Krueger's Razor vs . working professionals

[Accessory Section 8]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message

oups.com...

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...

>> > Building, listening, having other 'philes over to listen is fun.

>> It's what people in the technological bush leagues do.

>> > ABX is not. No one cares about ABX.
>> ABX is the far more challenging test. It's what pros do. It's the one
>> that
>> may not tell you what you want to hear.
> No Arny the pro's don't.

Sure the pros do - the AES, the ITU, the MPEG, just to name a few.

> No recording studio owner or recording, mixdown or mastering engineer
> decides which mic. mic pre, board, or FX box to buy by setting up
> careful ABX test.

First off, using ABX to do a straight-wire bypass test on an EFX box
is
ludicrous. doing an ABX box on a mic is ludicrous because almost all
mics
have audible variations in frequency response. An ABC/hr test makes
more
sense.

ABX tests on mixing boards are very likely to develop null results.

An ABX test of a mic preamp is almost as ludicrous as ABX tests of
microphones because the actual subject of interest is the combination
of a
preamp and a mic. Then considations related to mics apply.

IOW Bret, all of your examples are ludicrous.

>I don't know of a one. You probably don't either.

That's because your criteria was limited and your list of alternatives
ludicrous.

> Delusions of proferssionality noted.

I freely admit that I have no proferssionality, but since there is no
such
thing, I do not limited because of it.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>

Professionality, as distinct from professionalism, is precisely Arny's
key issue.

This is a majority opinion of working recordists, on the other hand:


what don't ya like?

I'm not a great fan of digital equipment.... nah, let's be honest...
I HATE DIGITAL!! I like the analog sound. Real sound.
Yes... I stopped fixing DATs (no not ADATs or DA88s), but I gotta say
that
for overall sound quality I love the warmth and fatness that
analog gives. I mean why does everyone have to use tube this and
vintage that to make their digital recordings "sound good"...(they
never do)
Ya'd think if the technology was up to snuff, it would already
sound good...but it doesn't. You get greater ear-fatigue with
digital. Ya get a thinner sound. All sorts of phasing.
Horrible frequency responce that even the worst Analog unit
would never never allow. But it's the current technology,
and it's never going away..... It's killing music in some senses.

Few now seem to be able to play their instruments skillfully
and with inspiration. Folks who are second-rate guitarists
now record their own drum tracks, because they can edit this and
loop that little part they accidential played correctly.

There's no 'air' in digital. No depth. No soul.

I used to cut records for CBS Records.... yep, cut masters on a
Skully Lathe with a Westrex cutting head. I love the way
analog tape sounds and how records - not CDs - sound.

The sampling Rate of analog is infinate! Eighteen Quadrillion Billion
Godzillaion times 10 to the billionth power. Just like the strings
on a guitar or violin. Just like the way your ears respond to sound.

Digital - even the best out there - sounds like crap when
compaired to the actual instrument. There's not one top
engineer that I know of who will say digital sounds as good as analog.

They just say "I don't care anymore.."


Note this is not the work of a professional writer but an offhand
comment by a working recordist. It's the same thing the people such as
Walter Sear have been saying for decades.

[Arny Krueger]

"Accessory Section 8" > wrote in message
oups.com


> This is a majority opinion of working recordists, on the
> other hand:

> what don't ya like?

> I'm not a great fan of digital equipment.... nah, let's
> be honest... I HATE DIGITAL!! I like the analog sound.

What's wrong with the sound of music, unmarred by analog artifacts?

> Real sound.

I beg to differ. I think that real sound is what you have at live
performances.

> for overall sound quality I love the warmth and fatness
> that analog gives.

In other words, sort of like real music slathered in sonic Crisco?

> I mean why does everyone have to use tube
> this and vintage that to make their digital recordings
> "sound good"...(they never do)


Agreed - tubed equipment with strong sonic identity of its own never do make
things sound good to people who use the sound of live music as heard by the
audience as their standard.

> Ya'd think if the technology was up to snuff, it would
> already sound good...but it doesn't.

This would be your technology, right?

> You get greater ear-fatigue with digital.

As if we never had problems with ear fatigue in the days when analog was all
we had.

> Ya get a thinner sound.

Yes, with digital you can get sound that isn't slathered with sonic Crisco.

> All sorts of phasing.

AKA vinyl tracing distortion.

> Horrible frequency responce that even the worst Analog
> unit would never never allow.

Actually even the best analog recording and playback media puts artificial
limits on dynamic range, particularly at the lowest and the highest audible
frequencies.

Vinyl has acute dynamic range problems above 5-10 KHz, and some popular
analog tape formats are even worse.

> But it's the current technology,
> and it's never going away.....

That's because its better, all things considered.

> It's killing music in some senses.

Well if your idea of music is slathered with sonic Crisco and then
deep-fried with vinyl tics and pops added, I guess not.

> Few now seem to be able to play their instruments
> skillfully and with inspiration.

How musicians play is hardly the fault of recording and distribution
formats. If you haven't noticed our culture is changing.

> Folks who are second-rate guitarists
> now record their own drum tracks, because they can edit this and
> loop that little part they accidential played correctly.

Yep, blame it all on Les Paul, who started that trend.

> There's no 'air' in digital. No depth. No soul.

Compared to what?

Good digital can pass a straight wire bypass test because it add far less
sonic crud. None of the popular analog formats can.

> I used to cut records for CBS Records.... yep, cut
> masters on a Skully Lathe with a Westrex cutting head. I
> love the way analog tape sounds and how records - not CDs - sound.

Ever make a cutting master from a mixdown master? What processing did you
do?

> The sampling Rate of analog is infinate!

Absolutely not true.

> Eighteen
> Quadrillion Billion Godzillaion times 10 to the billionth
> power. Just like the strings on a guitar or violin.
> Just like the way your ears respond to sound.

The human ear doesn't have infinte resolution, either.

> Digital - even the best out there - sounds like crap when
> compaired to the actual instrument.

Next time do a comparison, not a compairason.

> There's not one top
> engineer that I know of who will say digital sounds as
> good as analog.

Comes from having old twits for friends, I guess.

> They just say "I don't care anymore.."

And that is all the fault of digital?

> Note this is not the work of a professional writer but an
> offhand comment by a working recordist. It's the same
> thing the people such as Walter Sear have been saying for
> decades.

Luddutes unite! Let's try to overthrow modern technology! Everthing was
perfect in 1959! Not!

LOL!

"Accessory Section 8" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>
>>> > Building, listening, having other 'philes over to listen is fun.
>
>>> It's what people in the technological bush leagues do.
>
>>> > ABX is not. No one cares about ABX.
>>> ABX is the far more challenging test. It's what pros do. It's the one
>>> that
>>> may not tell you what you want to hear.
>> No Arny the pro's don't.
>
> Sure the pros do - the AES, the ITU, the MPEG, just to name a few.
>
>> No recording studio owner or recording, mixdown or mastering engineer
>> decides which mic. mic pre, board, or FX box to buy by setting up
>> careful ABX test.
>
> First off, using ABX to do a straight-wire bypass test on an EFX box
> is
> ludicrous. doing an ABX box on a mic is ludicrous because almost all
> mics
> have audible variations in frequency response. An ABC/hr test makes
> more
> sense.
>
> ABX tests on mixing boards are very likely to develop null results.
>
> An ABX test of a mic preamp is almost as ludicrous as ABX tests of
> microphones because the actual subject of interest is the combination
> of a
> preamp and a mic. Then considations related to mics apply.
>
> IOW Bret, all of your examples are ludicrous.
>
>>I don't know of a one. You probably don't either.
>
> That's because your criteria was limited and your list of alternatives
> ludicrous.
>
>> Delusions of proferssionality noted.
>
> I freely admit that I have no proferssionality, but since there is no
> such
> thing, I do not limited because of it.
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Professionality, as distinct from professionalism, is precisely Arny's
> key issue.
>
> This is a majority opinion of working recordists, on the other hand:
>
>
> what don't ya like?
>
> I'm not a great fan of digital equipment.... nah, let's be honest...
> I HATE DIGITAL!! I like the analog sound. Real sound.
> Yes... I stopped fixing DATs (no not ADATs or DA88s), but I gotta say
> that
> for overall sound quality I love the warmth and fatness that
> analog gives. I mean why does everyone have to use tube this and
> vintage that to make their digital recordings "sound good"...(they
> never do)
> Ya'd think if the technology was up to snuff, it would already
> sound good...but it doesn't.

For you. Many other people have a different opinion.

You get greater ear-fatigue with
> digital.

I don't. When they used to put codes on CD's showing how many of the steps
were analog and how many were digital, I found that the ones that sounded
best to me were the ones that had DDD on the package. Better sounding
percussion and an overall clarity that was very hard to achieve any other
way.

Ya get a thinner sound. All sorts of phasing.

Only when done by people who wanted it that way or who don't have the chops.

> Horrible frequency responce that even the worst Analog unit
> would never never allow.

Simply not true.

But it's the current technology,
> and it's never going away..... It's killing music in some senses.
>

What's killing music is the lack of talent or the talent that is sought out
is aimed at the 13-16 year olds, but that's been true for a long time.
Currently those people like stuff that I have no desire to listen to. There
is however a large amount of talent that was popular when I was in that
demographic as well as newer groups and artists that are available throught
other sources than just going to the record store.

> Few now seem to be able to play their instruments skillfully
> and with inspiration. Folks who are second-rate guitarists
> now record their own drum tracks, because they can edit this and
> loop that little part they accidential played correctly.
>
New technology offers the artist new ways to achieve their musical goals for
less money. It's not always to their advantage or ours.


> There's no 'air' in digital. No depth. No soul.
>
Nothing to do with digital.

> I used to cut records for CBS Records.... yep, cut masters on a
> Skully Lathe with a Westrex cutting head. I love the way
> analog tape sounds and how records - not CDs - sound.
>
You are of course entitled to your preference.

> The sampling Rate of analog is infinate! Eighteen Quadrillion Billion
> Godzillaion times 10 to the billionth power. Just like the strings
> on a guitar or violin. Just like the way your ears respond to sound.
>

Ahem.

> Digital - even the best out there - sounds like crap when
> compaired to the actual instrument. There's not one top
> engineer that I know of who will say digital sounds as good as analog.
>
Perhaps you just need to get out more.


> They just say "I don't care anymore.."
>
>
> Note this is not the work of a professional writer but an offhand
> comment by a working recordist. It's the same thing the people such as
> Walter Sear have been saying for decades.
>
I find that the most realistic sounding recordings are digital but done by
competent people. Listen to the music put out by labels like GRP or Chesky
and you might change your mind.

[Bret Ludwig]

>
> > Note this is not the work of a professional writer but an
> > offhand comment by a working recordist. It's the same
> > thing the people such as Walter Sear have been saying for
> > decades.
>
> Luddutes unite! Let's try to overthrow modern technology! Everthing was
> perfect in 1959! Not!
>

Overall, in some ways they were better and what's more people got up
in the morning and looked forward to new technology being better in
terms of serving people. I don't think people are as optimistic today,
and with good reason. People know that they are going to be stuck with
inferior standards forever. MP3 is now the standard for music quality,
which is much worse than flawed CD. Microsoft software is going to rule
forever. The people are stupid and getting stupider. At least living in
the past, dispite its flaws, is opting out of commodisumo culture. The
new cars and the new stereos and the new cameras and a lot of other
things aren't very good in a lot of ways and product disparagement is a
necessary analgesic. You are an old pimp for the regime of whoredom who
says the new is always better. Well, there are some improvements but
there are also deprovements. Good tube amps still sound good and are
easy to work on, good eficient big speakers need little power and offer
dynamics the crap in showrooms doesn't. Look at the cars. We would be
better off with 60s and 70s engines fitted with electronic ignition,
mechanical FI and a nine inch Ford rearend. But the best transmissions
as well as engines, the AOD and 700R4, are things of the past too. And
look at radios, a modern Icom or Winradio will choke on intermod and
background crap a Hammarlund or Collins will cut through with ease.

We are going backward and the irony is the old duffers that lived
through better times won't admit it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com
>>> Note this is not the work of a professional writer but
>>> an offhand comment by a working recordist. It's the same
>>> thing the people such as Walter Sear have been saying
>>> for decades.

>> Luddutes unite! Let's try to overthrow modern
>> technology! Everthing was perfect in 1959! Not!

> Overall, in some ways they were better

Huh?

The best distribution format we had was vinyl. In 1958 the vast majority of
all recordings and audio systems were mono. Speakers were being designed in
complete ignorance of Theil/Small. Nobody had a clue about what Xmax was.
There was hardly such a thing as bass. Speakers that produced an acoustic
watt in the living room were science fiction. All electronics were tubed.
60 wpc was a *huge* power amp. Reliable response above 8 Khz was a dream.

How bad does it have to get?

> and what's more
> people got up in the morning and looked forward to new
> technology being better in terms of serving people.

Huh?

>I don't think people are as optimistic today, and with good
> reason. People know that they are going to be stuck with
> inferior standards forever.

Inferior compared to 1958?

LOL!

> MP3 is now the standard for
> music quality,

Nope, audio CDs are.

> which is much worse than flawed CD.

AAC is a more efficient coding scheme than MP3 or AC-3 and it is mainstream.

> Microsoft software is going to rule forever.

That why Google runs their servers under WinXP. Not!

> The people are stupid and getting stupider.

Speak for yourself, Bret.

> At least living in the
> past, dispite its flaws, is opting out of commodisumo
> culture.

Whatever that means.

>The new cars and the new stereos and the new
> cameras and a lot of other things aren't very good in a
> lot of ways

Bret, you talk like an old man who lacks the faculties it takes to
appreciate their benefits.

> and product disparagement is a necessary
> analgesic.

Are you clinically depressed, Bret?

>You are an old pimp for the regime of whoredom
> who says the new is always better.

Horsefeathers. I see new technology in a pretty balanced light. For example,
I've always been critical of the audible flaws and inefficiencies of MP3 -
remember my digital music player is loaded with .wav files.

> Well, there are some
> improvements but there are also deprovements. Good tube
> amps still sound good and are easy to work on,

Plan B: Listen to the music on reliable SS equipment that is typically far
more capable of faithful reproduction and far more flexible.

> good eficient big speakers need little power

It's kinda intersting - it takes about 110 dB at the listening chair to
faithfully reproduce the sound of a exuberant live performance, and even
with 98 dB/w speakers it still takes 100 wpc to do that.

> and offer dynamics the crap in showrooms doesn't.

It's just a matter of going to the right showrooms.

>Look at the cars.
> We would be better off with 60s and 70s engines fitted
> with electronic ignition, mechanical FI and a nine inch
> Ford rearend.

Huh?

>But the best transmissions as well as
> engines, the AOD and 700R4, are things of the past too.

Note that AOD stands for automatic overdrive. IOW not a stick. Ditto for the
700R4. We're basically talking a woman's car here.

> And look at radios, a modern Icom or Winradio will choke
> on intermod and background crap a Hammarlund or Collins
> will cut through with ease.

Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, eh?


> We are going backward and the irony is the old duffers
> that lived through better times won't admit it.

Sounds like it is time for you to retire to an assisted care facility, Bret.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> ups.com
>>>> Note this is not the work of a professional writer but
>>>> an offhand comment by a working recordist. It's the same
>>>> thing the people such as Walter Sear have been saying
>>>> for decades.
>
>>> Luddutes unite! Let's try to overthrow modern
>>> technology! Everthing was perfect in 1959! Not!
>
>> Overall, in some ways they were better
>
> Huh?
>
> The best distribution format we had was vinyl. In 1958 the vast majority
> of all recordings and audio systems were mono. Speakers were being
> designed in complete ignorance of Theil/Small. Nobody had a clue about
> what Xmax was. There was hardly such a thing as bass. Speakers that
> produced an acoustic watt in the living room were science fiction. All
> electronics were tubed. 60 wpc was a *huge* power amp. Reliable response
> above 8 Khz was a dream.
>
> How bad does it have to get?
>
>> and what's more
>> people got up in the morning and looked forward to new
>> technology being better in terms of serving people.
>
> Huh?
>
>>I don't think people are as optimistic today, and with good
>> reason. People know that they are going to be stuck with
>> inferior standards forever.
>
> Inferior compared to 1958?
>
> LOL!
>
>> MP3 is now the standard for
>> music quality,
>
> Nope, audio CDs are.
>
>> which is much worse than flawed CD.
>
> AAC is a more efficient coding scheme than MP3 or AC-3 and it is
> mainstream.
>
>> Microsoft software is going to rule forever.
>
> That why Google runs their servers under WinXP. Not!
>
>> The people are stupid and getting stupider.
>
> Speak for yourself, Bret.
>
>> At least living in the
>> past, dispite its flaws, is opting out of commodisumo
>> culture.
>
> Whatever that means.
>
>>The new cars and the new stereos and the new
>> cameras and a lot of other things aren't very good in a
>> lot of ways
>
> Bret, you talk like an old man who lacks the faculties it takes to
> appreciate their benefits.
>
>> and product disparagement is a necessary
>> analgesic.
>
> Are you clinically depressed, Bret?
>
>>You are an old pimp for the regime of whoredom
>> who says the new is always better.
>
> Horsefeathers. I see new technology in a pretty balanced light. For
> example, I've always been critical of the audible flaws and inefficiencies
> of MP3 - remember my digital music player is loaded with .wav files.
>
>> Well, there are some
>> improvements but there are also deprovements. Good tube
>> amps still sound good and are easy to work on,
>
> Plan B: Listen to the music on reliable SS equipment that is typically far
> more capable of faithful reproduction and far more flexible.
>
>> good eficient big speakers need little power
>
> It's kinda intersting - it takes about 110 dB at the listening chair to
> faithfully reproduce the sound of a exuberant live performance, and even
> with 98 dB/w speakers it still takes 100 wpc to do that.
>
>> and offer dynamics the crap in showrooms doesn't.
>
> It's just a matter of going to the right showrooms.
>
>>Look at the cars.
>> We would be better off with 60s and 70s engines fitted
>> with electronic ignition, mechanical FI and a nine inch
>> Ford rearend.
>
> Huh?
>
>>But the best transmissions as well as
>> engines, the AOD and 700R4, are things of the past too.
>
> Note that AOD stands for automatic overdrive. IOW not a stick. Ditto for
> the 700R4. We're basically talking a woman's car here.
>
>> And look at radios, a modern Icom or Winradio will choke
>> on intermod and background crap a Hammarlund or Collins
>> will cut through with ease.
>
> Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, eh?
>
>
>> We are going backward and the irony is the old duffers
>> that lived through better times won't admit it.
>
> Sounds like it is time for you to retire to an assisted care facility,
> Bret.
>

C'mon Arny, admit it, even corn flakes arent't
as good as they used to be.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Bret Ludwig]

Arny Krueger wrote:
<<snip>>
>
> >Look at the cars.
> > We would be better off with 60s and 70s engines fitted
> > with electronic ignition, mechanical FI and a nine inch
> > Ford rearend.
>
> Huh?
>
> >But the best transmissions as well as
> > engines, the AOD and 700R4, are things of the past too.
>
> Note that AOD stands for automatic overdrive. IOW not a stick. Ditto for the
> 700R4. We're basically talking a woman's car here.

My daily driver is a utility-bed Chevy truck with a carbed 472 Caddy
and a Clark five speed. My fun car is a Miata with the stock five
speed. My current project vehicle is a Jeep, which is getting a Deutz
airdiesel and.....a five speed. But Americans love their slushboxes as
you well know.

> > And look at radios, a modern Icom or Winradio will choke
> > on intermod and background crap a Hammarlund or Collins
> > will cut through with ease.
>
> Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, eh?

No, surprisingly although solid state mixers and IF sections are a big
improvement tubes still make fine front ends in the HF band
(particularly things like WE 416s and 7077s) and remote cutoff pentodes
are still the smoothest acting AGC available as audio PROS paying the
price of a new Lexus for Fairchild limiters know. Hybrid radios can
work very well. The modern D_-to-daylight wonders have no dynamic range
and in affordable models usually phase noise out the ass. Serious DX
hams still use R-390s, Racals and Hammarlunds, sometimes with some
solid state modernization.