Arny ! Why don't you STFU ? [Archive]

Arny Krueger

September 29th 06, 11:31 AM

"Mr Fox" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:50:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>>>>> May I suggest to you that you take stock and consider
>>>>>> carefully your motives in this absurd war you seek to
>>>>>> wage with your demons.
>>>>>
>>>>> His war against Jenn is most pathetic.
>>>>
>>>> Jenn started it.
>>
>> Jenn can stop it.
>
> She can't "stop it" in the sense of getting you to stop
> interjecting her discussions, stopping the verbal
> vendetta you have started against her, nor stopping you
> being intellectually dishonest when you respond to her.
> Only one person can stop that, it's you.

As long as Jenn talks about me or my web site or the ideas I've recently
presented here, she's implicity demanding that I reply.

"Dropping it" means dropping it. Completely.

> This little game of yours was probably a bit of a chuckle
> back in the mid to late 90s, then something traumatic
> happened and subsequently it has become one of the
> primary focuses in life. You are depressed, and sparring
> on Usenet only provides temporary relief. Do yourself and
> your family a favor: change.

Good advice for you to take, Mr. Sockpuppet. Of course you've got yourself
convinced that interjecting yourself into conversations like this isn't a
little game that you play. No, you're saving the world from me and me from
myself.

Arny Krueger

September 29th 06, 11:32 AM

"Mr Fox" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:52:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Nobody's listening.
>>
>> You are, you posted a response.
>>
>> Gotcha!
>>
>> again.
>
> Oh yes, you got him real good that time. A real
> achievement. Crack open the champagne.

Turnabout is fair play, or isn't it?

Nice job of trying to interject yourself into a coversation that you had no
logical part in, by the way.

Jon Yaeger

September 29th 06, 11:50 AM

in article
,
Jenn at wrote on 9/29/06 1:44 AM:

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "dizzy" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>>> May I suggest to you that you take stock and consider
>>>> carefully your motives in this absurd war you seek to
>>>> wage with your demons.
>>>
>>> His war against Jenn is most pathetic.
>>
>> Jenn started it.
>
> lol
>
>>
>>> He's losing badly, and making a total ass of himself in the process.
>>
>> That's why Jenn is running around denying reality, and making up new lines
>> of attack.
>
> What reality have I denied and what have I made up, Arny?

Hey Sweetie,

Can you unclick "rec.audio.tubes" from the To: list when you have these
meaningful exchanges?

Thanks!

George M. Middius

September 29th 06, 01:24 PM

Jenn said:

> > > That's why Jenn is running around denying reality, and making up new lines
> > > of attack.

> > Nobody's listening.

> No doubt.

Some of us are laughing, though.

You go, Arnii! ;-)

--

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

[email protected]

September 29th 06, 03:37 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "dizzy" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> May I suggest to you that you take stock and consider
> >>>> carefully your motives in this absurd war you seek to
> >>>> wage with your demons.
> >>>
> >>> His war against Jenn is most pathetic.
> >>
> >> Jenn started it.
> >>
> >>> He's losing badly, and making a total ass of himself
> >>> in the process.
> >>
> >> That's why Jenn is running around denying reality, and
> >> making up new lines of attack.
> >
> > Nobody's listening.
>
> You are, you posted a response.
>
> Gotcha!
>
> again.

Pathetic.

Boon

Jenn

September 29th 06, 04:00 PM

In article >,
Jon Yaeger > wrote:

> in article
> ,
> Jenn at wrote on 9/29/06 1:44 AM:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "dizzy" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> May I suggest to you that you take stock and consider
> >>>> carefully your motives in this absurd war you seek to
> >>>> wage with your demons.
> >>>
> >>> His war against Jenn is most pathetic.
> >>
> >> Jenn started it.
> >
> > lol
> >
> >>
> >>> He's losing badly, and making a total ass of himself in the process.
> >>
> >> That's why Jenn is running around denying reality, and making up new lines
> >> of attack.
> >
> > What reality have I denied and what have I made up, Arny?
>
>
> Hey Sweetie,
>
> Can you unclick "rec.audio.tubes" from the To: list when you have these
> meaningful exchanges?
>
> Thanks!

Oops, sorry for not noticing. I stopped about 4 threads from reaching
you guys early this week...I'll pay more attention, Sweetie.

[email protected]

September 29th 06, 04:26 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Mr Fox" > wrote in message
>
> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:50:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> May I suggest to you that you take stock and consider
> >>>>>> carefully your motives in this absurd war you seek to
> >>>>>> wage with your demons.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> His war against Jenn is most pathetic.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jenn started it.
> >>
> >> Jenn can stop it.
> >
> > She can't "stop it" in the sense of getting you to stop
> > interjecting her discussions, stopping the verbal
> > vendetta you have started against her, nor stopping you
> > being intellectually dishonest when you respond to her.
> > Only one person can stop that, it's you.
>
> As long as Jenn talks about me or my web site or the ideas I've recently
> presented here, she's implicity demanding that I reply.
>
> "Dropping it" means dropping it. Completely.
>
> > This little game of yours was probably a bit of a chuckle
> > back in the mid to late 90s, then something traumatic
> > happened and subsequently it has become one of the
> > primary focuses in life. You are depressed, and sparring
> > on Usenet only provides temporary relief. Do yourself and
> > your family a favor: change.
>
> Good advice for you to take, Mr. Sockpuppet. Of course you've got yourself
> convinced that interjecting yourself into conversations like this isn't a
> little game that you play. No, you're saving the world from me and me from
> myself.

All you have to do is show this thread to your wife, or your clergyman,
or a shrink, or your children, or anyone you trust, if there is anyone
a paranoid whack-job like yourself would trust. It's all you have to
do.

Boon

Jenn

September 29th 06, 04:42 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> >> That's why Jenn is running around denying reality, and
> >> making up new lines of attack.
>
> > What reality have I denied and what have I made up, Arny?
>
> I know better than to answer this question Jenn, because no matter what I
> say that cuts to the chase, you'll deny it, and call me a liar for my
> trouble.

Only when you lie. Can you give one example of a time when I've said
you lied when you didn't?

Arny Krueger

September 29th 06, 04:58 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>>> That's why Jenn is running around denying reality, and
>>>> making up new lines of attack.
>>
>>> What reality have I denied and what have I made up,
>>> Arny?
>>
>> I know better than to answer this question Jenn, because
>> no matter what I say that cuts to the chase, you'll deny
>> it, and call me a liar for my trouble.
>
> Only when you lie. Can you give one example of a time
> when I've said you lied when you didn't?

I could, but of course it would be a waste of my time. See above.

If you're into listing lies, list mine with full Google references.

MiNe 109

September 29th 06, 05:03 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>
> >>>> That's why Jenn is running around denying reality, and
> >>>> making up new lines of attack.
> >>
> >>> What reality have I denied and what have I made up,
> >>> Arny?
> >>
> >> I know better than to answer this question Jenn, because
> >> no matter what I say that cuts to the chase, you'll deny
> >> it, and call me a liar for my trouble.
> >
> > Only when you lie. Can you give one example of a time
> > when I've said you lied when you didn't?
>
> I could, but of course it would be a waste of my time. See above.
>
> If you're into listing lies, list mine with full Google references.

Asymmetric, dude.

Stephen

Jenn

September 29th 06, 05:22 PM

Arny Krueger

September 29th 06, 05:44 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>
>>>>>> That's why Jenn is running around denying reality,
>>>>>> and making up new lines of attack.
>>>>
>>>>> What reality have I denied and what have I made up,
>>>>> Arny?
>>>>
>>>> I know better than to answer this question Jenn,
>>>> because no matter what I say that cuts to the chase,
>>>> you'll deny it, and call me a liar for my trouble.
>>>
>>> Only when you lie. Can you give one example of a time
>>> when I've said you lied when you didn't?
>>
>> I could, but of course it would be a waste of my time.
>> See above.
>>
>> If you're into listing lies, list mine with full Google
>> references.
>
> You once again fail to stand behind your statements.

Hey Jenn you tricked me taking into your bait just a few days ago. My memory
is longer than that.

It's pathetically simple - I prove my point, you deny that I did it, you
come back with the same-old, same-old.

It's just the Middius in you talking, Jenn.

Jenn

September 29th 06, 08:28 PM

Mr Fox

September 29th 06, 08:53 PM

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 06:31:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Mr Fox" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:50:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> May I suggest to you that you take stock and consider
>>>>>>> carefully your motives in this absurd war you seek to
>>>>>>> wage with your demons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His war against Jenn is most pathetic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jenn started it.
>>>
>>> Jenn can stop it.
>>
>> She can't "stop it" in the sense of getting you to stop
>> interjecting her discussions, stopping the verbal
>> vendetta you have started against her, nor stopping you
>> being intellectually dishonest when you respond to her.
>> Only one person can stop that, it's you.
>
>As long as Jenn talks about me or my web site or the ideas I've recently
>presented here, she's implicity demanding that I reply.
>
>"Dropping it" means dropping it. Completely.

I see you started another Jenn attack thread.

Hmmm.

>> This little game of yours was probably a bit of a chuckle
>> back in the mid to late 90s, then something traumatic
>> happened and subsequently it has become one of the
>> primary focuses in life. You are depressed, and sparring
>> on Usenet only provides temporary relief. Do yourself and
>> your family a favor: change.
>
>Good advice for you to take, Mr. Sockpuppet. Of course you've got yourself
>convinced that interjecting yourself into conversations like this isn't a
>little game that you play. No, you're saving the world from me and me from
>myself.
>

No, I am playing games. I earn $50+/hr working at the computer, but
80% of this time is literally free to with what I want. I can afford
to act the fool. What's your excuse?

Arny Krueger

September 29th 06, 09:41 PM

Eeyore

September 30th 06, 12:30 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >> Jenn started it.
>
> Jenn can stop it.

You can stop it too.

Graham

Eeyore

September 30th 06, 12:31 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote
>
> > What reality have I denied and what have I made up, Arny?
>
> I know better than to answer this question Jenn

What you mean is that you have no answer.

Graham

Eeyore

September 30th 06, 12:35 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Mr Fox" > wrote
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >>> Nobody's listening.
> >>
> >> You are, you posted a response.
> >>
> >> Gotcha!
> >>
> >> again.
> >
> > Oh yes, you got him real good that time. A real
> > achievement. Crack open the champagne.
>
> Turnabout is fair play, or isn't it?
>
> Nice job of trying to interject yourself into a coversation that you had no
> logical part in, by the way.

Logical part in ? He made a valid observation about your online behaviour,
which was the topic of this thread. Seems entirely 'logical' to me.

Graham

paul packer

September 30th 06, 01:49 AM

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:00:19 GMT, Jenn
> wrote:

>.I'll pay more attention, Sweetie.

I see. And why does Jon deserve a "Sweetie" and the rest of us don't,
pray?

And with a capital, yet! :-)

dizzy

September 30th 06, 03:11 AM

Jenn wrote:

>What reality have I denied and what have I made up, Arny?

You really should ignore him.

Mr Fox

September 30th 06, 03:25 AM

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 02:11:38 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>Jenn wrote:
>
>>What reality have I denied and what have I made up, Arny?
>
>You really should ignore him.

I don't know about that. Jenn doesn't seem to have to expend much
energy in these exchanges to get Krueger running around amd around his
little wheel.

Arny Krueger

September 30th 06, 03:46 AM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>> Jenn started it.
>>
>> Jenn can stop it.
>
> You can stop it too.

OK, I can do what Jenn lacks the self-control to do. It is stopped.

Eeyore

September 30th 06, 07:35 AM

Mr Fox wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 02:11:38 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>
> >Jenn wrote:
> >
> >>What reality have I denied and what have I made up, Arny?
> >
> >You really should ignore him.
>
> I don't know about that. Jenn doesn't seem to have to expend much
> energy in these exchanges to get Krueger running around amd around his
> little wheel.

LOL ! You're so right there.

Graham

George M. Middius

September 30th 06, 03:55 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > If you're into listing lies, list mine with full Google references.

> Asymmetric, dude.

Arnii's toilet still outweighs him, but he's working to correct that.

--

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

Eeyore

September 30th 06, 04:22 PM

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > If you're into listing lies, list mine with full Google references.
>
> > Asymmetric, dude.
>
> Arnii's toilet still outweighs him, but he's working to correct that.

You surely mean his toilette ?

Graham

George M. Middius

September 30th 06, 04:34 PM

Poopie rallies to defend the Krooborg.

> > > Asymmetric, dude.

> > Arnii's toilet still outweighs him, but he's working to correct that.

> You surely mean his toilette ?

Not unless that's some funky Brit euphemism for turds.

--

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

Jenn

September 30th 06, 05:53 PM

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:00:19 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >.I'll pay more attention, Sweetie.
>
> I see. And why does Jon deserve a "Sweetie" and the rest of us don't,
> pray?
>
> And with a capital, yet! :-)

A little tit-for-tat, as it were.

Jenn

September 30th 06, 05:54 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Jenn started it.
> >>
> >> Jenn can stop it.
> >
> > You can stop it too.
>
> OK, I can do what Jenn lacks the self-control to do. It is stopped.

See ya.

Jenn

September 30th 06, 05:55 PM

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> >What reality have I denied and what have I made up, Arny?
>
> You really should ignore him.

I know. His pathology can just be so interesting for a short time.

Eeyore

September 30th 06, 06:15 PM

Jenn wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
> > "Eeyore" > wrote
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> Jenn started it.
> > >>
> > >> Jenn can stop it.
> > >
> > > You can stop it too.
> >
> > OK, I can do what Jenn lacks the self-control to do. It is stopped.
>
> See ya.

You behave too ok ? No backhanded snide comments alright ?

Graham

George M. Middius

September 30th 06, 06:38 PM

DonkeyBorg rushes to protect the Krooborg from Big Bad Jenn.

> > See ya.

> You behave too ok ? No backhanded snide comments alright ?

Shut up, Poopie. You're a stupid donkey and your contributions are
worthless.

--

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

Eeyore

September 30th 06, 09:16 PM

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> DonkeyBorg rushes to protect the Krooborg from Big Bad Jenn.
>
> > > See ya.
>
> > You behave too ok ? No backhanded snide comments alright ?
>
> Shut up, Poopie. You're a stupid donkey and your contributions are
> worthless.

Feeling unwanted are you ?

Graham

George M. Middius

September 30th 06, 10:06 PM

Der UnterEsel hat gebrullt:

> > Shut up, Poopie. You're a stupid donkey and your contributions are
> > worthless.

> Hee-haw! EEE-yaw! HNAWK!

Actually, I'm feeling embarrassed for you. Ever since you dimly realized
that Krooger really does have mental problems, you've been staggering
around like a brainwashed zombie waiting for your dark master to summon
you. If we all slap you in the face, maybe you'll snap out of it.

--

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

Bertie the Bunyip

October 2nd 06, 04:05 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote
>>
>> > What reality have I denied and what have I made up, Arny?
>>
>> I know better than to answer this question Jenn
>
> What you mean is that you have no answer.
>

Gonna nettkkkopp him planespotter?

bertie

[email protected]

October 2nd 06, 05:59 PM

Eeyore wrote:
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> > DonkeyBorg rushes to protect the Krooborg from Big Bad Jenn.
> >
> > > > See ya.
> >
> > > You behave too ok ? No backhanded snide comments alright ?
> >
> > Shut up, Poopie. You're a stupid donkey and your contributions are
> > worthless.
>
> Feeling unwanted are you ?
>
> Graham

Allow me to express my admiration for your intellectual courage in
thinking for yourself rather than sticking to a chapel orthodoxy. It
might mean something to you to hear that someone does notice.
Ludovic Mirabel

Sander deWaal

October 2nd 06, 07:09 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>>> His war against Jenn is most pathetic.

>>> Jenn started it.

"Middius made me do it!"

>Jenn can stop it.

"Waaah! No fair!"

>> Whether or not that's true, it's still a pathetic excuse
>> to trot out.

>No excuses are required when truth prevails. It may have been a tough and
>confusing week for some, but any number of uncomfortable technical truths
>about audio were exposed.

LOL!
Like 4558s are the ultimate in opamp technology?

You should apply for president of the AES, Arny.

Oh wait, that would require actually be gainfully (self) employed in
audio, right? ;-)

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

George M. Middius

October 2nd 06, 07:18 PM

Sander deWaal said:

> You should apply for president of the AES, Arny.
> Oh wait, that would require actually be gainfully (self) employed in
> audio, right? ;-)

Rubbing salt in wounds, noted, LOt"S.

--

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

[email protected]

October 2nd 06, 07:54 PM

Eeyore wrote:
> Mr Fox wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 02:11:38 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
> >
> > >Jenn wrote:
> > >
> > >>What reality have I denied and what have I made up, Arny?
> > >
> > >You really should ignore him.
> >
> > I don't know about that. Jenn doesn't seem to have to expend much
> > energy in these exchanges to get Krueger running around amd around his
> > little wheel.
>
> LOL ! You're so right there.
>
> Graham

A few days ago I felt like many sooner or later come to feel
about discussions with Arny the Indefatigable. " Oh, what the hell?
What is the point?" One can't help deciding that he is either
intellectually dishonest.to an nth degree or so paranoid that he feels
he is always under attack by malignant forces and so entitled to use
any weapon, however disgusting, to protect himself.
But now I'm encouraged by a man who shares his audio viewpoint,,
Eeyore, trying to talk sense to him.
So I'm transferring the argument from some 500 messages ago in the "
Kroobotgs feeble assault..." thread to here: The discussion was about
analogue vs. digital. I said:
>"I quoted to you repeatedly what D'Agostino of Krell,... ...
He interrupts :
"IMO, a well known technical charlatan with a good grasp of marketing
sizzle".
.....> Meitner of Bryston and-Museatex...
Krueger: "See above".
..... >and Stuart of Meridian
Krueger:interjects "A well-known advocate of digital audio".
> had to say about one of your articles of faith; superiority of all digital to >all analogue.

Krueger:
"Say what? That's just one more example of dozens, of your abilities to
substitute fantasy for reality, Ludo.
Got any more fairy tales to tell?

> They said it publicly where anyone can read it.
Krueger:
"No links provided - good proof that Ludo is making this up as he goes
along."
He, Krueger, is calling *me* a liar!
Now note this: On August 26th '05 -*yes August 2005*- in the "A note
for Mikey" thread in RAO I quoted to our Krueger what I had said to him
once before in the RAHE in 2003.
>.. D.Agostino says:, (The Stereophile, Dec.2003,p.78:

D'Agostino:"With DVD-audio and SACD, I think there is a
possibility of equaling vinyl"
Lander: You're not in the turntable business, and you do offer CD
players, but you've said that you *prefer vinyl to the CD*.
D'Agostino: *I still think vinyl is better*, but with the two formats
we're dealing with now, DVD-Audio and SACD, I think there's a
possibility of equaling vinyl-as soon as we decide not to stick with
our old methods of recording. I think we have to go back to the drawing
board as far as how we record SACDs, because I don't think their
potential has been realized.
Note!: just *a possibility*! .And with
SACD! Did not the RAO scientists + Krueger *prove* that SACD is no
better than CD while LP is infinitely worse.
Note!: D'Agostino designs highly respected *transistor* equipment
exclusively. No tubes , no TTs, no vinyl. But our Arny of RAO fame sees
fit to dismiss him as "technical charlatan" and me as a liar.
Not even paranoia justifies this.
Now for another one of Arny's "technical charlatans" high-end designer
Meitner. This one goes back to 2001, Dec 14. Yes, 2001!!.
In "Digital is bad for you" thread in RAHE I quoted to Arny from
Meitner interview in the." Positive feedback " 0802, 2001. Meitner
interviewed by Pappas said: :
"And if listening to music was considered as relaxation and was
supposed to be a way to relieve stress, then PCM, like CD playback,
certainly doesn't do it as well as some of the old analogue stuff
did."
" For sound quality, here's one simple test. I'm doing some
transfers of vinyl LPs onto DSD. And, you know, in DSD this is a
conversion with a minimal amount of damage to the original sound. If
you consider playing back vinyl and liking all the good things about
it, now we can have it in DSD format. We could possibly take some of
the clicks and pops out of it and still have the general good flavor
preserved. The same holds true for analogue tapes and any kind of
conversion"
That was in 2001. and 2005
In July of this year 2006 I said:in "Have we got the wrong end..." July
7
"It was not the first time I quoted D'Agostino to Arny either...
It turns out that Arny CAN read. He needs only five repeats to absorb
Agostino's name and.throw it back at me shouting hurrah.
I made his day because I said Krell instead of "D'Agostino's Krell".
Well. let's have it again: D'Agostino's Krell, D'Agostino's Krell,
D'Agostino's Krell. Eeny, meenie, miny Arny.
And now that we've played children' games how about demonstrating one
is not a schoolyard dunce after all and addressing our powerful mind to

task at hand:
1) Did those two designers ( with many other authorities, not of the
RAO tribe) say that digital has not as yet caught up with analogue
rendition of music or did they not?
2) When will we see that one reference to a professional journal (Name,

year, authors, title, page) that accepted and published the results of
...
....Arny Krueger's research into anything audio: ABX, superiority of
digital, anything, anything at all."
This is the man who dares to talk of my "fairy tales"
Should I repeat all this to him more frequently? Every year? Every
six months? Whatever he may want. I'll oblige.
Ludovic Mirabel

Mr Fox

October 2nd 06, 08:55 PM

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:33:29 -0400, Stuart Krivis
> wrote:

>
>
>>task at hand:
>>1) Did those two designers ( with many other authorities, not of the
>>RAO tribe) say that digital has not as yet caught up with analogue
>>rendition of music or did they not?
>
>Perhaps they realized they wouldn't sell many megabuck phono preamps
>if they admitted vinyl was inferior?
>
>Perhaps if they didn't, in general, blow smoke up people's rears they
>woudn't sell much of anything at all?
>
>Feel free to say you like vinyl better, but if you claim it's superior
>to CD, you're going to need to show some proof.

Why?

[email protected]

October 2nd 06, 11:46 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2006 11:54:28 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
>
> >task at hand:
> >1) Did those two designers ( with many other authorities, not of the
> >RAO tribe) say that digital has not as yet caught up with analogue
> >rendition of music or did they not?
>
> Perhaps they realized they wouldn't sell many megabuck phono preamps
> if they admitted vinyl was inferior?
>
> Perhaps if they didn't, in general, blow smoke up people's rears they
> woudn't sell much of anything at all?
>
> Feel free to say you like vinyl better, but if you claim it's superior
> to CD, you're going to need to show some proof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for interest- what phono preamps do Krell and Meitner sell?
And if find one don't they sell many times more solid state preamps.?
What kind of the mad RAO scientist logic would they follow to boost
phono over solid state?

No wonder you want your postings destroyed.
Ludovic Mirabel

[email protected]

October 3rd 06, 12:15 AM

wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Hi Arny,
> >
> > I recognise your skills in the PC soundcard area and associated ABX
> > testing.
> >
> > I am however puzzled why you stray outside your area of expertise in
> > what I can only call a perverse desire to find wrong with any poster you
> > happen to disagree with.
> >
> > May I suggest to you that you take stock and consider carefully your
> > motives in this absurd war you seek to wage with your demons.
> >
> >
> > Graham
>
> Don't make me like you, dude.
>
> Boon

I can't believe you're still here with your nonsense. I've gone for
over two years and you still haven't learned anything. Ba-foon,
Ba-foon, Ba-foon!!

[email protected]

October 4th 06, 03:03 AM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2006 15:46:20 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >> On 2 Oct 2006 11:54:28 -0700, " >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >task at hand:
> >> >1) Did those two designers ( with many other authorities, not of the
> >> >RAO tribe) say that digital has not as yet caught up with analogue
> >> >rendition of music or did they not?
> >>
> >> Perhaps they realized they wouldn't sell many megabuck phono preamps
> >> if they admitted vinyl was inferior?
> >>
> >> Perhaps if they didn't, in general, blow smoke up people's rears they
> >> woudn't sell much of anything at all?
> >>
> >> Feel free to say you like vinyl better, but if you claim it's superior
> >> to CD, you're going to need to show some proof.
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Just for interest- what phono preamps do Krell and Meitner sell?
> >And if find one don't they sell many times more solid state preamps.?
> > What kind of the mad RAO scientist logic would they follow to boost
> >phono over solid state?
> >
>
> I don't know, what phono preamps did they sell?
>
> Are you saying they make tube phono preamps, but SS preamps otherwise?
>
> Where the heck did you come up with anything about solid state anyway?
>
> >No wonder you want your postings destroyed.
>
> You're the one who just came off as raving mad. :-)
>
> >Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Perhaps you should change that to Luddite Mirabel, but I'm sure others
> have already suggested this.
=====================================

Mr. Krivis a distinguished member of the scientology chapel aspires
to the vacated crown of the chapel's clown-prince NYOB.

I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment D'Agostino.and
Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage) to say that they hope one
day to equal the quality of tube and vinyl. .

Mr. Krivis loked deep down into his own mental processes and found
there the answer. Money, what else, must be D'Agostino's and Meitner's
motive.
He made his propaganda Ministry press release:
>> Perhaps they realized they wouldn't sell many megabuck phono preamps
>> if they admitted vinyl was inferior?
I did not know of any megabuck (or two dollar) phono preamps that
those two were manufacturing so I asked politely:
>Just for interest- what phono preamps do Krell and Meitner sell?
>And if (...you...) find one don't they sell many times more solid state preamps.?
> What kind of the mad RAO scientist logic would they follow to boost
>phono over solid state?

Our scientologist thundered: > don't know what phono preamps did they
sell.

And he asked ME:

> Are you saying they make tube phono preamps, but SS preamps otherwise?

For sheer blody cheek this takes the cake. First he accuses them of
selling phono preamps for"megabucks" then tries to drop his sewer
garbage into my lap.

> Where the heck did you come up with
> anything about solid state anyway?

In Wikipedia thats's where: :
"Solid state (electronics) are circuits that do not contain vacuum
tubes or, more currently, moving parts". Good enough for Wiki
good enough for me. But apparently not for the clown-prince of
scientology:

Another witty riposte":
> You're the one who just came off as raving mad. :-)

And a final rapier thrust:
> Perhaps you should change that to Luddite > Mirabel, but I'm sure others
> have already suggested this.

:Yes, other rare wits in your chapel had but I can see why you
thought this pun so hilarious that you couldn't resist it. Since we're
operating at kindergarten level can I contribute? How about Stuart
Krevasse? Ha, ha, ha and ha?
Ludovic Mirabel

While we're at it and keeping the thread alive: why don't you ask your
High Priest Arny when will he answer my accusation (with evidence) that
he falsifies his own the past.correspondence.

Eeyore

October 4th 06, 12:33 PM

" wrote:

> Stuart Krivis wrote:
> " > wrote:
> > >Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
> > >> Feel free to say you like vinyl better, but if you claim it's superior
> > >> to CD, you're going to need to show some proof.
> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >Just for interest- what phono preamps do Krell and Meitner sell?
> > >And if find one don't they sell many times more solid state preamps.?
> > > What kind of the mad RAO scientist logic would they follow to boost
> > >phono over solid state?
> >
> > I don't know, what phono preamps did they sell?
> >
> > Are you saying they make tube phono preamps, but SS preamps otherwise?
> >
> > Where the heck did you come up with anything about solid state anyway?
> >
> > >No wonder you want your postings destroyed.
> >
> > You're the one who just came off as raving mad. :-)
> >
> > >Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> > Perhaps you should change that to Luddite Mirabel, but I'm sure others
> > have already suggested this.
> =====================================
>
> Mr. Krivis a distinguished member of the scientology chapel aspires
> to the vacated crown of the chapel's clown-prince NYOB.
>
> I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
> manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment D'Agostino.and
> Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage) to say that they hope one
> day to equal the quality of tube and vinyl. .

That's utterly absurd.

Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.

Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham

paul packer

October 4th 06, 01:16 PM

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

>Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>
>Graham

Agreed.

Bertie the Bunyip

October 4th 06, 01:31 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> " wrote:
>
>> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>> " > wrote:
>> > >Stuart Krivis wrote:
>>
>> > >> Feel free to say you like vinyl better, but if you claim it's
>> > >> superior to CD, you're going to need to show some proof.
>> >
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >------- Just for interest- what phono preamps do Krell and Meitner
>> > >sell? And if find one don't they sell many times more solid state
>> > >preamps.?
>> > > What kind of the mad RAO scientist logic would they follow to
>> > > boost
>> > >phono over solid state?
>> >
>> > I don't know, what phono preamps did they sell?
>> >
>> > Are you saying they make tube phono preamps, but SS preamps
>> > otherwise?
>> >
>> > Where the heck did you come up with anything about solid state
>> > anyway?
>> >
>> > >No wonder you want your postings destroyed.
>> >
>> > You're the one who just came off as raving mad. :-)
>> >
>> > >Ludovic Mirabel
>> >
>> > Perhaps you should change that to Luddite Mirabel, but I'm sure
>> > others have already suggested this.
>> =====================================
>>
>> Mr. Krivis a distinguished member of the scientology chapel
>> aspires
>> to the vacated crown of the chapel's clown-prince NYOB.
>>
>> I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
>> manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment D'Agostino.and
>> Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage) to say that they hope
>> one day to equal the quality of tube and vinyl. .
>
> That's utterly absurd.
>
> Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.
>

The compleat fjukktard

Bertie

Jenn

October 4th 06, 04:30 PM

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> >
> >Graham
>
>
> Agreed.

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

[email protected]

October 4th 06, 06:29 PM

Eeyore wrote:
> " wrote:
>
> > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > " > wrote:
> > > >Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >
> > > >> Feel free to say you like vinyl better, but if you claim it's superior
> > > >> to CD, you're going to need to show some proof.
> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >Just for interest- what phono preamps do Krell and Meitner sell?
> > > >And if find one don't they sell many times more solid state preamps.?
> > > > What kind of the mad RAO scientist logic would they follow to boost
> > > >phono over solid state?
> > >
> > > I don't know, what phono preamps did they sell?
> > >
> > > Are you saying they make tube phono preamps, but SS preamps otherwise?
> > >
> > > Where the heck did you come up with anything about solid state anyway?
> > >
> > > >No wonder you want your postings destroyed.
> > >
> > > You're the one who just came off as raving mad. :-)
> > >
> > > >Ludovic Mirabel
> > >
> > > Perhaps you should change that to Luddite Mirabel, but I'm sure others
> > > have already suggested this.
> > =====================================
> >
> > Mr. Krivis a distinguished member of the scientology chapel aspires
> > to the vacated crown of the chapel's clown-prince NYOB.
> >
> > I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
> > manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment D'Agostino.and
> > Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage) to say that they hope one
> > day to equal the quality of tube and vinyl. .
>
> That's utterly absurd.
>
> Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.
>
> Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>
> Graham
======================================

I said:
> > I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
> > manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment D'Agostino.and
> > Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage) to say that they hope one
> > day to equal the quality of tube and vinyl. .
>
Mr. Eeyore responds;

> That's utterly absurd.
>
> Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.
>
> Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>
> Graham

There you are : Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell on one
side the RAO distinguished chapel members Eeyore and Krivis on the
other. What is a poor nontechnical audiophile to think and do?
Ludovic Mirabel.

[email protected]

October 4th 06, 06:45 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> >> >
> >> >Graham
> >>
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >
> >Cool.... more used records available for me.
>
> More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
> :-)

Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.

Boon

[email protected]

October 4th 06, 06:48 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2006 19:03:53 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
> >> Where the heck did you come up with
> >> anything about solid state anyway?
> >
> >In Wikipedia thats's where: :
> >"Solid state (electronics) are circuits that do not contain vacuum
> >tubes or, more currently, moving parts". Good enough for Wiki
> >good enough for me. But apparently not for the clown-prince of
> >scientology:
> >
>
> Dude, you are seriously screwed up.
>
> _I_ never said anything about SS equipment at all. _You_ were the one
> who started in on that for some reason.
>
>
> >And a final rapier thrust:
> >> Perhaps you should change that to Luddite > Mirabel, but I'm sure others
> >> have already suggested this.
> >
> >:Yes, other rare wits in your chapel had but I can see why you
> >thought this pun so hilarious that you couldn't resist it. Since we're
> >operating at kindergarten level can I contribute? How about Stuart
> >Krevasse? Ha, ha, ha and ha?
>
> You're the one who acts like a Luddite. You're trying to go back to
> vinyl because you are somehow scared of newer technology.
>
>
> >
> >While we're at it and keeping the thread alive: why don't you ask your
> >High Priest Arny when will he answer my accusation (with evidence) that
> >he falsifies his own the past.correspondence.
>
> Ask him yourself.
>
> Why did you feel the need to mention him anyway?

================================================== =
Krivis drags in the psychoanalyst's couch to place it next to his
scientology altar.

> You're the one who acts like a Luddite. You're trying to go back to
> vinyl because you are somehow scared of newer technology.

I am so scared that I put my three Bryston, Acoustat TNT amplifiers
and Sony tuner together with my +/- 2000 cds within a defensive fence
made up of your RAO postings.
Ludovic Mirabel

[email protected]

October 4th 06, 06:50 PM

Mr Fox wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:33:29 -0400, Stuart Krivis
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>task at hand:
> >>1) Did those two designers ( with many other authorities, not of the
> >>RAO tribe) say that digital has not as yet caught up with analogue
> >>rendition of music or did they not?
> >
> >Perhaps they realized they wouldn't sell many megabuck phono preamps
> >if they admitted vinyl was inferior?
> >
> >Perhaps if they didn't, in general, blow smoke up people's rears they
> >woudn't sell much of anything at all?
> >
> >Feel free to say you like vinyl better, but if you claim it's superior
> >to CD, you're going to need to show some proof.
>
>
> Why?

People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
has lower distortion, or anything of that nature.

Objectivists like Krivis pretend to be ignorant of this fact, because
they can't argue with personal preferences. So they try to create
arguments out of thin air, because they can't "get it."

Boob

[email protected]

October 4th 06, 06:52 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
> >> manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment D'Agostino.and
> >> Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage) to say that they hope one
> >> day to equal the quality of tube and vinyl. .
> >
> >That's utterly absurd.
> >
> >Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.
> >
> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>
> Which doesn't bode well for the quality of D'Agostino and Meitner's
> _current_ equipment. :-)
>
> "One day our stuff will make it up to the level of being really
> crappy."
>
>
>
> Actually, I feel it is possible to do a pretty good job with tubes in
> some cases. A couple of EEs I respect have said that, as with SS, you
> can get good results with tubes if you use them properly. I have
> certainly heard good results with some tube preamps, for instance.
>
> It appears to me that the best SS and tube gear are all converging on
> the same point - neutral and stable operation. The best of each breed
> sound very similar.
>
> However, I choose to own SS myself for a number of reasons, with heat
> and maintainance being up there at the top.

And sound quality, evidently, being at the bottom.

Boon

Jenn

October 4th 06, 06:52 PM

[email protected]

October 4th 06, 06:56 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
> >> manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment D'Agostino.and
> >> Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage) to say that they hope one
> >> day to equal the quality of tube and vinyl. .
> >
> >That's utterly absurd.
> >
> >Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.
> >
> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>
> Which doesn't bode well for the quality of D'Agostino and Meitner's
> _current_ equipment. :-)
>
> "One day our stuff will make it up to the level of being really
> crappy."
>
>
>
> Actually, I feel it is possible to do a pretty good job with tubes in
> some cases. A couple of EEs I respect have said that, as with SS, you
> can get good results with tubes if you use them properly. I have
> certainly heard good results with some tube preamps, for instance.
>
> It appears to me that the best SS and tube gear are all converging on
> the same point - neutral and stable operation. The best of each breed
> sound very similar.
>
> However, I choose to own SS myself for a number of reasons, with heat
> and maintainance being up there at the top.
=====================================

This access of sanity must be encouraged. What made you into a
semidissident from the faith taking cautious steps towards audio? This
is encouraging. I'll keep up the good work.
Ludovic Mirabel

George M. Middius

October 4th 06, 07:33 PM

Marc said to RibbetBorg:

> > However, I choose to own SS myself for a number of reasons, with heat
> > and maintainance being up there at the top.

> And sound quality, evidently, being at the bottom.

The existence of sound at sufficient volume is the quality benchmark of a
functioning audio system. What cannot be measured does not matter. If you
were a proper Hivie, you'd accept these principles and stop fussing about
ephemera like "sound quality".

--

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

Jenn

October 4th 06, 09:03 PM

[email protected]

October 4th 06, 09:38 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2006 10:45:48 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Graham
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Agreed.
> >> >
> >> >Cool.... more used records available for me.
> >>
> >> More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
> >> :-)
> >
> >Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
> >klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.
> >
>
> Yeah, although I think the lower distortion, higher S/N, and better
> dynamic range of CD had something to do with it too.
>
> Now I get better sound, closer to what was on the tape at the studio
> in many cases, I'm paying less per album, and I don't have to always
> be futzing with taking care of LPs, cartridge, and turntable.
>
> I bet you didn't know that the vast majority of preamps present the
> wrong load electrically to the cartridge? So you've probably never
> heard vinyl even as accurately as it can be. (Although some moving
> coil cartridges can never be properly interfaced to, so it may not
> matter for your setup.)

I bet you didn't know my setup sounds absolutely fabulous. So what
makes you think you can change my mind about anything?

Boon

[email protected]

October 4th 06, 09:43 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
>
>
> >
> >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
> >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
>
> So you admit it's down to "I like it."

It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
objectivists always sound so foolish.

>
> The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
> guess he must be right.

If that's what his preference is, then absolutely.

>
> >
> >Objectivists like Krivis pretend to be ignorant of this fact, because
> >they can't argue with personal preferences. So they try to create
> >arguments out of thin air, because they can't "get it."
>
> You're the one who tries to present things as being superior when they
> objectively are not.

I'm the one who tries to talk about my preferences, nothing more.

>
> When that fails, you cry "listen to it yourself!"

No, I say "listen to it yourself" from the get-go.

>
> The next step is to retreat into "I like it and so there. I don't care
> whether it's any good or not."

Well, more accurately, it's "I like it because it makes me happy. I
don't see the connection between measurements and my own personal
satisfaction. And only a moron would would buy a consumer product
based on anything other than their ultimate satisfaction."

>
> Did I miss any steps?

Did you trip and fall on your face, you mean? Only every time you
post.

>
> >
> >Boob
>
> I see you finally signed yourself correctly. :-)

Ooops. You win!

Boon

[email protected]

October 4th 06, 09:49 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2006 10:52:17 -0700, wrote:
>
> >> However, I choose to own SS myself for a number of reasons, with heat
> >> and maintainance being up there at the top.
> >
> >And sound quality, evidently, being at the bottom.
> >
>
> Au contraire, mon ami!
>
> You must have missed the part where I observed that the best tube gear
> and the best SS gear sound very similar.

And I missed the part where you actually name the tube amps you have
heard that sound just like the best tube gear.

>
> But then you're stuck using teenie, tiny, triode tunes. You don't care
> how bad your amps are, because you "like them." w00t

I actually have more than one amp. I also have a 200wpc hybrid
integrated amp, a 40wpc SS receivers, and a 15wpc push-pull with KT66s.

>
> Meanwhile, back in reality, those teeny, tiny SET amps are a joke.

Meanwhile, back in reality, I own a 2wpc triode, and derive a lot of
listening pleasure from it. And you continue to base your opinions on
something you've never heard. Which is impressing no one, by the way.

>
> Maybe you should dispense with electronics altogether. I bet you can
> find an old Victrola on Ebay or something. Then you can be acoustic
> all the way from vinyl to your ears. It's older, so it's just got to
> be better.

Maybe you should stick with MP3s then. It's newer, so it has to be
better!

Boon

Harry Lavo

October 5th 06, 01:37 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > (paul packer) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>> >> >
>> >> >Graham
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Agreed.
>> >
>> >Cool.... more used records available for me.
>>
>> More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
>> :-)
>
> Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
> klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.
>
> Boon

Boy, ain't that the truth. I had a Thorens turntable, Pritchard tonearm,
and ADC 25 cartridge shortly after getting out of college, replacing my
Garrard / Shure set up. Kept records dust free, in their covers when not
playing, and tracked at light weights. Most of my records have very little
noise to this day, some 44 years later. I buy used LP's in college towns
(but with my tastes, probably from profs rather than students) and about 1/2
of them are in excellent condition. The other half sound as if they were
tracked for twenty years in a VM changer, at five grams, and sat open in
piles when not being played. The difference is not subtle. And *this* is
what the anti-vinyl fundamentalists quote as the problem with LP's. Little
do they realize that it usually signals a lack of care and sometimes lesser
equipment on their part.

Jenn

October 5th 06, 01:56 AM

Harry Lavo wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Graham
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Agreed.
> >> >
> >> >Cool.... more used records available for me.
> >>
> >> More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
> >> :-)
> >
> > Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
> > klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.
> >
> > Boon
>
> Boy, ain't that the truth. I had a Thorens turntable, Pritchard tonearm,
> and ADC 25 cartridge shortly after getting out of college, replacing my
> Garrard / Shure set up. Kept records dust free, in their covers when not
> playing, and tracked at light weights. Most of my records have very little
> noise to this day, some 44 years later. I buy used LP's in college towns
> (but with my tastes, probably from profs rather than students) and about 1/2
> of them are in excellent condition. The other half sound as if they were
> tracked for twenty years in a VM changer, at five grams, and sat open in
> piles when not being played. The difference is not subtle. And *this* is
> what the anti-vinyl fundamentalists quote as the problem with LP's. Little
> do they realize that it usually signals a lack of care and sometimes lesser
> equipment on their part.

I remember one poster here who refused to believe that I have several
LPs that are of "ticks and pops". It made me wonder how he handled his
LPs.

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 02:21 AM

Jenn wrote:

> In article >,
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> > >
> > >Graham
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> Cool.... more used records available for me.

You might not like the stuff I listen to !

I recently got several Sisters of Mercy CDs on ebay btw. Even better.
Used CDs are indistinguishable from new !

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 02:24 AM

Stuart Krivis wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
> >> I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
> >> manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment D'Agostino.and
> >> Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage) to say that they hope one
> >> day to equal the quality of tube and vinyl. .
> >
> >That's utterly absurd.
> >
> >Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.
> >
> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>
> Which doesn't bode well for the quality of D'Agostino and Meitner's
> _current_ equipment. :-)
>
> "One day our stuff will make it up to the level of being really
> crappy."
>
> Actually, I feel it is possible to do a pretty good job with tubes in
> some cases. A couple of EEs I respect have said that, as with SS, you
> can get good results with tubes if you use them properly. I have
> certainly heard good results with some tube preamps, for instance.

A tube PA is totally stuffed by the need to use an output transformer though.

> It appears to me that the best SS and tube gear are all converging on
> the same point - neutral and stable operation. The best of each breed
> sound very similar.
>
> However, I choose to own SS myself for a number of reasons, with heat
> and maintainance being up there at the top.

Good enough reasons, although I did once design a mosfet amp with a quiscent
dissipation of 110W/ch.

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 02:27 AM

Stuart Krivis wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> >> >
> >> >Graham
> >>
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >
> >Cool.... more used records available for me.
>
> More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
> :-)

U2 - Rattle and Hum.

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 02:29 AM

" wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
>
> I said:
> > > I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
> > > manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment D'Agostino.and
> > > Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage) to say that they hope one
> > > day to equal the quality of tube and vinyl. .
> >
> Mr. Eeyore responds;
>
> > That's utterly absurd.
> >
> > Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.
> >
> > Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> >
> > Graham
>
> There you are : Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell on one
> side the RAO distinguished chapel members Eeyore and Krivis on the
> other. What is a poor nontechnical audiophile to think and do?
> Ludovic Mirabel.

Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell are clearly mentally defective. I
imagine they can't hear very well too either in order to make such a statement.

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 02:30 AM

Stuart Krivis wrote:

> On 4 Oct 2006 10:29:52 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
> >There you are : Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell on one
> >side the RAO distinguished chapel members Eeyore and Krivis on the
> >other. What is a poor nontechnical audiophile to think and do?
>
> Perhaps look to see who stands to make the most money from your belief
> in foo-foo dust, and then ignore them?
>
> Hint: Meitner and D'Agostino are the ones that have realized that the
> higher they price a product, the better some people will think it is.
>
> BTW, what's with your completely wierd style of quoting where you
> include everything twice?

Ludo like to perplex.

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 02:32 AM

wrote:

> Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
> > > wrote:
>
> > >Cool.... more used records available for me.
> >
> > More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
> > :-)
>
> Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
> klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.

Maybe he had a life to lead ?

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 02:39 AM

Stuart Krivis wrote:

> On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
> >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
>
> So you admit it's down to "I like it."
>
> The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
> guess he must be right.

There's a guy in uk.rec.audio who's been banging on about his superior valve
amps and home-made speakers who posted some mp3 of the sound it makes. Good
God ! The guy must be stone deaf ! It sounded shockingly bad. I guess that
explains why he doesn't like decent kit.

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 02:41 AM

Stuart Krivis wrote:

> Here's some interesting commentary from FVA:
>
> The basic engineering purpose of using the tube is that the summing
> node of input and feedback on a reasonable tube circuit will have in
> excess of 200 volts of headroom before overload. A typical solid
> state device circuit will have 0.2 volts or much less headroom before
> the feedback loop clips and fails, all other things being equal.

This is complete unadulterated rubbish !

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 02:43 AM

wrote:

> Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> >
> > >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> > >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
> > >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
> >
> > So you admit it's down to "I like it."
>
> It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
> objectivists always sound so foolish.

There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good *objectively* !

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 02:47 AM

Harry Lavo wrote:

> > wrote in message
> > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
> >> > wrote:
> >> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >> >> Eeyore > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Graham
> >> >>
> >> >> Agreed.
> >> >
> >> >Cool.... more used records available for me.
> >>
> >> More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
> >> :-)
> >
> > Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
> > klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.
> >
> > Boon
>
> Boy, ain't that the truth. I had a Thorens turntable, Pritchard tonearm,
> and ADC 25 cartridge shortly after getting out of college, replacing my
> Garrard / Shure set up. Kept records dust free, in their covers when not
> playing, and tracked at light weights. Most of my records have very little
> noise to this day, some 44 years later. I buy used LP's in college towns
> (but with my tastes, probably from profs rather than students) and about 1/2
> of them are in excellent condition. The other half sound as if they were
> tracked for twenty years in a VM changer, at five grams, and sat open in
> piles when not being played. The difference is not subtle. And *this* is
> what the anti-vinyl fundamentalists quote as the problem with LP's. Little
> do they realize that it usually signals a lack of care and sometimes lesser
> equipment on their part.

There are *plenty* more problems with vinyl than just the difficulty of decent
care.

Graham

Harry Lavo

October 5th 06, 02:48 AM

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
>> On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
>> >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
>> >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
>>
>> So you admit it's down to "I like it."
>>
>> The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
>> guess he must be right.
>
> There's a guy in uk.rec.audio who's been banging on about his superior
> valve
> amps and home-made speakers who posted some mp3 of the sound it makes.
> Good
> God ! The guy must be stone deaf ! It sounded shockingly bad. I guess that
> explains why he doesn't like decent kit.

He recorded his system? Even the best system in the world, in the best
room, would sound pretty bad once fed back into a microphone/recorder setup
and played back through another pair of speakers? Ever tried it? I have,
just for kicks, years ago, and the end result simply doesn't sound anything
like the system.

[email protected]

October 5th 06, 03:13 AM

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >
> >> On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> >> >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
> >> >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
> >>
> >> So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> >>
> >> The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
> >> guess he must be right.
> >
> > There's a guy in uk.rec.audio who's been banging on about his superior
> > valve
> > amps and home-made speakers who posted some mp3 of the sound it makes.
> > Good
> > God ! The guy must be stone deaf ! It sounded shockingly bad. I guess that
> > explains why he doesn't like decent kit.
>
>
> He recorded his system? Even the best system in the world, in the best
> room, would sound pretty bad once fed back into a microphone/recorder setup
> and played back through another pair of speakers? Ever tried it? I have,
> just for kicks, years ago, and the end result simply doesn't sound anything
> like the system.

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

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 03:17 AM

Harry Lavo wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >> On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> >> >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
> >> >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
> >>
> >> So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> >>
> >> The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
> >> guess he must be right.
> >
> > There's a guy in uk.rec.audio who's been banging on about his superior
> > valve
> > amps and home-made speakers who posted some mp3 of the sound it makes.
> > Good
> > God ! The guy must be stone deaf ! It sounded shockingly bad. I guess that
> > explains why he doesn't like decent kit.
>
> He recorded his system? Even the best system in the world, in the best
> room, would sound pretty bad once fed back into a microphone/recorder setup
> and played back through another pair of speakers? Ever tried it? I have,
> just for kicks, years ago, and the end result simply doesn't sound anything
> like the system.

I'm aware of the problems involved but he did at least use a decent 'reference'
mic for the job.

In short, there was no way what he had could ever have been a decent sounding
setup.

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 03:18 AM

" wrote:

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

What's so special about these 2 pricks d'Appolito and Meitner ?

Do you think no-one else counts ?

Graham

George M. Middius

October 5th 06, 03:35 AM

Poopie whined:

> What's so special about these 2 pricks d'Appolito and Meitner ?

They're successful and you're not.

--

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

[email protected]

October 5th 06, 07:13 AM

Eeyore wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > > On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> > >
> > > >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> > > >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
> > > >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
> > >
> > > So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> >
> > It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
> > objectivists always sound so foolish.
>
> There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good *objectively* !

There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good subjectively,
either.

Boon
>
> Graham

[email protected]

October 5th 06, 07:18 AM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2006 13:49:06 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> Maybe you should dispense with electronics altogether. I bet you can
> >> find an old Victrola on Ebay or something. Then you can be acoustic
> >> all the way from vinyl to your ears. It's older, so it's just got to
> >> be better.
> >
> >Maybe you should stick with MP3s then. It's newer, so it has to be
> >better!
>
> One doesn't really follow from the other. You need to work on your
> logic there.
>
> Still, I guess I can be charitable and give you a "touche'" It's close
> enough to a snappy comeback to count in rao anyway.

You keep talking about logic, yet you're the one who thinks he knows
what things sound like before he hears them.

Boon

paul packer

October 5th 06, 07:33 AM

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:23:43 -0400, Stuart Krivis
> wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> (paul packer) wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>>> >
>>> >Graham
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>>Cool.... more used records available for me.
>
>More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
>:-)
>

Agreed.

paul packer

October 5th 06, 07:37 AM

On 4 Oct 2006 17:56:31 -0700, "Jenn" > wrote:

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

No, I'm quite prepared to believe you "have several
LPs that are of "ticks and pops" :-)

paul packer

October 5th 06, 07:40 AM

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:51:11 -0400, Stuart Krivis
> wrote:

>It's a wonder that records work as well as they do, but they really
>haven't progressed much since the time of Edison.
>
>Maybe the vinyl lovers here hear as well as Edison did?

"Gentlemen, that's a band!"

"Eh?"

[email protected]

October 5th 06, 07:40 AM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2006 19:13:16 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
> >Let them argue with each other about tube impendances and such. When
>
> Did you mean tube appendages?
>
> >they try to venture into the country of the real pioneers of audio they
> >come up with idiocies like explaining to us why d'Appolito and Meitner
> >see fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why? Simple: because
> >they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE products for "megabucks".
>
> Ok, so I was wrong. They want to sell their "non-analog" products for
> peanuts. Is that better?
>
> You never did explain why you suddenly started haranguing me about
> solid state equipment. Did you have a few neurons misfire or
> something?
>
> Hmmm... are you trying to claim that you're a real pioneer of audio,
> or that D'Agostino and Meitner are? Yeah, Ludo, something else
> misfired and you're now talking about a speaker designer instead of
> D'Agostino like in the original conversation.
>
> D' Appolito is far more of a designer though, so maybe we should talk
> about him. At least he's worthy of respect, instead of just another
> charlatan separating people from their money great big chunks at a
> time.
>
> We could talk about Lise Meitner. She was a pioneer.
---------------------------------------------
Mr. Krivis , this is getting to be one of those endless RAO gangfights
and I always suffered from proneness to getting easily bored.

I may have given inadvertedly the impression that I want to fight
under the banner of: "everything analogue is better than everything
digital" . I'll repeat what I said recently: there is plenty of awful
cds. and awful lps. around. Many cds sre miles better than many lps.
It depends on the audio engineer, recording location, pressing
manufacture care etc. etc. My impression is that the best lps
especially those from the "golden era" of simple miking and before the
mixing gadgets etc. started to proliferate, before the recording
engineers decided that they will adjust the sound according to their
idea of what the peasants out there like, those best lps are still
unsurpassed. (Some London, some Everest 35mmfilm, some Columbia).
That's my ears and yours may tell you something different.
But I have no patience with "scientific" trumpeting that everything
digital is better than everything analogue. Especially as many who
repeat it do not listen to the music that I value. As is my privilege.

I'm saying all this to you because your recent posting came very
closely to this my point of view. The "my digital is better than your
analogue stance" is , shall I say, not very sophisticated.

But it goes against my grain to be so conciliatory and statesman-like.
So I'll still repeat that you're talking strange logic when you say
that D'Agostino (I don't know how I got Appolito into this. Maybe
because I love the gorgeous sound of those Italian names. You, of
course would spot it) and Meitner praise the virtues of analogue in
order to sell digital .
Also I have Meitner designed amp. and I think that it is an
exceptionally good buy for the money. I don't know where you got
"megabucks" from and why you call him , of all people, a charlatan and
worse.
But these are minor quibbles.

I suggest that this discussion reached the end of its usefulness. Time
to get back to listening to music, reading books etc. But you may feel
differently as is your privilege.
Ludovic Mirabel

paul packer

October 5th 06, 07:43 AM

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>> >
>> >Graham
>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>
>Cool.... more used records available for me.

Good luck with the cleaning machine.

paul packer

October 5th 06, 07:55 AM

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:38:06 -0400, Stuart Krivis
> wrote:

>>Boob
>
>I see you finally signed yourself correctly. :-)
>

LOL!

paul packer

October 5th 06, 08:02 AM

On 4 Oct 2006 10:29:52 -0700, " >
wrote:

>> Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>>
>> Graham
>
>There you are : Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell on one
>side the RAO distinguished chapel members Eeyore and Krivis on the
>other. What is a poor nontechnical audiophile to think and do?
>Ludovic Mirabel.

Don't forget me, Ludo! I must tip the balance, surely.

paul packer

October 5th 06, 08:05 AM

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:26:17 -0400, Stuart Krivis
> wrote:

>You're the one who acts like a Luddite.

Don't you mean Ludo-ite?

George M. Middius

October 5th 06, 09:52 AM

paul packer said:

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

> >More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.

> Agreed.

Is that the punchline?

Real 'borgs get their spines stiffened by snotting on the very idea that
Normals might like LPs and turntables. What do you get out of it?

--

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

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 10:37 AM

Stuart Krivis wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
> >> Boy, ain't that the truth. I had a Thorens turntable, Pritchard tonearm,
> >> and ADC 25 cartridge shortly after getting out of college, replacing my
> >> Garrard / Shure set up. Kept records dust free, in their covers when not
> >> playing, and tracked at light weights. Most of my records have very little
> >> noise to this day, some 44 years later. I buy used LP's in college towns
> >> (but with my tastes, probably from profs rather than students) and about 1/2
> >> of them are in excellent condition. The other half sound as if they were
> >> tracked for twenty years in a VM changer, at five grams, and sat open in
> >> piles when not being played. The difference is not subtle. And *this* is
> >> what the anti-vinyl fundamentalists quote as the problem with LP's. Little
> >> do they realize that it usually signals a lack of care and sometimes lesser
> >> equipment on their part.
> >
> >There are *plenty* more problems with vinyl than just the difficulty of decent
> >care.
>
> Which is why I said "More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and
> distortion for you too." in the first place.
>
> It's a wonder that records work as well as they do

It is quite frankly a near miracle that they can indeed sound really quite good if
you can afford decent kit.

> , but they really
> haven't progressed much since the time of Edison.
>
> Maybe the vinyl lovers here hear as well as Edison did?

I'm increasingly wondering about that !

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 10:38 AM

Stuart Krivis wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:30:19 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
> >Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >> On 4 Oct 2006 10:29:52 -0700, " >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >There you are : Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell on one
> >> >side the RAO distinguished chapel members Eeyore and Krivis on the
> >> >other. What is a poor nontechnical audiophile to think and do?
> >>
> >> Perhaps look to see who stands to make the most money from your belief
> >> in foo-foo dust, and then ignore them?
> >>
> >> Hint: Meitner and D'Agostino are the ones that have realized that the
> >> higher they price a product, the better some people will think it is.
> >>
> >> BTW, what's with your completely wierd style of quoting where you
> >> include everything twice?
> >
> >Ludo like to perplex.
> >
>
> Ah, but does he realize he is doing it? :-)

I think it's instinctive. :~)

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 10:39 AM

Stuart Krivis wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:32:02 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
> wrote:
> >> Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
> >> > > wrote:
> >>
> >> > >Cool.... more used records available for me.
> >> >
> >> > More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
> >> > :-)
> >>
> >> Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
> >> klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.
> >
> >Maybe he had a life to lead ?
> >
>
> Nah, I hang out on Usenet, so I can't have a life anymore than the
> rest of the people here.

But how about when you used to play your records ?

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 10:46 AM

wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > > > On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> > > > >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
> > > > >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
> > > >
> > > > So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> > >
> > > It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
> > > objectivists always sound so foolish.
> >
> > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good *objectively* !
>
> There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good subjectively,
> either.

Don't expect anyone else to like it though !

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 10:51 AM

paul packer wrote:

> On 4 Oct 2006 17:56:31 -0700, "Jenn" > wrote:
>
> >I remember one poster here who refused to believe that I have several
> >LPs that are of "ticks and pops".
>
> No, I'm quite prepared to believe you "have several
> LPs that are of "ticks and pops" :-)

I'm surprised that the Parsons/Court soundcheck CD doesn't have these too
!

Graham

Eeyore

October 5th 06, 10:52 AM

paul packer wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn wrote:
> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
> >>
> >> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> >> >
> >> >Graham
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >
> >Cool.... more used records available for me.
>
> Good luck with the cleaning machine.

Keith Monks Audio made a really good one btw.

Graham

Harry Lavo

October 5th 06, 12:47 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Stuart Krivis wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
>> >> >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
>> >> >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better,
>> >> >or
>> >>
>> >> So you admit it's down to "I like it."
>> >>
>> >> The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
>> >> guess he must be right.
>> >
>> > There's a guy in uk.rec.audio who's been banging on about his superior
>> > valve
>> > amps and home-made speakers who posted some mp3 of the sound it makes.
>> > Good
>> > God ! The guy must be stone deaf ! It sounded shockingly bad. I guess
>> > that
>> > explains why he doesn't like decent kit.
>>
>>
>> He recorded his system? Even the best system in the world, in the best
>> room, would sound pretty bad once fed back into a microphone/recorder
>> setup
>> and played back through another pair of speakers? Ever tried it? I
>> have,
>> just for kicks, years ago, and the end result simply doesn't sound
>> anything
>> like the system.
>
> Harry, are you really trying to talk sense to a bunch of tech. school
> graduates venting their childish views about music reproduction, here,
> where no one can stop them?
> Let them argue with each other about tube impendances and such. When
> they try to venture into the country of the real pioneers of audio they
> come up with idiocies like explaining to us why d'Appolito and Meitner
> see fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why? Simple: because
> they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE products for "megabucks".
> Incredible as this may sound that's exactly what one of them said. And
> repeated.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>

Yeah, I saw that.... <grin>

Fella

October 5th 06, 02:15 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:

> On 4 Oct 2006 13:03:35 -0700, "Jenn" > wrote:
>
>
>>Stuart Krivis wrote:
>>
>>>On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
>>>>preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
>>>>they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
>>>
>>>So you admit it's down to "I like it."
>>
>>Bravo.
>
>
> You're right, he's free to listen to whatever funky equipment he
> likes.
>
>

A permission from thy holy self?! Well thank you your holyness (bows
down in deep respect)...

>
>>>The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
>>>guess he must be right.
>>
>>Does he use his own ear/brain to listen, or does he use others'?
>
>
> Yeah, we'll just suspend ......
>
> In fact, it's easier to ...... >
> Hell, why not just do a lousy job of conducting .....
>
> So, do you get in on the lousy quaility ......

Why don't you just sock it man, just sock it, ok, why don't you, why?
The (wo)man likes it, prefers it, period. It's not about being right or
wrong, it's about preference, period. Get over it, period. Stop the
bitchin and the naggin and the yammerin about why one is not supposed to
like something you are partialy able to measure as inferior, just stop
the yammerin, ok? Period. Now go measure something, period.

Btw, I very much dislike vinyl too, btw.

Bertie the Bunyip

October 5th 06, 02:29 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Boy, ain't that the truth. I had a Thorens turntable, Pritchard
>> >> tonearm, and ADC 25 cartridge shortly after getting out of
>> >> college, replacing my Garrard / Shure set up. Kept records dust
>> >> free, in their covers when not playing, and tracked at light
>> >> weights. Most of my records have very little noise to this day,
>> >> some 44 years later. I buy used LP's in college towns (but with
>> >> my tastes, probably from profs rather than students) and about 1/2
>> >> of them are in excellent condition. The other half sound as if
>> >> they were tracked for twenty years in a VM changer, at five grams,
>> >> and sat open in piles when not being played. The difference is
>> >> not subtle. And *this* is what the anti-vinyl fundamentalists
>> >> quote as the problem with LP's. Little do they realize that it
>> >> usually signals a lack of care and sometimes lesser equipment on
>> >> their part.
>> >
>> >There are *plenty* more problems with vinyl than just the difficulty
>> >of decent care.
>>
>> Which is why I said "More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and
>> distortion for you too." in the first place.
>>
>> It's a wonder that records work as well as they do
>
> It is quite frankly a near miracle that they can indeed sound really
> quite good if you can afford decent kit.
>
>
>> , but they really
>> haven't progressed much since the time of Edison.
>>
>> Maybe the vinyl lovers here hear as well as Edison did?
>
> I'm increasingly wondering about that !

Nettkkkoping fjukkwit

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

October 5th 06, 02:34 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:32:02 +0100, Eeyore
>> > wrote:
>> wrote:
>> >> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >Cool.... more used records available for me.
>> >> >
>> >> > More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you
>> >> > too.
>> >> > :-)
>> >>
>> >> Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No
>> >> wonder klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came
>> >> out.
>> >
>> >Maybe he had a life to lead ?
>> >
>>
>> Nah, I hang out on Usenet, so I can't have a life anymore than the
>> rest of the people here.
>
> But how about when you used to play your records ?

thise were the days, eh pooh pooh, you and your GF s playing your 45s
and chatting all night,

nettkkkopn gfjukktard.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

October 5th 06, 02:37 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > >Cool.... more used records available for me.
>> >
>> > More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you
too.
>> > :-)
>>
>> Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
>> klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.
>
> Maybe he had a life to lead ?

Unlike you planespotter

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

October 5th 06, 02:40 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Jenn wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> (paul packer) wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>> > >
>> > >Graham
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>>
>> Cool.... more used records available for me.
>
> You might not like the stuff I listen to !
>

Yeah, "1001 different 737 engines conducted by Sir Simon Rattle"

Planespotter

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

October 5th 06, 02:41 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
>> >> manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment
>> >> D'Agostino.and Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage) to
>> >> say that they hope one day to equal the quality of tube and vinyl.
>> >> .
>> >
>> >That's utterly absurd.
>> >
>> >Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.
>> >
>> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>>
>> Which doesn't bode well for the quality of D'Agostino and Meitner's
>> _current_ equipment. :-)
>>
>> "One day our stuff will make it up to the level of being really
>> crappy."
>>
>> Actually, I feel it is possible to do a pretty good job with tubes in
>> some cases. A couple of EEs I respect have said that, as with SS, you
>> can get good results with tubes if you use them properly. I have
>> certainly heard good results with some tube preamps, for instance.
>
> A tube PA is totally stuffed by the need to use an output transformer
> though.
>
>
>> It appears to me that the best SS and tube gear are all converging on
>> the same point - neutral and stable operation. The best of each breed
>> sound very similar.
>>
>> However, I choose to own SS myself for a number of reasons, with heat
>> and maintainance being up there at the top.
>
> Good enough reasons, although I did once design a mosfet amp with a
> quiscent dissipation of 110W/ch.

oow ,aren't you speshul

You're an even sadder fjuktard than I initially gave you credit for

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip

October 5th 06, 02:42 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
>> Here's some interesting commentary from FVA:
>>
>> The basic engineering purpose of using the tube is that the summing
>> node of input and feedback on a reasonable tube circuit will have in
>> excess of 200 volts of headroom before overload. A typical solid
>> state device circuit will have 0.2 volts or much less headroom before
>> the feedback loop clips and fails, all other things being equal.
>
> This is complete unadulterated rubbish !
>

No surprise there, everythng you post is complete unadulterated rubbih

At least you had the god sense to run awya from the other froups that knew
that, though

Pussy netttkkkop

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

October 5th 06, 02:45 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> " wrote:
>
>> Harry, are you really trying to talk sense to a bunch of tech.
school
>> graduates venting their childish views about music reproduction,
here,
>> where no one can stop them?
>> Let them argue with each other about tube impendances and such. When
>> they try to venture into the country of the real pioneers of audio
they
>> come up with idiocies like explaining to us why d'Appolito and
Meitner
>> see fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why? Simple: because
>> they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE products for "megabucks".
>> Incredible as this may sound that's exactly what one of them said.
And
>> repeated.
>
> What's so special about these 2 pricks d'Appolito and Meitner ?
>
> Do you think no-one else counts ?
>

sez the netttkopping brit fjukktard

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

October 5th 06, 02:54 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
>> > > > On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of
>> > > > >personal preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl
>> > > > >does so because they "like it better." No one is saying that
>> > > > >vinyl measures better, or
>> > > >
>> > > > So you admit it's down to "I like it."
>> > >
>> > > It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
>> > > objectivists always sound so foolish.
>> >
>> > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good
>> > *objectively* !
>>
>> There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good
>> subjectively, either.
>
> Don't expect anyone else to like it though !
>

Jerkofff

bertier

paul packer

October 5th 06, 03:38 PM

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 04:52:39 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >>Cool.... more used records available for me.
>
>> >More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
>
>> Agreed.
>
>Is that the punchline?
>
>Real 'borgs get their spines stiffened by snotting on the very idea that
>Normals might like LPs and turntables. What do you get out of it?

Normals don't like TTs, George. It is abnormal to like TTs. Please do
a reassessment of your criteria.

paul packer

October 5th 06, 03:39 PM

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:52:58 +0100, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn wrote:
>> > (paul packer) wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>> >> >
>> >> >Graham
>> >>
>> >> Agreed.
>> >
>> >Cool.... more used records available for me.
>>
>> Good luck with the cleaning machine.
>
>Keith Monks Audio made a really good one btw.
>
>Graham

Good for them. It costs a fortune.

George M. Middius

October 5th 06, 03:46 PM

paul packer said:

> >> Agreed.

> >Is that the punchline?

Agreed. NOt. LOt"S!

> >Real 'borgs get their spines stiffened by snotting on the very idea that
> >Normals might like LPs and turntables. What do you get out of it?

> Normals don't like TTs, George. It is abnormal to like TTs. Please do
> a reassessment of your criteria.

On the contrary, some Normals do like them. It's the compulsion to snot on
all discussions of them that defines the 'borgs, though. If you imagined
infusing your lighthearted bantering on the subject with a grim, grinding
religious crusade, you might begin to resemble a 'borg.

--

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

Jenn

October 5th 06, 03:51 PM

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> >> >
> >> >Graham
> >>
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >
> >Cool.... more used records available for me.
>
>
> Good luck with the cleaning machine.

Thanks. I've had quite good luck with it.

Jenn

October 5th 06, 03:57 PM

In article >,
Stuart Krivis > wrote:

> On 4 Oct 2006 13:03:35 -0700, "Jenn" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >> On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> >> >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
> >> >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
> >>
> >> So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> >
> >Bravo.
>
> You're right, he's free to listen to whatever funky equipment he
> likes.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
> >> guess he must be right.
> >
> >Does he use his own ear/brain to listen, or does he use others'?
>
> Yeah, we'll just suspend all standards of recording and playback and
> say he's right too.
>
> In fact, it's easier to just do a lousy job of recording in the first
> place and then assume somebody out there will like it.

That seems to happen quite often.

>
> Hell, why not just do a lousy job of conducting the thing, and the
> players can all send in their 3 yr olds to play. Somebody will like
> it.

The job is to sell recordings. If people would buy it, I'm sure that's
what they would do.

>
> So, do you get in on the lousy quaility at the front end, or just the
> playback part?

Neither when I can help it.

> You know, kind of slack off since nobody will really
> know anyway - and somebody out there will like it.

You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious point is that we
all listen to what we think sounds best. We shouldn't listen to
something just because others state that it is better. I WANT CDs to
always sound better than LPs. The convenience factor would be great.
But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me. Obviously I'm not
going to listen to something that sounds inferior to me just because I'm
told that it should sound better to me. That would be quite
counterproductive, right?

Jenn

October 5th 06, 03:58 PM

In article . com>,
"Jenn" > wrote:

> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > >
> > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >In article >,
> > >> > (paul packer) wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Graham
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Agreed.
> > >> >
> > >> >Cool.... more used records available for me.
> > >>
> > >> More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
> > >> :-)
> > >
> > > Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
> > > klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.
> > >
> > > Boon
> >
> > Boy, ain't that the truth. I had a Thorens turntable, Pritchard tonearm,
> > and ADC 25 cartridge shortly after getting out of college, replacing my
> > Garrard / Shure set up. Kept records dust free, in their covers when not
> > playing, and tracked at light weights. Most of my records have very little
> > noise to this day, some 44 years later. I buy used LP's in college towns
> > (but with my tastes, probably from profs rather than students) and about 1/2
> > of them are in excellent condition. The other half sound as if they were
> > tracked for twenty years in a VM changer, at five grams, and sat open in
> > piles when not being played. The difference is not subtle. And *this* is
> > what the anti-vinyl fundamentalists quote as the problem with LP's. Little
> > do they realize that it usually signals a lack of care and sometimes lesser
> > equipment on their part.
>
> I remember one poster here who refused to believe that I have several
> LPs that are of "ticks and pops".

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

George M. Middius

October 5th 06, 04:07 PM

Jenn said to RibbitBorg:

> You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious point is that we
> all listen to what we think sounds best. We shouldn't listen to
> something just because others state that it is better. I WANT CDs to
> always sound better than LPs. The convenience factor would be great.
> But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me. Obviously I'm not
> going to listen to something that sounds inferior to me just because I'm
> told that it should sound better to me. That would be quite
> counterproductive, right?

Counterproductive is irrelevant. It would make you a well-behaved Hivie
drone, however.

--

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

[email protected]

October 5th 06, 05:45 PM

Eeyore wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > > > > On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> > > > > >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
> > > > > >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
> > > > >
> > > > > So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> > > >
> > > > It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
> > > > objectivists always sound so foolish.
> > >
> > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good *objectively* !
> >
> > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good subjectively,
> > either.
>
> Don't expect anyone else to like it though !
>
> Graham
==================================

Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
Ludovic Mirabel

Harry Lavo

October 5th 06, 06:26 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:47:54 -0400, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Harry, are you really trying to talk sense to a bunch of tech. school
>>> graduates venting their childish views about music reproduction, here,
>>> where no one can stop them?
>>> Let them argue with each other about tube impendances and such. When
>>> they try to venture into the country of the real pioneers of audio they
>>> come up with idiocies like explaining to us why d'Appolito and Meitner
>>> see fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why? Simple: because
>>> they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE products for "megabucks".
>>> Incredible as this may sound that's exactly what one of them said. And
>>> repeated.
>>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, I saw that.... <grin>
>>
>
> So you have a better suggestion as to why a (presumably) competent
> engineer would ignore reality and claim that vinyl is superior to CD?
>
> Although, perhaps my presumption of competency is not correct. It's
> either that or they were just into selling snake oil.
>
> Oh, and are you both saying that Krell products weren't selling for
> very high (and unwarrentedly so) prices?

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

October 5th 06, 06:43 PM

Eeyore wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > > > > On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> > > > > >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
> > > > > >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
> > > > >
> > > > > So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> > > >
> > > > It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
> > > > objectivists always sound so foolish.
> > >
> > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good *objectively* !
> >
> > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good subjectively,
> > either.
>
> Don't expect anyone else to like it though !

And yet amazingly, outside of the intellectual dungeon known as Usenet,
most people agree with me.

Boon

MiNe 109

October 5th 06, 07:02 PM

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > > > > > On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> > > > > > >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so
> > > > > > >because
> > > > > > >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures
> > > > > > >better, or
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> > > > >
> > > > > It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
> > > > > objectivists always sound so foolish.
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good *objectively*
> > > > !
> > >
> > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good subjectively,
> > > either.
> >
> > Don't expect anyone else to like it though !
> >
> > Graham
> ==================================
>
> Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
> successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
> care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
> Ludovic Mirabel

To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.

Stephen

Jenn

October 5th 06, 07:38 PM

In article >,
Stuart Krivis > wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:52:58 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >paul packer wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn wrote:
> >> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Graham
> >> >>
> >> >> Agreed.
> >> >
> >> >Cool.... more used records available for me.
> >>
> >> Good luck with the cleaning machine.
> >
> >Keith Monks Audio made a really good one btw.
> >
>
> I saw the inside of one at a local shop (it evidently required a lot
> of maintainance) and it was a real Rube Goldberg device.
>
> Another company was making less complicated cleaners where you applied
> the fluid manually, then put the record on the machine and spun it
> yourself while the machine vacuumed off the fluid. This seemed like an
> equally valid and much less expensive approach. I bet these machines
> lasted longer than the Monks one too.

The Nitty Gritty like that that I had worked perfectly for the 8 years
that I had it. I now have basically the same thing from Audio Advisor
(the "Record Doctor", made for AA by Nitty Gritty). I've had it for
only a year; working perfectly.

[email protected]

October 5th 06, 09:59 PM

Eeyore wrote:
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > (paul packer) wrote:
> > >> >> Eeyore > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Graham
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Agreed.
> > >> >
> > >> >Cool.... more used records available for me.
> > >>
> > >> More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
> > >> :-)
> > >
> > > Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
> > > klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.
> > >
> > > Boon
> >
> > Boy, ain't that the truth. I had a Thorens turntable, Pritchard tonearm,
> > and ADC 25 cartridge shortly after getting out of college, replacing my
> > Garrard / Shure set up. Kept records dust free, in their covers when not
> > playing, and tracked at light weights. Most of my records have very little
> > noise to this day, some 44 years later. I buy used LP's in college towns
> > (but with my tastes, probably from profs rather than students) and about 1/2
> > of them are in excellent condition. The other half sound as if they were
> > tracked for twenty years in a VM changer, at five grams, and sat open in
> > piles when not being played. The difference is not subtle. And *this* is
> > what the anti-vinyl fundamentalists quote as the problem with LP's. Little
> > do they realize that it usually signals a lack of care and sometimes lesser
> > equipment on their part.
>

> There are *plenty* more problems with vinyl than just the difficulty of decent
> care.
>
> Graham
===================================

Eeyore says:

> There are *plenty* more problems with vinyl than just the difficulty of decent
> care.
>
Very ,very different from cds. that every time Mr. Eeyore listens to
them, one and all, transport him straight into acoustic heaven

Ludovic Mirabel

Jenn

October 5th 06, 10:04 PM

In article >,
Stuart Krivis > wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:57:43 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious point is that we
> >all listen to what we think sounds best. We shouldn't listen to
> >something just because others state that it is better. I WANT CDs to
>
> I was overstating it because people didn't seem to be getting the
> point.
>
> Sure, it's fine for you to listen to whatever you like, no matter what
> it's like.
>
> However, there are some areas where we can have standards. If you then
> like something that doesn't meet the standards, it's still fine, but
> we might wonder why you like it and whether there's something wrong
> there (and what).

Which is exactly what I think about listening to CDs (which I listen to
most of the time, BTW.)

>
>
> >always sound better than LPs. The convenience factor would be great.
> >But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me. Obviously I'm not
> >going to listen to something that sounds inferior to me just because I'm
> >told that it should sound better to me. That would be quite
> >counterproductive, right?
>
> That has not been my experience, but no, I would not expect you to
> listen to something you found to be inferior. In fact, I'd be very
> interested in finding out why these CDs sounded inferior to you.

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

>
> I do, however, have a problem with general statements that vinyl is
> better than CD when it can be objectively shown that it is not. (I'm
> not saying you were the one making general statements about vinyl vs.
> CD.) It can be further shown that vinyl has some major distortions
> that can be euphonic. (Similar to what Aphex and BBE add to
> recordings.) So it's pretty easy to then speculate that perhaps what
> some people like about vinyl is the extra distortion.

I have no problem with that. I'll go for "rightness" (on average) over
"accuracy" every time. The goal is music.

>
> Personally, I would rather not have any added distortions. I like
> hearing the music and just the music. :-)

So do I, but you don't get that in any medium.

[email protected]

October 5th 06, 10:07 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> Poopie whined:
>
> > What's so special about these 2 pricks d'Appolito and Meitner ?
>
> They're successful and you're not.
>
There's more to it. They design as musically faithful audio equipment
as the state of the art allows.
That remains a complete mystery to the Rao scientology acredited chapel
members. They can't hear any difference so anyone who does is just
trying to impress them.
It does not occur to them that they are hardly worth the effort.
Ludovic Mirabel

[email protected]

October 5th 06, 10:15 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2006 10:43:41 -0700, wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Don't expect anyone else to like it though !
> >
> >And yet amazingly, outside of the intellectual dungeon known as Usenet,
> >most people agree with me.
>
> Oh, c'mon, you're way off on the fringe of even "high-end" audio.

Hyperbole doesn't win arguments.

Boon

Harry Lavo

October 5th 06, 10:41 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Stuart Krivis > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:57:43 GMT, Jenn
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious point is that we
>> >all listen to what we think sounds best. We shouldn't listen to
>> >something just because others state that it is better. I WANT CDs to
>>
>> I was overstating it because people didn't seem to be getting the
>> point.
>>
>> Sure, it's fine for you to listen to whatever you like, no matter what
>> it's like.
>>
>> However, there are some areas where we can have standards. If you then
>> like something that doesn't meet the standards, it's still fine, but
>> we might wonder why you like it and whether there's something wrong
>> there (and what).
>
> Which is exactly what I think about listening to CDs (which I listen to
> most of the time, BTW.)
>
>>
>>
>> >always sound better than LPs. The convenience factor would be great.
>> >But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me. Obviously I'm not
>> >going to listen to something that sounds inferior to me just because I'm
>> >told that it should sound better to me. That would be quite
>> >counterproductive, right?
>>
>> That has not been my experience, but no, I would not expect you to
>> listen to something you found to be inferior. In fact, I'd be very
>> interested in finding out why these CDs sounded inferior to you.
>
> Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
> much better than others; none are good to my ears.
>
>>
>> I do, however, have a problem with general statements that vinyl is
>> better than CD when it can be objectively shown that it is not. (I'm
>> not saying you were the one making general statements about vinyl vs.
>> CD.) It can be further shown that vinyl has some major distortions
>> that can be euphonic. (Similar to what Aphex and BBE add to
>> recordings.) So it's pretty easy to then speculate that perhaps what
>> some people like about vinyl is the extra distortion.
>
> I have no problem with that. I'll go for "rightness" (on average) over
> "accuracy" every time. The goal is music.
>
>>
>> Personally, I would rather not have any added distortions. I like
>> hearing the music and just the music. :-)
>
> So do I, but you don't get that in any medium.

And I'm sure the acousticians at Carnegie thought that by adding concrete
under the stage floor they were improving the "accuracy" of the sound there
as well. Perhaps the same thing that makes us react well to a wooden stage
floor also makes many of us react more to the music on vinyl than on CD. So
call it euphonic distortion, if you want. Many of us call it "musicality".

[email protected]

October 5th 06, 10:45 PM

Fella wrote:
> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
> > On 4 Oct 2006 13:03:35 -0700, "Jenn" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> >>>>preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
> >>>>they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
> >>>
> >>>So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> >>
> >>Bravo.
> >
> >
> > You're right, he's free to listen to whatever funky equipment he
> > likes.
> >
> >
>
> A permission from thy holy self?! Well thank you your holyness (bows
> down in deep respect)...
>
> >
> >>>The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
> >>>guess he must be right.
> >>
> >>Does he use his own ear/brain to listen, or does he use others'?
> >
> >
> > Yeah, we'll just suspend ......
> >
> > In fact, it's easier to ...... >
> > Hell, why not just do a lousy job of conducting .....
> >
> > So, do you get in on the lousy quaility ......
>
> Why don't you just sock it man, just sock it, ok, why don't you, why?
> The (wo)man likes it, prefers it, period. It's not about being right or
> wrong, it's about preference, period. Get over it, period. Stop the
> bitchin and the naggin and the yammerin about why one is not supposed to
> like something you are partialy able to measure as inferior, just stop
> the yammerin, ok? Period. Now go measure something, period.
>
> Btw, I very much dislike vinyl too, btw.

++==============================

Mr. Fella you're hitting a wall. One of the less appealing
side-effects of universal elementary education is that pop speaks loud
now and gives voice to its resentment of the minorities that have
different standards. They once resented the "highbrows" and the "pointy
heads', now they are sure that those who do not share their preferences
are just trying to " act superior", are "snobs" and "elitists".

Forget them. Their forefathers hated the "sophists" and made Socrates
drink poison.
Ludovic Mirabel

[email protected]

October 5th 06, 11:13 PM

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > > > > > > On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> > > > > > > >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so
> > > > > > > >because
> > > > > > > >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures
> > > > > > > >better, or
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
> > > > > > objectivists always sound so foolish.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good *objectively*
> > > > > !
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good subjectively,
> > > > either.
> > >
> > > Don't expect anyone else to like it though !
> > >
> > > Graham
> > ==================================
> >
> > Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
> > successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
> > care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
> has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.
>
> Stephen

=====================================
I said:
> > Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
> > successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
> > care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
Stephen responded:
> To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
> has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.

You can take your thoughts to any of your *extremes* you like but I
did not say "every"- you did.
I said 99.5%.
Granted estimating the proportion of population who visite art museums
or read Marcel Proust or listen to Beethoven's last quartets at 0.5% is
a very rough and perhaps unjust estimate. I'll settle for 1% or 5% if
you wish.
Anything to make everybody happy. That's me.
Ludovic Mirabel

[email protected]

October 5th 06, 11:21 PM

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > > > > > > On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> > > > > > > >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so
> > > > > > > >because
> > > > > > > >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures
> > > > > > > >better, or
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
> > > > > > objectivists always sound so foolish.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good *objectively*
> > > > > !
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good subjectively,
> > > > either.
> > >
> > > Don't expect anyone else to like it though !
> > >
> > > Graham
> > ==================================
> >
> > Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
> > successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
> > care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
> has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.
>
> Stephen
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2nd, thoughts. I gather you read the Upanishads. What proportion of the
population of your country shared your interest, do you think? And do
you care what THEY think about that interest of yours?
Ludovic Mirabel

MiNe 109

October 5th 06, 11:22 PM

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of
> > > > > > > > >personal
> > > > > > > > >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so
> > > > > > > > >because
> > > > > > > > >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures
> > > > > > > > >better, or
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
> > > > > > > objectivists always sound so foolish.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good
> > > > > > *objectively*
> > > > > > !
> > > > >
> > > > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good
> > > > > subjectively,
> > > > > either.
> > > >
> > > > Don't expect anyone else to like it though !
> > > >
> > > > Graham
> > > ==================================
> > >
> > > Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
> > > successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
> > > care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
> > > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> > To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
> > has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> =====================================
> I said:
> > > Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
> > > successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
> > > care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
> > > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> Stephen responded:
> > To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
> > has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.
>
> You can take your thoughts to any of your *extremes* you like but I
> did not say "every"- you did.

Yes, I did, and clearly so.

> I said 99.5%.

I implied 99.9999%.

> Granted estimating the proportion of population who visite art museums
> or read Marcel Proust or listen to Beethoven's last quartets at 0.5% is
> a very rough and perhaps unjust estimate. I'll settle for 1% or 5% if
> you wish.
> Anything to make everybody happy. That's me.

Real Texans don't go to art museums for fear of representational nudity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/education/30teacher.html?_r=1&oref=slog
in

Stephen

[email protected]

October 5th 06, 11:35 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:02:35 GMT, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
> >> ==================================
> >>
> >> Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
> >> successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
> >> care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
> >> Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> >To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
> >has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.
> >
>
> He certainly would appear to have unusual tastes. Didn't he say
> something about loving everything those geniuses at Romper Room ever
> did? He has every Sesame Street album too. :-)
==================================

Mr. Krivis refers to me- or so it seems. :
"> He certainly would appear to have unusual tastes. Didn't he say
> something about loving everything those geniuses at Romper Room ever
> did? He has every Sesame Street album too. :-)

I know what Sesame Street is. My kids loved it when they were kids.

But what on earth is Romper Room.? Is it something on TV that I should
know about? You seem to know more about me than I ever dreamt of. Or
perhaps the dreams are yours.
Ludovic Mirabel

MiNe 109

October 5th 06, 11:37 PM

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of
> > > > > > > > >personal
> > > > > > > > >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so
> > > > > > > > >because
> > > > > > > > >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures
> > > > > > > > >better, or
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
> > > > > > > objectivists always sound so foolish.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good
> > > > > > *objectively*
> > > > > > !
> > > > >
> > > > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good
> > > > > subjectively,
> > > > > either.
> > > >
> > > > Don't expect anyone else to like it though !
> > > >
> > > > Graham
> > > ==================================
> > >
> > > Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
> > > successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
> > > care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
> > > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> > To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
> > has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.
> >
> > Stephen
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> 2nd, thoughts. I gather you read the Upanishads. What proportion of the
> population of your country shared your interest, do you think? And do
> you care what THEY think about that interest of yours?

I live in Austin. You can't walk a block without passing a yoga studio.
Well, you can't pass some blocks.

Stephen

Eeyore

October 6th 06, 01:06 AM

" wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > > > > > On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
> > > > > > >preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
> > > > > > >they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So you admit it's down to "I like it."
> > > > >
> > > > > It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
> > > > > objectivists always sound so foolish.
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good *objectively* !
> > >
> > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good subjectively,
> > > either.
> >
> > Don't expect anyone else to like it though !
> >
> > Graham
> ==================================
>
> Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
> successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
> care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.

It has nothing to do with 'popular music' my friend.

It's to do with whether it sounds any good to anyone else's ears.

Graham

Eeyore

October 6th 06, 01:07 AM

Harry Lavo wrote:

> Perhaps you think all the recording engineers that favor Millenia Media
> preamps are also fools

And who exactly does ?

Graham

Eeyore

October 6th 06, 01:13 AM

" wrote:

> Eeyore says:
>
> > There are *plenty* more problems with vinyl than just the difficulty of decent
> > care.
>
> Very ,very different from cds. that every time Mr. Eeyore listens to
> them, one and all, transport him straight into acoustic heaven

Only some of them. It depends on one's mood too.

Ok, so who gets that tingle up the spine from listening to good music ?

I like it best when it's a live performance.

Graham

Eeyore

October 6th 06, 01:14 AM

" wrote:

> George M. Middius wrote:
> > Poopie whined:
> >
> > > What's so special about these 2 pricks d'Appolito and Meitner ?
> >
> > They're successful and you're not.
> >
> There's more to it. They design as musically faithful audio equipment
> as the state of the art allows.

Yes, digital.

Graham

[email protected]

October 6th 06, 01:17 AM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2006 23:40:53 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
> >digital" . I'll repeat what I said recently: there is plenty of awful
> >cds. and awful lps. around. Many cds sre miles better than many lps.
> >It depends on the audio engineer, recording location, pressing
> >manufacture care etc. etc. My impression is that the best lps
> >especially those from the "golden era" of simple miking and before the
> >mixing gadgets etc. started to proliferate, before the recording
> >engineers decided that they will adjust the sound according to their
> >idea of what the peasants out there like, those best lps are still
> >unsurpassed. (Some London, some Everest 35mmfilm, some Columbia).
> >That's my ears and yours may tell you something different.
> >But I have no patience with "scientific" trumpeting that everything
> >digital is better than everything analogue. Especially as many who
> >repeat it do not listen to the music that I value. As is my privilege.
>
> The digital media, recording and reproduction process is superior to
> vinyl records.
>
> Various people during the process are free to screw things up, so
> there certainly _are_ terrible LPs and CDs.
>
> What I object to is any statement that vinyl is somehow superior to
> CD, because it isn't.
>
> It's possible that there are more good recordings on vinyl, perhaps
> for the "golden era" reasons you detail. I wasn't arguing about this.
> (I'm not sure it's really true, but it's possible.)
>
> >I suggest that this discussion reached the end of its usefulness. Time
> >to get back to listening to music, reading books etc. But you may feel
> >differently as is your privilege.
>
> It seems that you always jump in with a bunch of pronouncements, and
> then immediately say something like "I'm bored" or "I'm done."
>
> Is that a valid observation?

====================================

Mr. Krivis, you misjudge me. I'm as argumentative as anyone and more.

But it just seems to me that we have little to argue about. Which
"pronouncements" of mine do you object to? I said that I did not think
that all viny is superior to all cds. or vice versa. I said that it
depends on the recording engineer, the studio and the factory use of
equipment.
Do you disagree? If you do I will oblige and argue because I love
argument providing I know what I'm arguing about..

Or do you want me to agree with you that "The digital is superior...."
.. I'd love to sign up but my ears tell me otherwise. I already conceded
that it is just *my* ears.

As for the theory I am not knowledgeable enough to argue but as my
seargent in the Army used to say: "Practice screws theory" (Needless to
say "screws" is my gentrification for your delicate ears)

Ludovic Mirabel

Mr Fox

October 6th 06, 01:24 AM

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:22:57 GMT, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>> you wish.
>> Anything to make everybody happy. That's me.
>
>Real Texans don't go to art museums for fear of representational nudity.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/education/30teacher.html?_r=1&oref=slog
>in

This year, suspension. Two years from now, the firing squad ;)

paul packer

October 6th 06, 02:01 AM

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

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

It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music (from a
fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House) I
was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound. There was
an absence of treble and the mid-range sounded hard. Had it been my
system I'd have been doing some major upgrading. Was it because I was
used to listening via the medium of headphones? Don't think so, as I
still listen to speakers occasionally. Is there a problem with the
acoustics? Should I not have being sitting in the high seats? I'm
confused. I only know that I could not happily have listened to that
sound at home. It certainly wasn't euphonic. in fact, apart from the
dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.

paul packer

October 6th 06, 02:05 AM

On 5 Oct 2006 15:35:22 -0700, " >
wrote:

>But what on earth is Romper Room.?

An OZ kid show, actually for toddlers.

Mr. Magic Mirror, anyone?

Jenn

October 6th 06, 02:10 AM

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
> >much better than others; none are good to my ears.
>
>
> It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music (from a
> fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House) I
> was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound. There was
> an absence of treble and the mid-range sounded hard. Had it been my
> system I'd have been doing some major upgrading. Was it because I was
> used to listening via the medium of headphones? Don't think so, as I
> still listen to speakers occasionally. Is there a problem with the
> acoustics? Should I not have being sitting in the high seats? I'm
> confused. I only know that I could not happily have listened to that
> sound at home. It certainly wasn't euphonic. in fact, apart from the
> dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.

You should save up and get a better seat next time ;-)

Seriously, we've increasingly become used to "hi-fi sound" and become
distant from the sound of live acoustic music. We get hyped highs and
lows and little music.

paul packer

October 6th 06, 02:14 AM

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:46:14 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> Agreed.
>
>> >Is that the punchline?
>
>Agreed. NOt. LOt"S!
>
>> >Real 'borgs get their spines stiffened by snotting on the very idea that
>> >Normals might like LPs and turntables. What do you get out of it?
>
>> Normals don't like TTs, George. It is abnormal to like TTs. Please do
>> a reassessment of your criteria.
>
>On the contrary, some Normals do like them. It's the compulsion to snot on
>all discussions of them that defines the 'borgs, though. If you imagined
>infusing your lighthearted bantering on the subject with a grim, grinding
>religious crusade, you might begin to resemble a 'borg.

I started to get sucked in but then gave it away. It was the
temptation of annoying Scott really, but I came to my senses just in
time. It won't happen again. :-)

MiNe 109

October 6th 06, 02:24 AM

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On 5 Oct 2006 15:35:22 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
>
> >But what on earth is Romper Room.?
>
> An OZ kid show, actually for toddlers.
>
> Mr. Magic Mirror, anyone?

Based on a US show that began in 1953, says wiki.

Stephen

[email protected]

October 6th 06, 02:42 AM

Eeyore wrote:
> " wrote:
>
> > George M. Middius wrote:
> > > Poopie whined:
> > >
> > > > What's so special about these 2 pricks d'Appolito and Meitner ?
> > >
> > > They're successful and you're not.
> > >
> > There's more to it. They design as musically faithful audio equipment
> > as the state of the art allows.
>
> Yes, digital.
>
> Graham

Absolutely. The point was that those two digital designers said in so
many words that they were striving to equal analogue whjich I
interpreted as evidence of unusual integrity.
I was answering the argumnt that they are huckstering marketeers
extracting megabucks.
Your own argument: "those two pricks' goes far byond my sphere of
competence, expertise or interest.

You must have your own sources reporting on their genitalia.
Ludovic Mirabel

..

paul packer

October 6th 06, 02:44 AM

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:10:32 GMT, Jenn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
>> >much better than others; none are good to my ears.
>>
>>
>> It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music (from a
>> fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House) I
>> was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound. There was
>> an absence of treble and the mid-range sounded hard. Had it been my
>> system I'd have been doing some major upgrading. Was it because I was
>> used to listening via the medium of headphones? Don't think so, as I
>> still listen to speakers occasionally. Is there a problem with the
>> acoustics? Should I not have being sitting in the high seats? I'm
>> confused. I only know that I could not happily have listened to that
>> sound at home. It certainly wasn't euphonic. in fact, apart from the
>> dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.
>
>You should save up and get a better seat next time ;-)
>
>Seriously, we've increasingly become used to "hi-fi sound" and become
>distant from the sound of live acoustic music. We get hyped highs and
>lows and little music.

And the hardness?

paul packer

October 6th 06, 02:48 AM

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:24:08 GMT, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>In article >,
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
>> On 5 Oct 2006 15:35:22 -0700, " >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >But what on earth is Romper Room.?
>>
>> An OZ kid show, actually for toddlers.
>>
>> Mr. Magic Mirror, anyone?
>
>Based on a US show that began in 1953, says wiki.
>
>Stephen

We're very backward here. :-)

ScottW

October 6th 06, 03:04 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
>> >much better than others; none are good to my ears.
>>
>>
>> It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music (from a
>> fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House) I
>> was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound. There was
>> an absence of treble and the mid-range sounded hard. Had it been my
>> system I'd have been doing some major upgrading. Was it because I was
>> used to listening via the medium of headphones? Don't think so, as I
>> still listen to speakers occasionally. Is there a problem with the
>> acoustics? Should I not have being sitting in the high seats? I'm
>> confused. I only know that I could not happily have listened to that
>> sound at home. It certainly wasn't euphonic. in fact, apart from the
>> dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.
>
> You should save up and get a better seat next time ;-)
>
> Seriously, we've increasingly become used to "hi-fi sound" and become
> distant from the sound of live acoustic music. We get hyped highs and
> lows and little music.

Doesn't bother me at all that my system sounds better to me
than most live music.
I get to listen to it almost anytime I want.

ScottW

Harry Lavo

October 6th 06, 03:14 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:10:32 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> (paul packer) wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
>>> >much better than others; none are good to my ears.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music (from a
>>> fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House) I
>>> was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound. There was
>>> an absence of treble and the mid-range sounded hard. Had it been my
>>> system I'd have been doing some major upgrading. Was it because I was
>>> used to listening via the medium of headphones? Don't think so, as I
>>> still listen to speakers occasionally. Is there a problem with the
>>> acoustics? Should I not have being sitting in the high seats? I'm
>>> confused. I only know that I could not happily have listened to that
>>> sound at home. It certainly wasn't euphonic. in fact, apart from the
>>> dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.
>>
>>You should save up and get a better seat next time ;-)
>>
>>Seriously, we've increasingly become used to "hi-fi sound" and become
>>distant from the sound of live acoustic music. We get hyped highs and
>>lows and little music.
>
>
> And the hardness?

Will generally be mid-range reflection off of hard surfaces. But can be
heightened by absence of high and low frequencies, putting unnatural
emphasis on the midrange.

[email protected]

October 6th 06, 03:46 AM

paul packer wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:24:08 GMT, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >
> >> On 5 Oct 2006 15:35:22 -0700, " >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >But what on earth is Romper Room.?
> >>
> >> An OZ kid show, actually for toddlers.
> >>
> >> Mr. Magic Mirror, anyone?
> >
> >Based on a US show that began in 1953, says wiki.
> >
> >Stephen
>
>
> We're very backward here. :-)

That is all fascinating . But where did Mr. Krivis get his information
about my interest in this TV. show? True it sounds better than most but
I watch TV once a day for 25 minutes: BBC World News.while I do my
treadmill exercise.
Ludovic M.

[email protected]

October 6th 06, 03:54 AM

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> Stuart Krivis > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:52:58 +0100, Eeyore
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >paul packer wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn wrote:
> > >> > (paul packer) wrote:
> > >> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Graham
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Agreed.
> > >> >
> > >> >Cool.... more used records available for me.
> > >>
> > >> Good luck with the cleaning machine.
> > >
> > >Keith Monks Audio made a really good one btw.
> > >
> >
> > I saw the inside of one at a local shop (it evidently required a lot
> > of maintainance) and it was a real Rube Goldberg device.
> >
> > Another company was making less complicated cleaners where you applied
> > the fluid manually, then put the record on the machine and spun it
> > yourself while the machine vacuumed off the fluid. This seemed like an
> > equally valid and much less expensive approach. I bet these machines
> > lasted longer than the Monks one too.
>
> The Nitty Gritty like that that I had worked perfectly for the 8 years
> that I had it. I now have basically the same thing from Audio Advisor
> (the "Record Doctor", made for AA by Nitty Gritty). I've had it for
> only a year; working perfectly.

I've been using the same Nitty Gritty 2.0 since 1985.

Boon

Jenn

October 6th 06, 04:00 AM

In article <TQiVg.2233$fl.1125@dukeread08>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
> >> >much better than others; none are good to my ears.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music (from a
> >> fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House) I
> >> was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound. There was
> >> an absence of treble and the mid-range sounded hard. Had it been my
> >> system I'd have been doing some major upgrading. Was it because I was
> >> used to listening via the medium of headphones? Don't think so, as I
> >> still listen to speakers occasionally. Is there a problem with the
> >> acoustics? Should I not have being sitting in the high seats? I'm
> >> confused. I only know that I could not happily have listened to that
> >> sound at home. It certainly wasn't euphonic. in fact, apart from the
> >> dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.
> >
> > You should save up and get a better seat next time ;-)
> >
> > Seriously, we've increasingly become used to "hi-fi sound" and become
> > distant from the sound of live acoustic music. We get hyped highs and
> > lows and little music.
>
> Doesn't bother me at all that my system sounds better to me
> than most live music.
> I get to listen to it almost anytime I want.
>
> ScottW

Cool. Different strokes and all.

Jenn

October 6th 06, 04:01 AM

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:10:32 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
> >> >much better than others; none are good to my ears.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music (from a
> >> fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House) I
> >> was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound. There was
> >> an absence of treble and the mid-range sounded hard. Had it been my
> >> system I'd have been doing some major upgrading. Was it because I was
> >> used to listening via the medium of headphones? Don't think so, as I
> >> still listen to speakers occasionally. Is there a problem with the
> >> acoustics? Should I not have being sitting in the high seats? I'm
> >> confused. I only know that I could not happily have listened to that
> >> sound at home. It certainly wasn't euphonic. in fact, apart from the
> >> dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.
> >
> >You should save up and get a better seat next time ;-)
> >
> >Seriously, we've increasingly become used to "hi-fi sound" and become
> >distant from the sound of live acoustic music. We get hyped highs and
> >lows and little music.
>
>
> And the hardness?

I would suspect either from your location or from the lack of top and
bottom causing unnatural midrange emphasis.

Eeyore

October 6th 06, 05:16 AM

Jenn wrote:

> I would suspect either from your location or from the lack of top and
> bottom causing unnatural midrange emphasis.

Don't talk about tops and bottoms like that please !!!

Graham

Bertie the Bunyip

October 6th 06, 12:22 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> " wrote:
>
>> Eeyore says:
>>
>> > There are *plenty* more problems with vinyl than just the
>> > difficulty of decent care.
>>
>> Very ,very different from cds. that every time Mr. Eeyore listens to
>> them, one and all, transport him straight into acoustic heaven
>
> Only some of them. It depends on one's mood too.

oooh, does it?
And what's one's mood this tea time?

Bit'o buck's fizz, mebbe?

Fjuktard planespotter

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

October 6th 06, 12:24 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> " wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> > > Eeyore wrote:
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
>> > > > > > On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >People like Krivis will never understand the concept of
>> > > > > > >personal preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers
>> > > > > > >vinyl does so because they "like it better." No one is
>> > > > > > >saying that vinyl measures better, or
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So you admit it's down to "I like it."
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
>> > > > > objectivists always sound so foolish.
>> > > >
>> > > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good
>> > > > *objectively* !
>> > >
>> > > There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good
>> > > subjectively, either.
>> >
>> > Don't expect anyone else to like it though !
>> >
>> > Graham
>> ==================================
>>
>> Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
>> successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
>> care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
>
> It has nothing to do with 'popular music' my friend.
>
> It's to do with whether it sounds any good to anyone else's ears.
>

Good god, you're a bigger idiot than I ever suspected.

bertei

Bertie the Bunyip

October 6th 06, 12:25 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Jenn wrote:
>
>> I would suspect either from your location or from the lack of top and
>> bottom causing unnatural midrange emphasis.
>
> Don't talk about tops and bottoms like that please !!!
>

netkkkoping ****

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

October 6th 06, 12:26 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> " wrote:
>
>> George M. Middius wrote:
>> > Poopie whined:
>> >
>> > > What's so special about these 2 pricks d'Appolito and Meitner ?
>> >
>> > They're successful and you're not.
>> >
>> There's more to it. They design as musically faithful audio equipment
>> as the state of the art allows.
>
> Yes, digital.
>

Just do.

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

October 6th 06, 12:27 PM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you think all the recording engineers that favor Millenia
Media
>> preamps are also fools
>
> And who exactly does ?
>

Fjukktard.

bertie

Harry Lavo

October 6th 06, 06:38 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> That has not been my experience, but no, I would not expect you to
>>> listen to something you found to be inferior. In fact, I'd be very
>>> interested in finding out why these CDs sounded inferior to you.
>>
>>Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
>>much better than others; none are good to my ears.
>>
>
> Some CD players that use "1-bit" DACs throw away a lot of the bits at
> high frequencies. You wind up with a real resolution of 7 bits or so.
> (SACD is as bad or worse in this respect.) Perhaps this is the
> problem?
>
> I tend to use a couple of Telarc recordings as my references.
> Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" and "An American in Paris", plus Papa
> Doo Run Run's "California Project."
>
> With the Gershwin CD, piano sounds like a piano, although rather
> closer than it would seem in a concert hall. The dynamics of the piano
> are much better portrayed with CD IMO that with any vinyl record I've
> ever heard.
>
> The other instruments sound amazingly close to what I hear at a live
> concert. There isn't as much "power" behind the whole thing, and the
> perspective is sometimes odd, but the individual instruments come
> through great.
>
> With the Papa Doo Run Run CD, I hear just what I've heard in the
> recording studio. It's close-miked multimono studio recording at it's
> finest. The drum kit sounds like you're standing in front of it. The
> bass sounds like what you hear in the headphones coming off the
> console.
>
>>>
>>> Personally, I would rather not have any added distortions. I like
>>> hearing the music and just the music. :-)
>>
>>So do I, but you don't get that in any medium.
>
> I've found that you get closer to that ideal with CD than with vinyl.
>
> If anything, CD seems to have errors of omission, where vinyl has
> errors of commission.
>
> I would have to say that CD is about as close to the final master as
> most people can get.

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

Harry Lavo

October 6th 06, 06:47 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
...
> On 5 Oct 2006 14:07:33 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>George M. Middius wrote:
>>> Poopie whined:
>>>
>>> > What's so special about these 2 pricks d'Appolito and Meitner ?
>>>
>>> They're successful and you're not.
>>>
>>There's more to it. They design as musically faithful audio equipment
>>as the state of the art allows.
>>That remains a complete mystery to the Rao scientology acredited chapel
>>members. They can't hear any difference so anyone who does is just
>>trying to impress them.
>>It does not occur to them that they are hardly worth the effort.
>
>
> I just took a quick look at the Krell web site and it appears that
> what is special there are high prices and fancy metal cases. I suppose
> the high prices give the product some sort of cachet.
>
> As for Meitner, it sure doesn't look like he's even involved with
> vinyl or analog audio at all. http://www.emmlabs.com/ Want to bet
> he's changed his tune on vinyl now that he's selling only digital
> products?
>
> Hmmm... I see he was recommending that CDs be cryogenically treated to
> make them sound better.
> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/822/index.html So he's certainly
> way off in audiophool la-la land. :-)
>

Meitner never *was* involved with vinyl or analog. That was Ludo's point.
You would think he would be extremely biased towards digital. He is not.
In fact, he has said that he feels a lot of the sound quality of his
converters is due to paying careful attention to the design of the analog
sections, which he believes many digital converters do not.

And Krell never had anything to do with vinyl either, unless you consider
having a phone section in a preamp as "having to do with vinyl". He does
produce solid state analog gear. But he also produces two of the most
highly regarded universal and SACD digital players as well. You would think
he would be biased towards digital since he has nothing to due with
cartridges, turntables, or arms. In fact, I don't think Krell even sells a
stand-alone phono preamp, pretty unusual for a high-end "analog"
manufacturer.

Harry Lavo

October 6th 06, 07:00 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:07:34 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Harry Lavo wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps you think all the recording engineers that favor Millenia Media
>>> preamps are also fools
>>
>>And who exactly does ?
>>
>
> A number of them, evidently.
> http://www.mil-media.com/docs/custlist.shtml
>
> I also took a look at:
> http://www.mil-media.com/docs/products/hv3c.shtml
>
> It appears to be a very capable product, and the absolute opposite of
> what the subjectivists here normally fall into raptures over.
>

Yep, and you know what....it and the other preamps listed sell for $2700 up
to $4000 per pair. While perfectly respectable mic preamps with nearly
identical specs can be had for about 40% of that price, and many low cost
mic preamps can be found at 15-20% of that price. Very similar to home
audio.

You know why those preamps are bought/used by the pros? THEY SOUND BETTER!
The engineers know it. The musicians who record with them know it. When
people talk about all the low-quality crap in the studio recording chain,
they are talking Project Studio. Serious recording is done with mics that
cost $1500-4000 each and mic preamps that cost at least $1000 per input,
feeding digital converters that cost mucho dinero. The equivalent to "high
end" audio gear. So why shouldn't it be listened to with the same, if you
can afford it?

[email protected]

October 6th 06, 07:32 PM

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 5 Oct 2006 14:07:33 -0700, " >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>George M. Middius wrote:
> >>> Poopie whined:
> >>>
> >>> > What's so special about these 2 pricks d'Appolito and Meitner ?
> >>>
> >>> They're successful and you're not.
> >>>
> >>There's more to it. They design as musically faithful audio equipment
> >>as the state of the art allows.
> >>That remains a complete mystery to the Rao scientology acredited chapel
> >>members. They can't hear any difference so anyone who does is just
> >>trying to impress them.
> >>It does not occur to them that they are hardly worth the effort.
> >
> >
> > I just took a quick look at the Krell web site and it appears that
> > what is special there are high prices and fancy metal cases. I suppose
> > the high prices give the product some sort of cachet.
> >
> > As for Meitner, it sure doesn't look like he's even involved with
> > vinyl or analog audio at all. http://www.emmlabs.com/ Want to bet
> > he's changed his tune on vinyl now that he's selling only digital
> > products?
> >
> > Hmmm... I see he was recommending that CDs be cryogenically treated to
> > make them sound better.
> > http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/822/index.html So he's certainly
> > way off in audiophool la-la land. :-)
> >
>
> Meitner never *was* involved with vinyl or analog. That was Ludo's point.
> You would think he would be extremely biased towards digital. He is not.
> In fact, he has said that he feels a lot of the sound quality of his
> converters is due to paying careful attention to the design of the analog
> sections, which he believes many digital converters do not.
>
> And Krell never had anything to do with vinyl either, unless you consider
> having a phone section in a preamp as "having to do with vinyl". He does
> produce solid state analog gear. But he also produces two of the most
> highly regarded universal and SACD digital players as well. You would think
> he would be biased towards digital since he has nothing to due with
> cartridges, turntables, or arms. In fact, I don't think Krell even sells a
> stand-alone phono preamp, pretty unusual for a high-end "analog"
> manufacturer.

=============================================

Thank you Harry for taking pains and patiently rerelating facts better
than I had ever done.

Your correspondent though is not interested in facts. Like most of the
scientology chapel members he stops dead when faced with them only to
repeat the fairy tale a few months later when the previous
falsification is forgotten. Look at the glib way he tries to weasel
out of his previous lying pamphleteering-- he was accusing the two
exclusively digital manufacturers of boostng analogue to "make
megabucks". He does not retract and apologise. He just releases a smoke
screen of new charges.

He complained that I wanted to stop a pointless discussion with him
pointing out that there very little in the way of substantial
difference in my stance. He is proving again that any discussion for
him is not the way at getting to the nitty gritty but continuation of
endless nitpicking.

Recognising an error is not the chapel way. Look at the way the High
Priest Krueger shut up when I showed that he falsified documents. No
doubt he's planning a repeat performance after a suitable silent
interval .
Ludovic Mirabel

Eeyore

October 6th 06, 07:58 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >> That has not been my experience, but no, I would not expect you to
> >> listen to something you found to be inferior. In fact, I'd be very
> >> interested in finding out why these CDs sounded inferior to you.
> >
> >Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
> >much better than others; none are good to my ears.
> >
>
> Some CD players that use "1-bit" DACs throw away a lot of the bits at
> high frequencies.

Where did you come across with this idea ?

Graham

Eeyore

October 6th 06, 08:05 PM

Harry Lavo wrote:

> Serious recording is done with mics that
> cost $1500-4000 each and mic preamps that cost at least $1000 per input

Sheer nonsense. Only highly specialist recording is done with that kind of kit.
Few mics ( even the exotic ones ) cost over $1500 anyway.

Graham

Mr Fox

October 6th 06, 08:16 PM

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:05:18 +0100, Eeyore
> wrote:

>Harry Lavo wrote:
>
>> Serious recording is done with mics that
>> cost $1500-4000 each and mic preamps that cost at least $1000 per input
>
>Sheer nonsense. Only highly specialist recording is done with that kind of kit.
>Few mics ( even the exotic ones ) cost over $1500 anyway.

Loads of mics cost over $1500. More than half ot those stocked by
Mercenary Audio are over $1500.

http://www.mercenary.com/studiomics.html

Jenn

October 6th 06, 08:48 PM

In article >,
Stuart Krivis > wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >>
> >> That has not been my experience, but no, I would not expect you to
> >> listen to something you found to be inferior. In fact, I'd be very
> >> interested in finding out why these CDs sounded inferior to you.
> >
> >Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
> >much better than others; none are good to my ears.
> >
>
> Some CD players that use "1-bit" DACs throw away a lot of the bits at
> high frequencies. You wind up with a real resolution of 7 bits or so.
> (SACD is as bad or worse in this respect.) Perhaps this is the
> problem?
>
> I tend to use a couple of Telarc recordings as my references.
> Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" and "An American in Paris", plus Papa
> Doo Run Run's "California Project."
>
> With the Gershwin CD, piano sounds like a piano, although rather
> closer than it would seem in a concert hall. The dynamics of the piano
> are much better portrayed with CD IMO that with any vinyl record I've
> ever heard.
>
> The other instruments sound amazingly close to what I hear at a live
> concert. There isn't as much "power" behind the whole thing, and the
> perspective is sometimes odd, but the individual instruments come
> through great.
>
> With the Papa Doo Run Run CD, I hear just what I've heard in the
> recording studio. It's close-miked multimono studio recording at it's
> finest. The drum kit sounds like you're standing in front of it. The
> bass sounds like what you hear in the headphones coming off the
> console.
>
> >>
> >> Personally, I would rather not have any added distortions. I like
> >> hearing the music and just the music. :-)
> >
> >So do I, but you don't get that in any medium.
>
> I've found that you get closer to that ideal with CD than with vinyl.
>
> If anything, CD seems to have errors of omission, where vinyl has
> errors of commission.

Your last paragraph brings up what could be an interesting discussion.
I suppose what it comes down to is one's listening priorities. For me,
I'm REALLY bothered by instruments and voices that sound like no
acoustic instrument or voice ever sounded. YMMV

[email protected]

October 6th 06, 10:16 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2006 14:15:38 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >> On 5 Oct 2006 10:43:41 -0700, wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't expect anyone else to like it though !
> >> >
> >> >And yet amazingly, outside of the intellectual dungeon known as Usenet,
> >> >most people agree with me.
> >>
> >> Oh, c'mon, you're way off on the fringe of even "high-end" audio.
> >
> >Hyperbole doesn't win arguments.
>
> That wasn't hyperbole.

Did you have to look it up in the dictionary first?

Boon

Harry Lavo

October 6th 06, 10:40 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:47:47 -0400, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Hmmm... I see he was recommending that CDs be cryogenically treated to
>>> make them sound better.
>>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/822/index.html So he's certainly
>>> way off in audiophool la-la land. :-)
>>>
>>
>>Meitner never *was* involved with vinyl or analog. That was Ludo's point.
>>You would think he would be extremely biased towards digital. He is not.
>>In fact, he has said that he feels a lot of the sound quality of his
>>converters is due to paying careful attention to the design of the analog
>>sections, which he believes many digital converters do not.
>>
>>And Krell never had anything to do with vinyl either, unless you consider
>>having a phone section in a preamp as "having to do with vinyl". He does
>>produce solid state analog gear. But he also produces two of the most
>>highly regarded universal and SACD digital players as well. You would
>>think
>>he would be biased towards digital since he has nothing to due with
>>cartridges, turntables, or arms. In fact, I don't think Krell even sells
>>a
>>stand-alone phono preamp, pretty unusual for a high-end "analog"
>>manufacturer.
>>
>
> Ok, then my comments were out of line. I guess I would have to say I'm
> mystified as to why either of these people would have claimed vinyl is
> superior.
>
> However, I think that Meitner's championing of cryogenically treating
> CDs to make them sound better pretty well removes him from being
> competent at digital design. :-)

Well, I don't know what he said, but I do know his digital gear is
considered by virtually everybody in the production of audio for the last
half dozen years to be one of the top (most would say *the* top) of the heap
when it comes to transparency and sound quality.

Harry Lavo

October 6th 06, 10:42 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:00:14 -0400, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>they are talking Project Studio. Serious recording is done with mics that
>>cost $1500-4000 each and mic preamps that cost at least $1000 per input,
>>feeding digital converters that cost mucho dinero. The equivalent to
>>"high
>>end" audio gear. So why shouldn't it be listened to with the same, if you
>>can afford it?
>
> Because most "high-end" home audio gear is in no way comparable to
> quality pro equipment like the preamp I cited.
>
> I do know of one designer who produced home audio equipment at a
> comparable level of quality though:
>
> R. E. Designs. Dan's LNPA 150's and SCPA 1 preamp were built as well
> as anything I've seen. He didn't waste any time or effort on fluff,
> but his products were built like a brick **ithouse.
>

The producer of that gear pays attention to exactly the same thing high end
home people do.....extensive engineering and testing of limited volumn
items; careful selecting, testing, and *auditioning* of all included
parts..overbuilt power supplies, sturdy casing, top of the line pots and
switches, etc.etc.etc. They talk about their design, testing, and
manufacturing exactly as do the high end audio companies.

Harry Lavo

October 6th 06, 10:47 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:38:39 -0400, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> I would have to say that CD is about as close to the final master as
>>> most people can get.
>>
>>You can't have heard a good multichannel SACD or DVD-A system to be able
>>to
>>say that.
>>
>
> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to plain old CD, so I
> don't see why you would be supporting it.

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

Powell

October 6th 06, 11:16 PM

"Stuart Krivis" wrote

>>they are talking Project Studio. Serious recording
>>is done with mics that cost $1500-4000 each and
>>mic preamps that cost at least $1000 per input,
>>feeding digital converters that cost mucho dinero.
>>The equivalent to "high end" audio gear. So why
>>shouldn't it be listened to with the same, if you
>>can afford it?
>
> Because most "high-end" home audio gear is
> in no way comparable to quality pro equipment
> like the preamp I cited.
>
No, Lavo is right on the mark.

> I do know of one designer who produced home
> audio equipment at a comparable level of quality
> though:
>
Let me help you out with examples like:
Jeff Rowland
Mark Levinson
Lamm
Audio Research
Pass
Balanced Audio
Convergent Audio
Sutherland

Eeyore

October 6th 06, 11:44 PM

Mr Fox wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:05:18 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
> >Harry Lavo wrote:
> >
> >> Serious recording is done with mics that
> >> cost $1500-4000 each and mic preamps that cost at least $1000 per input
> >
> >Sheer nonsense. Only highly specialist recording is done with that kind of kit.
> >Few mics ( even the exotic ones ) cost over $1500 anyway.
>
> Loads of mics cost over $1500. More than half ot those stocked by
> Mercenary Audio are over $1500.
>
> http://www.mercenary.com/studiomics.html

Those are *antiques*. A totally different matter.

Graham

Mr Fox

October 7th 06, 12:20 AM

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:44:07 +0100, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>Mr Fox wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:05:18 +0100, Eeyore
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Harry Lavo wrote:
>> >
>> >> Serious recording is done with mics that
>> >> cost $1500-4000 each and mic preamps that cost at least $1000 per input
>> >
>> >Sheer nonsense. Only highly specialist recording is done with that kind of kit.
>> >Few mics ( even the exotic ones ) cost over $1500 anyway.
>>
>> Loads of mics cost over $1500. More than half ot those stocked by
>> Mercenary Audio are over $1500.
>>
>> http://www.mercenary.com/studiomics.html
>
>Those are *antiques*. A totally different matter.

????
Look like current production models to me.

George M. Middius

October 7th 06, 12:36 AM

Poopie's cousin said:

> >> Loads of mics cost over $1500. More than half ot those stocked by
> >> Mercenary Audio are over $1500.
> >> http://www.mercenary.com/studiomics.html

> >Those are *antiques*. A totally different matter.

> ????
> Look like current production models to me.

Of course they are -- otherwise the dealer wouldn't have list prices vs.
"our prices".

--

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

ScottW

October 7th 06, 01:26 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your last paragraph brings up what could be an interesting discussion.
> I suppose what it comes down to is one's listening priorities. For me,
> I'm REALLY bothered by instruments and voices that sound like no
> acoustic instrument or voice ever sounded. YMMV

I guess Phil Collins isn't for you :).

Seriously though, I think you've gone a bit far in narrowing the field.

ScottW

Bertie the Bunyip

October 7th 06, 01:44 AM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Mr Fox wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:05:18 +0100, Eeyore
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Harry Lavo wrote:
>> >
>> >> Serious recording is done with mics that
>> >> cost $1500-4000 each and mic preamps that cost at least $1000 per
>> >> input
>> >
>> >Sheer nonsense. Only highly specialist recording is done with that
>> >kind of kit. Few mics ( even the exotic ones ) cost over $1500
>> >anyway.
>>
>> Loads of mics cost over $1500. More than half ot those stocked by
>> Mercenary Audio are over $1500.
>>
>> http://www.mercenary.com/studiomics.html
>
> Those are *antiques*. A totally different matter.
>

Planespotting ****

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

October 7th 06, 01:44 AM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> That has not been my experience, but no, I would not expect you to
>> >> listen to something you found to be inferior. In fact, I'd be very
>> >> interested in finding out why these CDs sounded inferior to you.
>> >
>> >Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some
are
>> >much better than others; none are good to my ears.
>> >
>>
>> Some CD players that use "1-bit" DACs throw away a lot of the bits at
>> high frequencies.
>
> Where did you come across with this idea ?

Netkkkkping piece of ****

bertie

Harry Lavo

October 7th 06, 02:40 AM

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mr Fox wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:05:18 +0100, Eeyore
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Harry Lavo wrote:
>> >
>> >> Serious recording is done with mics that
>> >> cost $1500-4000 each and mic preamps that cost at least $1000 per
>> >> input
>> >
>> >Sheer nonsense. Only highly specialist recording is done with that kind
>> >of kit.
>> >Few mics ( even the exotic ones ) cost over $1500 anyway.
>>
>> Loads of mics cost over $1500. More than half ot those stocked by
>> Mercenary Audio are over $1500.
>>
>> http://www.mercenary.com/studiomics.html
>
> Those are *antiques*. A totally different matter.
>

Royer, Microtech-Gefell, Josephson, and T.H.E. are antiques? What world do
you live in?
You can look at Schoeps and Neumann, perhaps more widely known, at the exact
same prices. Are they antiques?
The Sennheiser 441, perhaps the most versatile and trusted dynamic for
studio work: $800. Shall I continue?

Even good "mid-fi" brands like Rode and Audio Technica tend to run $750-1000
or more for their better condenser mics.

Or do you consider MXL and Studio Projects the cream of the crop?

Mr Fox

October 7th 06, 02:54 AM

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:36:32 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>Poopie's cousin said:
>

Hehehe, hahaha.

Like, yer funnier than Charlie Chaplin.

Eeyore

October 7th 06, 02:57 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote
> > Mr Fox wrote:
> >>Eeyore > wrote:
> >> >Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Serious recording is done with mics that cost $1500-4000 each and
> >> >> mic preamps that cost at least $1000 per input
> >> >
> >> >Sheer nonsense. Only highly specialist recording is done with that
> >> >kind of kit. Few mics ( even the exotic ones ) cost over $1500
> >> >anyway.
> >>
> >> Loads of mics cost over $1500. More than half ot those stocked by
> >> Mercenary Audio are over $1500.
> >>
> >> http://www.mercenary.com/studiomics.html
> >
> > Those are *antiques*. A totally different matter.
>
> Planespotting ****

I think you must mean microphone spotting surely ?

In any case I've seen more of this stuff in real life than most ppl here
could even imagine.

Graham

Bertie the Bunyip

October 7th 06, 10:15 AM

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote
>> > Mr Fox wrote:
>> >>Eeyore > wrote:
>> >> >Harry Lavo wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Serious recording is done with mics that cost $1500-4000 each
and
>> >> >> mic preamps that cost at least $1000 per input
>> >> >
>> >> >Sheer nonsense. Only highly specialist recording is done with
that
>> >> >kind of kit. Few mics ( even the exotic ones ) cost over $1500
>> >> >anyway.
>> >>
>> >> Loads of mics cost over $1500. More than half ot those stocked by
>> >> Mercenary Audio are over $1500.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.mercenary.com/studiomics.html
>> >
>> > Those are *antiques*. A totally different matter.
>>
>> Planespotting ****
>
> I think you must mean microphone spotting surely ?
>
> In any case I've seen more of this stuff in real life than most ppl
here
> could even imagine.

Oh aren't you something, netkkkop?

planespotting ****

B ertie

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 01:09 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Mr Fox wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:33:29 -0400, Stuart Krivis
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> task at hand:
>>>> 1) Did those two designers ( with many other
>>>> authorities, not of the RAO tribe) say that digital
>>>> has not as yet caught up with analogue rendition of
>>>> music or did they not?
>>>
>>> Perhaps they realized they wouldn't sell many megabuck
>>> phono preamps if they admitted vinyl was inferior?
>>>
>>> Perhaps if they didn't, in general, blow smoke up
>>> people's rears they woudn't sell much of anything at
>>> all?
>>>
>>> Feel free to say you like vinyl better, but if you
>>> claim it's superior to CD, you're going to need to show
>>> some proof.
>>
>>
>> Why?
>
> People like Krivis will never understand the concept of
> personal preference.

Actually, we understand personal preference quite well.

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

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

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

Still can't read very well, eh Boonie?

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

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

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

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

Didn't you mean Boon?

Freudian slip?

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 02:07 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious
> point is that we all listen to what we think sounds best.

Nonsense. Many of us spent lots of time listening to things that don't sound
the best to us. Something about convenience and practicality.

> We shouldn't listen to something just because others
> state that it is better.

Yet vinyl bigots state that vinyl sounds better because they want others to
listen to it.

> I WANT CDs to always sound better than LPs.

I doubt it. Jenn, you're obviously a card-carrying elitist. CDs are way to
common and practial to appeal to you.

> The convenience factor would be great.

Note that Jenn speaks of an obvious quality of CDs as if it might exist in
some far off place or future time. For normal humans the place is here and
the time is now.

> But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me.

Yes, they strike that elitist chord.

> Obviously I'm not going to listen to something that
> sounds inferior to me just because I'm told that it
> should sound better to me.

Well, if we could get you to open your mind to reality, Jenn...

> That would be quite counterproductive, right?

It would be part of your recovery process, Jenn.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 02:16 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

>
> And I'm sure the acousticians at Carnegie thought that by
> adding concrete under the stage floor they were improving
> the "accuracy" of the sound there as well.

Harry's at it again, damning technology and technologists when it is the
property owners who are at fault.

The best information available to me suggests that the concrete slab under
the stage at Carnegie hall was put there at the request of hall managment to
level the stage.

No acousticians were involved. It was a cost-cutting move.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 02:22 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every
>> CD. Some are much better than others; none are good to
>> my ears.
>
>
> It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music
> (from a fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the
> Sydney Opera House) I was shocked to find that I didn't
> actually like the sound.

It's like Paul believes that all musical performances in every concert hall
should sound the same, or at least should have sonics that fit some
preconceived profile that exists in his mind.

> There was an absence of treble
> and the mid-range sounded hard.

Rather highly dependent on all sorts of things, elitist comments from Jenn
notwitstanding.

> Had it been my system I'd
> have been doing some major upgrading.

I think you need to get out more, Paul.

> Was it because I was used to listening via the medium of headphones?

Could be, but that wouldn't be the whole story.

> Don't think so, as I still listen to speakers occasionally. Is
> there a problem with the acoustics? Should I not have
> being sitting in the high seats?

That might explain a lack of treble, and bass, or not.

> I'm confused.

As a general rule, yes you are quite confused Paul, vain attempts at
sounding expert notwitstanding.

>I only know that I could not happily have listened to that sound
> at home.

Given some time you might (heaven forbid!) adjust your tastes to this
reality.

>It certainly wasn't euphonic.

How do you know that for sure?

> In fact, apart from the dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.

Spoken like one of the brainwashed ones, Paul. Your programming is coming
along splendidly - you're changing from being damaged goods to being totally
ruined.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 02:29 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

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

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

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

George M. Middius

October 9th 06, 02:29 PM

KrazyBorg yammered:

> Yet vinyl bigots state that vinyl sounds better because they want others to
> listen to it.

Thanks Mr. Krooborg for admitting Mr. Krooborg that you're so crazy, you
don't recognize the only true plot against you Mr. Krooborg.

--

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

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 02:42 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:38:39 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I would have to say that CD is about as close to the
>>>> final master as most people can get.
>>>
>>> You can't have heard a good multichannel SACD or DVD-A
>>> system to be able to
>>> say that.
>>>
>>
>> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to plain
>> old CD, so I don't see why you would be supporting it.
>
> Because it sounds better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 02:46 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
> > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to plain
>>> old CD, so I don't see why you would be supporting it.
>>
>> Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
>> because it is the only digital system for home use that
>> produces natural-sounding transient response, as opposed
>> to pcm which produces transients with pre-echo. The
>> latter exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
>> ear-brain complex is highly oriented to transient
>> information and very sensitive to *any* type of sound
>> that is "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
>> instinct, I suppose).

This is "Lavo-science".

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

That's because there's proof to the contrary.

> Some questions:

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

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

> Does it really not exist in nature?

False - all musical instrutments make very messy transients with relatively
long rise times and even longer fall times.

> Nothing at all
> produces sound right before a transient?

Sound reaches the ear by multiple paths. The longer paths are often the
louder ones. The ear is made as it is to detangle the messy transients and
exact the useful information from them. This involves simplifying many
details out of perceptual existenc e.

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

Often we don't perceive it at all.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 02:48 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message

> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> That has not been my experience, but no, I would not
>>>> expect you to listen to something you found to be
>>>> inferior. In fact, I'd be very interested in finding
>>>> out why these CDs sounded inferior to you.
>>>
>>> Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
>>> every CD. Some are much better than others; none are
>>> good to my ears.
>>>
>>
>> Some CD players that use "1-bit" DACs throw away a lot
>> of the bits at high frequencies.

Simply not true. If this occurred, it would be highly measurable. It turns
out that SACD does in fact throw away a lot of the bits at high frequencies.
IOW, its dynamic range above about 20 KHz is vastly reduced.

> Where did you come across with this idea ?

No doubt the same places that some audiophiles got the idea that the output
of a CD player was like a stair case.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 02:54 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message

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

I think you may have misuderstood some details.

> It also made eminent sense in that there simply aren't
> enough data points being used to define signals at high
> frequencies. (Unless you measure using sine waves and
> average over a number of cycles.)

Not true. As long as a signal is within the bandpass of a digital system
that has uniform dynamic range over its bandpass (like PCM, but unlike SACD)
all signals in the bandpass are equally well-defined.

It seems intuitive that a 20 KHz sine wave that is defined by a few points
is less well-defined than a 2 KHz waved that is defined by many more points.
But, this isn't true. If it were true the 20 KHz wave would have poorer
dynamic range than the 2 KHz wave.

The fact that the 20 KHz ave is defined by only a few points is not without
its costs - but the cost is the absence of higher harmonics.

> SACD do much the same thing, although they attempt to do noise-shaping to
> hide the low resolution.

In fact the lowered resolution of SACD above 20 KHz is easily measurable,
and not hidden at all from simple measurements. Noise shaping is the means
by which the intentionally lowered dynamic range is obtained. 24/192 DVD-A
does not have this inherent limitation.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 02:55 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> wrote:
>
>> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>>> On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>> People like Krivis will never understand the concept
>>>> of personal preference. Nearly everyone I know who
>>>> prefers vinyl does so because they "like it better."
>>>> No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or
>>>
>>> So you admit it's down to "I like it."
>>
>> It's always been about personal preference. That's why
>> the objectivists always sound so foolish.
>
> There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good
> *objectively* !

Agreed. In some ways the so-called subjectivists are somewhat nihilistic in
their approach to audio.

Eeyore

October 9th 06, 03:11 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

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

Early D-A converters were a bit ropey in truth. I found the Sony CDP-101
unpleasant to listen to for example.

Since then converters have improved immeasurably and techniques like
oversampling and dither have reduced other issues to the level of no interest.

Graham

Eeyore

October 9th 06, 03:13 PM

Stuart Krivis wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
> >> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to plain old CD, so I
> >> don't see why you would be supporting it.
> >
> >Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is because it is the only
> >digital system for home use that produces natural-sounding transient
> >response, as opposed to pcm which produces transients with pre-echo. The
> >latter exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the ear-brain complex is
> >highly oriented to transient information and very sensitive to *any* type of
> >sound that is "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation instinct, I
> >suppose).
>
> I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever provided a
> shred of proof that it's true.
>
> Some questions:
>
> Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin level that
> it's swamped by the noise floor?
>
> Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all produces sound
> right before a transient?
>
> Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it therefore very
> noticeable?

Pre-echo ?

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

Graham

John Atkinson

October 9th 06, 03:23 PM

On Oct 9, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
>
> > Some questions:
> > Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
> > level that it's swamped by the noise floor?
>
> Neither. When very gross (in the millisecond range) pre-echo is swamped by
> temporal masking. When fall smaller (in the microsecond range) pre-echo is
> removed by the ear before it hits the nerves.

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

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

> > Does it really not exist in nature?
>
> False - all musical instrutments make very messy transients with
> relatively long rise times and even longer fall times.

Except that nothing in nature resemble the pre-ringing of a
digital filter. Which is perhaps why it could be detected in
the Stereophile listening tests.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Jenn

October 9th 06, 03:54 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
>
> > Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every
> > CD. Some are much better than others; none are good to
> > my ears.
>
> C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle part of the RIAA curve. The
> amplitude of all harmonics for all notes C6 and above played back via the LP
> format are in doubt if the RIAA curve is not precisely implmented.
> Imprecuise implementation of the RIAA curve is endemic in LP production and
> playback. In contrast CD playback inherently plays them back with in the
> same perspective as recorded, within the audible range.
>
> I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs - they are too consistent
> and accurate for her preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an
> audible differences junkie.

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

Jenn

October 9th 06, 03:55 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>
> > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every
> >> CD. Some are much better than others; none are good to
> >> my ears.
> >
> >
> > It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music
> > (from a fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the
> > Sydney Opera House) I was shocked to find that I didn't
> > actually like the sound.
>
> It's like Paul believes that all musical performances in every concert hall
> should sound the same, or at least should have sonics that fit some
> preconceived profile that exists in his mind.
>
> > There was an absence of treble
> > and the mid-range sounded hard.
>
> Rather highly dependent on all sorts of things, elitist comments from Jenn
> notwitstanding.

LOL. You're cracking me up.

>
> > Had it been my system I'd
> > have been doing some major upgrading.
>
> I think you need to get out more, Paul.
>
> > Was it because I was used to listening via the medium of headphones?
>
> Could be, but that wouldn't be the whole story.
>
> > Don't think so, as I still listen to speakers occasionally. Is
> > there a problem with the acoustics? Should I not have
> > being sitting in the high seats?
>
> That might explain a lack of treble, and bass, or not.
>
> > I'm confused.
>
> As a general rule, yes you are quite confused Paul, vain attempts at
> sounding expert notwitstanding.
>
> >I only know that I could not happily have listened to that sound
> > at home.
>
> Given some time you might (heaven forbid!) adjust your tastes to this
> reality.
>
> >It certainly wasn't euphonic.
>
> How do you know that for sure?
>
> > In fact, apart from the dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.
>
> Spoken like one of the brainwashed ones, Paul. Your programming is coming
> along splendidly - you're changing from being damaged goods to being totally
> ruined.

Jenn

October 9th 06, 03:59 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious
> > point is that we all listen to what we think sounds best.
>
> Nonsense. Many of us spent lots of time listening to things that don't sound
> the best to us. Something about convenience and practicality.
>
> > We shouldn't listen to something just because others
> > state that it is better.
>
> Yet vinyl bigots state that vinyl sounds better because they want others to
> listen to it.

Incorrect yet again. I don't care what you listen to.

>
> > I WANT CDs to always sound better than LPs.
>
> I doubt it. Jenn, you're obviously a card-carrying elitist.

LOL

> CDs are way to
> common and practial to appeal to you.

Incorrect. As I've clearly stated, I want CDs to be good; they are
easier to find, there is a wider variety of literature and performances,
and they play better in the car than do LPs.

>
> > The convenience factor would be great.
>
> Note that Jenn speaks of an obvious quality of CDs as if it might exist in
> some far off place or future time. For normal humans the place is here and
> the time is now.

I don't find bad sound to be convenient.

>
> > But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me.
>
> Yes, they strike that elitist chord.

Incorrect, but keep guessing.

>
> > Obviously I'm not going to listen to something that
> > sounds inferior to me just because I'm told that it
> > should sound better to me.
>
> Well, if we could get you to open your mind to reality, Jenn...
>
> > That would be quite counterproductive, right?
>
> It would be part of your recovery process, Jenn.

Arny, you can keep attempting to insult me if that is what pleases you.
I'm not playing anymore.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 04:12 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> On Oct 9, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Some questions:
>>> Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
>>> level that it's swamped by the noise floor?

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

> This subject was covered in the January 2006 issue of
> Stereophile (see
> http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/ ), complete
> with blind listening tests. The filter that was
> downgraded in the blind auditioning was the one where all
> the ringing was in the form
> of pre-echo. These results align with those in an AES
> paper co-authored by Roger Lagadec and the late Tom
> Stockham in the 1980s. (See R. Lagadec and T.G. Stockham,
> "Dispersive Models
> for A-to-D and D-to-A Conversion Systems," Preprint 2097,
> 75th Audio Engineering Society Convention (1984).)
>
> I'd be interested in learning of Mr. Krueger's own
> listening test results on this phenomenon.

My results were similar to those in the cited article:

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

The source materials and a DBT comparitor are available at

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

and

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm

Others are described at:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

However, we didn't all use the exact same filters. In particular, I didn't
go to the extremes described in

http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/index1.html

>>> Does it really not exist in nature?
>>
>> False - all musical instruments make very messy
>> transients with relatively long rise times and even
>> longer fall times.

>>> Nothing at all
>>> produces sound right before a transient?

>> Sound reaches the ear by multiple paths. The longer paths are often the
>> louder ones. The ear is made as it is to detangle the messy transients
>> and
>> exact the useful information from them. This involves simplifying many
>> details out of perceptual existence.

> Except that nothing in nature resemble the pre-ringing of
> a digital filter.

Sure it does, I described some above. However the paragraph in which I
described these effects somehow mysteriously went missing when Mr. Atkinson
did his usual out-of-context hatchet quoting jobbie on them.

> Which is perhaps why it could be detected in
> the Stereophile listening tests.

The Stereophile listening tests used highly artificial means to make up
pre-ringing that was not typical of modern or perhaps even fairly ancient
digital equipment.

To repeat the stereophile article's summary:

http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/index1.html

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

I should also point out that the Stereophile listening test paradigm that
was described was not very easy to use to get instantaneous, time-synched
comparisons, and was therefore probably less sensitive than optimum. I
can't find any statistical results, am I missing something?

Finally, Atkinson made in this article what might be interpreted as a
ringing criticism of the listening procedures used by RAO trolls:

http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/index3.html

" However, this was not something I felt I could identify without direct
reference to the originals."

Of course this same criticism can be leveled at most Sterephile reviews, can
it not?

Perhaps Mr. Phillips might be more sucessful with his attempts at journalism
if he cleaned up his experimental act? ;-)

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 04:13 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
>>>> plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
>>>> supporting it.
>>>
>>> Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
>>> because it is the only digital system for home use that
>>> produces natural-sounding transient response, as
>>> opposed to pcm which produces transients with pre-echo.
>>> The latter exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
>>> ear-brain complex is highly oriented to transient
>>> information and very sensitive to *any* type of sound
>>> that is "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
>>> instinct, I suppose).
>>
>> I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever
>> provided a shred of proof that it's true.
>>
>> Some questions:
>>
>> Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
>> level that it's swamped by the noise floor?
>>
>> Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
>> produces sound right before a transient?
>>
>> Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
>> therefore very noticeable?
>
> Pre-echo ?
>
> He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
> pre-echo though !

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

Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 04:14 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every
>>> CD. Some are much better than others; none are good to
>>> my ears.
>>
>> C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle part of
>> the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all harmonics for all
>> notes C6 and above played back via the LP format are in
>> doubt if the RIAA curve is not precisely implmented.
>> Imprecuise implementation of the RIAA curve is endemic
>> in LP production and playback. In contrast CD playback
>> inherently plays them back with in the same perspective
>> as recorded, within the audible range.
>>
>> I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs -
>> they are too consistent and accurate for her
>> preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an audible
>> differences junkie.
>
> Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated my
> complaints with CDs.

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

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 04:16 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> He recorded his system? Even the best system in the
> world, in the best room, would sound pretty bad once fed
> back into a microphone/recorder setup and played back
> through another pair of speakers? Ever tried it?

It can be done fairly well, particularly if the listening room is fairly
free of excessive reverb.

> I have, just for kicks, years ago, and the end result
> simply doesn't sound anything like the system.

As you say Harry, years ago, and it was you that did it.

Jenn

October 9th 06, 04:17 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>
> >>
> >>> Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every
> >>> CD. Some are much better than others; none are good to
> >>> my ears.
> >>
> >> C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle part of
> >> the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all harmonics for all
> >> notes C6 and above played back via the LP format are in
> >> doubt if the RIAA curve is not precisely implmented.
> >> Imprecuise implementation of the RIAA curve is endemic
> >> in LP production and playback. In contrast CD playback
> >> inherently plays them back with in the same perspective
> >> as recorded, within the audible range.
> >>
> >> I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs -
> >> they are too consistent and accurate for her
> >> preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an audible
> >> differences junkie.
> >
> > Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated my
> > complaints with CDs.
>
> Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not convincing. Especially true
> given your inability to own up to errors that you have clearly made and also
> denied.

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

Jenn

October 9th 06, 04:17 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message
> > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
> >>>> plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
> >>>> supporting it.
> >>>
> >>> Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
> >>> because it is the only digital system for home use that
> >>> produces natural-sounding transient response, as
> >>> opposed to pcm which produces transients with pre-echo.
> >>> The latter exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
> >>> ear-brain complex is highly oriented to transient
> >>> information and very sensitive to *any* type of sound
> >>> that is "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
> >>> instinct, I suppose).
> >>
> >> I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever
> >> provided a shred of proof that it's true.
> >>
> >> Some questions:
> >>
> >> Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
> >> level that it's swamped by the noise floor?
> >>
> >> Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
> >> produces sound right before a transient?
> >>
> >> Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
> >> therefore very noticeable?
> >
> > Pre-echo ?
> >
> > He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
> > pre-echo though !
>
> Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy to measure (I see
> them in vinyl transcriptions all the time), they are easy to hear.
>
> Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

Says who?

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 04:28 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> in
>> message
>>> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
>>>>>> plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
>>>>>> supporting it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
>>>>> because it is the only digital system for home use
>>>>> that produces natural-sounding transient response, as
>>>>> opposed to pcm which produces transients with
>>>>> pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and we
>>>>> do know the ear-brain complex is highly oriented to
>>>>> transient information and very sensitive to *any*
>>>>> type of sound that is "un-natural" (our heriditary
>>>>> self-preservation instinct, I suppose).
>>>>
>>>> I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever
>>>> provided a shred of proof that it's true.
>>>>
>>>> Some questions:
>>>>
>>>> Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
>>>> level that it's swamped by the noise floor?
>>>>
>>>> Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
>>>> produces sound right before a transient?
>>>>
>>>> Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
>>>> therefore very noticeable?
>>>
>>> Pre-echo ?
>>>
>>> He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
>>> pre-echo though !
>>
>> Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy
>> to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions all the
>> time), they are easy to hear.
>>
>> Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.
>
> Says who?

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

Jenn

October 9th 06, 04:30 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Eeyore" > wrote
> >> in
> >> message
> >>> Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
> >>>>>> plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
> >>>>>> supporting it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
> >>>>> because it is the only digital system for home use
> >>>>> that produces natural-sounding transient response, as
> >>>>> opposed to pcm which produces transients with
> >>>>> pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and we
> >>>>> do know the ear-brain complex is highly oriented to
> >>>>> transient information and very sensitive to *any*
> >>>>> type of sound that is "un-natural" (our heriditary
> >>>>> self-preservation instinct, I suppose).
> >>>>
> >>>> I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever
> >>>> provided a shred of proof that it's true.
> >>>>
> >>>> Some questions:
> >>>>
> >>>> Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
> >>>> level that it's swamped by the noise floor?
> >>>>
> >>>> Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
> >>>> produces sound right before a transient?
> >>>>
> >>>> Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
> >>>> therefore very noticeable?
> >>>
> >>> Pre-echo ?
> >>>
> >>> He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
> >>> pre-echo though !
> >>
> >> Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy
> >> to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions all the
> >> time), they are easy to hear.
> >>
> >> Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.
> >
> > Says who?
>
> Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them, Jenn.

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

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 04:30 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
>>>>> every CD. Some are much better than others; none are
>>>>> good to my ears.
>>>>
>>>> C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle part
>>>> of the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all harmonics for
>>>> all notes C6 and above played back via the LP format
>>>> are in doubt if the RIAA curve is not precisely
>>>> implmented. Imprecuise implementation of the RIAA
>>>> curve is endemic in LP production and playback. In
>>>> contrast CD playback inherently plays them back with
>>>> in the same perspective as recorded, within the
>>>> audible range.
>>>>
>>>> I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs -
>>>> they are too consistent and accurate for her
>>>> preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an
>>>> audible differences junkie.
>>>
>>> Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated my
>>> complaints with CDs.
>>
>> Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not
>> convincing. Especially true given your inability to own
>> up to errors that you have clearly made and also denied.
>
> I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.

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

> If you hear it differently, that's fine.

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

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

Jenn

October 9th 06, 04:32 PM

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 04:33 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>> You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious
>>> point is that we all listen to what we think sounds
>>> best.
>>
>> Nonsense. Many of us spent lots of time listening to
>> things that don't sound the best to us. Something about
>> convenience and practicality.
>>
>>> We shouldn't listen to something just because others
>>> state that it is better.
>>
>> Yet vinyl bigots state that vinyl sounds better because
>> they want others to listen to it.
>
> Incorrect yet again. I don't care what you listen to.

Speaks to your bad attitude towards me, Jenn.

>>> I WANT CDs to always sound better than LPs.
>>
>> I doubt it. Jenn, you're obviously a card-carrying
>> elitist.

> LOL

Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

>> CDs are way too
>> common and practial to appeal to you.

> Incorrect.

Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

> As I've clearly stated, I want CDs to be
> good; they are easier to find, there is a wider variety
> of literature and performances, and they play better in
> the car than do LPs.

Unresponsive and irrelevant.

>>> The convenience factor would be great.
>>
>> Note that Jenn speaks of an obvious quality of CDs as if
>> it might exist in some far off place or future time. For
>> normal humans the place is here and the time is now.
>
> I don't find bad sound to be convenient.

Who does?

>>> But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me.
>>
>> Yes, they strike that elitist chord.
>
> Incorrect, but keep guessing.

Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

>>> Obviously I'm not going to listen to something that
>>> sounds inferior to me just because I'm told that it
>>> should sound better to me.
>>
>> Well, if we could get you to open your mind to reality,
>> Jenn...
>>
>>> That would be quite counterproductive, right?
>>
>> It would be part of your recovery process, Jenn.

> Arny, you can keep attempting to insult me if that is
> what pleases you. I'm not playing anymore.

Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 04:40 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>>> in
>>>> message
>>>>> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
>>>>>>>> plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
>>>>>>>> supporting it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
>>>>>>> because it is the only digital system for home use
>>>>>>> that produces natural-sounding transient response,
>>>>>>> as opposed to pcm which produces transients with
>>>>>>> pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and
>>>>>>> we do know the ear-brain complex is highly oriented
>>>>>>> to transient information and very sensitive to *any*
>>>>>>> type of sound that is "un-natural" (our heriditary
>>>>>>> self-preservation instinct, I suppose).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has
>>>>>> ever provided a shred of proof that it's true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low
>>>>>> lin level that it's swamped by the noise floor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
>>>>>> produces sound right before a transient?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
>>>>>> therefore very noticeable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pre-echo ?
>>>>>
>>>>> He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
>>>>> pre-echo though !
>>>>
>>>> Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy
>>>> to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions all the
>>>> time), they are easy to hear.
>>>>
>>>> Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.
>>>
>>> Says who?
>>
>> Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them,
>> Jenn.
>
> SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that moon
> isn't made of cheese, Arny.

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

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/e0a2d3d82815cb18

Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:

"Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of green cheese, and anybody
with a few simple tools and a good understanding of Newtonian Physics (and a
sample of green cheese) has been able to do so for maybe 100 years or so."

OK, Jenn now put up or admit that you're wrong!

Jenn

October 9th 06, 04:42 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>
> >>> You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious
> >>> point is that we all listen to what we think sounds
> >>> best.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Many of us spent lots of time listening to
> >> things that don't sound the best to us. Something about
> >> convenience and practicality.
> >>
> >>> We shouldn't listen to something just because others
> >>> state that it is better.
> >>
> >> Yet vinyl bigots state that vinyl sounds better because
> >> they want others to listen to it.
> >
> > Incorrect yet again. I don't care what you listen to.
>
> Speaks to your bad attitude towards me, Jenn.
>
> >>> I WANT CDs to always sound better than LPs.
> >>
> >> I doubt it. Jenn, you're obviously a card-carrying
> >> elitist.
>
> > LOL
>
> Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

No, I'm simply laughing at the fact that you consider it "elitist" to
listen to what I think sounds best.

>
> >> CDs are way too
> >> common and practial to appeal to you.
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

No, your point is simply incorrect.

>
>
> > As I've clearly stated, I want CDs to be
> > good; they are easier to find, there is a wider variety
> > of literature and performances, and they play better in
> > the car than do LPs.
>
> Unresponsive and irrelevant.

Incorrect. It's totally relevant to your belief that I don't really
want CDs to be better.

>
> >>> The convenience factor would be great.
> >>
> >> Note that Jenn speaks of an obvious quality of CDs as if
> >> it might exist in some far off place or future time. For
> >> normal humans the place is here and the time is now.
> >
> > I don't find bad sound to be convenient.
>
> Who does?

Nobody that I know.

>
> >>> But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me.
> >>
> >> Yes, they strike that elitist chord.
> >
> > Incorrect, but keep guessing.
>
> Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

Not elitist at all. You keep guessing wrong: I simply suggest that you
keep guessing.

>
> >>> Obviously I'm not going to listen to something that
> >>> sounds inferior to me just because I'm told that it
> >>> should sound better to me.
> >>
> >> Well, if we could get you to open your mind to reality,
> >> Jenn...
> >>
> >>> That would be quite counterproductive, right?
> >>
> >> It would be part of your recovery process, Jenn.
>
> > Arny, you can keep attempting to insult me if that is
> > what pleases you. I'm not playing anymore.
>
> Elitist dismissive attitude noted.

Thanks for your opinion.

Jenn

October 9th 06, 04:43 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
> >>>> in
> >>>> message
> >>>>> Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
> >>>>>>>> plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
> >>>>>>>> supporting it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
> >>>>>>> because it is the only digital system for home use
> >>>>>>> that produces natural-sounding transient response,
> >>>>>>> as opposed to pcm which produces transients with
> >>>>>>> pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and
> >>>>>>> we do know the ear-brain complex is highly oriented
> >>>>>>> to transient information and very sensitive to *any*
> >>>>>>> type of sound that is "un-natural" (our heriditary
> >>>>>>> self-preservation instinct, I suppose).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has
> >>>>>> ever provided a shred of proof that it's true.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Some questions:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low
> >>>>>> lin level that it's swamped by the noise floor?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
> >>>>>> produces sound right before a transient?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
> >>>>>> therefore very noticeable?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pre-echo ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
> >>>>> pre-echo though !
> >>>>
> >>>> Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy
> >>>> to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions all the
> >>>> time), they are easy to hear.
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.
> >>>
> >>> Says who?
> >>
> >> Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them,
> >> Jenn.
> >
> > SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that moon
> > isn't made of cheese, Arny.
>
> There are about 20 posts of mine related to that, the earliest of which
> seems to be:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/e0a2d3d82815cb18
>
> Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:
>
> "Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of green cheese, and anybody
> with a few simple tools and a good understanding of Newtonian Physics (and a
> sample of green cheese) has been able to do so for maybe 100 years or so."
>
> OK, Jenn now put up or admit that you're wrong!

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

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 04:48 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:47:54 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
> > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Harry, are you really trying to talk sense to a bunch
>>> of tech. school graduates venting their childish views
>>> about music reproduction, here, where no one can stop
>>> them?
>>> Let them argue with each other about tube impendances
>>> and such. When they try to venture into the country of
>>> the real pioneers of audio they come up with idiocies
>>> like explaining to us why d'Appolito and Meitner see
>>> fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why? Simple:
>>> because they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE products
>>> for "megabucks". Incredible as this may sound that's
>>> exactly what one of them said. And repeated.
>>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I saw that.... <grin>

> So you have a better suggestion as to why a (presumably)
> competent engineer would ignore reality and claim that
> vinyl is superior to CD?

I think you're close.

Allegance to vinyl is virtually required in the world of high end audio.
More money is now probably being spent on digital equipment based on the
claim that it is "vinyl-like" than is being spent on equipment for actually
playing back vinyl.

> Although, perhaps my presumption of competency is not
> correct. It's either that or they were just into selling
> snake oil.

Meitner is known to be into audio snake oil, including mystical SACD
beliefs.

> Oh, and are you both saying that Krell products weren't
> selling for very high (and unwarrentedly so) prices?

Of course, D'Augistino's allegance to High End mystecism has an obvious
cause: it is his bread and butter.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 04:49 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> y.
>>>>>> com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
>>>>>>> every CD. Some are much better than others; none
>>>>>>> are good to my ears.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle part
>>>>>> of the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all harmonics for
>>>>>> all notes C6 and above played back via the LP format
>>>>>> are in doubt if the RIAA curve is not precisely
>>>>>> implmented. Imprecuise implementation of the RIAA
>>>>>> curve is endemic in LP production and playback. In
>>>>>> contrast CD playback inherently plays them back with
>>>>>> in the same perspective as recorded, within the
>>>>>> audible range.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs -
>>>>>> they are too consistent and accurate for her
>>>>>> preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an
>>>>>> audible differences junkie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated
>>>>> my complaints with CDs.
>>>>
>>>> Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not
>>>> convincing. Especially true given your inability to own
>>>> up to errors that you have clearly made and also
>>>> denied.
>>>
>>> I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.
>>
>> So what? If you have hysterical problems with CDs, not
>> my fault and nothing I want to try to cure.
>>
>>> If you hear it differently, that's fine.
>>
>> No Jenn your problem is separating hysteria from art
>> from technical facts.
>>
>> The technical fact is that CDs can be indistinguishable
>> from the master recordings they were made from and LPs
>> can't.
>
> I already know that you hear it that way, thanks.

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

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

Now since I met your demand for a post about the mood and cheese, be a good
little girl and show us where you had the candor to talk about some of the
nastier vinyl artifacts, like pre and post echo.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 04:52 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Eeyore" >
>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
>>>>>>>>>> plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
>>>>>>>>>> supporting it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
>>>>>>>>> because it is the only digital system for home use
>>>>>>>>> that produces natural-sounding transient response,
>>>>>>>>> as opposed to pcm which produces transients with
>>>>>>>>> pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and
>>>>>>>>> we do know the ear-brain complex is highly
>>>>>>>>> oriented to transient information and very
>>>>>>>>> sensitive to *any* type of sound that is
>>>>>>>>> "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
>>>>>>>>> instinct, I suppose).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has
>>>>>>>> ever provided a shred of proof that it's true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some questions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low
>>>>>>>> lin level that it's swamped by the noise floor?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
>>>>>>>> produces sound right before a transient?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is
>>>>>>>> it therefore very noticeable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pre-echo ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
>>>>>>> pre-echo though !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos
>>>>>> easy to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions
>>>>>> all the time), they are easy to hear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.
>>>>>
>>>>> Says who?
>>>>
>>>> Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them,
>>>> Jenn.
>>>
>>> SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that moon
>>> isn't made of cheese, Arny.
>>
>> There are about 20 posts of mine related to that, the
>> earliest of which seems to be:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/e0a2d3d82815cb18
>>
>> Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:
>>
>> "Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of green
>> cheese, and anybody with a few simple tools and a good
>> understanding of Newtonian Physics (and a sample of
>> green cheese) has been able to do so for maybe 100 years
>> or so."
>>
>> OK, Jenn now put up or admit that you're wrong!
>
> Yep, I was wrong; you posted about the moon and cheese.

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

Jenn

October 9th 06, 04:54 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> com
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ig
> >>>>>> y.
> >>>>>> com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on
> >>>>>>> every CD. Some are much better than others; none
> >>>>>>> are good to my ears.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> C6 is about 1046.5 Hz. Basically, in the saddle part
> >>>>>> of the RIAA curve. The amplitude of all harmonics for
> >>>>>> all notes C6 and above played back via the LP format
> >>>>>> are in doubt if the RIAA curve is not precisely
> >>>>>> implmented. Imprecuise implementation of the RIAA
> >>>>>> curve is endemic in LP production and playback. In
> >>>>>> contrast CD playback inherently plays them back with
> >>>>>> in the same perspective as recorded, within the
> >>>>>> audible range.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think we've figured out what bugs Jenn about CDs -
> >>>>>> they are too consistent and accurate for her
> >>>>>> preferences. Like Marc Phillips, she might be an
> >>>>>> audible differences junkie.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope, wrong yet again. I stated very clearly stated
> >>>>> my complaints with CDs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jenn, simple denials like these are simply not
> >>>> convincing. Especially true given your inability to own
> >>>> up to errors that you have clearly made and also
> >>>> denied.
> >>>
> >>> I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs.
> >>
> >> So what? If you have hysterical problems with CDs, not
> >> my fault and nothing I want to try to cure.
> >>
> >>> If you hear it differently, that's fine.
> >>
> >> No Jenn your problem is separating hysteria from art
> >> from technical facts.
> >>
> >> The technical fact is that CDs can be indistinguishable
> >> from the master recordings they were made from and LPs
> >> can't.
> >
> > I already know that you hear it that way, thanks.
>
> Just me any everybody else who gives it a serious try.

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

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

I don't deny them at all, Arny.

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

LOL

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

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

Jenn

October 9th 06, 04:55 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> com
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Eeyore" >
> >>>>>> wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>> Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
> >>>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
> >>>>>>>>>> plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
> >>>>>>>>>> supporting it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
> >>>>>>>>> because it is the only digital system for home use
> >>>>>>>>> that produces natural-sounding transient response,
> >>>>>>>>> as opposed to pcm which produces transients with
> >>>>>>>>> pre-echo. The latter exists nowhere in nature, and
> >>>>>>>>> we do know the ear-brain complex is highly
> >>>>>>>>> oriented to transient information and very
> >>>>>>>>> sensitive to *any* type of sound that is
> >>>>>>>>> "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
> >>>>>>>>> instinct, I suppose).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has
> >>>>>>>> ever provided a shred of proof that it's true.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Some questions:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low
> >>>>>>>> lin level that it's swamped by the noise floor?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
> >>>>>>>> produces sound right before a transient?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is
> >>>>>>>> it therefore very noticeable?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Pre-echo ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
> >>>>>>> pre-echo though !
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos
> >>>>>> easy to measure (I see them in vinyl transcriptions
> >>>>>> all the time), they are easy to hear.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Says who?
> >>>>
> >>>> Show us a pre-existing post where you mentioned them,
> >>>> Jenn.
> >>>
> >>> SHow us a pre-existing post where you mention that moon
> >>> isn't made of cheese, Arny.
> >>
> >> There are about 20 posts of mine related to that, the
> >> earliest of which seems to be:
> >>
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/e0a2d3d82815cb18
> >>
> >> Arny wrote in 6/3/1998:
> >>
> >> "Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of green
> >> cheese, and anybody with a few simple tools and a good
> >> understanding of Newtonian Physics (and a sample of
> >> green cheese) has been able to do so for maybe 100 years
> >> or so."
> >>
> >> OK, Jenn now put up or admit that you're wrong!
> >
> > Yep, I was wrong; you posted about the moon and cheese.
>
> Here's you're latest lie and/or deception, Jenn - you have now refused to
> admit that you are either deaf to or in denial of pre- and post- echo on
> LPs.

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

Eeyore

October 9th 06, 05:00 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
> >>>> plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
> >>>> supporting it.
> >>>
> >>> Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
> >>> because it is the only digital system for home use that
> >>> produces natural-sounding transient response, as
> >>> opposed to pcm which produces transients with pre-echo.
> >>> The latter exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
> >>> ear-brain complex is highly oriented to transient
> >>> information and very sensitive to *any* type of sound
> >>> that is "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
> >>> instinct, I suppose).
> >>
> >> I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever
> >> provided a shred of proof that it's true.
> >>
> >> Some questions:
> >>
> >> Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
> >> level that it's swamped by the noise floor?
> >>
> >> Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
> >> produces sound right before a transient?
> >>
> >> Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
> >> therefore very noticeable?
> >
> > Pre-echo ?
> >
> > He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
> > pre-echo though !
>
> Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy to measure (I see
> them in vinyl transcriptions all the time), they are easy to hear.
>
> Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.

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

Graham

Eeyore

October 9th 06, 05:02 PM

Jenn wrote:

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

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

Graham

Jenn

October 9th 06, 05:03 PM

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > "Eeyore" > wrote
> > > Stuart Krivis wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:47:15 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> The Delta-Sigma conversion in SACD is inferior to
> > >>>> plain old CD, so I don't see why you would be
> > >>>> supporting it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Because it sounds better. Biggest reason, IMO, is
> > >>> because it is the only digital system for home use that
> > >>> produces natural-sounding transient response, as
> > >>> opposed to pcm which produces transients with pre-echo.
> > >>> The latter exists nowhere in nature, and we do know the
> > >>> ear-brain complex is highly oriented to transient
> > >>> information and very sensitive to *any* type of sound
> > >>> that is "un-natural" (our heriditary self-preservation
> > >>> instinct, I suppose).
> > >>
> > >> I've heard this speculation before, but nobody has ever
> > >> provided a shred of proof that it's true.
> > >>
> > >> Some questions:
> > >>
> > >> Is the "pre-echo" actually audible, or is it so low lin
> > >> level that it's swamped by the noise floor?
> > >>
> > >> Does it really not exist in nature? Nothing at all
> > >> produces sound right before a transient?
> > >>
> > >> Do we actually percieve it as "unnatural," and is it
> > >> therefore very noticeable?
> > >
> > > Pre-echo ?
> > >
> > > He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
> > > pre-echo though !
> >
> > Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy to measure (I see
> > them in vinyl transcriptions all the time), they are easy to hear.
> >
> > Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.
>
> They're fabulously obvious during a lead-in. A nice low-level sampler of
> what's about to be played. How anyone can pretend this is hi-fi is beyond
> me.
>
> Graham

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

Eeyore

October 9th 06, 05:05 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> be a good little girl

Arny !

Can it pls.

Graham

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 05:05 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:47:54 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Harry, are you really trying to talk sense to a bunch
>>>> of tech. school graduates venting their childish
>>>> views about music reproduction, here, where no one can
>>>> stop them? Let them argue with each other about tube impendances
>>>> and such. When they try to venture into the country of
>>>> the real pioneers of audio they come up with idiocies
>>>> like explaining to us why d'Appolito and Meitner see
>>>> fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why?
>>>> Simple: because they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE
>>>> products for "megabucks". Incredible as this may sound
>>>> that's exactly what one of them said. And repeated. Ludovic Mirabel
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I saw that.... <grin>
>>>
>>
>> So you have a better suggestion as to why a (presumably)
>> competent engineer would ignore reality and claim that
>> vinyl is superior to CD? Although, perhaps my presumption of competency
>> is not
>> correct. It's either that or they were just into selling
>> snake oil. Oh, and are you both saying that Krell products weren't
>> selling for very high (and unwarrentedly so) prices?
>
> You may not say it is a better suggestion, but I would
> suggest that they say what they say because they believe
> it to be true. Why is that so hard for *you* to believe?

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

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

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

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

Actually, its measureably worse.

www.autos.yahoo.com

2006 BMW 325i $29,777

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

Quotient about 2:1 to 1.5:1

http://www.audiophileliquidator.com

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

Parasound 2250 250 wpc at 8 ohms power amp $949

Quotient about 4:1

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

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

Jenn

October 9th 06, 05:05 PM

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear it
> > differently, that's fine.
>
> Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any historic discussions
> about this,
> would you run those by me pls ?
>
> Graham

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

Eeyore

October 9th 06, 05:07 PM

Jenn wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > "Eeyore" > wrote
>
> > > > Pre-echo ?
> > > >
> > > > He's barking mad ! Both magnetic tape and vinyl give
> > > > pre-echo though !
> > >
> > > Excellent point. And not only are these pre-echos easy to measure (I see
> > > them in vinyl transcriptions all the time), they are easy to hear.
> > >
> > > Note that Jenn does not seem to hear these.
> >
> > They're fabulously obvious during a lead-in. A nice low-level sampler of
> > what's about to be played. How anyone can pretend this is hi-fi is beyond
> > me.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Just as how anyone can pretend that the sound of violins (for example)
> on CD is hi-fi is beyond me. My opinion on that was reinforced again at
> Disney Hall. But YMMV, and that's fine, in my opinion.

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

What was this example you refer to ?

Graham

Eeyore

October 9th 06, 05:10 PM

Harry Lavo wrote:

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

Cachet actually. You computer has a cache.

Graham

Eeyore

October 9th 06, 05:11 PM

Jenn wrote:

> In article >,
> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> >
> > > I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear it
> > > differently, that's fine.
> >
> > Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any historic discussions
> > about this, would you run those by me pls ?
> >
> > Graham
>
> It was recently done again: everything above about C6 sounds wrong to
> me IRT the timbre of instruments and voices. These frequencies sound
> more real to me on good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.

Really just that ?

What's your CD player btw ?

Graham

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 05:12 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

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

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

> THEY SOUND BETTER!

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

>The engineers know it.

There is actually a controversy

> The musicians who record with them know it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

>The equivalent to "high end" audio gear.

A tiny minority of that which is in use.

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

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

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 05:13 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

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

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

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 05:14 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 08:09:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> The arguments are there in the Usenet archives. For
>> years we were told by vinyl bigots that digital sounded
>> bad because of imaginary digital artifacts like "stair
>> steps". It seems like that folk tale has been pretty
>> well spiked. However, I expect to see someone bring it
>> up again on RAO, any day now.
>>
>
> I'm expecting to see someone resurrecting Dr. Diamond. :-)

If anybody could do it, it would be my good friend Dave Clark of the AES.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 05:15 PM

> wrote in message
ps.com

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

Do your homework.

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

Again in English?

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

Again, in English?

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 05:16 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>>>
>>> Graham
>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> Cool.... more used records available for me.

More evidence of ear damage.

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 05:17 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Stuart Krivis wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> (paul packer) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> Cool.... more used records available for me.
>>
>> More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion
>> for you too. :-)
>
> Maybe you should have taken better care of your records.

Many of them came that way from the factory.

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

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

Jenn

October 9th 06, 05:17 PM

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've very clearly stated my complaints with CDs. If you hear it
> > > > differently, that's fine.
> > >
> > > Just for my benefit Jenn since I'm not aware of any historic discussions
> > > about this, would you run those by me pls ?
> > >
> > > Graham
> >
> > It was recently done again: everything above about C6 sounds wrong to
> > me IRT the timbre of instruments and voices. These frequencies sound
> > more real to me on good LPs. That's my biggest complaint.
>
> Really just that ?

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

>
> What's your CD player btw ?

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

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 05:18 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com

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

Not me.

> It made me wonder how he handled his LPs.

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

Arny Krueger

October 9th 06, 05:19 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article
> . com>,
> "Jenn" > wrote:

>> I remember one poster here who refused to believe that I
>> have several LPs that are of "ticks and pops".
>
> Opps, obviously it should read "LPs that are free of
> 'ticks and pops'"

Obviously, a Freudian slip.

Jenn

October 9th 06, 05:19 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.
> >>>
> >>> Graham
> >>
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >
> > Cool.... more used records available for me.
>
> More evidence of ear damage.

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

Jenn

October 9th 06, 05:21 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > I remember one poster here who refused to believe that I
> > have several LPs that are of "ticks and pops".
>
> Not me.

Yes, it was you.

>
> > It made me wonder how he handled his LPs.
>
> I handled them so that they were relatively free of tics and pops, which
> meant that tics and pops were still audible at times.

Eeyore

October 9th 06, 06:22 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
> > You know why those preamps are bought/used by the pros?
>
> (1) Bragging rights
> (2) Carriage trade
> (3) Money to burn
> (4) Impresses prospective clients and contributors
> (5) May actually do something audible a tiny percentage of the time
>
> > THEY SOUND BETTER!
>
> Maybe, maybe not. They won't turn a Shure SM58 into a Neumann, and for the
> price they should.
>
> >The engineers know it.
>
> There is actually a controversy
>
> > The musicians who record with them know it.
>
> Only the ones who are into technological name-dropping who do definately
> exist but are probably a minority.
>
> > When people talk about all
> > the low-quality crap in the studio recording chain, they
> > are talking Project Studio.
>
> Some of which are listed at http://www.mil-media.com/docs/custlist.shtml
>
> It's just that if you are BabS, you don't have a lot of Behringer sitting
> around.
>
> > Serious recording is done
> > with mics that cost $1500-4000 each and mic preamps that
> > cost at least $1000 per input, feeding digital converters
> > that cost mucho dinero.
>
> There's some of that around. But it is not what working recordists use as a
> rule.
>
> >The equivalent to "high end" audio gear.
>
> A tiny minority of that which is in use.
>
> > So why shouldn't it be listened to with the same, if you can afford it?
>
> Because the money you don't blow on your stereo, you can give to charity.

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

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

Graham