Good reading [Archive] - AudioBanter.com

Arny Krueger

October 5th 03, 11:03 PM

MiNE 109

October 5th 03, 11:53 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > >
> > > > "Allen RENY" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > Good reading for audiophiles:
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf
> > >
> > > > > ==============================
> > >
> > > > > At last !!! A good audio reference web page !!!!
> > >
> > > > For fans of unsupported assertions and strawman arguments.
> > >
> > > Point out a straw man argument, if you can.
> >
> > Myth No 1: Analog is better than digital.
> >
> > Without proper qualification, this is a strawman.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
>
> Main Entry: straw man
> Function: noun
> Date: 1896
> 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only
> to be easily confuted
>
> If I can find any public record of this claim actually being stated by an
> independent person, then it is not an imaginary argument.

Context is also important. And I didn't say it was an imaginary argument.

> http://www.matthewdesantis.com/ee/recording-myths.html
>
> http://www.tributarymusic.com/jminer.htm
>
> http://www.enjoythemusic.com/montreal2003/lensabo.htm
>
> http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/special-report/aphex-werrbach.shtml
>
> http://www.harmony-central.com/Effects/Data/Tech_21/Tri_A_C_-01.html
>
> etc.
>
> Therefore I have shown that the claim "analog is better than digital" is
> actually quite common, and it is obviously not a straw man argument.

It's a weak argument, not an imaginary one, therefore still a strawman.
Proper qualification is still an issue.

> You've been deconstructed again, Stephen.

Thanks for the dictionary definition.

Myth No 1
Probable origin: Ignorance

I'd call this an assertion.

Stephen

Robert Morein

October 6th 03, 12:42 AM

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> >
> > > "Allen RENY" > wrote:
> >
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> >
> > > > > Good reading for audiophiles:
> >
> > > > >
> > http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf
> >
> > > > ==============================
> >
> > > > At last !!! A good audio reference web page !!!!
> >
> > > For fans of unsupported assertions and strawman arguments.
> >
> > Point out a straw man argument, if you can.
>
> Myth No 1: Analog is better than digital.
>
> Without proper qualification, this is a strawman.
>
> Stephen

Whether it's strawman is relative to the reader.
From my perspective, it's full of straw man arguments.
There are a few real issues.

In particular, I find obnoxious the assertion that the burden of proof is on
those who disagree.
By doing so, the author puts himself in a position of authority, which is
typical of Ph.D's.
The credential is thought to indicate that the person has proven expertise
in his field.
This is not always true.
There is a deep seated psychological need of many individuals to portray
themselves as possessing special knowledge or insight. In many cases, the
ego is strongly dependent on this.

The statement that the burden of proof is on those who disagree is strongly
similar to burden of proof as it is applied in our legal system. The various
forms of burden of proof were established to give the greatest chance of
equitable settlement, or to protect the life of the individual. In other
cases, such as FDA approval of drugs, the criteria for effectiveness depends
upon the gravity of the condition it is supposed to treat.

The criteria for consideration of different ways of doing things is usually
established in accordance with the upside and downside risks. This article
considers none of that. The author clearly believes that there is an urgent
need to absolutely settle these questions, which he approaches from his
perspective as an electrical engineer, accustomed to using certain
instruments.

Very few of the instruments made for and used by electrical engineers are
capable of measuring the levels of audio distortion which audiophiles
consider important. A typical modern synthesizer produces distortion of
0.1%, far too high for measuring the quality of an amplifier. Oscilloscopes
cannot in the time domain visually display distortion. Distortion quality of
modern communication links is far higher than found in a hifi system.

Music reproduction is the preserve of a very small group of specialists. The
statement that cables are not transmission lines is absolutely correct -- a
strawman from my perspective. But behind that are far more significant
questions regarding skin effect, and nonlinear dielectric. From there we go
to the domain of what can be heard, and what can't be heard. That's not part
of electrical engineering.

Various persons who satisfy the customary criteria for expertise claim that
this question has been definitively answered. An analogous case in which
that might not be true is the observation of canals of mars.

The canals were observed for hundreds of years. When space probes accurately
mapped the canals of Mars, the features were determined to be smaller than
Dawes Limit of Resolution, the accepted diffraction limit for observation of
detail, allowed.

Although the features were not seen for what they were, they were seen by
many, and denied vehemently by many others. "Experts" claim that the
ear-brain system has sharp, impassable limitations. Yet others claim to
surpass these limits. As with the Canals, one can listen/look one night and
hear/see nothing. On another occasion, one sees what others claim cannot be
seen.

http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/forum/cratersonmars.html

jeffc

October 6th 03, 01:58 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Good reading for audiophiles:
>
> http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf

Yeah, I like his "conclusion" that "speakers improve markedly up to around
$1500." What is that supposed to mean? After that, you can't tell any
difference? Or they no longer improve "markedly"? Or what?

Robert Morein

October 6th 03, 07:23 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Good reading for audiophiles:
> > >
> > >
http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf
> > >
> > Much of this is true.
> > Some of it is not.
> > Another pontiff.
>
> Do tell us which of the items you think isn't true.
>
This man is obviously a master of the debating trade, enhanced with Power
Point.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Incidentally, he states that no professional equipment uses gold connectors.
The implication is that professional equipment is superior to audiophile
equipment; therefore use of gold is not justified.

The primary reason gold is not used in professional equipment is that it
would require mating gold connectors. The frequent use of gold/non gold in
combination wears off the gold, and creates dissimilar metal contact
problems.

Additionally, it is simply not true that "professional" equipment is
sonically superior to audiophile equipment. The comparison must be made
individually. Many of us here have a particular fondness for "purist"
recordings, made with custom built equipment, some of which is tube based,
and some of which simply has greater attention to fidelity than typical
"pro" stuff.

For those of us who detest most popular recordings, it's obvious that
quality is not paramount in these productions. They are conceived, authored,
and recorded for boom-boxes and mp3 cum earbuds.

The pronouncement that speakers plateau at $1500 is highly suspect.
Presented as an opinion, it's worthy of consideration, but it is presented
as fact, or as implied fact, since it's mixed in with a bunch of supposed
facts.

He probably is completely unaware of his intellectual dishonesty.

Arny Krueger

October 6th 03, 01:52 PM

"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 ,

>>>>> "Allen RENY" > wrote:

>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...

>>>>>>> Good reading for audiophiles:

>>>>
http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf

>>>>>> ==============================

>>>>>> At last !!! A good audio reference web page !!!!

>>>>> For fans of unsupported assertions and strawman arguments.

>>>> Point out a straw man argument, if you can.

>>> Myth No 1: Analog is better than digital.

>>> Without proper qualification, this is a strawman.

>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

>> Main Entry: straw man
>> Function: noun
>> 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set
>> up only to be easily confuted

>> If I can find any public record of this claim actually being stated
>> by an independent person, then it is not an imaginary argument.

> Context is also important.

Stephen, your challenge for the day is to find a present-day SOTA audio
context where analog is better than digital when both options are equally
available.

> And I didn't say it was an imaginary argument.

Come on Stephen, you specifically said "straw man" and the phrase "straw
man" has exactly that meaning as I just showed.

So anyway, here's some statements of the exact phrase "analog is better than
digital" is used in a context that very closely matches the one addressed by

http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf

>> http://www.matthewdesantis.com/ee/recording-myths.html

>> http://www.tributarymusic.com/jminer.htm

>> http://www.enjoythemusic.com/montreal2003/lensabo.htm

>>
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/special-report/aphex-werrbach.shtml

>> http://www.harmony-central.com/Effects/Data/Tech_21/Tri_A_C_-01.html

>> etc.

>> Therefore I have shown that the claim "analog is better than
>> digital" is actually quite common, and it is obviously not a straw
>> man argument.

> It's a weak argument,

The use of the pronoun "It's" is singular. I've shown that there are many
and various instances of this argument. Therefore the use of an irrelevant
pronoun disqualifies the claim.

>not an imaginary one,

Which means its not a straw man since it fails the test: "imaginary".

> therefore still a strawman.

Both sub-arguments fail, therefore the whole argument fails.

>Proper qualification is still an issue.

At this point Stephen's reprise argument is so thoroughly deconstructed,
this fragment is meaningless as it stands.

>> You've been deconstructed again, Stephen.

> Thanks for the dictionary definition.

Many arguments are exactly about the meaning of words. More dictionary
definitions are on the way!

> Myth No 1

> Probable origin: Ignorance

> I'd call this an assertion.

I'd call this yet another indication of a really weak understanding of the
meaning of words.

Time for another peek at the same dictionary:

Main Entry: assert
Function: transitive verb

1 : to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively
2 a : to demonstrate the existence of <assert his manhood -- James Joyce> b
: POSIT, POSTULATE
- assert oneself : to compel recognition especially of one's rights.

Obviously a statement that is made positively or forcefully would not
include any inferences that the statement is speculative, presumptive, or
merely probable. It's certain, it's a fact.

Main Entry: probable
Function: adjective
1 : supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not
proof <a probable hypothesis>
2 : establishing a probability <probable evidence>
3 : likely to be or become true or real <probable events>

Perhaps the most important phrase in this definition is "but not proof".

Since the word "presumption" may not be well-understood:

Main Entry: pre·sump·tion
Function: noun
1 : presumptuous attitude or conduct : AUDACITY
2 a : an attitude or belief dictated by probability : ASSUMPTION b : the
ground, reason, or evidence lending probability to a belief
3 : a legal inference as to the existence or truth of a fact not certainly
known that is drawn from the known or proved existence of some other fact

Cutting to the chase, the phase "Probable cause" specifically excludes the
idea that a fact is being discussed or asserted.

IOW, what's being talked about is at best a trial hypothesis or informed
speculation.

http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf is
not intended as a compendium of detailed arguments, but rather a road map to
the deconstruction of a good variety of common audio myths. Every audio
myth listed could, and has been argued in other contexts over and over
again. There's plenty of science and accepted practice on its side.

You can find one or more of these audio myths being promulgated like it was
audio truth in virtually every issue of the various high end audio
publications. This reflects poorly on their credibility, and the credibility
of the component choices they advise.

Arny Krueger

October 6th 03, 01:58 PM

"jeffc" > wrote in message
m

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Good reading for audiophiles:

>> http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf

> Yeah, I like his "conclusion" that "speakers improve markedly up to
> around $1500." What is that supposed to mean?

The meaning seems obvious - diminishing returns sets in for speakers costing
more than about $1,500. I think the exact number can be argued with, but the
concept seems valid.

For the record, I have much more than $1,500 invested in speakers, and the
speakers in my main system have a acquisition cost value that was far
greater than $1,500.

I think that it would be a bit of a challenge to actually build a $1,500
speaker system where further expenditures would produce only minor
improvements in sound quality, but I'm not sure it can't be done. Certainly
if you wisely spend $1500 on speakers, you get really good sound and it may
take some head-scratching to get something that is really appreciably
better.

>After that, you can't tell any difference?

Not at all. If $1500 is the price point where stop improving markedly, that
obviously does not preclude further improvements in sound quality. It just
means that the improvement will come at price/performance rate that is less
than "marked".

> Or they no longer improve "markedly"?

Exactly.

dave weil

October 6th 03, 04:14 PM

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:52:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> And I didn't say it was an imaginary argument.
>
>Come on Stephen, you specifically said "straw man" and the phrase "straw
>man" has exactly that meaning as I just showed.

According to your recent interpretation of something written on the
Merlin website, you are incorrect here.

>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

>> Main Entry: straw man
>> Function: noun
>> 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set
>> up only to be easily confuted

Obviously, the Merriam-Webster people think that the most important
part of the definition of straw man is "weak", not "imaginary" as you
claimed, since it comes first in the definition. That's the standard
you applied to the Merlin people.

You lose.

Again.

S888Wheel

October 6th 03, 04:29 PM

>
>For the record, I have much more than $1,500 invested in speakers, and the
>speakers in my main system have a acquisition cost value that was far
>greater than $1,500.

What specific speakers are you pretending to own?

MiNE 109

October 6th 03, 06:01 PM

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 ,
>
> >>>>> "Allen RENY" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>>>> ...
>
> >>>>>>> Good reading for audiophiles:
>
> >>>>
> http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf
>
> >>>>>> ==============================
>
> >>>>>> At last !!! A good audio reference web page !!!!
>
> >>>>> For fans of unsupported assertions and strawman arguments.
>
> >>>> Point out a straw man argument, if you can.
>
> >>> Myth No 1: Analog is better than digital.
>
> >>> Without proper qualification, this is a strawman.
>
> >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
>
> >> Main Entry: straw man
> >> Function: noun
> >> 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set
> >> up only to be easily confuted
>
> >> If I can find any public record of this claim actually being stated
> >> by an independent person, then it is not an imaginary argument.
>
> > Context is also important.
>
> Stephen, your challenge for the day is to find a present-day SOTA audio
> context where analog is better than digital when both options are equally
> available.

Irrelevant.

> > And I didn't say it was an imaginary argument.
>
> Come on Stephen, you specifically said "straw man" and the phrase "straw
> man" has exactly that meaning as I just showed.

"A weak or imaginary opposition," the definition said. I used it meaning
the former.

> So anyway, here's some statements of the exact phrase "analog is better than
> digital" is used in a context that very closely matches the one addressed by
>
> http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf
>
> >> http://www.matthewdesantis.com/ee/recording-myths.html
>
> >> http://www.tributarymusic.com/jminer.htm
>
> >> http://www.enjoythemusic.com/montreal2003/lensabo.htm
>
> >>
> http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/special-report/aphex-werrbach.shtml
>
> >> http://www.harmony-central.com/Effects/Data/Tech_21/Tri_A_C_-01.html
>
> >> etc.
>
> >> Therefore I have shown that the claim "analog is better than
> >> digital" is actually quite common, and it is obviously not a straw
> >> man argument.
>
> > It's a weak argument,
>
> The use of the pronoun "It's" is singular. I've shown that there are many
> and various instances of this argument. Therefore the use of an irrelevant
> pronoun disqualifies the claim.

"Analog is better than digital" is one argument.

> >not an imaginary one,
>
> Which means its not a straw man since it fails the test: "imaginary".

The definitions are not exclusive, hence the use of the word 'or' in the
definition you quoted.

> > therefore still a strawman.
>
> Both sub-arguments fail, therefore the whole argument fails.

Only if you think "analog is better than digital" without qualification
is a strong argument.

> >Proper qualification is still an issue.
>
> At this point Stephen's reprise argument is so thoroughly deconstructed,
> this fragment is meaningless as it stands.

Proper qualification is an issue in framing arguments. Better?

> >> You've been deconstructed again, Stephen.
>
> > Thanks for the dictionary definition.
>
> Many arguments are exactly about the meaning of words. More dictionary
> definitions are on the way!

The last one supported me, so cite away!

> > Myth No 1
>
> > Probable origin: Ignorance
>
> > I'd call this an assertion.
>
> I'd call this yet another indication of a really weak understanding of the
> meaning of words.
>
> Time for another peek at the same dictionary:
>
> Main Entry: assert
> Function: transitive verb
>
> 1 : to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively
> 2 a : to demonstrate the existence of <assert his manhood -- James Joyce> b
> : POSIT, POSTULATE
> - assert oneself : to compel recognition especially of one's rights.
>
> Obviously a statement that is made positively or forcefully would not
> include any inferences that the statement is speculative, presumptive, or
> merely probable. It's certain, it's a fact.

In this case, you agree that it's an assertion. As it's unsupported,
that makes it an unsupported assertion.

However, your amendment to the definition doesn't follow. Are you
claiming that assertion equals factual certainty?

> Main Entry: probable
> Function: adjective
> 1 : supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not
> proof <a probable hypothesis>
> 2 : establishing a probability <probable evidence>
> 3 : likely to be or become true or real <probable events>
>
> Perhaps the most important phrase in this definition is "but not proof".
>
> Since the word "presumption" may not be well-understood:
>
> Main Entry: pre·sump·tion
> Function: noun
> 1 : presumptuous attitude or conduct : AUDACITY
> 2 a : an attitude or belief dictated by probability : ASSUMPTION b : the
> ground, reason, or evidence lending probability to a belief
> 3 : a legal inference as to the existence or truth of a fact not certainly
> known that is drawn from the known or proved existence of some other fact
>
> Cutting to the chase, the phase "Probable cause" specifically excludes the
> idea that a fact is being discussed or asserted.
>
> IOW, what's being talked about is at best a trial hypothesis or informed
> speculation.

You're off the deep end here, citing definitions of words you amended to
another dictionary definition. That's free association, not argument.

> http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf is
> not intended as a compendium of detailed arguments, but rather a road map to
> the deconstruction of a good variety of common audio myths.

Yes, unsupported assertions.

> Every audio
> myth listed could, and has been argued in other contexts over and over
> again. There's plenty of science and accepted practice on its side.

What side?

> You can find one or more of these audio myths being promulgated like it was
> audio truth in virtually every issue of the various high end audio
> publications. This reflects poorly on their credibility, and the credibility
> of the component choices they advise.

So too does an argument that ignorance is the source of an argument that
"analog is better than digital" reflect poorly on Mr. Kite. Even if the
statement is incorrect, it is possible that the conclusion was reached
through experience of bad digital and good analog. Or, more to the
point, the argument could be a mere statement of preference.

Stephen

Arny Krueger

October 6th 03, 07:43 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:52:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> And I didn't say it was an imaginary argument.
>>
>> Come on Stephen, you specifically said "straw man" and the phrase
>> "straw man" has exactly that meaning as I just showed.
>
> According to your recent interpretation of something written on the
> Merlin website, you are incorrect here.

Since you don't say *what* I wrote, we've got to presume you're just
muttering incohenently here, Weil.

Arny Krueger

October 6th 03, 07:45 PM

"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 ,
>>
>>>>>>> "Allen RENY" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>
>>>>>>>>> Good reading for audiophiles:
>>
>>>>>>
>> http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf
>>
>>>>>>>> ==============================
>>
>>>>>>>> At last !!! A good audio reference web page !!!!
>>
>>>>>>> For fans of unsupported assertions and strawman arguments.
>>
>>>>>> Point out a straw man argument, if you can.
>>
>>>>> Myth No 1: Analog is better than digital.
>>
>>>>> Without proper qualification, this is a strawman.
>>
>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
>>
>>>> Main Entry: straw man
>>>> Function: noun
>>>> 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary)
>>>> set up only to be easily confuted
>>
>>>> If I can find any public record of this claim actually being stated
>>>> by an independent person, then it is not an imaginary argument.
>>
>>> Context is also important.
>>
>> Stephen, your challenge for the day is to find a present-day SOTA
>> audio context where analog is better than digital when both options
>> are equally available.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>>> And I didn't say it was an imaginary argument.
>>
>> Come on Stephen, you specifically said "straw man" and the phrase
>> "straw man" has exactly that meaning as I just showed.
>
> "A weak or imaginary opposition," the definition said. I used it
> meaning the former.
>
>> So anyway, here's some statements of the exact phrase "analog is
>> better than digital" is used in a context that very closely matches
>> the one addressed by
>>
>> http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf
>>
>>>> http://www.matthewdesantis.com/ee/recording-myths.html
>>
>>>> http://www.tributarymusic.com/jminer.htm
>>
>>>> http://www.enjoythemusic.com/montreal2003/lensabo.htm
>>
>>>>
>>
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/special-report/aphex-werrbach.shtml
>>
>>>> http://www.harmony-central.com/Effects/Data/Tech_21/Tri_A_C_-01.html
>>
>>>> etc.
>>
>>>> Therefore I have shown that the claim "analog is better than
>>>> digital" is actually quite common, and it is obviously not a straw
>>>> man argument.
>>
>>> It's a weak argument,
>>
>> The use of the pronoun "It's" is singular. I've shown that there are
>> many and various instances of this argument. Therefore the use of an
>> irrelevant pronoun disqualifies the claim.
>
> "Analog is better than digital" is one argument.
>
>>> not an imaginary one,
>>
>> Which means its not a straw man since it fails the test: "imaginary".
>
> The definitions are not exclusive, hence the use of the word 'or' in
> the definition you quoted.
>
>>> therefore still a strawman.
>>
>> Both sub-arguments fail, therefore the whole argument fails.
>
> Only if you think "analog is better than digital" without
> qualification is a strong argument.
>
>>> Proper qualification is still an issue.
>>
>> At this point Stephen's reprise argument is so thoroughly
>> deconstructed, this fragment is meaningless as it stands.
>
> Proper qualification is an issue in framing arguments. Better?
>
>>>> You've been deconstructed again, Stephen.
>>
>>> Thanks for the dictionary definition.
>>
>> Many arguments are exactly about the meaning of words. More
>> dictionary definitions are on the way!
>
> The last one supported me, so cite away!
>
>>> Myth No 1
>>
>>> Probable origin: Ignorance
>>
>>> I'd call this an assertion.
>>
>> I'd call this yet another indication of a really weak understanding
>> of the meaning of words.
>>
>> Time for another peek at the same dictionary:
>>
>> Main Entry: assert
>> Function: transitive verb
>>
>> 1 : to state or declare positively and often forcefully or
>> aggressively 2 a : to demonstrate the existence of <assert his
>> manhood -- James Joyce> b
>>> POSIT, POSTULATE
>> - assert oneself : to compel recognition especially of one's rights.
>>
>> Obviously a statement that is made positively or forcefully would not
>> include any inferences that the statement is speculative,
>> presumptive, or merely probable. It's certain, it's a fact.
>
> In this case, you agree that it's an assertion. As it's unsupported,
> that makes it an unsupported assertion.
>
> However, your amendment to the definition doesn't follow. Are you
> claiming that assertion equals factual certainty?
>
>> Main Entry: probable
>> Function: adjective
>> 1 : supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but
>> not proof <a probable hypothesis>
>> 2 : establishing a probability <probable evidence>
>> 3 : likely to be or become true or real <probable events>
>>
>> Perhaps the most important phrase in this definition is "but not
>> proof".
>>
>> Since the word "presumption" may not be well-understood:
>>
>> Main Entry: pre·sump·tion
>> Function: noun
>> 1 : presumptuous attitude or conduct : AUDACITY
>> 2 a : an attitude or belief dictated by probability : ASSUMPTION b :
>> the ground, reason, or evidence lending probability to a belief
>> 3 : a legal inference as to the existence or truth of a fact not
>> certainly known that is drawn from the known or proved existence of
>> some other fact
>>
>> Cutting to the chase, the phase "Probable cause" specifically
>> excludes the idea that a fact is being discussed or asserted.
>>
>> IOW, what's being talked about is at best a trial hypothesis or
>> informed speculation.
>
> You're off the deep end here, citing definitions of words you amended
> to another dictionary definition. That's free association, not
> argument.

Talk about free association!

LOL!

I'm done with your weirdness for now Stephen, unless you can come up with
something coherent to say.

dave weil

October 6th 03, 07:48 PM

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:43:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:52:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> And I didn't say it was an imaginary argument.
>>>
>>> Come on Stephen, you specifically said "straw man" and the phrase
>>> "straw man" has exactly that meaning as I just showed.
>>
>> According to your recent interpretation of something written on the
>> Merlin website, you are incorrect here.
>
>Since you don't say *what* I wrote, we've got to presume you're just
>muttering incohenently here, Weil.
>
>
Be my guest. You *are* THE KING of presumptions after all.

Max Holubitsky

October 6th 03, 08:19 PM

One point I take an issue with, it the point that early CD players sound
terrible... I totally disagree with that point. Perhaps some early CD's
sound terrible, but I own a Sony CDP-200 (Manufactured in November 1983),
and a Philips CD-101 (also from '82 or '83), and both of these players sound
great, and are extremely reliable and well made. Both of these players also
have no problem at all with CD-R's, odly enough. The Sony even has gold
plated jacks, and the entire transport is made out of metal. The only issue
I have with either of these units v.s. a modern unit, is the Philips has a
painfully slow access time, and the Sony is slightly more sensitive to dust
or scratches than a modern player is.

Prior to getting the Philips, I used to own a Marantz CD-53, and then a
Marantz DVD player (model escapes me). Both of these units were unreliable,
reqired service within the warrenty period, and pretty much left me feeling
ripped off.

If my either of my CD players should ever require replacement, I will go
straight out and buy a new Sony unit, and bypass the "rave review" units
which end up developing problems.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Good reading for audiophiles:
>
> http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf
>
>

Arny Krueger

October 6th 03, 08:49 PM

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
news:pfjgb.32807$6C4.15187@pd7tw1no

> One point I take an issue with, it the point that early CD players
> sound terrible... I totally disagree with that point. Perhaps some
> early CD's sound terrible, but I own a Sony CDP-200 (Manufactured in
> November 1983), and a Philips CD-101 (also from '82 or '83), and both
> of these players sound great, and are extremely reliable and well
> made.

I agree, given that I have access to a refurbished CDP 101 (Sony's first
player, introduced 10/1/1982) and it doesn't sound horrible. It performs
pretty much as Stereo Review said it does - detectable with some test
signals, but hard to detect with music, presuming it's tracking well (see
below).

> Both of these players also have no problem at all with CD-R's,
> oddly enough.

The CDP 101 I have access to does well with many CD-Rs as well. It's not
perfect but its useable with most CDRs. Ironically one of the successors
(CDP ES 700?) sounded horrible on most CD-Rs.

> The Sony even has gold plated jacks, and the entire
> transport is made out of metal.

FWIW.

> The only issue I have with either of
> these units v.s. a modern unit, is the Philips has a painfully slow
> access time, and the Sony is slightly more sensitive to dust or
> scratches than a modern player is.

Roger that on the CDP101 as well.

MiNE 109

October 6th 03, 09:19 PM

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 ,
> >>
> >>>>>>> "Allen RENY" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>
> >>>>>>>>> Good reading for audiophiles:
> >>
> >>>>>>
> >> http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf
> >>
> >>>>>>>> ==============================
> >>
> >>>>>>>> At last !!! A good audio reference web page !!!!
> >>
> >>>>>>> For fans of unsupported assertions and strawman arguments.
> >>
> >>>>>> Point out a straw man argument, if you can.
> >>
> >>>>> Myth No 1: Analog is better than digital.
> >>
> >>>>> Without proper qualification, this is a strawman.
> >>
> >>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
> >>
> >>>> Main Entry: straw man
> >>>> Function: noun
> >>>> 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary)
> >>>> set up only to be easily confuted
> >>
> >>>> If I can find any public record of this claim actually being stated
> >>>> by an independent person, then it is not an imaginary argument.
> >>
> >>> Context is also important.
> >>
> >> Stephen, your challenge for the day is to find a present-day SOTA
> >> audio context where analog is better than digital when both options
> >> are equally available.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
> >
> >>> And I didn't say it was an imaginary argument.
> >>
> >> Come on Stephen, you specifically said "straw man" and the phrase
> >> "straw man" has exactly that meaning as I just showed.
> >
> > "A weak or imaginary opposition," the definition said. I used it
> > meaning the former.
> >
> >> So anyway, here's some statements of the exact phrase "analog is
> >> better than digital" is used in a context that very closely matches
> >> the one addressed by
> >>
> >> http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf
> >>
> >>>> http://www.matthewdesantis.com/ee/recording-myths.html
> >>
> >>>> http://www.tributarymusic.com/jminer.htm
> >>
> >>>> http://www.enjoythemusic.com/montreal2003/lensabo.htm
> >>
> >>>>
> >>
> http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/special-report/aphex-werrbach.shtml
> >>
> >>>> http://www.harmony-central.com/Effects/Data/Tech_21/Tri_A_C_-01.html
> >>
> >>>> etc.
> >>
> >>>> Therefore I have shown that the claim "analog is better than
> >>>> digital" is actually quite common, and it is obviously not a straw
> >>>> man argument.
> >>
> >>> It's a weak argument,
> >>
> >> The use of the pronoun "It's" is singular. I've shown that there are
> >> many and various instances of this argument. Therefore the use of an
> >> irrelevant pronoun disqualifies the claim.
> >
> > "Analog is better than digital" is one argument.
> >
> >>> not an imaginary one,
> >>
> >> Which means its not a straw man since it fails the test: "imaginary".
> >
> > The definitions are not exclusive, hence the use of the word 'or' in
> > the definition you quoted.
> >
> >>> therefore still a strawman.
> >>
> >> Both sub-arguments fail, therefore the whole argument fails.
> >
> > Only if you think "analog is better than digital" without
> > qualification is a strong argument.
> >
> >>> Proper qualification is still an issue.
> >>
> >> At this point Stephen's reprise argument is so thoroughly
> >> deconstructed, this fragment is meaningless as it stands.
> >
> > Proper qualification is an issue in framing arguments. Better?
> >
> >>>> You've been deconstructed again, Stephen.
> >>
> >>> Thanks for the dictionary definition.
> >>
> >> Many arguments are exactly about the meaning of words. More
> >> dictionary definitions are on the way!
> >
> > The last one supported me, so cite away!
> >
> >>> Myth No 1
> >>
> >>> Probable origin: Ignorance
> >>
> >>> I'd call this an assertion.
> >>
> >> I'd call this yet another indication of a really weak understanding
> >> of the meaning of words.
> >>
> >> Time for another peek at the same dictionary:
> >>
> >> Main Entry: assert
> >> Function: transitive verb
> >>
> >> 1 : to state or declare positively and often forcefully or
> >> aggressively 2 a : to demonstrate the existence of <assert his
> >> manhood -- James Joyce> b
> >>> POSIT, POSTULATE
> >> - assert oneself : to compel recognition especially of one's rights.
> >>
> >> Obviously a statement that is made positively or forcefully would not
> >> include any inferences that the statement is speculative,
> >> presumptive, or merely probable. It's certain, it's a fact.
> >
> > In this case, you agree that it's an assertion. As it's unsupported,
> > that makes it an unsupported assertion.
> >
> > However, your amendment to the definition doesn't follow. Are you
> > claiming that assertion equals factual certainty?
> >
> >> Main Entry: probable
> >> Function: adjective
> >> 1 : supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but
> >> not proof <a probable hypothesis>
> >> 2 : establishing a probability <probable evidence>
> >> 3 : likely to be or become true or real <probable events>
> >>
> >> Perhaps the most important phrase in this definition is "but not
> >> proof".
> >>
> >> Since the word "presumption" may not be well-understood:
> >>
> >> Main Entry: pre·sump·tion
> >> Function: noun
> >> 1 : presumptuous attitude or conduct : AUDACITY
> >> 2 a : an attitude or belief dictated by probability : ASSUMPTION b :
> >> the ground, reason, or evidence lending probability to a belief
> >> 3 : a legal inference as to the existence or truth of a fact not
> >> certainly known that is drawn from the known or proved existence of
> >> some other fact
> >>
> >> Cutting to the chase, the phase "Probable cause" specifically
> >> excludes the idea that a fact is being discussed or asserted.
> >>
> >> IOW, what's being talked about is at best a trial hypothesis or
> >> informed speculation.
> >
> > You're off the deep end here, citing definitions of words you amended
> > to another dictionary definition. That's free association, not
> > argument.
>
> Talk about free association!

I just was. You, on the other hand, were doing it.

> LOL!

That's one hollow laugh you've got there, pal.

> I'm done with your weirdness for now Stephen, unless you can come up with
> something coherent to say.

That's odd. I agreed with you on quite a few of your statements.

"Bright is the ring of words..."

Stephen

Max Holubitsky

October 6th 03, 09:19 PM

> I agree, given that I have access to a refurbished CDP 101 (Sony's first
> player, introduced 10/1/1982) and it doesn't sound horrible. It performs
> pretty much as Stereo Review said it does - detectable with some test
> signals, but hard to detect with music, presuming it's tracking well (see
> below).

I'd like to see one of those units sometime. (for some reason, I like the
early CD players... in addition to the two units I mentioned, I also own a
Hitachi which loads the disk in the front, vertically, similar to how a
cassette deck loads a tape. I have not used it enough to judge its
performance, however)

It's quite possible that some of the issues that the 101 may have had, were
ironed out in the 200 which I own. Either way, I can detect a much, much
bigger difference in overall sound quality when swapping amplifiers, than I
can with the limited number of CD players I have owned.

A good sounding amplifier makes the difference between listening to my sytem
for an hour, and the shutting it off, and listening to it all evening and
shutting it off because it's bed time. I have not found the same to be true
with CD players, although my experience is not as broad as many people here.

I did not read the Stereo Review review of the '101... can you tell me what
performance issues were discovered?

> The CDP 101 I have access to does well with many CD-Rs as well. It's not
> perfect but its useable with most CDRs. Ironically one of the successors
> (CDP ES 700?) sounded horrible on most CD-Rs.

Now that is interesting. Same thing with my Marantz DVD player. Using that
unit is a frustrating experience.

> > The Sony even has gold plated jacks, and the entire
> > transport is made out of metal.
>
> FWIW.

Well, it's 20 years old, and the jacks are still shiny - that's worth
something, as I've seen a lot of older gear with tarnished RCA sockets. The
transport being made of metal is worth something only because the unit has
lasted this long, and still continues to operate like new. If it was built
like your typical modern computer style CD rom drive, I highly doubt it would
have lasted 20 years. Actually of all the CD players I have ever owned, the
Philips and the Sony are the only two which have made it past 7 or 8 years
with no problems at all. I guess this is with the exception of the CD-Rom
drive in my PowerMac 6100...

MiNE 109

October 6th 03, 09:20 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
> news:pfjgb.32807$6C4.15187@pd7tw1no

<snip>

> > The Sony even has gold plated jacks, and the entire
> > transport is made out of metal.
>
> FWIW.

The papier-mache ones sucked.

Stephen

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 7th 03, 01:36 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> He probably is completely unaware of his intellectual dishonesty.
>

Another compatriate of Arny.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

jeffc

October 7th 03, 03:11 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "jeffc" > wrote in message
> m
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Good reading for audiophiles:
>
> >>
http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf
>
> > Yeah, I like his "conclusion" that "speakers improve markedly up to
> > around $1500." What is that supposed to mean?
>
> The meaning seems obvious - diminishing returns sets in for speakers
costing
> more than about $1,500. I think the exact number can be argued with, but
the
> concept seems valid.

First, this was a "conclusion" of what myth, and what "reasoning"? Second,
"diminishing returns" is a curve, and he gave no reason whatsoever to deduce
that the curve took a radical turn suddenly at $1500. Sounds to me like
maybe that's the extent of his hearing.

Robert Morein

October 7th 03, 06:51 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > He probably is completely unaware of his intellectual dishonesty.
> >
>
> Another compatriate of Arny.
>
I would say so.

Arny Krueger

October 7th 03, 12:21 PM

"jeffc" > wrote in message
m
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "jeffc" > wrote in message
>> m
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Good reading for audiophiles:
>>
>>>>
> http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf

>>> Yeah, I like his "conclusion" that "speakers improve markedly up to
>>> around $1500." What is that supposed to mean?
>
>> The meaning seems obvious - diminishing returns sets in for speakers
>> costing more than about $1,500. I think the exact number can be
>> argued with, but the concept seems valid.

> First, this was a "conclusion" of what myth, and what "reasoning"?

Finally, a really valid criticism. No myth was stated, and there is no
content in the paper to support the conclusion.

> Second, "diminishing returns" is a curve, and he gave no reason
> whatsoever to deduce that the curve took a radical turn suddenly at
> $1500.

So far so good.

>Sounds to me like maybe that's the extent of his hearing.

A regrettable return to golden ear posturing. Hey kid you were on a roll.
You should have quit while you were sticking to a completely valid, totally
undeniable line of criticism.

Max Holubitsky

October 7th 03, 09:20 PM

Only the Philips is 14-bit, the Sony is 16. If I had that facilities, I'd like to
see if I could tell the difference between the two... or even between the Philips
and any modern player, in a double blind test.

I wonder how many people could notice a difference - I bet it would be less than
you would expect.

Max

Langis wrote:

> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote:
>
> >I own a Sony CDP-200 (Manufactured in November 1983),
> >and a Philips CD-101 (also from '82 or '83), and both of these players sound
> >great
>
> You have 14bit hearing, mate.
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Max Holubitsky

October 7th 03, 09:27 PM

I will also add that the 2 extra bits really only add any detail to very, very low
level signals, and that with the fan coil unit running to heat/cool my apartment, any
very very quiet sounds are absorbed into the background anyhow.

Technically speaking, what is the dynamic range of 14-bit digital? My guess is, it's
larger than the dynamic range of most if not all vinyl based systems, so why is vinyl
hi-fi, and not 14-bit digital? I would have to go back to some texbook to know the
numbers for sure.

Max Holubitsky wrote:

> Only the Philips is 14-bit, the Sony is 16. If I had that facilities, I'd like to
> see if I could tell the difference between the two... or even between the Philips
> and any modern player, in a double blind test.
>
> I wonder how many people could notice a difference - I bet it would be less than
> you would expect.
>
> Max
>
> Langis wrote:
>
> > "Max Holubitsky" > wrote:
> >
> > >I own a Sony CDP-200 (Manufactured in November 1983),
> > >and a Philips CD-101 (also from '82 or '83), and both of these players sound
> > >great
> >
> > You have 14bit hearing, mate.
> >
> > --
> > S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Max Holubitsky

October 7th 03, 10:38 PM

That's interesting... what was the nature of the difference you detected? The Sony is
my "daily driver", and I haven't heard *all* of my CDs on the Philips, but I really
haven't noticed any difference between the two. Mind you, I've never gone straight
from one to the other, with the same source material. I'm also curious to find out how
you removed the bottom bit?

I can very easily hear a difference when an eq is in the system, and one of the
sliders is adjusted for just a one or two dB boost or attenuation, I can easily hear
difference between amplifiers, and speakers... but never cables, and never CD players,
including the 14 bit Philips.

In any event, the intention of my original message here was not to say that a CD
player from 1982 is the last word in high fidelity, or that all CD players sound
alike. All I wanted to say, is that I have two very early CD players, and they both
sound anything but terrible - especially compared to any vinyl system that isn't
perfectly adjusted.

I think that the whole argument that early CD players were terrible sounding is a very
weak argument for the superiority of vinyl. If early CD players are indeed terrible, I
highly doubt that so many people would have been so quick to convert to CD and never
look back.

Langis wrote:

> Max Holubitsky > wrote:
>[i]
> >Only the Philips is 14-bit, the Sony is 16. If I had that facilities, I'd like to
> >see if I could tell the difference between the two... or even between the Philips
> >and any modern player, in a double blind test.
>
> I've heard the bottom bit in informal blind tests.
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Arny Krueger

October 7th 03, 11:50 PM

"Langis" > wrote in message

> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote:
>
>> I own a Sony CDP-200 (Manufactured in November 1983),
>> and a Philips CD-101 (also from '82 or '83), and both of these
>> players sound great
>
> You have 14bit hearing, mate.

Comes with being human.

Arny Krueger

October 7th 03, 11:53 PM

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message

> In any event, the intention of my original message here was not to
> say that a CD player from 1982 is the last word in high fidelity, or
> that all CD players sound alike. All I wanted to say, is that I have
> two very early CD players, and they both sound anything but terrible.

Agreed.

> - especially compared to any vinyl system that isn't perfectly
> adjusted.

....even including vinyl systems that are in an excellent state of tune.

> I think that the whole argument that early CD players were terrible
> sounding is a very weak argument for the superiority of vinyl.

...consider the sources - many of which are people and publications who are
inexplicably flogging the purported superiority of vinyl to this day.

> If early CD players are indeed terrible, I highly doubt that so many
> people would have been so quick to convert to CD and never look back.

Agreed.

trotsky

October 7th 03, 11:56 PM

Langis wrote:
> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote:
>
>
>>I own a Sony CDP-200 (Manufactured in November 1983),
>>and a Philips CD-101 (also from '82 or '83), and both of these players sound
>>great
>
>
> You have 14bit hearing, mate.

Are you saying he's a Krueger sockpuppet?

Max Holubitsky

October 8th 03, 01:30 AM

> >
> > You have 14bit hearing, mate.
>
>
> Are you saying he's a Krueger sockpuppet?
>

Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of sense, but I
am not Arny, and I don't agree with everything he says. For example, I use
tube amplifiers, because I prefer the way some tube amplifiers sound. I am
perfectly aware that they do introduce distortion into the signal, however
minor, and I would not advocate their use for everyone, but they do do it
for me, and that's what's important to me. I have tried a variety of solid
state amplifiers - some based on ICs, some based on BJTs, and some based on
FETs. While some solid state amplifiers sound very good, they just don't do
it for me like a good tube amplifier does.

Now, before anyone says what constitutes good, and quote the "bad" specs of
a tube amplifier, I will say this - an amplifier that I can listen to for
hours on end, at any level I like, and enjoy the entire time is a good
amplifier. Generally these amplifiers take the form of a unit which has push
pull pentodes, a moderate amount of NFB, and at least 50 Watts power output.
I will continue to own and maintain this sort of amplifier until I find
something I like more... and when I do, if I do, I will convert. Does this
mean I tell my friends to buy tube amplifiers? Of course not - I'm not
evangelical about audio...

In the case of CD players, really, when it comes down to it, my 14-bit
Philips sounds as good as any other CD player I've used, which to me, is
excellent. I really don't notice any difference between them, although it
could just be that I've never used a really horrid one.

I do use vinyl as well, and I enjoy listening to vinyl records as much as
CDs. To say that a vinyl record is more accurate than even a 14-bit CD
player, however, is really quite silly. Is there really such thing as a
vinyl playback system out there which has even a 80dB s/n ratio? I very
highly doubt it. How about a cartridge with a +-0.5 dB frequency response? I
can accomadate most of the technical imperfections of vinyl, but I would
sure as hell rather listen to 14-bit digital than to tracing distortion near
the centre of an LP.

Max Holubitsky

October 8th 03, 01:39 AM

> > I think that the whole argument that early CD players were terrible
> > sounding is a very weak argument for the superiority of vinyl.
>
> ..consider the sources - many of which are people and publications who are
> inexplicably flogging the purported superiority of vinyl to this day.
>

I think the problem here, is that instead of just admitting that they prefer
the sound of vinyl, people claim it to be more accurate. Some people like
bass boost, some people like loudness controls, reverb, volume expanders,
fake surround sound that Sony puts into TVs, BOSE speakers, car sub woofers,
tube amplifiers, and vinyl.

I happen to like the last two on the list, and have no problem admitting it.
I will continue to buy and use and support both of those products, until I
find something I like more. I don't exclusivly use vinyl however, I use both
vinyl, and CDs.

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 8th 03, 01:54 AM

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
...
> Only the Philips is 14-bit, the Sony is 16. If I had that facilities, I'd
like to
> see if I could tell the difference between the two... or even between the
Philips
> and any modern player, in a double blind test.
>
> I wonder how many people could notice a difference - I bet it would be
less than
> you would expect.
>
> Max
>

Of course.
The test is enough to beat the senses out of anyone.
Its just not a real world experience.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 8th 03, 01:56 AM

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
...
> I will also add that the 2 extra bits really only add any detail to very,
very low
> level signals, and that with the fan coil unit running to heat/cool my
apartment, any
> very very quiet sounds are absorbed into the background anyhow.
>
> Technically speaking, what is the dynamic range of 14-bit digital? My
guess is, it's
> larger than the dynamic range of most if not all vinyl based systems, so
why is vinyl
> hi-fi, and not 14-bit digital? I would have to go back to some texbook to
know the
> numbers for sure.
>

And he's another idiotic top poster, to boot.
Look you moron, there is more to listening to music than dynamic range.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 8th 03, 01:58 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Langis" > wrote in message
>
> > "Max Holubitsky" > wrote:
> >
> >> I own a Sony CDP-200 (Manufactured in November 1983),
> >> and a Philips CD-101 (also from '82 or '83), and both of these
> >> players sound great
> >
> > You have 14bit hearing, mate.
>
> Comes with being human.
>

Analog comes with being human.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger

October 8th 03, 02:36 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
> ...

>> I will also add that the 2 extra bits really only add any detail to very,
very low
>> level signals, and that with the fan coil unit running to heat/cool my
apartment, any
>> very very quiet sounds are absorbed into the background anyhow.
>>
>> Technically speaking, what is the dynamic range of 14-bit digital? My
guess is, it's
>> larger than the dynamic range of most if not all vinyl based systems, so
why is vinyl
>> hi-fi, and not 14-bit digital? I would have to go back to some texbook
to know the
>> numbers for sure.

> Look you moron, there is more to listening to music than dynamic
> range.

....which is why sockpuppet Yustabe is so proud of the thermionic noise and
distortion enhancers on his CD player.

Arny Krueger

October 8th 03, 02:36 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> "Langis" > wrote in message
>>

>>> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote:

>>>> I own a Sony CDP-200 (Manufactured in November 1983),
>>>> and a Philips CD-101 (also from '82 or '83), and both of these
>>>> players sound great

>>> You have 14bit hearing, mate.

>> Comes with being human.

> Analog comes with being human.

Your point?

Max Holubitsky

October 8th 03, 02:45 AM

Dynamic range is the only thing you lose by going from 16 bits to 14 bits.
That is why I mentioned it.Posting on top makes more sense to me, because
when I am reading though a thread, I like to see the answer... I've already
seen the initial message, and it's only included for reference. As for
telling me what there is to listening to music, why don't you listen to
something good, relax, and talk to me when you're not in a mood to throw
insults at people you haven't met.

> And he's another idiotic top poster, to boot.
> Look you moron, there is more to listening to music than dynamic range.

dave weil

October 8th 03, 05:20 AM

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:30:42 GMT, "Max Holubitsky" > wrote:

>
>
>> >
>> > You have 14bit hearing, mate.
>>
>>
>> Are you saying he's a Krueger sockpuppet?
>>
>
>Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of sense, but I
>am not Arny, and I don't agree with everything he says. For example, I use
>tube amplifiers, because I prefer the way some tube amplifiers sound. I am
>perfectly aware that they do introduce distortion into the signal, however
>minor, and I would not advocate their use for everyone, but they do do it
>for me, and that's what's important to me. I have tried a variety of solid
>state amplifiers - some based on ICs, some based on BJTs, and some based on
>FETs. While some solid state amplifiers sound very good, they just don't do
>it for me like a good tube amplifier does.
>
>Now, before anyone says what constitutes good, and quote the "bad" specs of
>a tube amplifier, I will say this - an amplifier that I can listen to for
>hours on end, at any level I like, and enjoy the entire time is a good
>amplifier. Generally these amplifiers take the form of a unit which has push
>pull pentodes, a moderate amount of NFB, and at least 50 Watts power output.
>I will continue to own and maintain this sort of amplifier until I find
>something I like more... and when I do, if I do, I will convert. Does this
>mean I tell my friends to buy tube amplifiers? Of course not - I'm not
>evangelical about audio...
>
>In the case of CD players, really, when it comes down to it, my 14-bit
>Philips sounds as good as any other CD player I've used, which to me, is
>excellent. I really don't notice any difference between them, although it
>could just be that I've never used a really horrid one.
>
>I do use vinyl as well, and I enjoy listening to vinyl records as much as
>CDs. To say that a vinyl record is more accurate than even a 14-bit CD
>player, however, is really quite silly. Is there really such thing as a
>vinyl playback system out there which has even a 80dB s/n ratio? I very
>highly doubt it. How about a cartridge with a +-0.5 dB frequency response? I
>can accomadate most of the technical imperfections of vinyl, but I would
>sure as hell rather listen to 14-bit digital than to tracing distortion near
>the centre of an LP.

Doesn't your post point out the danger of equating "on paper accuracy"
in audio with something necessarily desirable?

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 8th 03, 05:37 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>
>
> > "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> I will also add that the 2 extra bits really only add any detail to
very,
> very low
> >> level signals, and that with the fan coil unit running to heat/cool my
> apartment, any
> >> very very quiet sounds are absorbed into the background anyhow.
> >>
> >> Technically speaking, what is the dynamic range of 14-bit digital? My
> guess is, it's
> >> larger than the dynamic range of most if not all vinyl based systems,
so
> why is vinyl
> >> hi-fi, and not 14-bit digital? I would have to go back to some texbook
> to know the
> >> numbers for sure.
>
>
> > Look you moron, there is more to listening to music than dynamic
> > range.
>
> ...which is why sockpuppet Yustabe is so proud of the thermionic noise and
> distortion enhancers on his CD player.
>
>

I'm proud of being able to listen to reproduced music
that sounds most like live music.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 8th 03, 05:38 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> "Langis" > wrote in message
> >>
>
> >>> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote:
>
> >>>> I own a Sony CDP-200 (Manufactured in November 1983),
> >>>> and a Philips CD-101 (also from '82 or '83), and both of these
> >>>> players sound great
>
> >>> You have 14bit hearing, mate.
>
> >> Comes with being human.
>
> > Analog comes with being human.
>
> Your point?
>
Your ignorance.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 8th 03, 05:40 AM

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
news:F_Jgb.42647$6C4.12202@pd7tw1no...
> Dynamic range is the only thing you lose by going from 16 bits to 14 bits.
> That is why I mentioned it.Posting on top makes more sense to me, because
> when I am reading though a thread, I like to see the answer... I've
already
> seen the initial message, and it's only included for reference. As for
> telling me what there is to listening to music, why don't you listen to
> something good, relax, and talk to me when you're not in a mood to throw
> insults at people you haven't met.
>

You mean calling you an idiot for top posting?
And look, you did it again!.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Arny Krueger

October 8th 03, 11:28 AM

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> "Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> I will also add that the 2 extra bits really only add any detail
>>>> to very, very low level signals, and that with the fan coil unit
>>>> running to heat/cool my apartment, any very very quiet sounds are
>>>> absorbed into the background anyhow.

>>>> Technically speaking, what is the dynamic range of 14-bit digital? My
guess is, it's
>>>> larger than the dynamic range of most if not all vinyl based
>>>> systems, so why is vinyl hi-fi, and not 14-bit digital? I would
>>>> have to go back to some texbook to know the
>>>> numbers for sure.

It is. Vinyl has about 12 bits worth of dynamic range on the best day of
its life.

>>> Look you moron, there is more to listening to music than dynamic
>>> range.

>> ...which is why sockpuppet Yustabe is so proud of the thermionic
>> noise and distortion enhancers on his CD player.

> I'm proud of being able to listen to reproduced music
> that sounds most like live music.

I guess that means you always pick the seat that is next to the
air-conditioning vent with its continuous rushing sound.

Arny Krueger

October 8th 03, 11:31 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:30:42 GMT, "Max Holubitsky" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> You have 14bit hearing, mate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying he's a Krueger sockpuppet?
>>>
>>
>> Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of
>> sense, but I am not Arny, and I don't agree with everything he says.
>> For example, I use tube amplifiers, because I prefer the way some
>> tube amplifiers sound. I am perfectly aware that they do introduce
>> distortion into the signal, however minor, and I would not advocate
>> their use for everyone, but they do do it for me, and that's what's
>> important to me. I have tried a variety of solid state amplifiers -
>> some based on ICs, some based on BJTs, and some based on FETs. While
>> some solid state amplifiers sound very good, they just don't do it
>> for me like a good tube amplifier does.

>> Now, before anyone says what constitutes good, and quote the "bad"
>> specs of a tube amplifier, I will say this - an amplifier that I can
>> listen to for hours on end, at any level I like, and enjoy the
>> entire time is a good amplifier. Generally these amplifiers take the
>> form of a unit which has push pull pentodes, a moderate amount of
>> NFB, and at least 50 Watts power output. I will continue to own and
>> maintain this sort of amplifier until I find something I like
>> more... and when I do, if I do, I will convert. Does this mean I
>> tell my friends to buy tube amplifiers? Of course not - I'm not
>> evangelical about audio...

>> In the case of CD players, really, when it comes down to it, my
>> 14-bit Philips sounds as good as any other CD player I've used,
>> which to me, is excellent. I really don't notice any difference
>> between them, although it could just be that I've never used a
>> really horrid one.

>> I do use vinyl as well, and I enjoy listening to vinyl records as
>> much as CDs. To say that a vinyl record is more accurate than even a
>> 14-bit CD player, however, is really quite silly. Is there really
>> such thing as a vinyl playback system out there which has even a
>> 80dB s/n ratio? I very highly doubt it. How about a cartridge with a
>> +-0.5 dB frequency response? I can accomadate most of the technical
>> imperfections of vinyl, but I would sure as hell rather listen to
>> 14-bit digital than to tracing distortion near the centre of an LP.

> Doesn't your post point out the danger of equating "on paper accuracy"
> in audio with something necessarily desirable?

Only if what he says doesn't map well into the real world. In many people's
experience it does.

Max's post is really pretty interesting. Unlike me he hasn't measured this
stuff in detail and done the rigorous listening tests, but empirically and
intuitively he seems to have obtained comparable conceptual results and
reached similar conclusions.

trotsky

October 8th 03, 12:45 PM

Max Holubitsky wrote:
>>>You have 14bit hearing, mate.
>>
>>
>>Are you saying he's a Krueger sockpuppet?
>>
>
>
> Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of sense,

Not in this universe.

Arny Krueger

October 8th 03, 01:55 PM

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> Max Holubitsky wrote:

>> Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of sense,

> Not in this universe.

Agreed, not in Singh's own private little universe.

Max Holubitsky

October 8th 03, 05:15 PM

> It is. Vinyl has about 12 bits worth of dynamic range on the best day of
> its life.
>

Thank you for this info. This does not come as a suprise.

> > I'm proud of being able to listen to reproduced music
> > that sounds most like live music.
>
> I guess that means you always pick the seat that is next to the
> air-conditioning vent with its continuous rushing sound.

I guess it beats the seat next to someone overweight, or the seat in front of
someone who won't stop talking ;)

Max Holubitsky

October 8th 03, 05:58 PM

> > Doesn't your post point out the danger of equating "on paper accuracy"
> > in audio with something necessarily desirable?

Okay, fair point, but really not the one I was trying to make. On paper
accuracy does translate into real world accuracy...

But there are many variables outside of the realm of the listener's control,
which will ultimately prevent perfect reproduction of the original sound. Some
of these are.

-Room dimensions
-Studio v.s. live recordings
-Microphone placement
-sound effects/etc used in recording process
-Speaker placement
-What the recording engineer felt like doing
-etc.
-etc.

A system which meets all of the measurable criteria in sound reproduction such
as a good dynamic range, flat frequency response, low distortion, is an
excellent starting point.

However, by the time the music has made it to the input sockets of my
amplifier, it has already been so corrupted by the way it was made, that it is
no longer a reproduction of something that actually happened, but rather an
artificial recording,

Sometimes this may sound good, and other times not, but I find that bringing a
tube power amplifier into an otherwise "accurate" system brings more life into
the artificial recordings I listen to, and makes the whole experience more
enjoyable.

Yes, "life" is a very subjective term, but I am not sure how else to say it.

All of that said, a well designed, well made tube amplifier is really not too
far off from a well designed, well made solid state amplifier, in terms of
measured accuracy. Yes, the transistor amplifier can have 0.001% distortion
v.s. the 0.5% or whatever of a tube amp, but a good tube amp still does not
have any major audible anomolies that will corrupt sound to the point where it
is truly inaccurate.

Far, far closer than an LP is to the performance provided by CDs

> Only if what he says doesn't map well into the real world. In many people's
> experience it does.
>
> Max's post is really pretty interesting. Unlike me he hasn't measured this
> stuff in detail and done the rigorous listening tests, but empirically and
> intuitively he seems to have obtained comparable conceptual results and
> reached similar conclusions.

I am just describing my experience as a music enthusiast, an electronics
hobbiest, and and electrical engineer. I am aware of the relevance of specs in
audio, and in electronics in general.

I have done some measurements on equipment, namely THD, power, frequency
respond, s/n ratio, etc. This was mostly when I was designing and building tube
amplifiers, and getting the performance as good as I could. I would go so far
as to substitute tubes, one at a time, and re-measure THD, until I found the
best tube set. I did not have the world's most advanced equipment, but it
worked for what I was doing at the time. Currently, I don't have a decent
workbench set up.

I guess the bottom line is this... I would not buy a piece of audio equipment
which did not meet certain minimum specifications, and I would not keep a piece
of audio equipment unless I liked it.

Max Holubitsky

October 8th 03, 06:23 PM

trotsky wrote:

> Max Holubitsky wrote:
> >>>You have 14bit hearing, mate.
> >>
> >>
> >>Are you saying he's a Krueger sockpuppet?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of sense,
>
> Not in this universe.

Don't you have any speaker orders you should be filling, instead of hanging
around making comments like that?

George M. Middius

October 8th 03, 08:01 PM

Max Holubitsky said:

> > > Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of sense,
> >
> > Not in this universe.
>
> Don't you have any speaker orders you should be filling, instead of hanging
> around making comments like that?

Anybody who says "the points Arny raises make a lot of sense" is
disqualified from complaining about any other person on Earth.

Max Holubitsky

October 8th 03, 09:10 PM

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Max Holubitsky said:
>
> > > > Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of sense,
> > >
> > > Not in this universe.
> >
> > Don't you have any speaker orders you should be filling, instead of hanging
> > around making comments like that?
>
> Anybody who says "the points Arny raises make a lot of sense" is
> disqualified from complaining about any other person on Earth.

Okay, well, first off, that's an incomplete quote, and secondly, a lot of what
Arny says does make sense. He is about as popular as an athiest at a christain
retreat, and he can be abrasive sometimes, but when it comes down to it, I think
he does have some useful knowledge about audio to contribute to the group, and I
will continue to read his postings.

George M. Middius

October 8th 03, 09:33 PM

Max Holubitsky said:

> > Anybody who says "the points Arny raises make a lot of sense" is
> > disqualified from complaining about any other person on Earth.

> Okay, well, first off, that's an incomplete quote, and secondly, a lot of what
> Arny says does make sense.

You are unqualified to pass judgment on anything done by anybody
other than convicted felons and psychopaths.

Lionel

October 8th 03, 09:39 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Max Holubitsky said:
>
>
>>>Anybody who says "the points Arny raises make a lot of sense" is
>>>disqualified from complaining about any other person on Earth.
>
>
>>Okay, well, first off, that's an incomplete quote, and secondly, a lot of what
>>Arny says does make sense.
>
>
> You are unqualified to pass judgment on anything done by anybody
> other than convicted felons and psychopaths.
>
>
**** off Middius ! You are at least as insane as Trotsky but more
intelligent.
You are unqualified for anything in this audio group and you speak more
and louder than anybody else.
What is your added value to RAO ?
Make me laugh tonight !

Max Holubitsky

October 8th 03, 09:41 PM

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Max Holubitsky said:
>
> > > Anybody who says "the points Arny raises make a lot of sense" is
> > > disqualified from complaining about any other person on Earth.
>
> > Okay, well, first off, that's an incomplete quote, and secondly, a lot of what
> > Arny says does make sense.
>
> You are unqualified to pass judgment on anything done by anybody
> other than convicted felons and psychopaths.

Talk to me when you've got your head out of the sand.

trotsky

October 8th 03, 10:57 PM

Max Holubitsky wrote:
>
> trotsky wrote:
>
>
>>Max Holubitsky wrote:
>>
>>>>>You have 14bit hearing, mate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you saying he's a Krueger sockpuppet?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of sense,
>>
>>Not in this universe.
>
>
> Don't you have any speaker orders you should be filling, instead of hanging
> around making comments like that?

Wow, Max, that wasn't a very nice thing to say. Do you want me to give
you the treatment I give to those attempting to be *******s?

Max Holubitsky

October 8th 03, 11:25 PM

trotsky wrote:

> Max Holubitsky wrote:
> >
> > trotsky wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Max Holubitsky wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>You have 14bit hearing, mate.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Are you saying he's a Krueger sockpuppet?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of sense,
> >>
> >>Not in this universe.
> >
> >
> > Don't you have any speaker orders you should be filling, instead of hanging
> > around making comments like that?
>
> Wow, Max, that wasn't a very nice thing to say. Do you want me to give
> you the treatment I give to those attempting to be *******s?

I have no idea how you treat yourself. I also stand by what I say... and to be
honest, I would take Arny's opinion any day over the opinion of a guy who thinks
it's possible to put together a speaker system in his garage, within the span of
a week, and then have the arrogance market it with a lot of fancy prose
denouncing the work of companies who have been in business for decades. It
reminds me of those American TV commercials for political candidates.

Max Holubitsky

October 8th 03, 11:27 PM

> Why are you saying that christains behave vindictively toward
> atheists?

Because I have experienced it. It's just an analogy however, and I did
not mean to start a religious discussion.

Lionel

October 8th 03, 11:28 PM

trotsky wrote:

>
>
> Max Holubitsky wrote:
>
>>
>> trotsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Max Holubitsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You have 14bit hearing, mate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying he's a Krueger sockpuppet?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of sense,
>>>
>>>
>>> Not in this universe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't you have any speaker orders you should be filling, instead of
>> hanging
>> around making comments like that?
>
>
>
> Wow, Max, that wasn't a very nice thing to say. Do you want me to give
> you the treatment I give to those attempting to be *******s?
>
>
Which treatment ?

trotsky

October 9th 03, 12:03 AM

Max Holubitsky wrote:
>
> trotsky wrote:
>
>
>>Max Holubitsky wrote:
>>
>>>trotsky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Max Holubitsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>You have 14bit hearing, mate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you saying he's a Krueger sockpuppet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of sense,
>>>>
>>>>Not in this universe.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't you have any speaker orders you should be filling, instead of hanging
>>>around making comments like that?
>>
>>Wow, Max, that wasn't a very nice thing to say. Do you want me to give
>>you the treatment I give to those attempting to be *******s?
>
>
> I have no idea how you treat yourself. I also stand by what I say... and to be
> honest, I would take Arny's opinion any day over the opinion of a guy who thinks
> it's possible to put together a speaker system in his garage, within the span of
> a week, and then have the arrogance market it with a lot of fancy prose
> denouncing the work of companies who have been in business for decades. It
> reminds me of those American TV commercials for political candidates.

Again, Max, you clearly have no idea what good sound is about. I do
appreciate you labelling my rhetoric "fancy prose" though, even though
it's the kind of comment that Arny would say makes you sound like you
fell off the back of a turnip truck.

Max Holubitsky

October 9th 03, 12:15 AM

> Again, Max, you clearly have no idea what good sound is about. I do
> appreciate you labelling my rhetoric "fancy prose" though, even though
> it's the kind of comment that Arny would say makes you sound like you
> fell off the back of a turnip truck.

I called it "fancy prose" because it's more polite than saying "bull****". Why don't
you explain what you mean by "good sound"...

What is your idea of good sound? Can you name a couple speakers you respect? What
amplifier do you use for testing - or for that matter, reccomend to be used with your
speakers?

I would really like to experience your version of good sound, before I completely
write you off.

Lionel

October 9th 03, 12:17 AM

The Devil

October 9th 03, 12:23 AM

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:15:55 GMT, Max Holubitsky > wrote:

>What is your idea of good sound? Can you name a couple speakers you respect? What
>amplifier do you use for testing - or for that matter, reccomend to be used with your
>speakers?

You'd be better off calling Madisound and asking them.

>I would really like to experience your version of good sound, before I completely
>write you off.

Since the speakers weren't designed by Greg and are in fact available
as a package from Madisound, they apparently sound quite good. You can
save about a grand by buying them from Madisound. If you're interested
in listening to them first, I suggest you take them on loan from Greg.
He gives you a forty-five day money-back guarantee. When you've made
up your mind to buy them, send them back to him for a refund and buy
them from Madisound.

--
td

George M. Middius

October 9th 03, 12:24 AM

Max Holubitsky said to Gregipus:

> What is your idea of good sound?

That's trotsky's cue to spout off about "if you have to ask, you
might as well stick with spec's and measurement's".

Lionel

October 9th 03, 12:32 AM

The Devil wrote:

> I suggest you take them on loan from Greg.
> He gives you a forty-five day money-back guarantee. When you've made
> up your mind to buy them, send them back to him for a refund and buy
> them from Madisound.
>

I'm afraid that here is the naive swindle attempt...
....No refund if bankruptcy.

Jesus said "the first will be the last"

The Devil

October 9th 03, 12:37 AM

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:32:28 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>> I suggest you take them on loan from Greg.
>> He gives you a forty-five day money-back guarantee. When you've made
>> up your mind to buy them, send them back to him for a refund and buy
>> them from Madisound.
>>
>
>I'm afraid that here is the naive swindle attempt...
>...No refund if bankruptcy.
>
>Jesus said "the first will be the last"

You don't have to give him any money. Just tell him you'll review them
the way he wants.

--
td

Max Holubitsky

October 9th 03, 12:38 AM

> That's trotsky's cue to spout off about "if you have to ask, you
> might as well stick with spec's and measurement's".

Well isn't that a convenient way out of any argument.

George M. Middius

October 9th 03, 12:40 AM

Max Holubitsky said:

> > That's trotsky's cue to spout off about "if you have to ask, you
> > might as well stick with spec's and measurement's".
>
> Well isn't that a convenient way out of any argument.

Would you like us to review some of Krooger's little habits, too?

trotsky

October 9th 03, 03:31 AM

Max Holubitsky wrote:
>>Again, Max, you clearly have no idea what good sound is about. I do
>>appreciate you labelling my rhetoric "fancy prose" though, even though
>>it's the kind of comment that Arny would say makes you sound like you
>>fell off the back of a turnip truck.
>
>
> I called it "fancy prose" because it's more polite than saying "bull****". Why don't
> you explain what you mean by "good sound"...

Sound that is suggestive of live music.

> What is your idea of good sound? Can you name a couple speakers you respect? What
> amplifier do you use for testing - or for that matter, reccomend to be used with your
> speakers?

Didn't you read the website? I specifically covered that. If you're
going to be another one of those jag bags making pronouncements without
doing the necessary research (there's that word again!) I'm going to be
very cross with you.

> I would really like to experience your version of good sound, before I completely
> write you off.

Notice how you were unable to tell us how bad your hi-fi is.

trotsky

October 9th 03, 03:34 AM

The Devil wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:15:55 GMT, Max Holubitsky > wrote:
>
>
>>What is your idea of good sound? Can you name a couple speakers you respect? What
>>amplifier do you use for testing - or for that matter, reccomend to be used with your
>>speakers?
>
>
> You'd be better off calling Madisound and asking them.
>
>
>>I would really like to experience your version of good sound, before I completely
>>write you off.
>
>
> Since the speakers weren't designed by Greg and are in fact available
> as a package from Madisound,

Do you have a link for that, Dev. It sad to see you've resorted to out
and out lying. dave, do you have an explanation for this?

trotsky

October 9th 03, 03:35 AM

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Max Holubitsky said to Gregipus:
>
>
>>What is your idea of good sound?
>
>
> That's trotsky's cue to spout off about "if you have to ask, you
> might as well stick with spec's and measurement's".

George, you come off as particularly limp-wristed when trying to discuss
audio.

George M. Middius

October 9th 03, 03:57 AM

trotsky said:

> > That's trotsky's cue to spout off about "if you have to ask, you
> > might as well stick with spec's and measurement's".

> George, you come off as particularly limp-wristed when trying to discuss
> audio.

Uh.... Clue Phone for you, Mommy****er. I was discussing *you*.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 03, 10:42 AM

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message

>
> All of that said, a well designed, well made tube amplifier is really
> not too far off from a well designed, well made solid state
> amplifier, in terms of measured accuracy. Yes, the transistor
> amplifier can have 0.001% distortion v.s. the 0.5% or whatever of a
> tube amp, but a good tube amp still does not have any major audible
> anomolies that will corrupt sound to the point where it is truly
> inaccurate.

I agree with this. Back in the days when tubes were all we had, we had at
least a few good amplifiers that were sonically transparent or very nearly
so. I'll bet that some of them could be swapped into my all-SS systems
without me noticing any change in sound quality, particularly in casual
listening. I may or may not be able to pick them out in a carefully-run ABX
test, but frankly I mostly listen to my systems to enjoy music.

> Far, far closer than an LP is to the performance provided by CDs

Also agreed. OTOH, I've heard some digitally-cleaned-up LP transcriptions
that would be tough for me to easily say: That came from a LP, or That came
from a CD. Get rid of the tics and pops and maybe tweak the sonic balance
and a well-made LP can sound really pretty good. Trouble was in the days of
the LP, we didn't have such good tools for playing them.

>> Only if what he says doesn't map well into the real world. In many
>> people's experience it does.

>> Max's post is really pretty interesting. Unlike me he hasn't
>> measured this stuff in detail and done the rigorous listening tests,
>> but empirically and intuitively he seems to have obtained comparable
>> conceptual results and reached similar conclusions.

> I am just describing my experience as a music enthusiast, an
> electronics hobbiest, and and electrical engineer. I am aware of the
> relevance of specs in audio, and in electronics in general.

Seems like.

> I have done some measurements on equipment, namely THD, power,
> frequency respond, s/n ratio, etc. This was mostly when I was
> designing and building tube amplifiers, and getting the performance
> as good as I could. I would go so far as to substitute tubes, one at
> a time, and re-measure THD, until I found the best tube set. I did
> not have the world's most advanced equipment, but it worked for what
> I was doing at the time. Currently, I don't have a decent workbench
> set up.

Mine is still set up, but I've stopped using most of the analytical tools I
used way back when. Have you seen the technical reports at my
www.pcavtech.com web site? If not, you might want to check out this report:
http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/LynxTWO/index.htm .

> I guess the bottom line is this... I would not buy a piece of audio
> equipment which did not meet certain minimum specifications, and I
> would not keep a piece of audio equipment unless I liked it.

My experience with ABX-ing and recording has made me a lot more forgiving of
mediocre specs in some areas like distortion. For example this page at my
PCABX web site has had its effect on me:
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/nonlinear/index.htm .

Arny Krueger

October 9th 03, 10:47 AM

"Max Holubitsky" > wrote in message

>> Why are you saying that Christians behave vindictively toward
>> atheists?

> Because I have experienced it.

Speaking as a Christian, it's a regrettable fact of life. OTOH, look at how
some atheists around here such as Middius treat Christians.

IME many atheists are highly moral and ethnical people. Yes, there are some
really slimy Christians, and others that do a lot of things based on fear
and ignorance.

People are what they are for many reasons and in many dimensions.
Generalities fail when you get down to the individual.

>It's just an analogy however, and I did not mean to start a religious
discussion.

That's how I took it and I thought it was just fine.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 03, 10:47 AM

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> Max Holubitsky wrote:
>>
>> trotsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Max Holubitsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You have 14bit hearing, mate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying he's a Krueger sockpuppet?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of
>>>> sense,
>>>
>>> Not in this universe.
>>
>>
>> Don't you have any speaker orders you should be filling, instead of
>> hanging around making comments like that?
>
>
> Wow, Max, that wasn't a very nice thing to say. Do you want me to
> give you the treatment I give to those attempting to be *******s?

Thin skin, anybody?

Arny Krueger

October 9th 03, 11:13 AM

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:mr69ov46jtclfnore1t8biqs8nicahtreb@rdmzrnewst xt.nz

> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:15:55 GMT, Max Holubitsky > wrote:

>> What is your idea of good sound?

Singh seems to have a proclivity for what we in the US might call esoteric
British speakers.

>>Can you name a couple speakers you respect?

For the last few years, I think Singh has probably posted more about his
likes and dislikes in audio over in uk.rec.audio than any place else.

> What amplifier do you use for testing - or for that matter,
>> recommend to be used with your speakers?

Check the uk.rec.audio archives.

> You'd be better off calling Madisound and asking them.

It's like Madisound is going to be objective about their products. However
since they have such a broad product line, they will no doubt be more
objective than Greg. Since they are experienced with modern speakers, they
will no doubt speak from a broader base than David.

>> I would really like to experience your version of good sound, before
>> I completely write you off.

> Since the speakers weren't designed by Greg and are in fact available
> as a package from Madisound, they apparently sound quite good.

The thesis of this statement can be restated: If Madisound packages it, it
must be quite good.

IME (and I've probably listened to more speakers that came to life that way
than most people around here) reality is more like: If Madisound packages
it, it probably sounds mediocre or better.

I say this partially because I'm a member of a fairly-large
construction-oriented audio club with more speaker constructors than
anything else. These people have been buying from Madisound (and
competitors) for decades. I've bought a few, myself...

That all said, it is generally agreed in the club that building good
speakers is an awful lot of work. For a few $100 spent intelligently, you
can buy something that blows at least 90% of all similar home projects away.

For example, our club and other clubs have had speaker "bake-offs" where a
lot of home projects and a few commercial products were put on a table and
covered with an acoustically transparent cloth. The same music was played
through each pair of speakers and the club voted. I just summarized the
results.

> You can save about a grand by buying them from Madisound.

Sounds about right, including buying the boxes and the crossover design.
But, you could spend the same money for speakers with Paradigm and PSB
labels on them for example, and no doubt get smoother sound. You might not
like the sound of Paradigm and PSB speakers, but they have tons of
competition like Infinity, BA, Polk, JBL, NHT, KEF, B&W...

> If you're interested in listening to them first, I suggest you take them
on loan from Greg.
> He gives you a forty-five day money-back guarantee. When you've made
> up your mind to buy them, send them back to him for a refund and buy
> them from Madisound.

This is essentially fraud, but what does one expect from the Devil?

Arny Krueger

October 9th 03, 11:15 AM

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> The Devil wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:15:55 GMT, Max Holubitsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What is your idea of good sound? Can you name a couple speakers you
>>> respect? What amplifier do you use for testing - or for that
>>> matter, reccomend to be used with your speakers?
>>
>>
>> You'd be better off calling Madisound and asking them.
>>
>>
>>> I would really like to experience your version of good sound,
>>> before I completely write you off.

>> Since the speakers weren't designed by Greg and are in fact available
>> as a package from Madisound,

> Do you have a link for that, Dev. It sad to see you've resorted to
> out and out lying. dave, do you have an explanation for this?

Since when would Graham or David telling yet another lie relate to "resorted
to"?

Sockpuppet Yustabe

October 9th 03, 12:23 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> Speaking as a Christian, it's a regrettable fact of life. OTOH, look at
how
> some atheists around here such as Middius treat Christians.
>

I am sure that if you sincerely repented your sins, and promised
to lead a true Christian life, that George would forgive you.
I would.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

The Devil

October 9th 03, 12:35 PM

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 06:13:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> If you're interested in listening to them first, I suggest you take them
>> on loan from Greg.
>> He gives you a forty-five day money-back guarantee. When you've made
>> up your mind to buy them, send them back to him for a refund and buy
>> them from Madisound.
>
>This is essentially fraud, but what does one expect from the Devil?

Utter ********. Greg has himself said he's in the audio biz for the
altruism.

--
td

Arny Krueger

October 9th 03, 01:16 PM

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:0rhaovcodnvnc0p6tll184afu6f391etjd@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 06:13:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> If you're interested in listening to them first, I suggest you
>>> take them on loan from Greg.
>>> He gives you a forty-five day money-back guarantee. When you've made
>>> up your mind to buy them, send them back to him for a refund and buy
>>> them from Madisound.
>>
>> This is essentially fraud, but what does one expect from the Devil?
>
> Utter ********. Greg has himself said he's in the audio biz for the
> altruism.

I'm sure you thought he was serious and that this could and should be taken
at absolute face value.

How many Turnip trucks do they have on your farm anyway, Graham?

trotsky

October 9th 03, 01:37 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Max Holubitsky wrote:
>>
>>>trotsky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Max Holubitsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>You have 14bit hearing, mate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you saying he's a Krueger sockpuppet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hey, not so fast. Some of the points Arny raises make a lot of
>>>>>sense,
>>>>
>>>>Not in this universe.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't you have any speaker orders you should be filling, instead of
>>>hanging around making comments like that?
>>
>>
>>Wow, Max, that wasn't a very nice thing to say. Do you want me to
>>give you the treatment I give to those attempting to be *******s?
>
>
> Thin skin, anybody?

I freely admit that I'm not prepared to handle the abuse you so richly
deserve, Arny.

trotsky

October 9th 03, 01:39 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>The Devil wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:15:55 GMT, Max Holubitsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What is your idea of good sound? Can you name a couple speakers you
>>>>respect? What amplifier do you use for testing - or for that
>>>>matter, reccomend to be used with your speakers?
>>>
>>>
>>>You'd be better off calling Madisound and asking them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I would really like to experience your version of good sound,
>>>>before I completely write you off.
>>>
>
>>>Since the speakers weren't designed by Greg and are in fact available
>>>as a package from Madisound,
>>
>
>>Do you have a link for that, Dev. It sad to see you've resorted to
>>out and out lying. dave, do you have an explanation for this?
>
>
> Since when would Graham or David telling yet another lie relate to "resorted
> to"?

"Max" is a sockpuppet of "David's"? Can you explain this, please?

Max Holubitsky

October 9th 03, 06:30 PM

> I agree with this. Back in the days when tubes were all we had, we had at
> least a few good amplifiers that were sonically transparent or very nearly
> so. I'll bet that some of them could be swapped into my all-SS systems
> without me noticing any change in sound quality, particularly in casual
> listening. I may or may not be able to pick them out in a carefully-run ABX
> test, but frankly I mostly listen to my systems to enjoy music.

Same here. If a tube amplifier was to ruin the frequency response of my
speakers, or to have noticible hum, or distortion, there is no way I would use
it. At the same time, the reason I listen to my system is also to enjoy music,
and because I enjoy listening to music using tube amplifiers, I will keep them
for the time being. I don't think that the distortion in a good tube amplifier
is even all that relevant, considering it's still far less distortion than even
good speakers are producing.

> Also agreed. OTOH, I've heard some digitally-cleaned-up LP transcriptions
> that would be tough for me to easily say: That came from a LP, or That came
> from a CD. Get rid of the tics and pops and maybe tweak the sonic balance
> and a well-made LP can sound really pretty good. Trouble was in the days of
> the LP, we didn't have such good tools for playing them.

That sounds like a lot of trouble. I just ignore the audible defects, with my
LPs, because if the music is worth playing, it usually comes through. Some LPs I
still play on a regular basis are damaged, and really should be put to rest, but
the music on them makes me continue to play them while I look for new copies.

Another reason I like LPs, is you can walk into a used music store, and pick up
something for $5, without really knowing if you want it or not. I think it's a
good way to discover music you would not have othererwise considered. I would
take spending $5 any day over dropping a $20 on an unknown CD. It's also a good
way to kill a Sunday afternoon - especially when I am on business travel I like
to investigate the used music scene in a different city, to see if I can find
anything interesting. For this reason alone, I've been considering getting a
portable record player, but that is another topic for another day!

I guess I am kind of straying from my original point though, which was that I
would notice I was listening to an LP and not a CD way before I'd notice it was
a tube amp and not a solid state amp (unless, of course, the heat started to get
to me ;)

> Mine is still set up, but I've stopped using most of the analytical tools I
> used way back when. Have you seen the technical reports at my
> www.pcavtech.com web site? If not, you might want to check out this report:
> http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/LynxTWO/index.htm .

I am going to read this when I'm at home, and have more time. It looks pretty
neat though, although mostly tests of computer sound cards?

> > I guess the bottom line is this... I would not buy a piece of audio
> > equipment which did not meet certain minimum specifications, and I
> > would not keep a piece of audio equipment unless I liked it.
>
> My experience with ABX-ing and recording has made me a lot more forgiving of
> mediocre specs in some areas like distortion. For example this page at my
> PCABX web site has had its effect on me:
> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/nonlinear/index.htm .

I am going to try those when I am at home tonight - this year I finally did what
everyone else did about 5 years ago, and connected a line from my computer to my
hi-fi. I read about the amount of distortion that is noticible years ago, from
the RDH4... what was it, 3% or something? This is going to be interesting, I'd
like to hear the same test done with, say, a human voice, or a trumpet. A synth
note might do too... or maybe a snare drum.

I miss the days when Audio magazine would do loudspeaker reports - I really
liked the way they analyzed speakers, from a technical perspective. Reading one
of their technical reviews would always give me a good idea how something sounds
in real life, while pure subjective text really only gives a taste. It also
showed me just how high the distortion really is in most loudspeakers - even the
good ones.