Re: why are salesmen such idiots?

[ec]

"SEVEN SEVILLE" > wrote in message
...
> Looking for an MP3 player for my recently acquired truck I went to the
local
> electronics store which shall remain nameless. I asked the the car stereo
guy
> (just last week he was working the television department) about MP3
players and
> he showed me a few and told me all this riff raff and suggested that I
would be
> happier with XM radio. I was like WTF, i outta just stick with the stock
AM/FM
> that's in there right now. Not much difference between XM and FM you know,
> they even had a sample in the showroom and you can hear the compression
> artyfacts.
>
> Does any of you own an car MP3 player?
>
> Who makes it?
> How much did it cost?
> How well does it play MP3's?
> How does the FM tuner come in?
>

Alpine 98 series. I have the 9815. It was $350 ( $499 MSRP ). It can play
48KHz 320Kbps MP3's max which is near CD quality. ( if someone tells you
128K is, smack them ). FM tuner works great.

[Joseph Oberlander]

ec wrote:

>
> Alpine 98 series. I have the 9815. It was $350 ( $499 MSRP ). It can play
> 48KHz 320Kbps MP3's max which is near CD quality. ( if someone tells you
> 128K is, smack them ). FM tuner works great.

Btw - rough comparison:

128K - AM stereo quality.
192K - FM quality.(both with no hiss or artifacts, though)
240K - Tape or Vinyl.
320K - Good tape - Metal or Hi-fi VCR or R-R.

The quality jump from 128K to 192K alone is shocking. 320K
is half CD raw data in size, though with VBR compression and
a good encoder, you can get about 3/4 CD quality for about 1/3
the size - a nice compromise, IMO.

I'd consider 192K to be a bare minimum for a noisy environment.

[thelizman]

ec wrote:
> if someone tells you
> 128K is, smack them )

Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
file than the bitrate.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

[thelizman]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Just wondering, but why is this crossposted to hell and back?

<non-audio newsgroups deleted>

> Btw - rough comparison:
>
> 128K - AM stereo quality.
> 192K - FM quality.(both with no hiss or artifacts, though)
> 240K - Tape or Vinyl.
> 320K - Good tape - Metal or Hi-fi VCR or R-R.

Very rough - I'm wondering how you came up with those figures. For
starters, AM is not available in stereo - there's not enough bandwidth
to encode both channels on a single carrier. Regardless, AM quality is
equivalent to about 40 kbps MP3. FM radio quality begins at a mere 80
Kbps, and CD quality needs only 113 kbps. Of course, this all depends on
at least the following factors:

a) The codec - lame is probably the best choice, unless you have more
money than disk space and brains, in which case you'll want the fhg
(Fraunhofer Group) codec (which I'm told is still freely available for
the taking if you can find an older version of MusicMatch Jukebox).

b) The amount of information - and ironically classical music needs less
space because there is less overall information than contemporary music.

c) The available system resources on the machine doing the encoding.

Regardless, MP3 stinks for discriminating ears. Use ogg - better quality
at lower bitrates. I've got 6 mb Ogg files which put their 14 mb MP3
counterparts to shame. They've come a long way since 99.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

[Z Gluhak]

Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes uses when
you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better than FM
to me.


> Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
> actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
> file than the bitrate.

[Mark Zarella]

> Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes uses
when
> you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better than
FM
> to me.

He was referring to the encoding algorithm. That is, the compression
algorithm used to MAKE mp3s from cds. What you're referring to is DEcoding
the "universal" mp3 code, which should (theoretically) be the same across
players.

[Z Gluhak]

> Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes uses
> when
> > you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better than
> FM
> > to me.
>
> He was referring to the encoding algorithm. That is, the compression
> algorithm used to MAKE mp3s from cds. What you're referring to is
DEcoding
> the "universal" mp3 code, which should (theoretically) be the same across
> players.
>
>

I understand - so was I. When you buy a song from Itunes or Napster, they
made the MP3. It's 128K. It sounds very close to cd quality.

I was wondering what codec, or encoding algorithm they use to make quality
Mp3s at 128K.

[thelizman]

<note: sci.electronics.repair removed from ng xpost list>

Z Gluhak wrote:
> Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes uses when
> you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better than FM
> to me.

I'm not quite sure on Napster, but iTunes uses AAC which is a very good
codec, probably the best lossy compression codec commercially available.
It's basically MP4 of sorts, the MPEG Layer 4 Advanced Audio Codec.

AAC includes Digital Rights Management, however. My view on DRM is that
anything which restricts your ability to portablize your music and adds
size to the file is detrimental. It just so happens that the same kid
who cracked the CSS DVD Encryption scheme (making it possible to backup
your DVD's, or rip them to your hard drive like I do) recently cracked
Apple's DRM on AAC.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/05/2358206&mode=thread&tid=141&tid=188



--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

[thelizman]

<note: sci.electronics.repair removed from ng xpost list>

Z Gluhak wrote:

> I understand - so was I. When you buy a song from Itunes or Napster, they
> made the MP3. It's 128K. It sounds very close to cd quality.
>
> I was wondering what codec, or encoding algorithm they use to make quality
> Mp3s at 128K.

See other post. They're probably passing AAC files off with an MP3
extension. There is also a fraunhofer pro codec which uses additional
spectral data to clean up the bass and treble. It can be played on MP3
player, but only players with the fhp codec will get the benefit of the
pro encoding scheme.

AFAIK, Apple uses AAC and probably just gives it the mp3 extension
instead of incrementing to mp4.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

[Adam Drew]

Z Gluhak wrote:

> > Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes uses
>
>>when
>>
>>>you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better than
>>
>>FM
>>
>>>to me.
>>
>>He was referring to the encoding algorithm. That is, the compression
>>algorithm used to MAKE mp3s from cds. What you're referring to is
>
> DEcoding
>
>>the "universal" mp3 code, which should (theoretically) be the same across
>>players.
>>
>>
>
>
> I understand - so was I. When you buy a song from Itunes or Napster, they
> made the MP3. It's 128K. It sounds very close to cd quality.
>
> I was wondering what codec, or encoding algorithm they use to make quality
> Mp3s at 128K.

Z Gluhak wrote:

> Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes
uses when
> you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better
than FM
> to me.

Apple offers a tool for the record companies to encode their own
files--the "Music Store Encoder Tool." I haven't run across a copy
yet... ;)

iTunes uses a 128 kbps bitrate, but they use AAC format instead of MP3.
They say it's roughly equivalent to a 160 kbps MP3, but on
complex/fast/detailed songs I've found that I want a higher bitrate.

Here's some info:
http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/aac/

Stuff like Jack Johnson or Norah Jones generally sounds fine to me; it's
fast punk rock--especially the drums and cymbals--that start sounding
"syrupy" to me. (That's the only way I know to describe it.)

From what I've read, Apple tries to rip the file from the original
studio masters/tapes which explains the high sound quality. If only
they'd offer songs encoded at 160 or 192 kbps...


HTH,
Adam

[Adam Drew]

thelizman wrote:
> <note: sci.electronics.repair removed from ng xpost list>
>
> Z Gluhak wrote:
>
>> Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes
>> uses when
>> you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better
>> than FM
>> to me.
>
>
> I'm not quite sure on Napster, but iTunes uses AAC which is a very good
> codec, probably the best lossy compression codec commercially available.
> It's basically MP4 of sorts, the MPEG Layer 4 Advanced Audio Codec.
>
> AAC includes Digital Rights Management, however. My view on DRM is that
> anything which restricts your ability to portablize your music and adds
> size to the file is detrimental. It just so happens that the same kid
> who cracked the CSS DVD Encryption scheme (making it possible to backup
> your DVD's, or rip them to your hard drive like I do) recently cracked
> Apple's DRM on AAC.
>
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/05/2358206&mode=thread&tid=141&tid=188

AFAIK, only the songs purchased from the iTunes store have the FairPlay
DRM built in. If you set iTunes to rip your own music to AAC files, it
applies no copy protection. Apparently the new version rips to AAC by
default; I disabled it because my car player only plays MP3s...and I'm
pretty sure iTunes won't convert an AAC file to MP3 on-the-fly when
burning an MP3 disk (not that I'd want to).

The extension on a ripped file is .m4a
The extension on a bought file is .m4p

Adam

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Adam Drew" > wrote in message
...

>
> Stuff like Jack Johnson or Norah Jones generally sounds fine to me; it's
> fast punk rock--especially the drums and cymbals--that start sounding
> "syrupy" to me. (That's the only way I know to describe it.)
>

Well, that sounds like cd quality to me!




----== 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 =---

[Joseph Oberlander]

thelizman wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
> Just wondering, but why is this crossposted to hell and back?
>
> <non-audio newsgroups deleted>
>
>> Btw - rough comparison:
>>
>> 128K - AM stereo quality.
>> 192K - FM quality.(both with no hiss or artifacts, though)
>> 240K - Tape or Vinyl.
>> 320K - Good tape - Metal or Hi-fi VCR or R-R.
>
>
> Very rough - I'm wondering how you came up with those figures. For
> starters, AM is not available in stereo - there's not enough bandwidth
> to encode both channels on a single carrier.

Yes there is. There IS an AM stereo. MAny music stations broadcast
in it and a few radios still have a botton for it. It's very compressed.

[Joseph Oberlander]

thelizman wrote:

> ec wrote:
>
>> if someone tells you
>> 128K is, smack them )
>
>
> Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
> actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
> file than the bitrate.

Once you know what to listen for, it's plainly obvious which is which.
You can do this yourself, btw - encode a track and then play the CD
right after it. For instance, on a Steve Morse song, you couldn't
hear what type of drum heads or cymbals he was usin at anything
less that 192K, while on the CD - it was clear(as each majotr brand
has a different sound, just like synths/keyboards/pianos do)

The "syrupy" description is perfect, IMO - the syllabance and
ring and crispness slowly degrades until it sounds like very
clean FM or AM radio if you push it enough. By the time you get
to 128K, a CD to 128K side-by-side comparison is painfully
revealing.

[Joseph Oberlander]

thelizman wrote:

> Very rough - I'm wondering how you came up with those figures. For
> starters, AM is not available in stereo

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kevtronics/usa.txt

Yes, it exists. You just need a receiver with a stereo AM
decoder chip in it, much like how FM stereo wasn't widely
implimented when it came out.

Actually, AM stereo predates FM stereo. Sounds excellent, btw,
though not FM quality.

[thelizman]

<Note: once again I have manually removed sci.electronics.repair because
it is irrelevent to the discussion, and because others don't have the
common sense to remove it themselves>

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> Once you know what to listen for,

Aah...yeah...at this point allow me to point out you are making sweeping
generalizations, and backing them up with your own anectdotal
perceptions. The fact of the matter is that with a pure source, MP3
audio is superior to Redbook CDDA. CDDA or CDA is in fact only recorded
at 174.6 kb/s using PCM without compression. The equivalent to this is a
113 kb/s MP3 file. Given two audio tracks recorded under these
conditions from a pure source, you will not be able to tell a difference
no matter how good you think your ears are. And believe me, my ears are
very good. I know what to look for.

> The "syrupy" description is perfect, IMO - the syllabance and
> ring and crispness slowly degrades until it sounds like very
> clean FM or AM radio if you push it enough. By the time you get
> to 128K, a CD to 128K side-by-side comparison is painfully
> revealing.

And is this MP3 file generated off a CD, the same CD we are comparing it
to? And what codec did you use? Is joint stereo enabled? Obviously under
best case conditions an MP3 will be equal to or less than the CD it was
ripped from, and generally it will be inferior because of generic codec
settings which compromise quality for file size.

Do the comparison youself. Find an SACD and rip it to a CDA file, and
also rip it from SACD to MP3 @ 128 kb/s. Use whatever you like, but I
recommend some Baroque chamber music or light jazz. Now find those
artifacts, if you can, and compare them to the CD artifacts.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

[thelizman]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> thelizman wrote:
>
>> Very rough - I'm wondering how you came up with those figures. For
>> starters, AM is not available in stereo
>
>
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kevtronics/usa.txt
>
> Yes, it exists. You just need a receiver with a stereo AM
> decoder chip in it, much like how FM stereo wasn't widely
> implimented when it came out.
>
> Actually, AM stereo predates FM stereo. Sounds excellent, btw,
> though not FM quality.
>

You know, now that you mention it I remember seeing AM stereo in an old
GM. I was right that AM can't handle the stereo on the carrier, so I was
fascinated to learn the little quadratic trick they use to encode the
information. You'll have to forgive - I didn't care about electronics in
the 80s, I was more concerned with scooby doo.

Man...to be able to listen to the Maharushie in Stereo...that would rock.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

[Joseph Oberlander]

thelizman wrote:

>> The "syrupy" description is perfect, IMO - the syllabance and
>> ring and crispness slowly degrades until it sounds like very
>> clean FM or AM radio if you push it enough. By the time you get
>> to 128K, a CD to 128K side-by-side comparison is painfully
>> revealing.
>
>
> And is this MP3 file generated off a CD, the same CD we are comparing it
> to?

Yes.

> And what codec did you use? Is joint stereo enabled?

Several. Joint stereo and all the goodies enabled.
No contest which sounded better. Compression causes losses by
definition, so it cannot sound better than the original.

> Do the comparison youself. Find an SACD and rip it to a CDA file, and
> also rip it from SACD to MP3 @ 128 kb/s. Use whatever you like, but I
> recommend some Baroque chamber music or light jazz. Now find those
> artifacts, if you can, and compare them to the CD artifacts.

BT,DT. Terribly easy to tell which is CD and which is 128K, even
in a blind test. Perhaps your hearing isn't as well trained as
you think it is.

[Joseph Oberlander]

thelizman wrote:


> You know, now that you mention it I remember seeing AM stereo in an old
> GM. I was right that AM can't handle the stereo on the carrier, so I was
> fascinated to learn the little quadratic trick they use to encode the
> information. You'll have to forgive - I didn't care about electronics in
> the 80s, I was more concerned with scooby doo.
>
> Man...to be able to listen to the Maharushie in Stereo...that would rock.

Sony makes a nice tabletop AM stereo capable radio.
That site I listed also has a list of stations in the U.S.

[thelizman]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> thelizman wrote:
>
> BT,DT. Terribly easy to tell which is CD and which is 128K, even
> in a blind test. Perhaps your hearing isn't as well trained as
> you think it is.

I think your hearing is more trained in your mind than it really is.

You admitted that you were comparing a MP3 file to the CDit was ripped
off of - that's a no brainer, theres always going to be some loss. CDs
aren't usually all that great to begin with.

Don't worry - it's not uncommon for people to imagine that they're
hearing something they're not.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

[ec]

"thelizman" > wrote in message
...
> ec wrote:
> > if someone tells you
> > 128K is, smack them )
>
> Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
> actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
> file than the bitrate.
>
>
> --
> thelizman
>
> teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
> teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
> "It's about the music, stupid"
>
> This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
> other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
> permission of the author is forbidden.

Qualify this, please. Mp3 is, by definition, lossy compression. How can an
Mp3 exceed the source signal? I don't believe it can.

[ec]

"thelizman" > wrote in message
...
> ec wrote:
> > if someone tells you
> > 128K is, smack them )
>
> Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
> actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
> file than the bitrate.
>
>
> --
> thelizman
>
> teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
> teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
> "It's about the music, stupid"
>
> This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
> other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
> permission of the author is forbidden.

BTW, I listen to rock/metal. I use EAC and Lame using the "insane" preset. I
encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K mp3
of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw CD.

[Mark Zarella]

> > This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
> > other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
> > permission of the author is forbidden.
>
> BTW, I listen to rock/metal. I use EAC and Lame using the "insane" preset.
I
> encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
> listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K mp3
> of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw CD.

That's curious. How did you perform the test?

[ec]

"Mark Zarella" > wrote in message
...
> > > This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
> > > other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
> > > permission of the author is forbidden.
> >
> > BTW, I listen to rock/metal. I use EAC and Lame using the "insane"
preset.
> I
> > encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
> > listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K
mp3
> > of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw
CD.
>
> That's curious. How did you perform the test?
>
>

Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked the
best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.

[Mark Zarella]

> > That's curious. How did you perform the test?
> >
> >
>
> Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked
the
> best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.

So not only were you able to distinguish between the two, but you could also
judge which was better? Interesting. How many trials? What was your
"score"? What music in particular?

[thelizman]

ec wrote:

> Qualify this, please. Mp3 is, by definition, lossy compression. How can an
> Mp3 exceed the source signal? I don't believe it can.

I never said it could. In fact, I pointed out that if you're listening
to an MP3 ripped from a CD, then you cannot expect it to be better than
the CD. But if you rip an MP3 and CDA file from the same source
material, then the MP3 is capable of higher quality at lower bitrates.
CDA is itself a lossy compression as well.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[thelizman]

Mark Zarella wrote:
>>encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
>>listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K mp3
>>of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw CD.
>
> That's curious. How did you perform the test?

It's obvious: I ripped the file from CD, then blinfolded himself. I get
the feeling the cheese has slipped of this guys logic cracker.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[thelizman]

ec wrote:
>
> Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked the
> best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.

So, let me see if I get this straight. You ripped an MP3 off a CD, then
you burned the MP3 to a CD (presumably as an MP3 file), then had the
wife swap them out, and you think this qualifies as an objective
listening test of the quality of an MP3 files? Hello, MCFLY, you can't
expect the MP3 to be the same as or better than its source material,
especially when played back on an Alpine. Look on page 11 of your manual
about the center page..."This device may not play back correctly
depending on sampling rates".

There's a white rabbit with a pocke****ch in this story somewhere.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[James Sweet]

"Mark Zarella" > wrote in message
...
> > > That's curious. How did you perform the test?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked
> the
> > best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.
>
> So not only were you able to distinguish between the two, but you could
also
> judge which was better? Interesting. How many trials? What was your
> "score"? What music in particular?
>
>

Well if one sounded better to him than the other I see no reason he
shouldn't stick with it, who really cares, every person will have their own
preference as to which sounds "better", it's very subjective.

[ec]

"thelizman" > wrote in message
...
> ec wrote:
> >
> > Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked
the
> > best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.
>
> So, let me see if I get this straight. You ripped an MP3 off a CD, then
> you burned the MP3 to a CD (presumably as an MP3 file), then had the
> wife swap them out, and you think this qualifies as an objective
> listening test of the quality of an MP3 files? Hello, MCFLY, you can't
> expect the MP3 to be the same as or better than its source material,
> especially when played back on an Alpine. Look on page 11 of your manual
> about the center page..."This device may not play back correctly
> depending on sampling rates".
>
> There's a white rabbit with a pocke****ch in this story somewhere.
>
> --
> thelizman
>
> teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
> teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
> "It's about the music, stupid"
>
> This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
> other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
> is forbidden.

Hey flamer:

quote:

"Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
file than the bitrate.
"

The Alpine plays them back fine, as good as LOSSY COMPRESSED sources can
sound.

[ec]

"thelizman" > wrote in message
...
> Mark Zarella wrote:
> >>encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
> >>listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K
mp3
> >>of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw
CD.
> >
> > That's curious. How did you perform the test?
>
> It's obvious: I ripped the file from CD, then blinfolded himself. I get
> the feeling the cheese has slipped of this guys logic cracker.
>
> --
> thelizman
>
> teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
> teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
> "It's about the music, stupid"
>
> This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
> other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
> is forbidden.

You are a complete idiot and NG flamer. I cannot believe you can't
understand the FACT that COMPRESSION COMPROMISES QUALITY. You going to tell
me that a JPEG looks better than an origanl TIFF next?

[Joseph Oberlander]

thelizman wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>> thelizman wrote:
>>
>> BT,DT. Terribly easy to tell which is CD and which is 128K, even
>> in a blind test. Perhaps your hearing isn't as well trained as
>> you think it is.
>
>
> I think your hearing is more trained in your mind than it really is.
>
> You admitted that you were comparing a MP3 file to the CDit was ripped
> off of - that's a no brainer, theres always going to be some loss. CDs
> aren't usually all that great to begin with.

Since human hearing limits are exceeded by normal CD quality, what
does qualify as "great to begin with", then?

[Joseph Oberlander]

ec wrote:

> You are a complete idiot and NG flamer. I cannot believe you can't
> understand the FACT that COMPRESSION COMPROMISES QUALITY. You going to tell
> me that a JPEG looks better than an origanl TIFF next?

He'll just claim that the TIFF is lossy compression that isn't as good
as if you used JPEG to begin with. Lol.

BTW - I have taken 24/96 recordings and downsampled them to CD quality
and also MP3 and it still was a no-brainer win for the CD. I really
did research this in depth as a musician several years ago - and
recently re-did the tests this last suimmer to see if things had
improved.

The quick answer - not really. 128K now sounds like 192K did a
couple of years ago, thanks to good encoders, but it's still
got miles to go before reaching the level of CD.

[Mark Zarella]

> Well if one sounded better to him than the other I see no reason he
> shouldn't stick with it, who really cares, every person will have their
own
> preference as to which sounds "better", it's very subjective.

It's well and good if it's subjective. What's important is identifying
whether or not it's REAL, and then identifying the source of the distortion.

[Mark Zarella]

> Hey flamer:
>
> quote:
>
> "Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
> actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
> file than the bitrate.
> "
>
> The Alpine plays them back fine, as good as LOSSY COMPRESSED sources can
> sound.

"Lossy compressed sources" can, in theory, sound perfect. That is,
indistinguishable from CD. So the question is where does the departure from
the theory come from?

[thelizman]

ec wrote:

> Hey flamer:
>
> quote:
>
> "Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
> actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
> file than the bitrate.
> "

Riiiight, but once again your IGNORING the concept of the source
material. Any idiot knows that a copy of a copy cannot be as good as the
original, much less better. So when you COPY the CD which is a COPY of
the source material, the COPY you made generally won't even be as good
as the CD, much less the original source. The only MP3s you've likely
ever listened to were ripped by some hack with a generic codec from a
standard CD, and you think this justifies your bull**** observations of
the MP3 format.

> The Alpine plays them back fine, as good as LOSSY COMPRESSED sources can
> sound.

CDs are lossy compressed sources. What do you think Pulse Code
Modulation is? And all lossy compression means is that data is discarded
- it doesn't even concern itself with whether the data is relevent.

Just a question - would you rather have kimber or radio shack cables on
your home setup?

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[thelizman]

James Sweet wrote:
>
>
> Well if one sounded better to him than the other I see no reason he
> shouldn't stick with it, who really cares, every person will have their own
> preference as to which sounds "better", it's very subjective.

The problem is that the assertion here is that MP3 is inferior to CDA.
I'm trying to get this guy to reexamine his prejudices. MP3 is far
superior to CDA, hes just never actually heard an MP3 encoded from
original source before. Hes making his judgement off MP3s that have been
copied from copies of the source, and he is under the erroneous
assumption that because these second hand copies don't sound as good as
the CD, that MP3 is inferior to CDA.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[thelizman]

ec wrote:
>
> You are a complete idiot and NG flamer. I cannot believe you can't
> understand the FACT that COMPRESSION COMPROMISES QUALITY. You going to tell
> me that a JPEG looks better than an origanl TIFF next?

Compression does NOT inherently compromise quality. What I'm trying to
drive home to you is that your prejudices are based on misinformation
and empirical evidence, not on fact.

FACT: You have never heard an MP3 encoded from the original source
material. Ergo, you cannot make a valid comparison between MP3 and CDA.

FACT: Every MP3 you have ever heard is a copy of a copy, and you think
MP3 is inferior based on this handicap.

FACT: You can't do math - CDA = 176.4 kb/s PCM @ 44.1 khz. MP3 of the
same quality is 113 kb/s MP3 @ 44.0 khz. CD Audio is lossy compression
too. MP3 is simply a more efficient compression algorithm.

FACT: CDA is NOT a reference standard. Thats why formats like SACD and
LP still exist.

FACT: You have a tin ear compromised by your pscyhoacoustic perceptual
prejudices.

FACT: You have argued plattitudes and subjectives, I have presented
FACT, but you still argue.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[thelizman]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> thelizman wrote:
>
> Since human hearing limits are exceeded by normal CD quality, what
> does qualify as "great to begin with", then?

Where did you ever hear this tripe? CDA is limited to 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
While some people are within that limit, some people are outside.
Besides which, sound does consist of frequencies outside of that range.
Those frequencies do mix with and affect frequencies within the standard
range of human hearing. CD audio also has a limited dynamic range (~110
db) compared to human hearing. While this is far better than tape, it is
nowhere near human hearing limits in terms of dR.

Realize that CDA is nothing more than a 25 year old lossy compression
format developed to standardized audio CD formats and enable the use of
CDs for mass market purposes. It is not the best, it is not a reference
standard, and it is not better than human hearing. Thats why things like
SACD, AAC, MP3, FLAC, SHN, and OGG were developed. Heck, thats why
audiophiles still treasure vinyl - its about the only way to get a true
to life reproduction of an audio program without being there.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[Eddie Runner]

I am not sure I agree with that statement..!

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> Since human hearing limits are exceeded by normal CD quality,

[Mark Zarella]

> > Well if one sounded better to him than the other I see no reason he
> > shouldn't stick with it, who really cares, every person will have their
own
> > preference as to which sounds "better", it's very subjective.
>
> The problem is that the assertion here is that MP3 is inferior to CDA.
> I'm trying to get this guy to reexamine his prejudices. MP3 is far
> superior to CDA, hes just never actually heard an MP3 encoded from
> original source before. Hes making his judgement off MP3s that have been
> copied from copies of the source, and he is under the erroneous
> assumption that because these second hand copies don't sound as good as
> the CD, that MP3 is inferior to CDA.

While I agree with the sentiment, I'm not so sure I would call mp3 "far
superior" to CDA. Perhaps the standards, yes (and even then, it's not FAR
superior by any stretch). But the implementation tends not to be on par,
because the same amount of filtering is typically used and the introduction
of artifacts tends to be slightly greater in mp3.

[Joseph Oberlander]

thelizman wrote:

> Compression does NOT inherently compromise quality. What I'm trying to
> drive home to you is that your prejudices are based on misinformation
> and empirical evidence, not on fact.

FACT: MP3 is by definition a lossy compression method as opposed to
lossless compression methods that exist.

> FACT: You have never heard an MP3 encoded from the original source
> material. Ergo, you cannot make a valid comparison between MP3 and CDA.

They may have not, but I have. MP3 is not as good because CD exceeds the
ability of humans to hear(unless they REALLY mangle the processing/mixing),
while MP3 creates artifacts that are discernable, if barely. That you
can hear this at all while you cannot with a CD - that ends the discussion
right there.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Eddie Runner wrote:

> I am not sure I agree with that statement..!
>
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>
>>Since human hearing limits are exceeded by normal CD quality,

Well, barring the .01% that can hear beyond 20Hkz at age 30...

[Mark Zarella]

> > Compression does NOT inherently compromise quality. What I'm trying to
> > drive home to you is that your prejudices are based on misinformation
> > and empirical evidence, not on fact.
>
> FACT: MP3 is by definition a lossy compression method as opposed to
> lossless compression methods that exist.

As Lizard said, "lossyness" does not necessarily compromise quality,
especially when the losses are below threshold.

The problem with mp3 is NOT the losses. It's the additional artifacts
introduced. While it's true that they can be significant (read: audible),
this isn't always the case.

[Eddie Runner]

But dont forget about DYNAMIC RANGE!!!

A CD can definatly NOT keep up with the
humans ability to handle dynamic range.... In the
case of dynamic range the CD is VERY limited
in comparison to human hearing...

So the statement below would be WRONG!

There is much more to sound reproduction than
just frequency response....!!

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> Eddie Runner wrote:
>
> > I am not sure I agree with that statement..!
> >
> > Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Since human hearing limits are exceeded by normal CD quality,
>
> Well, barring the .01% that can hear beyond 20Hkz at age 30...

[thelizman]

Mark Zarella wrote:
>
> While I agree with the sentiment, I'm not so sure I would call mp3 "far
> superior" to CDA. Perhaps the standards, yes (and even then, it's not FAR
> superior by any stretch). But the implementation tends not to be on par,
> because the same amount of filtering is typically used and the introduction
> of artifacts tends to be slightly greater in mp3.

Of course there is "in theory" and "in practice". In actual practice,
most stuff found on MP3 - even commercially - is a second or third
source from the original copy (even when you get a [DDD] CD). The
qauntization errors build up in a way
that isn't perceived by the ear until the last copy (the straw that
broke the camels back if you will). However, its worth nothing that MPEG
audio layer 1 was the original standard for DVD prior to the move to
AC3. MP3 is two generations improved upon MP1.

One of the other crippling factors for MP3 is the inefficiency of most
codecs. In order to make MP3 practical on a Pentium class processor (say
of about 233 Mhz), most encoders eliminated aspects of the algorithm
that efficiently encode the material, such as VBR. By now, a proper
codec such as Fraunhofer Pro married with a 1 GHz processor and plenty
of RAM is capable of producing true MP3 quality files. Alas, the FGH-Pro
codec is proprietary, and many of the free ones (lame, xing, etc) still
aren't very good. But I stick to my assertion. If you honestly (added
because some people think using crappy decks and homemade CDs you cut on
Windows and have your wife swapping out is a fair comparison) compare an
MP3 file encoded at 113 kbps to a redbook CDA file, you will not find a
difference. Perhaps I should set up a Sound Challenge like someone did
for amplifiers ten years ago (but then, there are still fools who
believe that they can tell the difference between a coustic amp and a jl
amp under the same conditions).

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[thelizman]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> MP3 is not as good because CD exceeds the
> ability of humans to hear(unless they REALLY mangle the processing/mixing),
> while MP3 creates artifacts that are discernable, if barely. That you
> can hear this at all while you cannot with a CD - that ends the discussion
> right there.

You're right. Any idiot who claims that a 'CD exceeds the ability of
humans to hear' is not worth arguing with. CDs are far inferior to human
acuity.

Why do I suffer the fools? *Plonk*


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[thelizman]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Eddie Runner wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure I agree with that statement..!
>
> Well, barring the .01% that can hear beyond 20Hkz at age 30...
>

And what of the 99% of people who can percieve changes loudness in
excess of 110 db? That is the limit to a CDs dynamic range. I know a
little old lady with a bronco that plays at 174.5 db of SPL - no CD can
reproduce that kind of range. You also continue to be painfully ignorant
of what PCM does to an analog signal. Most people who listen to
classical music are familiar with the insufficient capability of CDA
when it comes to reproducing soft passages. Those people prefer vinyl
over CD for its ability to reproduce the nuances.

You must be crossposting from rec.audio.opinion, because you sure as
hell don't know rec.audio.facts.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eddie Runner" > wrote in message

> But dont forget about DYNAMIC RANGE!!!
>
> A CD can definatly NOT keep up with the
> humans ability to handle dynamic range.... In the
> case of dynamic range the CD is VERY limited
> in comparison to human hearing...

However the CD format can easily keep up with they dynamic range of any
real-world music. While the CD format has about 93 dB worth of dynamic
range, there simply aren't any normal musical recordings with more than
about 75 dB worth of dynamic range.

[Eddie Runner]

We were not comparing a CD to other recorded music

We were comparing CD to human hearing!!

The human ear has an AMAZING dynamic range that
no CD can come close to replicating.....

Eddie Runner

Arny Krueger wrote:

> However the CD format can easily keep up with they dynamic range of any
> real-world music. While the CD format has about 93 dB worth of dynamic
> range, there simply aren't any normal musical recordings with more than
> about 75 dB worth of dynamic range.

[TCS]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:07:29 GMT, Eddie Runner > wrote:
>We were not comparing a CD to other recorded music

>We were comparing CD to human hearing!!

>The human ear has an AMAZING dynamic range that
>no CD can come close to replicating.....

Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same room,
one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the other playing
the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be able to hear the
quiet passage at all.

[MZ]

> >The human ear has an AMAZING dynamic range that
> >no CD can come close to replicating.....
>
> Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same room,
> one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the other playing
> the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be able to hear the
> quiet passage at all.

What you're referring to is masking rather than dynamic range.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Mark Zarella wrote:

>>>Compression does NOT inherently compromise quality. What I'm trying to
>>>drive home to you is that your prejudices are based on misinformation
>>>and empirical evidence, not on fact.
>>
>>FACT: MP3 is by definition a lossy compression method as opposed to
>>lossless compression methods that exist.
>
>
> As Lizard said, "lossyness" does not necessarily compromise quality,
> especially when the losses are below threshold.
>
> The problem with mp3 is NOT the losses. It's the additional artifacts
> introduced. While it's true that they can be significant (read: audible),
> this isn't always the case.

Yeah, I guess if you are recording soething simple like DEVO with
a couple of synths and some vocals, you'll not notice anything.
But you move to something with a fast tempo and lots of instruments,
and suddenly it gets the audio equivalent of "jaggies" just like how
JPEG does.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Eddie Runner wrote:

> We were not comparing a CD to other recorded music
>
> We were comparing CD to human hearing!!

As compared to MP3. Remeber that. Sure, real life can get
so loud that you make yourself deaf, but honestly, who records
at that level? Nobody.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eddie Runner" > wrote in message


> We were not comparing a CD to other recorded music

What's wrong with comparing apples to apples?

> We were comparing CD to human hearing!!

That would not be a comparison of two comparable things.

> The human ear has an AMAZING dynamic range that
> no CD can come close to replicating.....

Neither can any listening room, recording studio, concert hall etc., etc.

Furthermore, common estimates of the dynamic range of human hearing are
themselves flawed. They typically compare the threshold of audibility
(roughly 0 dB) to some loud sound, perhaps a sound at the threshold of pain
(ca. 130 dB) or ear damage (ca. 115 dB). Trouble is, if you listen to sounds
at those level, the ear's threshold of audibility increases tremendously. It
is no longer 0 dB or anything like it. In the context of hearing sounds that
are presented together or in reasonably quick succession, the ear has no
more than 70 dB worth of dynamic range. In many cases the ear's dynamic
range is very much less than 70 dB.

[Arny Krueger]

"MZ" > wrote in message


>>> The human ear has an AMAZING dynamic range that
>>> no CD can come close to replicating.....

>> Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same
>> room, one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the
>> other playing the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be
>> able to hear the quiet passage at all.

> What you're referring to is masking rather than dynamic range.

Masking is one of several practical limits to the dynamic range of the ear.

As I point out in another post, comparing the threshold of audibility to
peak sound levels is not valid.

For one thing, practical listening rooms, recording studios, and concert
halls have audible background noise. There's no need for media for
distributing music to do much more than give good reproduction of the
background noise.

[MZ]

> >> Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same
> >> room, one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the
> >> other playing the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be
> >> able to hear the quiet passage at all.
>
> > What you're referring to is masking rather than dynamic range.
>
> Masking is one of several practical limits to the dynamic range of the
ear.
>
> As I point out in another post, comparing the threshold of audibility to
> peak sound levels is not valid.

Well, it's valid in that the dynamic range depends on more than just
masking. I think the implication has been that the quiet passages suffer as
a result of limited dynamic range (independent of masking). However, I have
no reason to doubt your claims that the bottleneck is the recording
procedure rather than the CD standard.

[MZ]

> > As Lizard said, "lossyness" does not necessarily compromise quality,
> > especially when the losses are below threshold.
> >
> > The problem with mp3 is NOT the losses. It's the additional artifacts
> > introduced. While it's true that they can be significant (read:
audible),
> > this isn't always the case.
>
> Yeah, I guess if you are recording soething simple like DEVO with
> a couple of synths and some vocals, you'll not notice anything.
> But you move to something with a fast tempo and lots of instruments,
> and suddenly it gets the audio equivalent of "jaggies" just like how
> JPEG does.

I think you're overstating the degree to which the differences become
audible.

[Arny Krueger]

"MZ" > wrote in message

>>>> Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same
>>>> room, one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the
>>>> other playing the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't
>>>> be able to hear the quiet passage at all.
>>
>>> What you're referring to is masking rather than dynamic range.

>> Masking is one of several practical limits to the dynamic range of
>> the ear.

>> As I point out in another post, comparing the threshold of
>> audibility to peak sound levels is not valid.

> Well, it's valid in that the dynamic range depends on more than just
> masking.

Of course. But any analysis of dynamic range that blithely ignores masking
is arguably incomplete. OTOH, if a proper analysis says that masking isn't
an issue in this case, well that would be pretty easy to deal with, right?

> I think the implication has been that the quiet passages
> suffer as a result of limited dynamic range (independent of masking).

That's a hypothesis that can be tested.

I've tried to test it a number of ways - analysis of commercial recordings
and recordings I've made myself in a number of different venues.. In no case
is the dynamic range of a real-world quiet passage (or even just the "room
tone") limited in any practical way by the dynamic range limits of the CD
format.

> However, I have no reason to doubt your claims that the bottleneck is
> the recording procedure rather than the CD standard.

Thanks!

[Arny Krueger]

"MZ" > wrote in message


>>> As Lizard said, "lossyness" does not necessarily compromise quality,
>>> especially when the losses are below threshold.

>>> The problem with mp3 is NOT the losses. It's the additional
>>> artifacts introduced. While it's true that they can be significant
>>> (read: audible), this isn't always the case.

Some of the artifacts are the results of losses and some of them are
spurious responses.

>> Yeah, I guess if you are recording soething simple like DEVO with
>> a couple of synths and some vocals, you'll not notice anything.

Actually, solo voices and instruments can be among the most revealing tests.

>> But you move to something with a fast tempo and lots of instruments,
>> and suddenly it gets the audio equivalent of "jaggies" just like how
>> JPEG does.

I'm not sure what that means.

> I think you're overstating the degree to which the differences become
> audible.

I think he's not looking at real-world evidence.

[thelizman]

TCS wrote:
> Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same room,
> one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the other playing
> the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be able to hear the
> quiet passage at all.

You mean playing both at the same time? Well no **** sherlock! But
that's not what dynamic range is. Dynamic Range is the difference
between the loudest and softest sound able to be resolved. Technically
speaking, the human hear has infinite dynamic range at least once! On
repeated occasions, most bassheads can tell the difference beween 10 db
of SPL and 140 db of SPL (not an uncommon number on the car audio
circuit). That range beats CDs by 20 db.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[thelizman]

MZ wrote:
>>Yeah, I guess if you are recording soething simple like DEVO with
>>a couple of synths and some vocals, you'll not notice anything.
>>But you move to something with a fast tempo and lots of instruments,
>>and suddenly it gets the audio equivalent of "jaggies" just like how
>>JPEG does.
>
>
> I think you're overstating the degree to which the differences become
> audible.

I think you're being too kind. This yahoo knows less about digital
imaging than he does about digital audio.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>>>>The problem with mp3 is NOT the losses. It's the additional
>>>>artifacts introduced. While it's true that they can be significant
>>>>(read: audible), this isn't always the case.
>
> Some of the artifacts are the results of losses and some of them are
> spurious responses.

That kind of bothers me as well - some things you think should be simple
to encode fail miserably, like organ and flute and madrigals, while some
things seem to do very well.

My guess is the compression algorythms are like JPEG - they have a
preference for certain types of waveforms/data - so that for instance,
in a typical digital camera, Water and sky comes out great, but
grass almost always has jaggies.

>
>>>Yeah, I guess if you are recording soething simple like DEVO with
>>>a couple of synths and some vocals, you'll not notice anything.
>
> Actually, solo voices and instruments can be among the most revealing tests.

True - but a 16 or 32 bit synth is one thing MP3 encodes well.

>
>>>But you move to something with a fast tempo and lots of instruments,
>>>and suddenly it gets the audio equivalent of "jaggies" just like how
>>>JPEG does.
>
> I'm not sure what that means.

Both are compression methods - and both cause noticeable problems and
artifacts if you bother to listen/look at specific areas.

>>I think you're overstating the degree to which the differences become
>>audible.
>
> I think he's not looking at real-world evidence.

[TCS]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:36:01 -0500, thelizman > wrote:
>TCS wrote:
>> Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same room,
>> one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the other playing
>> the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be able to hear the
>> quiet passage at all.

>You mean playing both at the same time? Well no **** sherlock! But
>that's not what dynamic range is. Dynamic Range is the difference
>between the loudest and softest sound able to be resolved. Technically
>speaking, the human hear has infinite dynamic range at least once! On
>repeated occasions, most bassheads can tell the difference beween 10 db
>of SPL and 140 db of SPL (not an uncommon number on the car audio
>circuit). That range beats CDs by 20 db.

If you want 140db on a CD, turn up the ****ing volume. You'll be too
deaf afterwards to ever hear anything at 40db again.

And by the way, even at 140db, there's less than 80db of dynamic range in
a moving car.

[thelizman]

TCS wrote:

> If you want 140db on a CD, turn up the ****ing volume. You'll be too
> deaf afterwards to ever hear anything at 40db again.

Thats just wrong. I've been exposed to as high as 160 db of SPL before,
and my last hearing test (June 02) shows that I am in the 97th
percentile of hearing acuity. Now if I listen to it for eight hours a
day on a regular basis, then there is the likely possibility of short
term hearing damage.

Regardless - and I can't seem to emphasize this enough as you keep
missing the blatently obvious point - a CD is only capable of 110 db or
less of DYNAMIC RANGE. EVER. SPEAKA ENGLISH?

> And by the way, even at 140db, there's less than 80db of dynamic range in
> a moving car.

What does that matter? We're talking about the absurd claim that CDA is
superior to human hearing. How much dynamic range you have in a car is
irrelevent to this discussion.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[Nousaine]

thelizman wrote:



>TCS wrote:
>> Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same room,
>> one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the other playing
>> the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be able to hear the
>> quiet passage at all.
>
>You mean playing both at the same time? Well no **** sherlock! But
>that's not what dynamic range is. Dynamic Range is the difference
>between the loudest and softest sound able to be resolved. Technically
>speaking, the human hear has infinite dynamic range at least once! On
>repeated occasions, most bassheads can tell the difference beween 10 db
>of SPL and 140 db of SPL (not an uncommon number on the car audio
>circuit). That range beats CDs by 20 db.
>
>--
>thelizman

According to one source the human threshold of audibility at 60 Hz is about 42
dB SPL and at 10 Hz is 100 dB SPL. So bassheads don't "hear" 10 dB SPL in the
low bass frequency range of interest. And even if they were able to do so the
ambient noise in even quiet listening environments is seldom less than NC35.

Red Book CD seems to be more than adequate for handling anything encountered in
even the most stringent recording conditions and normally reverberant
listening environments.

[Arny Krueger]

"thelizman" > wrote in message


> TCS wrote:

>> If you want 140db on a CD, turn up the ****ing volume. You'll be too
>> deaf afterwards to ever hear anything at 40db again.

> That's just wrong.

It's right if you take "afterwards" in a reasonable way, as in immediately
afterwards.

>I've been exposed to as high as 160 db of SPL
> before, and my last hearing test (June 02) shows that I am in the 97th
> percentile of hearing acuity.

Not the same as immediately afterwards.

> Now if I listen to it for eight hours a
> day on a regular basis, then there is the
likely possibility of short
> term hearing damage.

Then we agree.

There's an important point that was buried in the intensity of the former
statement - namely how long it takes normal hearing to be recovered, after
substantial exposure to really high volumes. your hearing is 97the
percentile now, but how about 10 seconds or 10 minutes after exposure to 160
dB? I don't think so!

I should add that there are at least two ways to measure SPLs - a flat
measurement, and an A-weighted measurement. Generally when we are talking
about exposure to high SPLs and ear damage, we're talking A-weighted. The
reason why is that 160 dB SPL at very low frequencies isn't nearly as
damaging as 160 dB SPL in the 4 KHz range.

So, if I get to pick the measurement procedure , and the spectral content of
the sound, 160 dB SPL might not be really all that loud.

> Regardless - and I can't seem to emphasize this enough as you keep
> missing the blatantly obvious point - a CD is only capable of 110 db
> or less of DYNAMIC RANGE. EVER. SPEAKA ENGLISH?

16 bits is good for about 93 dB worth of dynamic range if quantized with a
flat noise floor, but it can be 120 dB or more at its greatest, if quantized
with an audibility-weighted noise floor.

>> And by the way, even at 140db, there's less than 80db of dynamic
>> range in a moving car.

> What does that matter?

Because dynamic range is based on a ratio, not the loudest noise you can
get.

> We're talking about the absurd claim that CDA
> is superior to human hearing.

In the context of normal hearing of normal musical sounds, CDA is entirely
sufficient. If you wish to consider this matter out-of-context be my guest,
but don't expect to have much credibility.

>How much dynamic range you have in a
> car is irrelevant to this discussion.

Dynamic range is also about noise floors.

[MZ]

> > Cite? It's easy enough to test. Put two sound systems in the same
room,
> > one playing the loudest passage a CD can reproduce and the other playing
> > the quietest passage a CD can reproduce. You won't be able to hear the
> > quiet passage at all.
>
> You mean playing both at the same time? Well no **** sherlock! But
> that's not what dynamic range is. Dynamic Range is the difference
> between the loudest and softest sound able to be resolved. Technically
> speaking, the human hear has infinite dynamic range at least once! On
> repeated occasions, most bassheads can tell the difference beween 10 db
> of SPL and 140 db of SPL (not an uncommon number on the car audio
> circuit). That range beats CDs by 20 db.

For all intents and purposes, I think the biggest limitation to dynamic
range is the resolution of the digital vollume knob, no?

[thelizman]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>>We're talking about the absurd claim that CDA
>>is superior to human hearing.
>
>
> In the context of normal hearing of normal musical sounds, CDA is entirely
> sufficient. If you wish to consider this matter out-of-context be my guest,
> but don't expect to have much credibility.

As a generalization, I can agree that CDA is "sufficient". But the
statement was unequivocal and broad that CDA was "superior", which by
definition indicates a degree of advantage in all aspects. This is not
the case. There are several liminations to CDA, and enough people are
able to recognize these limitations to have justified the creation of
digital formations which exceed the Redbook CDA format. Now for me, I'll
never bother with the likes of dts or SACD because to me CDA is good
enough that on the rare occasions I notice its limitations, its not
enough to bother me.

>>How much dynamic range you have in a
>>car is irrelevant to this discussion.
>
> Dynamic range is also about noise floors.

Theres less noise floor in my car than in my house (owing to the 80 lbs
of damping material I've installed). This is dangerous territory to
tread on for this discussion, so for simplicity's sake lets just assume
cetaris paribus, a limited or 0 noise floor.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[thelizman]

MZ wrote:
>
> For all intents and purposes, I think the biggest limitation to dynamic
> range is the resolution of the digital vollume knob, no?

The precision of the knob has nothing to do with the absolute limits of
a CDs capacity. And with deference to the implied sleight, I have
buttons, not knobs. Until someone other than Nak produces an in dash
with an analog volume knob, its not even worth worrying about it. The
only settings I need are soft, medium, and **** off the democrat
neighbors who don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

[MZ]

> > For all intents and purposes, I think the biggest limitation to dynamic
> > range is the resolution of the digital vollume knob, no?
>
> The precision of the knob has nothing to do with the absolute limits of
> a CDs capacity.

Note that I'm not referring to the dynamic range of the CDA format. I'm
talking about practical use.

> And with deference to the implied sleight, I have
> buttons, not knobs. Until someone other than Nak produces an in dash
> with an analog volume knob, its not even worth worrying about it. The
> only settings I need are soft, medium, and **** off the democrat
> neighbors who don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

I don't see it happening anytime soon. Digital means better, don't you
know. :)

[Arny Krueger]

"thelizman" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>> We're talking about the absurd claim that CDA
>>> is superior to human hearing.
>>
>>
>> In the context of normal hearing of normal musical sounds, CDA is
>> entirely sufficient. If you wish to consider this matter
>> out-of-context be my guest, but don't expect to have much
>> credibility.
>
> As a generalization, I can agree that CDA is "sufficient". But the
> statement was unequivocal and broad that CDA was "superior", which by
> definition indicates a degree of advantage in all aspects.

The word *all* makes the question irrelevant. Furthermore, you need to
recognize that frequency-shaped quantizers enable CDA to have effective DR
that is far greater than 93 dB.

>This is not the case. There are several limitations to CDA, and enough
people are
> able to recognize these limitations to have justified the creation of
> digital formations which exceed the Redbook CDA format.

That would be mislead. There's no practical need for a format that is has
more frequency response and/or more dynamic range than CDA. No known
commercial recording of music for entertainment comes within 10 dB of the
basic limitations of the CDA format. If you include the benefits of shaped
quantization, the margins are far greater - about 30 dB or more.

> Now for me, I'll never bother with the likes of dts or SACD because to me
CDA is
> good enough that on the rare occasions I notice its limitations, its
> not enough to bother me.

I'll bet money you are practically incapable of actually noticing the DR or
FR limitations of CDA.

>>> How much dynamic range you have in a
>>> car is irrelevant to this discussion.

>> Dynamic range is also about noise floors.

> There's less noise floor in my car than in my house (owing to the 80
> lbs of damping material I've installed). This is dangerous territory
> to tread on for this discussion, so for simplicity's sake lets just
> assume cetaris paribus, a limited or 0 noise floor.

More practical irrelevancy.

[Nousaine]

thelizman wrote:

....snip to content .....

>Theres less noise floor in my car than in my house (owing to the 80 lbs
>of damping material I've installed).

Verified under what conditions? Both in house and in-car? My listening room is
NC-35. Any of the cars I've ever used (over 500 since 1999) has never come even
within shouting (no pun intended) distance of that when being driven at
moderate speeds on surface streets.

Indeed; installing 65-lbs+ of Dynamat brand noise reduction materials in a '93
Z28 Camaro resulted in exactly zero measured or perceived noise reduction at 35
and 55 mph on the same roads and conditions (except for a minor reduction in
tire whine on rain-grooved pavement @ 35 mph)

This is dangerous territory to
>tread on for this discussion, so for simplicity's sake lets just assume
>cetaris paribus, a limited or 0 noise floor.
>
>--
>thelizman

Why do we need to assume anything except fair evaluative conditions?

[Arny Krueger]

<Fragrant ****flaps>; "The" > wrote in message
news:17l930dta4suqj0gelmd6vjo9s3m8j1guo@rdmzrnewst xt.nz

> On 19 Feb 2004 04:31:45 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>> Any of the cars I've ever used (over 500 since 1999)

> So you can't drive, either.

Wrong again. Nousaine is, among other things, a professional car audio
system evaluator. I'm not talking about any magazine work that he does. I'm
talking about a goodly number of car manufacturers paying the big bucks for
his opinions about how the audio systems in their cars sound. You're
probably driving a car he evaluated "****flaps", that is if the police gave
you your license back, again.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:36:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

><Fragrant ****flaps>; "The" > wrote in message
>news:17l930dta4suqj0gelmd6vjo9s3m8j1guo@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
>
>> On 19 Feb 2004 04:31:45 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
>>> Any of the cars I've ever used (over 500 since 1999)
>
>> So you can't drive, either.
>
>Wrong again. Nousaine is, among other things, a professional car audio
>system evaluator. I'm not talking about any magazine work that he does. I'm
>talking about a goodly number of car manufacturers paying the big bucks for
>his opinions about how the audio systems in their cars sound.

Sounds like a potential conflict-of-interest to me if he reviews car
audio stuff in magazines.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:36:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> <Fragrant ****flaps>; "The" > wrote in message
>> news:17l930dta4suqj0gelmd6vjo9s3m8j1guo@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
>>
>>> On 19 Feb 2004 04:31:45 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>
>>>> Any of the cars I've ever used (over 500 since 1999)
>>
>>> So you can't drive, either.

>> Wrong again. Nousaine is, among other things, a professional car
>> audio system evaluator. I'm not talking about any magazine work that
>> he does. I'm talking about a goodly number of car manufacturers
>> paying the big bucks for his opinions about how the audio systems in
>> their cars sound.

> Sounds like a potential conflict-of-interest to me if he reviews car
> audio stuff in magazines.

First off, why? If he reviews after-market components, how does the work he
does evaluating OEM systems bias him?
Weil, you don know that those are two separate markets, right? Well
apparently not.

Weil, you seem to have totally missed the part you edited out, which is why
you probably edited it out.

"You're probably driving a car he evaluated."

Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what this means,
it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps with all the girls. So
which one is he biased towards or against?

[dave weil]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:47:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:36:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <Fragrant ****flaps>; "The" > wrote in message
>>> news:17l930dta4suqj0gelmd6vjo9s3m8j1guo@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
>>>
>>>> On 19 Feb 2004 04:31:45 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Any of the cars I've ever used (over 500 since 1999)
>>>
>>>> So you can't drive, either.
>
>>> Wrong again. Nousaine is, among other things, a professional car
>>> audio system evaluator. I'm not talking about any magazine work that
>>> he does. I'm talking about a goodly number of car manufacturers
>>> paying the big bucks for his opinions about how the audio systems in
>>> their cars sound.
>
>> Sounds like a potential conflict-of-interest to me if he reviews car
>> audio stuff in magazines.
>
>First off, why? If he reviews after-market components, how does the work he
>does evaluating OEM systems bias him?

Because he's paid by people who provide turnkey audio systems in cars,
right? These compete with after market gear for sales because there
quite a few people who actively decide whether or not to go the
turnkey system or go the aftermarket route.

>Weil, you don know that those are two separate markets, right? Well
>apparently not.

They are two markets that compete with each other.

>Weil, you seem to have totally missed the part you edited out, which is why
>you probably edited it out.
>
>"You're probably driving a car he evaluated."

I edited it out because it was irrelevant to my comment.

>Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what this means,
>it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps with all the girls. So
>which one is he biased towards or against?

You're so dense that you probably think it's OK for a judge to sleep
with *any* of the contestants.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> <Fragrant ****flaps>; "The" > wrote in message
> news:17l930dta4suqj0gelmd6vjo9s3m8j1guo@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
>
> > On 19 Feb 2004 04:31:45 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
> >> Any of the cars I've ever used (over 500 since 1999)
>
> > So you can't drive, either.
>
> Wrong again. Nousaine is, among other things, a professional car audio
> system evaluator. I'm not talking about any magazine work that he does. I'm
> talking about a goodly number of car manufacturers paying the big bucks for
> his opinions about how the audio systems in their cars sound. You're
> probably driving a car he evaluated "****flaps"...

Oh, I doubt that...

Stephen

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Fragrant ****flaps said to Nousiane:
>
> > >Any of the cars I've ever used (over 500 since 1999)
> >
> > So you can't drive, either.
>
> Possibly he takes out loans and then defaults on them.
>
>
>




----== 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]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Fragrant ****flaps said to Nousiane:
>
> > >Any of the cars I've ever used (over 500 since 1999)
> >
> > So you can't drive, either.
>
> Possibly he takes out loans and then defaults on them.
>
Or he is a valet at a parking garage.




----== 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 =---

[Nousaine]

dave weil wrote:



>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:47:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:36:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <Fragrant ****flaps>; "The" > wrote in message
>>>> news:17l930dta4suqj0gelmd6vjo9s3m8j1guo@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
>>>>
>>>>> On 19 Feb 2004 04:31:45 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Any of the cars I've ever used (over 500 since 1999)
>>>>
>>>>> So you can't drive, either.
>>
>>>> Wrong again. Nousaine is, among other things, a professional car
>>>> audio system evaluator. I'm not talking about any magazine work that
>>>> he does. I'm talking about a goodly number of car manufacturers
>>>> paying the big bucks for his opinions about how the audio systems in
>>>> their cars sound.
>>
>>> Sounds like a potential conflict-of-interest to me if he reviews car
>>> audio stuff in magazines.
>>
>>First off, why? If he reviews after-market components, how does the work he
>>does evaluating OEM systems bias him?
>
>Because he's paid by people who provide turnkey audio systems in cars,
>right? These compete with after market gear for sales because there
>quite a few people who actively decide whether or not to go the
>turnkey system or go the aftermarket route.
>
>>Weil, you don know that those are two separate markets, right? Well
>>apparently not.
>
>They are two markets that compete with each other.
>
>>Weil, you seem to have totally missed the part you edited out, which is why
>>you probably edited it out.
>>
>>"You're probably driving a car he evaluated."
>
>I edited it out because it was irrelevant to my comment.
>
>>Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what this means,
>>it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps with all the girls. So
>>which one is he biased towards or against?
>
>You're so dense that you probably think it's OK for a judge to sleep
>with *any* of the contestants.


Where did anybody get the idea that I'm in-bed with anybody? The products I
review for Mobile Entertainment are done as a 3rd party (I'm not an employee of
the magazine OR the manufacturer); the evalutaions I do for DLC Design are also
as a 3rd Party. I'm not an employee of the 3rd party evaluation company NOR am
I an employee of the OEM autosound companies OR their suppliers.

I'm not 'sleeping' with anybody in the industry; one side or the other. If that
were true I'd think that I'd be somewhat richer than I am now.

Not that I need to be influenced by that. My gross income from 3rd party
evaluation from Sound & Vision, Mobile Entertainment and DLC Design is about
40% of fhe most I ever made an an economist/manager in telecommuncations.

[dave weil]

On 20 Feb 2004 06:32:27 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>Where did anybody get the idea that I'm in-bed with anybody? The products I
>review for Mobile Entertainment are done as a 3rd party (I'm not an employee of
>the magazine OR the manufacturer); the evalutaions I do for DLC Design are also
>as a 3rd Party. I'm not an employee of the 3rd party evaluation company NOR am
>I an employee of the OEM autosound companies OR their suppliers.
>
>I'm not 'sleeping' with anybody in the industry; one side or the other. If that
>were true I'd think that I'd be somewhat richer than I am now.
>
>Not that I need to be influenced by that. My gross income from 3rd party
>evaluation from Sound & Vision, Mobile Entertainment and DLC Design is about
>40% of fhe most I ever made an an economist/manager in telecommuncations.

Tom, I didn't *accuse* you of collusion, just that the possibility was
there.

If you derive income from advising the car companies on their OEM
designs and you also review their competitors (this is what you'd have
to call aftermarket companies), there is a potential conflict of
interest, whether or not you act on it. And you derive your income
from the magazines and DLC, so the idea that you technically aren't an
"employee" is a bit specious.

At the very least, you should disclose the vehicle sound systems that
you have consulted on. Have you ever mentioned factory systems like
Bose or Mark Levinson in a comparison context, for instance?

If *you* can be so critical of magazines like Stereophile, *you* are
also open to criticism as well.

That's all I'm sayin'. I for one had no idea that you consulted for
the car industry (but you might have disclosed that in your magazines
- I've never read any of your reviews because I really don't follow
audio magazines). I think it definitely makes a difference for people
to know that (but maybe you've disclosed that fact in your bios...)

[S888Wheel]

>
>Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what this means,
>it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps with all the girls. So
>which one is he biased towards or against?
>

I thought you were Tom's friend. Or do you think such behavior is considered OK
so long as all the girls get screwed?

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what this
>> means, it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps with all
>> the girls. So which one is he biased towards or against?
>>
>
> I thought you were Tom's friend. Or do you think such behavior is
> considered OK so long as all the girls get screwed?

Obviously the concept of a metaphor is way over your head, sockpuppet wheel.
That would put your IQ well below 99, right?

[dave weil]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:10:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what this
>>> means, it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps with all
>>> the girls. So which one is he biased towards or against?
>>>
>>
>> I thought you were Tom's friend. Or do you think such behavior is
>> considered OK so long as all the girls get screwed?
>
>Obviously the concept of a metaphor is way over your head, sockpuppet wheel.
>That would put your IQ well below 99, right?

Oh he got the metaphor. He realizes that you think it's OK for a judge
to screw all of the contestants of a beauty contest. This shows your
odd moral compass (I'm not talking about the act of sex from a
moralistic standpoint, but the morality of a judge having intimate
relations with beauty contest contestants).

BTW, your "metaphor" is flawed in a serious way. I wonder if you can
muddle through the problem to figure out how.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:10:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what this
>>>> means, it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps with all
>>>> the girls. So which one is he biased towards or against?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought you were Tom's friend. Or do you think such behavior is
>>> considered OK so long as all the girls get screwed?
>>
>> Obviously the concept of a metaphor is way over your head,
>> sockpuppet wheel. That would put your IQ well below 99, right?
>
> Oh he got the metaphor. He realizes that you think it's OK for a judge
> to screw all of the contestants of a beauty contest.

That means neither of you got my metaphor.

If you want to try again Weil, please do. But there's a pretty good chance
you'll make an even bigger ass out of yourself.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:25:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:10:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what this
>>>>> means, it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps with all
>>>>> the girls. So which one is he biased towards or against?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought you were Tom's friend. Or do you think such behavior is
>>>> considered OK so long as all the girls get screwed?
>>>
>>> Obviously the concept of a metaphor is way over your head,
>>> sockpuppet wheel. That would put your IQ well below 99, right?
>>
>> Oh he got the metaphor. He realizes that you think it's OK for a judge
>> to screw all of the contestants of a beauty contest.
>
>That means neither of you got my metaphor.

A metaphor needs to be decipherable to be effective.

>If you want to try again Weil, please do. But there's a pretty good chance
>you'll make an even bigger ass out of yourself.

All I know is that your metaphor says it's OK for a judge to have
improper relations with the subjects of the contest that he's judging.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:25:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:10:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>> Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what
>>>>>> this means, it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps
>>>>>> with all the girls. So which one is he biased towards or against?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought you were Tom's friend. Or do you think such behavior is
>>>>> considered OK so long as all the girls get screwed?
>>>>
>>>> Obviously the concept of a metaphor is way over your head,
>>>> sockpuppet wheel. That would put your IQ well below 99, right?
>>>
>>> Oh he got the metaphor. He realizes that you think it's OK for a
>>> judge to screw all of the contestants of a beauty contest.
>>
>> That means neither of you got my metaphor.
>
> A metaphor needs to be decipherable to be effective.
>
>> If you want to try again Weil, please do. But there's a pretty good
>> chance you'll make an even bigger ass out of yourself.
>
> All I know is that your metaphor says it's OK for a judge to have
> improper relations with the subjects of the contest that he's judging.

Thanks for again proving your inability to discern the obvious, Weil.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:18:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:25:24 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:10:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what
>>>>>>> this means, it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps
>>>>>>> with all the girls. So which one is he biased towards or against?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought you were Tom's friend. Or do you think such behavior is
>>>>>> considered OK so long as all the girls get screwed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously the concept of a metaphor is way over your head,
>>>>> sockpuppet wheel. That would put your IQ well below 99, right?
>>>>
>>>> Oh he got the metaphor. He realizes that you think it's OK for a
>>>> judge to screw all of the contestants of a beauty contest.
>>>
>>> That means neither of you got my metaphor.
>>
>> A metaphor needs to be decipherable to be effective.
>>
>>> If you want to try again Weil, please do. But there's a pretty good
>>> chance you'll make an even bigger ass out of yourself.
>>
>> All I know is that your metaphor says it's OK for a judge to have
>> improper relations with the subjects of the contest that he's judging.
>
>Thanks for again proving your inability to discern the obvious, Weil.

Thanks for showing that you are incapable of even explaining your
"metaphor".

[John Atkinson]

dave weil > wrote in message >...
talking to Tom Nousaine:
> If you derive income from advising the car companies on their OEM
> designs and you also review their competitors (this is what you'd have
> to call aftermarket companies), there is a potential conflict of
> interest, whether or not you act on it...If *you* can be so critical of
> magazines like Stereophile, *you* are also open to criticism as well.

I have no intention of commenting on this subject, other than to explain
that my agreement with Stereophile's writers precludes them from acting
as consultants, paid or otherwise, with audio manufacturers. There were
two writers in the past where I made an exception to this rule, due to
them having consulting relationships with manufacturers that pre-existed
their joining the magazine's team, but neither has written for me for
several years. But in both case, the writers were prevented from writing
reviews of or articles about the specific companies with whom they had
consulting relationships.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[dave weil]

On 20 Feb 2004 12:27:13 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

>dave weil > wrote in message >...
>talking to Tom Nousaine:
>> If you derive income from advising the car companies on their OEM
>> designs and you also review their competitors (this is what you'd have
>> to call aftermarket companies), there is a potential conflict of
>> interest, whether or not you act on it...If *you* can be so critical of
>> magazines like Stereophile, *you* are also open to criticism as well.
>
>I have no intention of commenting on this subject, other than to explain
>that my agreement with Stereophile's writers precludes them from acting
>as consultants, paid or otherwise, with audio manufacturers. There were
>two writers in the past where I made an exception to this rule, due to
>them having consulting relationships with manufacturers that pre-existed
>their joining the magazine's team, but neither has written for me for
>several years. But in both case, the writers were prevented from writing
>reviews of or articles about the specific companies with whom they had
>consulting relationships.
>
>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile

I would think that this is a sensible policy. I also note that I'm not
accusing Tom of impropriety, just that his arrangements are not normal
to journalistic standards as I understand them.

The fact that Mr. Nousaine doesn't seem to see this is troubling at
best.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
...
> Where did anybody get the idea that I'm in-bed with anybody?

Because you are always jerking off?




----== 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 =---

[S888Wheel]

>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what this
>>> means, it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps with all
>>> the girls. So which one is he biased towards or against?
>>>
>>
>> I thought you were Tom's friend. Or do you think such behavior is
>> considered OK so long as all the girls get screwed?
>

>
>Obviously the concept of a metaphor is way over your head,

No obviously it is way over your head since you clearly don't understand the
implications of your own metaphor. Perhaps you should pick them more carefully
in the future. A beauty contest judge that screws all the girls is a most
unsavory metaphor. You painted Tom to be a real sleaze. I guess you are too
stupid to understand that.

>sockpuppet wheel.
>That would put your IQ well below 99, right?

Any time you want to us to go to our local Mensas and take their standard tests
and compare scores say the word. If you really think I would score 99 and you
would score 267 you would probably be keen on doing so and placing a bet on the
results. Care to make a bet on the results?

[S888Wheel]

>
>That means neither of you got my metaphor.
>

It seems you didn't get your own metaphor. How stupid is that?

[Nousaine]

dave weil wrote:

>On 20 Feb 2004 06:32:27 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
>>Where did anybody get the idea that I'm in-bed with anybody? The products I
>>review for Mobile Entertainment are done as a 3rd party (I'm not an employee
>of
>>the magazine OR the manufacturer); the evalutaions I do for DLC Design are
>also
>>as a 3rd Party. I'm not an employee of the 3rd party evaluation company NOR
>am
>>I an employee of the OEM autosound companies OR their suppliers.
>>
>>I'm not 'sleeping' with anybody in the industry; one side or the other. If
>that
>>were true I'd think that I'd be somewhat richer than I am now.
>>
>>Not that I need to be influenced by that. My gross income from 3rd party
>>evaluation from Sound & Vision, Mobile Entertainment and DLC Design is about
>>40% of fhe most I ever made an an economist/manager in telecommuncations.
>
>Tom, I didn't *accuse* you of collusion, just that the possibility was
>there.

Fair enough.

>
>If you derive income from advising the car companies on their OEM
>designs and you also review their competitors (this is what you'd have
>to call aftermarket companies), there is a potential conflict of
>interest, whether or not you act on it.

Let's not forget that OEM companies compete with each other as well. But let's
make another distinction here. I do not ADVISE either OEM or aftermarket
companies on product design. I only evaluate extant performance. I specifically
avoid saying "staging might improve if you used A-pillar tweeters" instead of
"this system fails to provide a convincing frontal stage" because when the
system is returned for a retest the client will expect improved scores if he
moved the tweeter to the A-Pillar when that may or may not have actually made
things better.

And you derive your income
>from the magazines and DLC, so the idea that you technically aren't an
>"employee" is a bit specious.

It's just a clarification. 3rd Party evaluation on a project by project basis
is a different, and often obscured difference from employer/employee or design
consulting.

>
>At the very least, you should disclose the vehicle sound systems that
>you have consulted on. Have you ever mentioned factory systems like
>Bose or Mark Levinson in a comparison context, for instance?

I've evaluated both. But only on benchmark tests or prototype validation but
never at the direct hire of either Harman-Becker or Bose for these brands. I
did no design "consultation" of either.


>If *you* can be so critical of magazines like Stereophile, *you* are
>also open to criticism as well.

Of course. I get lots of it too.

>That's all I'm sayin'. I for one had no idea that you consulted for
>the car industry (but you might have disclosed that in your magazines
>- I've never read any of your reviews because I really don't follow
>audio magazines). I think it definitely makes a difference for people
>to know that (but maybe you've disclosed that fact in your bios...)

As I said I've never consulted with any manufacturer OEM or aftermarket. So in
that regard there was nothing for me to 'reveal'.

[Nousaine]

dave weil wrote:



>On 20 Feb 2004 12:27:13 -0800, (John
>Atkinson) wrote:
>
>>dave weil > wrote in message
>...
>>talking to Tom Nousaine:
>>> If you derive income from advising the car companies on their OEM
>>> designs and you also review their competitors (this is what you'd have
>>> to call aftermarket companies), there is a potential conflict of
>>> interest, whether or not you act on it...If *you* can be so critical of
>>> magazines like Stereophile, *you* are also open to criticism as well.
>>
>>I have no intention of commenting on this subject, other than to explain
>>that my agreement with Stereophile's writers precludes them from acting
>>as consultants, paid or otherwise, with audio manufacturers. There were
>>two writers in the past where I made an exception to this rule, due to
>>them having consulting relationships with manufacturers that pre-existed
>>their joining the magazine's team, but neither has written for me for
>>several years. But in both case, the writers were prevented from writing
>>reviews of or articles about the specific companies with whom they had
>>consulting relationships.
>>
>>John Atkinson
>>Editor, Stereophile
>
>I would think that this is a sensible policy. I also note that I'm not
>accusing Tom of impropriety, just that his arrangements are not normal
>to journalistic standards as I understand them.
>
>The fact that Mr. Nousaine doesn't seem to see this is troubling at
>best.

More 'implied' evidence that doesn't exist :-) You seem to think that any work
done evaluating products qualifies as "consulting." And yes, I have
occasionally been hired by home audio loudspeaker companies to evaluate
products on a for-hire basis providing data like that contained in my magazine
reports or on some occasions exceeding same.

I am also a vietnam veteran, MBA, past Vice-President of the AES, SMWTMS
Member, founder of PSACS and an ex-economist. I don't find any of that the
least bit troubling either. So what :-?

[Nousaine]

(S888Wheel) wrote:



>>Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what this means,
>>it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps with all the girls. So
>>which one is he biased towards or against?
>>
>
>I thought you were Tom's friend. Or do you think such behavior is considered
>OK
>so long as all the girls get screwed?

You gotta screw 'em all equally too.

[dave weil]

On 21 Feb 2004 20:48:35 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>>On 20 Feb 2004 06:32:27 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>>
>>>Where did anybody get the idea that I'm in-bed with anybody? The products I
>>>review for Mobile Entertainment are done as a 3rd party (I'm not an employee
>>of
>>>the magazine OR the manufacturer); the evalutaions I do for DLC Design are
>>also
>>>as a 3rd Party. I'm not an employee of the 3rd party evaluation company NOR
>>am
>>>I an employee of the OEM autosound companies OR their suppliers.
>>>
>>>I'm not 'sleeping' with anybody in the industry; one side or the other. If
>>that
>>>were true I'd think that I'd be somewhat richer than I am now.
>>>
>>>Not that I need to be influenced by that. My gross income from 3rd party
>>>evaluation from Sound & Vision, Mobile Entertainment and DLC Design is about
>>>40% of fhe most I ever made an an economist/manager in telecommuncations.
>>
>>Tom, I didn't *accuse* you of collusion, just that the possibility was
>>there.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>>
>>If you derive income from advising the car companies on their OEM
>>designs and you also review their competitors (this is what you'd have
>>to call aftermarket companies), there is a potential conflict of
>>interest, whether or not you act on it.
>
>Let's not forget that OEM companies compete with each other as well.

Yes, and that's another issue as well if you've ever reviewed other
OEM pckages in print.

>But let's
>make another distinction here. I do not ADVISE either OEM or aftermarket
>companies on product design. I only evaluate extant performance.

Well yes. But that's what a reviewer does. They evaluate extant
performance. If you read for instance, that Reviewer X for Stereophile
praised the sound of tube amps vs. SS amps in reviews and then later
found out that he consulted with Cary on the "extant performance" of
their amps during the design phase of some of their amps, wouldn't you
howl to high heaven about a potential confilct of interest? Wouldn't
you wonder whether or not this pointed to a pre-existing bias against
SS amps? What about if he reviewed competitor's designs?

>I specifically
>avoid saying "staging might improve if you used A-pillar tweeters" instead of
>"this system fails to provide a convincing frontal stage" because when the
>system is returned for a retest the client will expect improved scores if he
>moved the tweeter to the A-Pillar when that may or may not have actually made
>things better.

That's fine, but I think it's rather irrelevant to the issue.

> And you derive your income
>>from the magazines and DLC, so the idea that you technically aren't an
>>"employee" is a bit specious.
>
>It's just a clarification. 3rd Party evaluation on a project by project basis
>is a different, and often obscured difference from employer/employee or design
>consulting.

And yet, there's a relationship that *could* subject reviews to
untoward influence, either inadvertant *or* intentional (and I'm not
accusing you of either, just noting that the "appearnace" of
objectivity is often as important as the reality).

>>
>>At the very least, you should disclose the vehicle sound systems that
>>you have consulted on. Have you ever mentioned factory systems like
>>Bose or Mark Levinson in a comparison context, for instance?
>
>I've evaluated both. But only on benchmark tests or prototype validation but
>never at the direct hire of either Harman-Becker or Bose for these brands. I
>did no design "consultation" of either.

But actually you did. Presumably, your evaluations were part of the
design of the units. otherwise, what's the point?

>>If *you* can be so critical of magazines like Stereophile, *you* are
>>also open to criticism as well.
>
>Of course. I get lots of it too.
>
>>That's all I'm sayin'. I for one had no idea that you consulted for
>>the car industry (but you might have disclosed that in your magazines
>>- I've never read any of your reviews because I really don't follow
>>audio magazines). I think it definitely makes a difference for people
>>to know that (but maybe you've disclosed that fact in your bios...)
>
>As I said I've never consulted with any manufacturer OEM or aftermarket.

But I don't think that what you've said jives with that. You have
clearly consulted with the manufacturers of those units.

>So in that regard there was nothing for me to 'reveal'.

I disagree. I think that if you specialize in reviews of car audio,
full disclosure is the *minimum* that you need to do. I don't think
that you should play both sides of the aisle. This isn't the case if
you were strictly a home audio reviewer though. Reviewers should be
untainted when it comes to actively working with manufacturers in the
design of their products. This is just my opinion of course. But I
think it's shared by most readers and not a few publishing people and
ethicists.

[dave weil]

On 21 Feb 2004 21:00:37 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

(S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what this means,
>>>it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps with all the girls. So
>>>which one is he biased towards or against?
>>>
>>
>>I thought you were Tom's friend. Or do you think such behavior is considered
>>OK
>>so long as all the girls get screwed?
>
>You gotta screw 'em all equally too.

You seem to miss the point as well. Discounting the absolute loss of
integrity in such a situation, there would be no such thing as
"equally screwing", since each one is different, and, since each one
is different, there would be a ranking imposed. Now you have a
competition within a competition.

[Professor Midnite]

Our topic for the day, students, is the habits of the Carnivorus Stinkus
Mustelidae, or Sleaze-Bag Weasel, in its natural habitat.

Vide:

>yes, I have
>occasionally been hired by home audio loudspeaker companies to evaluate
>products on a for-hire basis providing data like that contained in my
>magazine
>reports or on some occasions exceeding same.
>
(snip)

>I don't find any of that the
>least bit troubling

And thus, class, we have observed the Sleaze-Bag Weasel in action.


Professor Midnite

[Arny Krueger]

"Professor Midnite" > wrote in message


> Our topic for the day, students, is the habits of the Carnivorus
> Stinkus Mustelidae, or Sleaze-Bag Weasel, in its natural habitat.

Yes, that's what we need, a lecture in honesty and full disclosure from
someone who is afraid to post under their true name.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
...
> (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>
>
> >>Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what this
means,
> >>it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps with all the girls.
So
> >>which one is he biased towards or against?
> >>
> >
> >I thought you were Tom's friend. Or do you think such behavior is
considered
> >OK
> >so long as all the girls get screwed?
>
> You gotta screw 'em all equally too.

Then it becosmes a contest of whcih one is the best lay.




----== 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]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 21 Feb 2004 21:00:37 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
> (S888Wheel) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Weil, since you're so dense you probably can't figure out what this
means,
> >>>it's like he's judging a beauty contest, but sleeps with all the girls.
So
> >>>which one is he biased towards or against?
> >>>
> >>
> >>I thought you were Tom's friend. Or do you think such behavior is
considered
> >>OK
> >>so long as all the girls get screwed?
> >
> >You gotta screw 'em all equally too.
>
> You seem to miss the point as well. Discounting the absolute loss of
> integrity in such a situation, there would be no such thing as
> "equally screwing", since each one is different, and, since each one
> is different, there would be a ranking imposed. Now you have a
> competition within a competition.

Pardon Tommie's lack of experience. He's neve been gangbanged.




----== 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 =---

[S888Wheel]

>
>
>Then it becosmes a contest of whcih one is the best lay.
>
>

It's nice to see that some people understand the elements of corruption that
Arny embraced in his "metaphor." Art gets it and Dave gets it. I would really
like to think Tom is just making fun of the thread. I'd like to think he gets
it too. If he truly doesn't then there is a big problem in his dealings. I am
not the least bit surprised by Arny though.

[S888Wheel]

>
>More 'implied' evidence that doesn't exist :-) You seem to think that any
>work
>done evaluating products qualifies as "consulting."

It does. That should be obvious. If you are payed to evaluate products for the
makers of a product you are consulting. If you are payed to review products for
a review journal you are consulting for the readers.

[John Atkinson]

(S888Wheel) wrote in message
>...
> If you are paid to evaluate products for the makers of a product
> you are consulting. If you are paid to review products for a review
> journal you are consulting for the readers.

Exactly so Scott. The danger is two-fold. The first is that you are
now being paid directly by someone whose products you may have to
write about later. It is already hard enough for critics to remain
dispassionate about the industry whose products thery write about and
identify with. The second is that, no matter how honest the reviewer
is and how disinterested he can remain, the manufacturers are not bound
by any conflict of interest and can start offering the reviewer
consultancy work _because_ he also writes reviews.

This is why, as I said, Stereophile's reviewers cannot do consultancy
work, period. Other magazines practise other policies, which is fine by
me as long as the policy is made public so readers can judge accordingly.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Acne Krooker]

dave weil > wrote:
>>>>
>>>I thought you were Tom's friend. Or do you think such behavior is considered
>>>OK
>>>so long as all the girls get screwed?
>>>
>>You gotta screw 'em all equally too.
>>
>You seem to miss the point as well. Discounting the absolute loss of
>integrity in such a situation, there would be no such thing as
>"equally screwing", since each one is different, and, since each one
>is different, there would be a ranking imposed. Now you have a
>competition within a competition.
>
Hardly (tm).
Weil, its like, Tom has not done ABX DBT's to determine whether
they"re were differeneces Weil, and their were none. Hence Weil, they
all were equally screwed. Tube and Vinyl bigots and all cant help you
shove it down our throat's, Weil.

Its like, back then when I was fixxing radar's in the snow, really I
was ordered to wipe the snoww off the dish. nOT ;-(

Been there, done that Weil (tm) .

LoT;'s ;-(

[S888Wheel]

>> If you are paid to evaluate products for the makers of a product
>> you are consulting. If you are paid to review products for a review
>> journal you are consulting for the readers.
>
>Exactly so Scott. The danger is two-fold. The first is that you are
>now being paid directly by someone whose products you may have to
>write about later. It is already hard enough for critics to remain
>dispassionate about the industry whose products thery write about and
>identify with. The second is that, no matter how honest the reviewer
>is and how disinterested he can remain, the manufacturers are not bound
>by any conflict of interest and can start offering the reviewer
>consultancy work _because_ he also writes reviews.
>
>This is why, as I said, Stereophile's reviewers cannot do consultancy
>work, period. Other magazines practise other policies, which is fine by
>me as long as the policy is made public so readers can judge accordingly.
>
>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile
>
>
>
>
>
>

On the one hand you have Tom and Arny making various claims over the years that
either infer or simply boldly state that You and Stereophile are inherently
corrupt and dishonest and yet they don't seem to understand this simple basic
issue of conflict of interest. Conflict of interest would be found on the first
page of the proverbial textbook on corruption. Maybe if you were "in bed" with
all the manufacturers Tom and Arny might have a higher opinion of you and
Stereophile.

[Nousaine]

(John Atkinson) wrote:



(S888Wheel) wrote in message
>...
>> If you are paid to evaluate products for the makers of a product
>> you are consulting. If you are paid to review products for a review
>> journal you are consulting for the readers.
>
>Exactly so Scott. The danger is two-fold. The first is that you are
>now being paid directly by someone whose products you may have to
>write about later. It is already hard enough for critics to remain
>dispassionate about the industry whose products thery write about and
>identify with. The second is that, no matter how honest the reviewer
>is and how disinterested he can remain, the manufacturers are not bound
>by any conflict of interest and can start offering the reviewer
>consultancy work _because_ he also writes reviews.
>
>This is why, as I said, Stereophile's reviewers cannot do consultancy
>work, period. Other magazines practise other policies, which is fine by
>me as long as the policy is made public so readers can judge accordingly.
>
>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile

It seemed to be commonly known that Peter Mitchell did consulting work. Or am I
missing something? In my case the magazine doesn't pay me nearly enough to
preclude opportunity for other work in the field. My contract only specifically
requires story ideas to them first and to obtain prior agreement for any
editorial work for a competing publication.

On a practical matter I have had only a small amount of evaluation work
directly for manufacturers, none of which involved Paradigm or even companies
of products I currently own or have owned.

[John Atkinson]

(Nousaine) wrote in message
>...
> (John Atkinson) wrote:
> > Stereophile's reviewers cannot do consultancy work, period. Other
> > magazines practise other policies, which is fine by me as long as
> > the policy is made public so readers can judge accordingly.
>
> It seemed to be commonly known that Peter Mitchell did consulting work.
> Or am I missing something?

No, Peter was one of the two exceptions to my rule that I mentioned in
my earlier posting. That because his consultancy relationship existed
prior to his joining the megazine's writing staff, I made an exception
to my policy as long as he did not write about the companies for which he
had performed that consultancy work. Peter's affiliation was always made
clear in the magazine when there was a question about his level of
disinterest. In any case, Peter did not write reviews for Stereophile.
There are currently no exceptions to this rule on Stereophile's active
writing staff.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile