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear it
differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any historic discussions
about this, would you run those by me pls ?

Graham

It was recently done again: everything above about C6 sounds wrong to
me IRT the timbre of instruments and voices. These frequencies sound
more real to me on good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.

Really just that ?

Not JUST that; it's my biggest complaint, as I said. But the JUST that
is VERY important to me. I understand that it's not too important to
others.

Other things specifically ?


What's your CD player btw ?

Rotel RCD 1070.

I see it uses a Burr-Brown PCM1732 converter which is now obsolete. I'd consider
using an external converter. I assume the transport works fine ?


I also have an Arcam on loan.

Model number ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:54:11 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message


Frank Van Alstine and Peter Moncrieff, independently. I
also asked a friend of my father's who was quite familiar
with the engineering of digitial circuitry. He dug into
it and then agreed.

I think you may have misuderstood some details.

Perhaps, although it looks pretty straightforward.

I just found some quotes from Frank Van Alstine:

"If you don't do the math to divide the clock frequency of a CD player
by the frequency of interest, you will not gain the knowledge that a
1-bit CD player cannot retrieve all of the information from a CD until
the crystal clock gets up to about 1,320,000,000 Hz (1.3 GHz, a speed
Cray would kill for). With the fastest 1 bit converters out there now,
running at 90,000,000 Hz, all one can retrieve is 4,500 of the 66,000
samples per cycle available on the CD at high frequencies. That is not
high fidelity. In baseball it would be a batting average of .068, not
even enough to make the little league. Don't talk to me about how
wonderful your 1 bit DAC sounds, when its sounds have nothing to do
with the information content of the source disc."

He's barking mad.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie continues waging his his grubby-fingered class war.

Why spend nutty amounts when you can get excellent kit for a fraction of the price ?

If you have to ask, you'll never understand.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[George M. Middius]

RibbitBorg chirped:

Or not so touche', since I see Arny had actually made a statement
about the moon and cheese. Amazing. :-)

The Krooborg's total Usenet volume exceeds 2 million posts. You do the
math.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Jenn]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:52:06 -0400, Stuart Krivis
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:30:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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.

Touche'

:-)

Or not so touche', since I see Arny had actually made a statement
about the moon and cheese. Amazing. :-)

Well, when you make that many posts over that many years.... Hopefully
he'll get the point anyway.

[John Atkinson]

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. When
was this work done and where was it published. (You, yourself
Mr. Krueger, have stated that it is not appropriate to cite
unpublished test work in discussions such as this.)

" But the listening results, described in the sidebar, indicate
that the sonic disparities between the filtered tracks and the
24/96 originals were very difficult to pin down."

Difficult, yes. Impossible, no, especially in the case of
pure pre-echo.

The source materials and a DBT comparitor are available at
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
and
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm

Others are described at:
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

Really. I don't find anything involving the audibility of
pre-echo at these sites. Could you give a more precise
URL, please.

However, we didn't all use the exact same filters. In particular, I didn't
go to the extremes described in
http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/index1.html

So you _didn't_ do tests on these phenomena. Which is
what I had thought.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"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.

Why spend nutty amounts when you can get excellent kit
for a fraction of the price ?

Depends on how much your money means to you, I guess.

Sockpuppet trolls like Middius never have to back their "Words of wisdom" up
with anything, anyhow.

Who can actually say a McClaren or Koenigsegg or Bugatti
is really a better car than say a Merc or Lexus or
Cadillac ?

AFAIK the McLaren and Koenigsegg are very fine cars, partciularly if you
want to go 200-250 mph. The hotted-up standard Mercs (Isn't the McLaren a
customized high-end Merc?) and Lexus models might to the 150 mph thing, but
250 is generally out of their league. I've seen Caddies that GM says will do
150 mph, but they seem to lack the things that it takes to have enough
aerodynamic stability to make driving that fast a lot of fun, even if you
could find the roads to do it over here.

I think that one is actually more likely to get an reliably perceptible
benefit out of a Koensegg as compared to a Caddy than a high end mic preamp
as compared to mid-priced kit for recording.

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
said:


Or not so touche', since I see Arny had actually made a statement
about the moon and cheese. Amazing. :-)


The Krooborg's total Usenet volume exceeds 2 million posts. You do the
math.


So if we looked carefully, we might even find Shakespeare's total
works in there somewhere? ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

The Krooborg's total Usenet volume exceeds 2 million posts. You do the
math.

So if we looked carefully, we might even find Shakespeare's total
works in there somewhere? ;-)

Probably not the total works, but a few snippets from the tragedies, sure.
Probably in Krooglish though.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Arny Krueger]

"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
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
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!

Yep, I was wrong; you posted about the moon and cheese.

Here's you're latest lie and/or deception, Jenn - you
have now refused to admit that you are either deaf to or
in denial of pre- and post- echo on LPs.

Incorrect yet again. I'm clearly not deaf, and I'm not
in denial.

But, you lack proof that you knew about pre- and post- echo on LPs until we
pointed it out to you, just like the supposedly missing data in my triangle
file.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:52:06 -0400, Stuart Krivis
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:30:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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.

Touche'

:-)

Or not so touche', since I see Arny had actually made a
statement about the moon and cheese. Amazing. :-)

Actually, I had made maybe a dozen or more to local representatives of the
Flat Earth society.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:52:06 -0400, Stuart Krivis
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:30:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

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.

Touche'

:-)

Or not so touche', since I see Arny had actually made a
statement about the moon and cheese. Amazing. :-)

Well, when you make that many posts over that many
years.... Hopefully he'll get the point anyway.

The point is that Jenn is now trying to turn around the fact that she has
again been hung out to dry on her own petard.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

Graham

Just as how anyone can pretend that the sound of violins
(for example) on CD is hi-fi is beyond me.

Nice global technical claim that we'll be able to get Jenn to start denying
any day now.

My opinion on
that was reinforced again at Disney Hall.

Yup, any CD that doesn't sound like some violin being played by someone at
Disney Hall, is obviously not real enough.

But YMMV, and that's fine, in my opinion.

Letsee, we now have evidence that Jenn couldn't hear faint sounds below -60
dB without prompting, and apparently couldn't hear pre-echo and post-echo on
LPs without more of the same.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

When was this work done and where was it
published.

See Usenet, RAP, RAT, and RAO.

(You, yourself Mr. Krueger, have stated that
it is not appropriate to cite unpublished test work in
discussions such as this.)

No such thing.


" But the listening results, described in the sidebar,
indicate
that the sonic disparities between the filtered tracks
and the 24/96 originals were very difficult to pin
down."

Difficult, yes. Impossible, no, especially in the case of
pure pre-echo.

The source materials and a DBT comparitor are available
at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
and
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm

Others are described at:
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

Really. I don't find anything involving the audibility of
pre-echo at these sites. Could you give a more precise
URL, please.

It's explained above. The digital filters involved definately had pre-and
post echo.

However, we didn't all use the exact same filters. In
particular, I didn't go to the extremes described in
http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/index1.html

So you _didn't_ do tests on these phenomena. Which is
what I had thought.

Why is it that denial is so common among golden ears?

[Arny Krueger]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:54:11 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message


Frank Van Alstine and Peter Moncrieff, independently. I
also asked a friend of my father's who was quite
familiar with the engineering of digitial circuitry. He
dug into it and then agreed.

I think you may have misuderstood some details.

Perhaps, although it looks pretty straightforward.

I just found some quotes from Frank Van Alstine:

"If you don't do the math to divide the clock frequency
of a CD player by the frequency of interest, you will not
gain the knowledge that a 1-bit CD player cannot retrieve
all of the information from a CD until the crystal clock
gets up to about 1,320,000,000 Hz (1.3 GHz, a speed Cray
would kill for).

I think I know where he is headed.

Given that we live in a world where highly complex math is done routinely at
4.2 GHZ with cheap general-purpose, use-programmed microporcessors, it turns
out that doing really simple math on a 1.3 GHz special-purpose processor has
been feasible for a number of years.

It turns out that the higher resolution converters are also multi-bit,
internally so that that sort of clock speeds are not necessary. He alludes
to some of this, in the second half of quotes in your post.

""The wonders of technology are bringing us 8 bit resolution bit-stream
CD players to replace the 16 bit units that previously could retrieve
the data better."

I believe that building an 8 bit direct (not oversampled) converter with
high speed silicon is entirely feasible. This knocks your 1.3 GHz down by a
ratio of 256. This leads to a clock frequency of merely 5 MHz if my
back-of-envelope calculations are right. This is what he alludes to in the
other paragraphs in the lower portion of your post.

With the fastest 1 bit converters out
there now, running at 90,000,000 Hz, all one can retrieve
is 4,500 of the 66,000 samples per cycle available on the
CD at high frequencies.

If any necesary data were being thrown out, there would be a loss of dynamic
range above say 10 KHz, which is not happening with good-quality CD and DVD
playaer converters. IOW, the ones you find today in players costing about
$50.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:48:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
message

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

That has not been my experience, but no, I would not
expect you to listen to something you found to be
inferior. In fact, I'd be very interested in finding
out why these CDs sounded inferior to you.

Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
every CD. Some are much better than others; none are
good to my ears.


Some CD players that use "1-bit" DACs throw away a lot
of the bits at high frequencies.

Simply not true. If this occurred, it would be highly
measurable. It turns

It evidently is measurable if you don't test it with
steady state signals.

Not true. The dynamic range is still good if you test with pulses, tone
bursts, etc.

[Arny Krueger]

"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
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

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

"Jenn" wrote
in message

ig
y.
com


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
every CD. Some are much better than others; none
are good to my ears.

C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle
part of the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all
harmonics for all notes C6 and above played back
via the LP format are in doubt if the RIAA curve
is not precisely implmented. Imprecuise
implementation of the RIAA curve is endemic in LP
production and playback. In contrast CD playback
inherently plays them back with in the same
perspective as recorded, within the audible range.

I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs
- they are too consistent and accurate for her
preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an
audible differences junkie.

Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated
my complaints with CDs.

Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not
convincing. Especially true given your inability to
own up to errors that you have clearly made and also
denied.

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.

So what? If you have hysterical problems with CDs, not
my fault and nothing I want to try to cure.

If you hear it differently, that's fine.

No Jenn your problem is separating hysteria from art
from technical facts.

The technical fact is that CDs can be indistinguishable
from the master recordings they were made from and LPs
can't.

I already know that you hear it that way, thanks.

Just me any everybody else who gives it a serious try.

Oh, I give it a "serious try". I own many CDs, have
listened to many more, and I listen carefully.


Many of us had it up to here (patting air over my head)
with the vinyl artifacts that you deny, Jenn.

I don't deny them at all, Arny.


Now since I met your demand for a post about the mood
and cheese, be a good little girl

LOL

and show us where you had the candor to talk about some
of the
nastier vinyl artifacts, like pre and post echo.

I don't need to talk about them. It is clear that they
exist, and it is clear that I consider other aspects of
sound to be more important.

Given Jenn what you dismiss and what you have said that you can't hear, its
not clear what subtle aspects of sound remain.

Sounds to me like a well-developed case of anti-digital hysteria. I've seen
it before, but most who are victimized have more candor than you do, Jenn.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

be a good little girl

Arny !

Can it pls.

Nahh, it just brings Jenn's basic obstanacy and dissembling into clear view.
I think she's already denied the effects of high frequency tracing
distortion and inner-groove distortion, for example. Those of us who can
still hear clearly know how they trash the sound of things like massed
violins and choruses on LPs.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If
you hear it differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any
historic discussions about this, would you run those
by me pls ?

Graham

It was recently done again: everything above about C6
sounds wrong to me IRT the timbre of instruments and
voices. These frequencies sound more real to me on
good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.

Either the CD player is broken or this is just more anti-digital hysteria.


What's your CD player btw ?

Rotel RCD 1070.

I see it uses a Burr-Brown PCM1732 converter which is now
obsolete. I'd consider using an external converter. I
assume the transport works fine ?

No guarantees. Given how bad she says it sounds it could be broken in lots
of ways. Bad tracking is just one of them.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Who can actually say a McClaren or Koenigsegg or Bugatti is really a better
car than say a Merc or Lexus or Cadillac ?

People who have them.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com
Mr Fox wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:33:29 -0400, Stuart Krivis
wrote:



task at hand:
1) Did those two designers ( with many other
authorities, not of the RAO tribe) say that digital
has not as yet caught up with analogue rendition of
music or did they not?

Perhaps they realized they wouldn't sell many megabuck
phono preamps if they admitted vinyl was inferior?

Perhaps if they didn't, in general, blow smoke up
people's rears they woudn't sell much of anything at
all?

Feel free to say you like vinyl better, but if you
claim it's superior to CD, you're going to need to show
some proof.


Why?

People like Krivis will never understand the concept of
personal preference.

Actually, we understand personal preference quite well.

Nearly everyone I know who prefers
vinyl does so because they "like it better."

No problem with that. The fun begins when people like Ludo start suggesting
that Vinyl can reproduce music more accurately than digital.

No one is
saying that vinyl measures better, or has lower
distortion, or anything of that nature.

Still can't read very well, eh Boonie?

Objectivists like Krivis pretend to be ignorant of this
fact, because they can't argue with personal preferences.

That's a hoot. Everybody knows that personal perferences are inarguable. You
can act like you're stone deaf for all I care, Marc.

So they try to create arguments out of thin air, because
they can't "get it."

The arguments are there in the Usenet archives. For years we were told by
vinyl bigots that digital sounded bad because of imaginary digital artifacts
like "stair steps". It seems like that folk tale has been pretty well
spiked. However, I expect to see someone bring it up again on RAO, any day
now.



Didn't you mean Boon?

Freudian slip?
===========================

Again my simulacrum appears in Arny's nightmares:
". The fun begins when people like Ludo start suggesting
that Vinyl can reproduce music more accurately than digital.

I never said anything of the kind. "Accuracy" is your term , not mine.
I don't give a fake penny for "accuracy" to some engineers idea of
what music should sound like. What I say is that the best, repeat Best,
of vinyl- especially that of the recordings' golden era around 1960,
gives me in my room, with my equipment a closer illusion of real live
music than the best CDs- and accuracy to the master be damned.

If it is different for you , well and good. Enjoy.
Ludovic Mirabel

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

Who can actually say a McClaren or Koenigsegg or Bugatti is really a better
car than say a Merc or Lexus or Cadillac ?

People who have them.

Poopie has his fingers in his ears now, and he's ululating "LALALA I can't
hear you! LALALALALA!"





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[[email protected]]

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
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!
================================

I don't understand why you defend yourself against the "elitist" label
instead of proudly wearing it. I for one would love to be a member of
the elite.

It the "elite" who write memorable poetry, novels, plays, make the best
movies, write and play the best in music, invent new scientific
paradigms. Many more watch TV sports for hour, their idea of a play is
"Survivor" and the CNN stand for them for the news..

If the anonymous masses were not more numerous the outstanding
intellects would not stand out..
Such as Krueger confuse numbers with quality.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
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.

They're fabulously obvious during a lead-in. A nice low-level sampler
of
what's about to be played. How anyone can pretend this is hi-fi is
beyond
me.

netkkoping wannabe ****

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

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.

They're fabulously obvious during a lead-in. A nice low-level
sampler of what's about to be played. How anyone can pretend this
is hi-fi is beyond me.

Graham

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.

I guess I'd have to make a recording of violins myself to find out
that !


waht a ****


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear it
differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any historic
discussions about this, would you run those by me pls ?


Netkkkopping slurper.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jenn wrote:

I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear
it differently, that's fine.

Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any historic
discussions about this, would you run those by me pls ?

Graham

It was recently done again: everything above about C6 sounds
wrong to me IRT the timbre of instruments and voices. These
frequencies sound more real to me on good LPs. That's my biggest
complaint.

Really just that ?

Not JUST that; it's my biggest complaint, as I said. But the JUST
that is VERY important to me. I understand that it's not too
important to others.

Other things specifically ?


What's your CD player btw ?

Rotel RCD 1070.

I see it uses a Burr-Brown PCM1732 converter which is now obsolete.
I'd consider using an external converter. I assume the transport works
fine ?


I also have an Arcam on loan.

Model number ?

Slurp slurp.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:54:11 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message


Frank Van Alstine and Peter Moncrieff, independently. I
also asked a friend of my father's who was quite familiar
with the engineering of digitial circuitry. He dug into
it and then agreed.

I think you may have misuderstood some details.

Perhaps, although it looks pretty straightforward.

I just found some quotes from Frank Van Alstine:

"If you don't do the math to divide the clock frequency of a CD
player
by the frequency of interest, you will not gain the knowledge that a
1-bit CD player cannot retrieve all of the information from a CD
until
the crystal clock gets up to about 1,320,000,000 Hz (1.3 GHz, a speed
Cray would kill for). With the fastest 1 bit converters out there
now,
running at 90,000,000 Hz, all one can retrieve is 4,500 of the 66,000
samples per cycle available on the CD at high frequencies. That is
not
high fidelity. In baseball it would be a batting average of .068, not
even enough to make the little league. Don't talk to me about how
wonderful your 1 bit DAC sounds, when its sounds have nothing to do
with the information content of the source disc."

He's barking mad.

I happen to know barking mad and he's not, you know.


Fjukkktard netkkkop.


Bertie

[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message

Frank Van Alstine and Peter Moncrieff, independently. I
also asked a friend of my father's who was quite familiar
with the engineering of digitial circuitry. He dug into
it and then agreed.

I think you may have misuderstood some details.

Perhaps, although it looks pretty straightforward.

I just found some quotes from Frank Van Alstine:

"If you don't do the math to divide the clock frequency of a CD player
by the frequency of interest, you will not gain the knowledge that a
1-bit CD player cannot retrieve all of the information from a CD until
the crystal clock gets up to about 1,320,000,000 Hz (1.3 GHz, a speed
Cray would kill for). With the fastest 1 bit converters out there now,
running at 90,000,000 Hz, all one can retrieve is 4,500 of the 66,000
samples per cycle available on the CD at high frequencies. That is not
high fidelity. In baseball it would be a batting average of .068, not
even enough to make the little league. Don't talk to me about how
wonderful your 1 bit DAC sounds, when its sounds have nothing to do
with the information content of the source disc."

He's barking mad.

Why? Arny seemed to have a reason why, but another explanation is
always welcome.

Van Alsine's quote is simply rambling nonsense.

Graham

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

be a good little girl

Arny !

Can it pls.

Nahh, it just brings Jenn's basic obstanacy and dissembling into clear view.

Incorrect, again.

I think she's already denied the effects of high frequency tracing
distortion and inner-groove distortion, for example.

Incorrect, yet again.

Those of us who can
still hear clearly know how they trash the sound of things like massed
violins and choruses on LPs.

Thanks for your opinion.