Ayre C-5xe Universal "Silver Disc" Player [Archive]

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 12:04 PM

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> But I can bet my money that under double blind (abx box,
>>> all those connrections, etc) conditions no one would be
>>> reliably able to differentiate between a $39 DVD player
>>> and an ayre cd 5x.
>>
>>
>> "All those connections?" LOL!
>>
>> So Fella, you want us to believe that a set of high
>> quality relay contact and 6 pieces of short interconnect
>> are sufficient to mask the difference between a a $39
>> DVD player and an ayre cd 5x?
>
> That's *one* of the factor*s* that contribute to the
> whitewashing effect of the abx box, yes.
>
>
>> What about the relay contacts
>> that are probably in the Ayre's muting circuit?
>
> Ayre's WHAT circuit? Shheeeeeeeessh.

Just about every CD player has some kind of circuit that mutes its output
during power up and other noise-producing operations. Do try to keep up with
the technology, Fella.

Just because there isn't a mute button on the front panel, doesn't mean that
there isn't a muting function inside the box. And, just because you don't
hear relays click, doesn't mean they aren't there. For example, reed relays
can be very very quiet.

>> That's got to be a joke if I ever heard one!

> Agreed.

Yes Fella, your contentions about a couple of pieces of cable and a set of
good relay contacts trashing the sound is a joke.

>> Here's where the ABX test *masks* the *differences*
>> between the two players. It's all about the
>> level-matching and time-synching and use of the same
>> recordings on both players. There are very few
>> audiophiles who have ever heard two CD players operate
>> under these conditions.

> Dunno if I am an "audiophile" or not, but I did. When we
> were doing the amp tests we also did one CD player test.
> It was a really big fat gold colored high end sony
> "reference" player (I forget the model number now)
> against a cambridge audio azur 640c. In real life the
> sony had an immense midrange, liquid, syrupy, almost
> coming apart at the seems, and a tall soundstage, while
> the CA had a comparatively compressed midrange, clean,
> accentuated highs and an almost out of control bass. But
> connected to the abx box they just sounded the same, lots
> of detail, information, no music.

Sounds like the effects of hysteria.

The idea that a couple of pieces of good cable and a set of good relay
contacts can remove immense midrange, liquid, syrupy, almost coming apart
at the seams, and a tall soundstage, while and a comparatively compressed
midrange, clean,
accentuated highs and an almost out of control bass, is absolute nonsense.

Fella, do you have any idea how many sets of relay contacts and cables music
goes through in the process of producing a CD?

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 12:08 PM

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Too far to walk.
>
> You don't own a car? (That was a rhetorical question
> arny-ol chum. As borgs usually do, you might be now tempted to start
> talking about your super powerfull audi a4 whatever
> sports car, juiced up, etc, not interested)
>>
>> Besides, honesty requires me to explain to him what my
>> purpose is,
>
> Why? I never explain an audition.

Yeah Fella, but you are a proven liar. I'm trying to be honest.

> And a good shopkeeper
> would never want or need to ask you any such explanation.

Not my experience.

> He'd just give
> the bugger to you and hope that you would fall in love with it and
> eventually buy it, whatever your initial reason for the
> audition.

That might work with you, Fella but there are people in the world who are
more hard-headed than you.

> and they would be nuts to agree.
>
> Agreed.

> They'd also probably want me to put it on my Visa
>> card.

> So what? You would return the thing evetually since it
> would sound the same as your $39 dvd player.

But then it would be used gear.

>>
>> So Fella what you're saying is
>
> Lemme see what i'm, sayin.
>
>
>> that the Ayre will sound different from the
>> $39 DVD player, only if the comparison is not
>> level-matched, is not time-synched, and not
>> bias-controlled?

> Well OK something like that.

Thanks for agreeing.

> I am saying that if you sit
> down and listen to your favourite music with them they'd be sounding
> different, yes.

But, if the difference is bias, time synch, or level matching, why should
anybody pay the big bucks for them?

>> Isn't it true that any two CD players will sound
>> dramatically different if you don't time-synch them and
>> level-match them?

> True and agreed.

Well, its easy enough to play CDs unsynchronized, why not just do that with
a $39 player and give the other $1,000s to a good charity?

Fella

October 19th 06, 12:14 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> ..... with the technology, Fella.
> Yes Fella, ....
> Fella, do you....

Arny, may I bring to your attention this she-person called Jenn? She
says that she conducts, has a preference towards the LP format
especially when listening to violins. Whereas you *know* that she is a
manic-depressive, Jennnnnn, paranoid and, Jenn Jenn, she is arrogant and
Jenn, thank you Jenn for proving to us Jnen, etc. You know the drill.

Fella

October 19th 06, 12:19 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Fella" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>But I can bet my money that under double blind (abx box,
>>>>all those connrections, etc) conditions no one would be
>>>>reliably able to differentiate between a $39 DVD player
>>>>and an ayre cd 5x.
>>>
>>>
>>>"All those connections?" LOL!
>>>
>>>So Fella, you want us to believe that a set of high
>>>quality relay contact and 6 pieces of short interconnect
>>>are sufficient to mask the difference between a a $39
>>>DVD player and an ayre cd 5x?
>>
>>That's *one* of the factor*s* that contribute to the
>>whitewashing effect of the abx box, yes.
>>
>>
>>
>>>What about the relay contacts
>>>that are probably in the Ayre's muting circuit?
>>
>>Ayre's WHAT circuit? Shheeeeeeeessh.
>
>
> Just about every CD player has some kind of circuit that mutes its output
> during power up and other noise-producing operations. Do try to keep up with
> the technology, Fella.
>
> Just because there isn't a mute button on the front panel, doesn't mean that
> there isn't a muting function inside the box. And, just because you don't
> hear relays click, doesn't mean they aren't there. For example, reed relays
> can be very very quiet.
>
>
>>>That's got to be a joke if I ever heard one!
>
>
>>Agreed.
>
>
> Yes Fella, your contentions about a couple of pieces of cable and a set of
> good relay contacts trashing the sound is a joke.

I quote myself: That's *one* of the factor*s* that contribute to the
whitewashing effect of the abx box, yes.

>
>
> The idea that a couple of pieces of good cable and a set of good relay
> contacts can remove immense midrange, liquid, syrupy, almost coming apart
> at the seams, and a tall soundstage, while and a comparatively compressed
> midrange, clean,
> accentuated highs and an almost out of control bass, is absolute nonsense.

So Arny ol chum are you saying that those two players would sound the
same in the real world also? .. My my, what one can do with un-matching
them "levels" and un-"synching" the time these days. :)

Fella

October 19th 06, 12:25 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Too far to walk.
>>
>>You don't own a car? (That was a rhetorical question
>>arny-ol chum. As borgs usually do, you might be now tempted to start
>>talking about your super powerfull audi a4 whatever
>>sports car, juiced up, etc, not interested)
>>
>>>Besides, honesty requires me to explain to him what my
>>>purpose is,
>>
>>Why? I never explain an audition.
>
>
> Yeah Fella, but you are a proven liar.

When'd you prove that arny ol-chum? Just curious.

>
>
>>So what? You would return the thing evetually since it
>>would sound the same as your $39 dvd player.
>
>
> But then it would be used gear.

You poor thing. Let your hair down one of these days go to a real HE
boutique (dunno, wear a disguise, dress up like Jenn). You'll see that
they have audition models of most of their products. Already used. Ah
arny ol-chum, what a strange creature you are. Strange.

>
>
>>Well OK something like that.
>
>
> Thanks for agreeing.

Agreeed.

>
>
> Well, its easy enough to play CDs unsynchronized, why not just do that with
> a $39 player and give the other $1,000s to a good charity?
>
>
On a serious note, how do you presume to know just *what* I am giving
and not giving to charity?

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 12:33 PM

"Fella" > wrote in message

>> Well, its easy enough to play CDs unsynchronized, why
>> not just do that with a $39 player and give the other
>> $1,000s to a good charity?

> On a serious note, how do you presume to know just *what*
> I am giving and not giving to charity?

My comments made no presumptions about that, one way or the other.

Fella

October 19th 06, 12:37 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>>Well, its easy enough to play CDs unsynchronized, why
>>>not just do that with a $39 player and give the other
>>>$1,000s to a good charity?
>

Come to think of it Arny, I never synchronize my CD's before playing
them or even playing with them. How does one do that arn ol chum? To
what should I synchronize them to, or with? Thanks.

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 12:45 PM

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Well, its easy enough to play CDs unsynchronized, why
>>>> not just do that with a $39 player and give the other
>>>> $1,000s to a good charity?
>>
>
> Come to think of it Arny, I never synchronize my CD's
> before playing them or even playing with them. How does
> one do that arn ol chum?

Start them at the same time, and apply manual drag to a CD disc as
required. A more technical approach is to adjust the master clock of one of
the CD players to effect the match. I've done both.

> To what should I synchronize them to, or with?

If you're comparing two CD players, synch them to each other.

The whole point is to hear the same music playing on both players when you
compare their sound.

Fella

October 19th 06, 12:55 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Fella" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Well, its easy enough to play CDs unsynchronized, why
>>>>>not just do that with a $39 player and give the other
>>>>>$1,000s to a good charity?
>>>
>>Come to think of it Arny, I never synchronize my CD's
>>before playing them or even playing with them. How does
>>one do that arn ol chum?
>
>
> Start them at the same time, and apply manual drag to a CD disc as
> required. A more technical approach is to adjust the master clock of one of
> the CD players to effect the match. I've done both.
>
>
>>To what should I synchronize them to, or with?
>
>
> If you're comparing two CD players, synch them to each other.
>
> The whole point is to hear the same music playing on both players when you
> compare their sound.
>
>

Arny where where you when God was giving out humor rations?

George M. Middius

October 19th 06, 01:07 PM

Fella said:

> Arny where where you when God was giving out humor rations?

Well, you succeeded in enticing the Krooborg into yet another "debate"
about aBxism. Given™ the impressive successes he's had in brainwashing
Normals into accepting aBxism during the past decade, is it too much to
wonder if Krooger meets Einstein's definition of insanity?

--

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

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 01:55 PM

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Well, its easy enough to play CDs unsynchronized, why
>>>>>> not just do that with a $39 player and give the other
>>>>>> $1,000s to a good charity?
>>>>
>>> Come to think of it Arny, I never synchronize my CD's
>>> before playing them or even playing with them. How does
>>> one do that arn ol chum?
>>
>>
>> Start them at the same time, and apply manual drag to a CD disc as
>> required. A more technical approach is to
>> adjust the master clock of one of the CD players to
>> effect the match. I've done both.
>>> To what should I synchronize them to, or with?
>>
>>
>> If you're comparing two CD players, synch them to each
>> other. The whole point is to hear the same music playing on
>> both players when you compare their sound.

> Arny where where you when God was giving out humor
> rations?

What's your problem Fella, are you suggesting that I'm don't ROTFLMAO
whenever I exchange posts with you? You're a really funny guy! ;-)

Eeyore

October 19th 06, 03:05 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>
> > Even the
> > very first CD players (Philips/Marantz and Sony CDP101)
> > used the vastly superior 5534 and LM833 types.
>
> So what? All the poor output OP amp has to do is cleanly pass a 22 KHz 2
> volt signal. The slew-rate of that signal is what, Trevor?

Cleanly being the relevant point. Distortion sets in well before the slew
rate limit is reached.

Graham

Jenn

October 19th 06, 03:41 PM

In article >,
Fella > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > ..... with the technology, Fella.
> > Yes Fella, ....
> > Fella, do you....
>
> Arny, may I bring to your attention this she-person called Jenn? She
> says that she conducts, has a preference towards the LP format
> especially when listening to violins. Whereas you *know* that she is a
> manic-depressive, Jennnnnn, paranoid and, Jenn Jenn, she is arrogant and
> Jenn, thank you Jenn for proving to us Jnen, etc. You know the drill.

You left out "liar" and "hysterical". And I have "problems with men".

Sander deWaal

October 19th 06, 05:13 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>So Fella, you want us to believe that a set of high quality relay contact
>and 6 pieces of short interconnect are sufficient to mask the difference
>between a a $39 DVD player and an ayre cd 5x? What about the relay contacts
>that are probably in the Ayre's muting circuit?

A smart designer puts them in parallel with the outputs to ground, in
NC mode. That way, they're not in the signal path.

Even the not so smart designers, like me, do that.

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

Sander deWaal

October 19th 06, 05:17 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>That would be Audio Dimensions on N Woodward near my daughter's house.

>They are the guys who sold me my bigger NHTs, and told me that I'd burn them
>out by driving them with a Mackie M1200. Long story short - the NHTs
>out-survived the M1200 by at least 5 years. Seriously though, they are
>pretty good guys.

>Too far to walk.

They finally took your driver's license?

What was it this time?
Can't be speeding, since it takes you "hours" to drive 5 kilometers,
so you must have been under influence.

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

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 05:40 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>>
>>> Even the
>>> very first CD players (Philips/Marantz and Sony CDP101)
>>> used the vastly superior 5534 and LM833 types.
>>
>> So what? All the poor output OP amp has to do is
>> cleanly pass a 22 KHz 2 volt signal. The slew-rate of
>> that signal is what, Trevor?
>
> Cleanly being the relevant point. Distortion sets in well
> before the slew rate limit is reached.

Of course.

So Graham, what is the nonlinear distortion in the output of a $39 DVD
player when playing say a 18 and 20 KHz tone at an appropriate level?

If the output drivers on the player are as bad as Trevor suggests, then
there will be large amounts of HF IM (>> 0.1 %). If the output drivers are
competent, then there will be small amounts of HF IM (<0.1%).

This is a test that is so coarse that it can be done using the onboard audio
interface of a modern PC as analytical equipment.

FWIW, I just did this Audio Rightmark test on the portable CD I take with me
when I backpack. In general, the test report showed mostly the performance
of the Realtek audio interface of my office PC.

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 06:12 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:

>> So Fella, you want us to believe that a set of high
>> quality relay contact and 6 pieces of short interconnect
>> are sufficient to mask the difference between a a $39
>> DVD player and an ayre cd 5x? What about the relay
>> contacts that are probably in the Ayre's muting circuit?

> A smart designer puts them in parallel with the outputs
> to ground, in NC mode. That way, they're not in the
> signal path.

That's all fine and good, but it is not a 100% solution.

It begs the question what sort of problem is being worried about. For
example, if you're worried about problems being induced from the coils of
the relay, the exposure remains with your recommended approach.

Again, if relays in or on the signal path cause audible problems, there's a
pretty good chance those problems were already introduced on the production
side.

Fact of the matter is that relays good enough to pass audio blamelessly, are
readily available. The relays we put into the ABX Comparator were the same
as used in some high end mixing consoles.

Furthermore, there are relay-less approaches to doing component
comparisons. Frankly they have neither shed new light nor do they obscure
audible problems that are actually present. They can make things a whole lot
more convenient.

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 06:15 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:

>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>> .. .

>>> Why don't you just walk over to your local HE dealer and
>>> take one home for audition?

>> That would be Audio Dimensions on N Woodward near my
>> daughter's house.

>> They are the guys who sold me my bigger NHTs, and told
>> me that I'd burn them out by driving them with a Mackie
>> M1200. Long story short - the NHTs out-survived the
>> M1200 by at least 5 years. Seriously though, they are
>> pretty good guys.
>
>> Too far to walk.

> They finally took your driver's license?

Forgot how to read again Sander, or is your memory that short?

To refresh your mind, please see the OP's comment about walking, at the top
of this post.

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 06:20 PM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" >
>>>> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>>>> .. .
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the Ayre C-5xe Universal "Silver Disc" Player
>>>>>>> really the best "CD Redbook" Player in the world, as
>>>>>>> a number of reviewers in both the USA and Europe
>>>>>>> seem to believe?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Well since a $39 dvd player sounds the same as the
>>>>>> ayre (in double blind tests) it doesn't really
>>>>>> matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> **Bull****. Cite any such test.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nobody wants to loan me an Ayre, on the chance that it
>>>> would indeed be humiliated by the $39 DVD player.
>>>
>>> Why don't you just walk over to your local HE dealer and
>>> take one home for audition?
>>
>> That would be Audio Dimensions on N Woodward near my
>> daughter's house.
>>
>> They are the guys who sold me my bigger NHTs, and told
>> me that I'd burn them out by driving them with a Mackie
>> M1200. Long story short - the NHTs out-survived the
>> M1200 by at least 5 years. Seriously though, they are
>> pretty good guys.
>>
>> Too far to walk.
>>
>> Besides, honesty requires me to explain to him what my
>> purpose is, and they would be nuts to agree. They'd also
>> probably want me to put it on my Visa card.
>
> Generally legit high end saloons have a demo unit that
> they will loan out for home auditions with a deposit, the
> proviso it must come back in the exact cosmetic shape as
> well as functionally as when it left. They could not
> object if you ABXed it, unless you defaced or damaged it.

Remaining problem - I go to all the trouble, and the results are blamed on
anything but the actual UUT. No, a person of the rationalist view point is
the wrong person to do the test - after all it's revealed in the high end
community that anybody who grants DBTs *any* credibiltiy has cloth ears.

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 06:21 PM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Fella wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>
>> Dunno if I am an "audiophile" or not, but I did. When we
>> were doing the amp tests we also did one CD player test.
>> It was a really big fat gold colored high end sony
>> "reference" player (I forget the model number now)
>> against a cambridge audio azur 640c. In real life the
>> sony had an immense midrange, liquid, syrupy, almost
>> coming apart at the seems, and a tall soundstage, while
>> the CA had a comparatively compressed midrange, clean,
>> accentuated highs and an almost out of control bass. But
>> connected to the abx box they just sounded the same,
>> lots of detail, information, no music.
>
> I find that hard to believe. I bet the musicians on the
> disc could not tell the difference whether or not the ABX
> box was in circuit, and you couldn't either if you didn't
> know.

Reading between the lines, the so-called audible differences probably
disappeared when the levels were properly matched.

Sander deWaal

October 19th 06, 06:33 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>> So Fella, you want us to believe that a set of high
>>> quality relay contact and 6 pieces of short interconnect
>>> are sufficient to mask the difference between a a $39
>>> DVD player and an ayre cd 5x? What about the relay
>>> contacts that are probably in the Ayre's muting circuit?

>> A smart designer puts them in parallel with the outputs
>> to ground, in NC mode. That way, they're not in the
>> signal path.

>That's all fine and good, but it is not a 100% solution.

>It begs the question what sort of problem is being worried about. For
>example, if you're worried about problems being induced from the coils of
>the relay, the exposure remains with your recommended approach.
>
>Again, if relays in or on the signal path cause audible problems, there's a
>pretty good chance those problems were already introduced on the production
>side.

I'm not worried about induced voltages from the coil's action (that's
what that neat diode is for), but I am assuming that in most
situations, there are several contacts and connectors in series with
the signal.
Any connection less is a problem less in the future.

That's why I soldered my connection cables directly from the DAC to my
main amp, where they are connected via WBT clamping connectors and
receptacles.
Again, going from that main amp to the secondary amp, directly
soldered wiring, and again clamping WBTs and receptacles at the
receiving end of the aux amp.

The DAC has a mute relay at the output with NC contacts to ground,
just like the main amp and aux amp have at their input.

I'm now working on a balanced setup for my cartridge, where the signal
is amplified/buffered by a pair of OPA1632 in the plinth, then
soldered via shotgunned RG58U via XLR into a new preamp, that's also
balanced.
That is where the RIAA correction takes place, also with OPA1632.

I'm intending on making every necessary line level connection
balanced, up until the power amps.

I'm finished with tubes and cinch plugs at MM and MC levels, I
couldn't get it any better than it was.

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

Sander deWaal

October 19th 06, 06:35 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>> Too far to walk.

>> They finally took your driver's license?

>Forgot how to read again Sander, or is your memory that short?

I have a combination of Alzheimer's and deja-vu: I think I've
forgotten this before.........

>To refresh your mind, please see the OP's comment about walking, at the top
>of this post.

A literal mind is a joy forever ;-)

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

Eeyore

October 19th 06, 06:41 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
> >>
> >>> Even the
> >>> very first CD players (Philips/Marantz and Sony CDP101)
> >>> used the vastly superior 5534 and LM833 types.
> >>
> >> So what? All the poor output OP amp has to do is
> >> cleanly pass a 22 KHz 2 volt signal. The slew-rate of
> >> that signal is what, Trevor?
> >
> > Cleanly being the relevant point. Distortion sets in well
> > before the slew rate limit is reached.
>
> Of course.
>
> So Graham, what is the nonlinear distortion in the output of a $39 DVD
> player when playing say a 18 and 20 KHz tone at an appropriate level?

I haven't the tiniest clue given such a vague question.

> If the output drivers on the player are as bad as Trevor suggests, then
> there will be large amounts of HF IM (>> 0.1 %). If the output drivers are
> competent, then there will be small amounts of HF IM (<0.1%).
>
> This is a test that is so coarse that it can be done using the onboard audio
> interface of a modern PC as analytical equipment.
>
> FWIW, I just did this Audio Rightmark test on the portable CD I take with me
> when I backpack. In general, the test report showed mostly the performance
> of the Realtek audio interface of my office PC.

I'm sure you're right.

Have you ever done any comparative testing on various ICs that have been used in
audio ? I suspect it might be very revealing.

Graham

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 07:01 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>
>>>> So Fella, you want us to believe that a set of high
>>>> quality relay contact and 6 pieces of short
>>>> interconnect are sufficient to mask the difference
>>>> between a a $39 DVD player and an ayre cd 5x? What
>>>> about the relay contacts that are probably in the
>>>> Ayre's muting circuit?
>
>
>>> A smart designer puts them in parallel with the outputs
>>> to ground, in NC mode. That way, they're not in the
>>> signal path.
>
>
>> That's all fine and good, but it is not a 100% solution.
>
>> It begs the question what sort of problem is being
>> worried about. For example, if you're worried about
>> problems being induced from the coils of the relay, the
>> exposure remains with your recommended approach.
>>
>> Again, if relays in or on the signal path cause audible
>> problems, there's a pretty good chance those problems
>> were already introduced on the production side.

> I'm not worried about induced voltages from the coil's
> action (that's what that neat diode is for),

The diode is there for a different purpose. Coils can induce voltages just
fine with the diode in place.

> but I am
> assuming that in most situations, there are several
> contacts and connectors in series with the signal.

Lots!

> Any connection less is a problem less in the future.

That's true for every electrical circuit. But only audiophiles seem to take
this to such extremes. For example, back in the old days the wiring on my
dad's 1942 Buick was almost entirely soldered together. There was also not a
lot of wiring of any kind. However, the car had to be garaged every 1,000
miles for an oil change and a grease job. Today, my 2006 Milan has tons of
connectors and all sorts of electrical gizmos, but it rolls past thos 1,000
mile oil changes and grease jobs just fine, thank you. The point is that
there's something to be said about worrying about things that actually
matter, instead of just brainlessly ruling one's life with truisms.

> That's why I soldered my connection cables directly from
> the DAC to my main amp, where they are connected via WBT
> clamping connectors and receptacles.
> Again, going from that main amp to the secondary amp,
> directly soldered wiring, and again clamping WBTs and
> receptacles at the receiving end of the aux amp.

WBT connectors are hugely grossly bad in terms of reliability, compared to
good relay contacts.

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 07:03 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" >
>>>> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Even the
>>>>> very first CD players (Philips/Marantz and Sony
>>>>> CDP101) used the vastly superior 5534 and LM833 types.
>>>>
>>>> So what? All the poor output OP amp has to do is
>>>> cleanly pass a 22 KHz 2 volt signal. The slew-rate of
>>>> that signal is what, Trevor?
>>>
>>> Cleanly being the relevant point. Distortion sets in
>>> well before the slew rate limit is reached.
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> So Graham, what is the nonlinear distortion in the
>> output of a $39 DVD player when playing say a 18 and 20
>> KHz tone at an appropriate level?
>
> I haven't the tiniest clue given such a vague question.
>
>
>> If the output drivers on the player are as bad as Trevor
>> suggests, then there will be large amounts of HF IM (>>
>> 0.1 %). If the output drivers are competent, then there
>> will be small amounts of HF IM (<0.1%).
>>
>> This is a test that is so coarse that it can be done
>> using the onboard audio interface of a modern PC as
>> analytical equipment.
>>
>> FWIW, I just did this Audio Rightmark test on the
>> portable CD I take with me when I backpack. In general,
>> the test report showed mostly the performance of the
>> Realtek audio interface of my office PC.
>
> I'm sure you're right.
>
> Have you ever done any comparative testing on various ICs
> that have been used in audio ? I suspect it might be very
> revealing.

At one point we assembled a test jig with something like 20 stages of TLO74
cascaded. Gain of 10, divide by 10 attenuator, gain of 10, etc. Trimmed it
for unity gain and had all sorts of people compare it to a piece of wire.
Random guessing.

Sander deWaal

October 19th 06, 07:03 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>WBT connectors are hugely grossly bad in terms of reliability, compared to
>good relay contacts.

That's why they will be replaced by XLR.

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

Jenn

October 19th 06, 07:28 PM

In article . com>,
"Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

> Fella wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > > ..... with the technology, Fella.
> > > Yes Fella, ....
> > > Fella, do you....
> >
> > Arny, may I bring to your attention this she-person called Jenn? She
> > says that she conducts, has a preference towards the LP format
> > especially when listening to violins. Whereas you *know* that she is a
> > manic-depressive, Jennnnnn, paranoid and, Jenn Jenn, she is arrogant and
> > Jenn, thank you Jenn for proving to us Jnen, etc. You know the drill.
>
>
> Many violins sound "better" when processed through mastering and
> replaying vinyl than they do live, but hi-fi is about "making it the
> same" and not "better". If you want my-fi, get a good stereo parametric
> EQ and a compressor. Be honest about it. It isn't a moral failing. But
> it isn't fidelity. It's niceness.

This, of course, speaks to the reasons one listens to their audio
systems. IOW, does one listen for accuracy, or does one listen for
music that sounds like music? In regards to audio, this seems like the
eternal question.

>
> Violinists choose violins for career enhancing reasons-orchestras make
> good second violinists with Old Cremona instruments first violinists,
> because then the orchestra feels its penis is bigger. Old violins are
> about penis size and not music, like old guitars, just more money
> involved. And whether the violinist or conductor EVEN HAS a penis is
> irrelevant. The orchestra has a phantom weenie, like Madge in her
> crotch grabbing phase. Since the biggest four-stringed, bowed penises
> are 300+ years old they don't really sound all that great, so
> processing helps.

Well, I couldn't disagree more.

>
> FWIW, the older generation of violinists and violin recordings were
> more euphonic, plus which their "axes' were half a century younger and
> sounded better,

Again, this is a generalization with which I disagree.

> plus which-yes-recording chains were simpler. So it's
> understandable many old LPs of mid-20th century violinists sound better
> than many CDs of current violinists. That said, some violin CDs sound
> very good and the DVD-A's and SACDs sometimes sound even better.

George M. Middius

October 19th 06, 09:16 PM

Bratwig tries to out-dork Twevor.

> > > Well since a $39 dvd player sounds the same as the ayre (in double blind
> > > tests) it doesn't really matter.

> > **Bull****. Cite any such test.

> Please define "budget DVD player".

You know-it-all bozos should take a breath and attack the 'borgs instead
of the guy mocking them.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Trevor Wilson

October 19th 06, 09:50 PM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> > Peter wrote:
>> >> Is the Ayre C-5xe Universal "Silver Disc" Player really the best "CD
>> >> Redbook" Player in the world, as a number of reviewers in both the USA
>> >> and Europe seem to believe?
>> >
>> > Well since a $39 dvd player sounds the same as the ayre (in double
>> > blind
>> > tests) it doesn't really matter.
>>
>> **Bull****. Cite any such test. All the budget DVD players I've examined
>> have serious and audible flaws. Even a 15 year old CD player can beat the
>> pants off them. Cheap DVD players use primitive output OP amps, which are
>> similar to the late 1970s vintage 4558 type. Even the very first CD
>> players
>> (Philips/Marantz and Sony CDP101) used the vastly superior 5534 and LM833
>> types. Amost every CD player since, has used these chips. NOw, I have no
>> idea what the Ayre sounds like, but I can tell you that any reasonable CD
>> player sounds better than a budget DVD player.
>
>
> Please define "budget DVD player".

**$39.00.

Also please tell us at what price
> point, if any, DVD players have what you consider to be good analog
> output sections.

**I've seen good ones at the AUS$1,000.00 price point, but there are likely
to be others. I've not seen them all. OTOH, I've seen CD players priced as
low as AUS$300.00 which have decent analogue stages.

>
> Do budget DVD players have worse physical drives than do the expensive
> ones?

**Non-sequitur. I am ONLY speaking of analogue output stages. The transport
is irrelevant.

>
> Perhaps at some level we should look to buying a DVD player with a
> decent DAC and drive and modifying it a la Gary Galo or the Njoe Tjoeb
> players.

**No need. The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound respectable
are pretty simple:

* Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
* Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something better. 5534/2 will be
fine, though I prefer the AD825.

Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD player by several
hundred percent.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 09:50 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:01:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>> directly soldered wiring, and again clamping WBTs and
>>> receptacles at the receiving end of the aux amp.
>>
>> WBT connectors are hugely grossly bad in terms of
>> reliability, compared to good relay contacts.
>
> I see their RCA plugs claim "The patented two-piece
> barrel allows for incredible tightening force to be
> applied with minimal effort."

> I don't think I really want "incredible tightening
> force." It sounds like a good way to ruin your RCA
> sockets.

IMO RCA plugs and sockets are sold new and pre-ruined.

> I guess you have to buy the special WBT RCA sockets to
> match their plugs.

Or hope to avoid RCAs all-together.

Fella

October 19th 06, 10:17 PM

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Fella wrote:
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>
>
>>Dunno if I am an "audiophile" or not, but I did. When we were doing the
>>amp tests we also did one CD player test. It was a really big fat gold
>>colored high end sony "reference" player (I forget the model number now)
>>against a cambridge audio azur 640c. In real life the sony had an
>>immense midrange, liquid, syrupy, almost coming apart at the seems, and
>>a tall soundstage, while the CA had a comparatively compressed midrange,
>>clean, accentuated highs and an almost out of control bass. But
>>connected to the abx box they just sounded the same, lots of detail,
>>information, no music.
>
>
> I find that hard to believe.

You should try it yourself one of these days.

Fella

October 19th 06, 10:21 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Lots!

So you do actually say things like that. Hmm...

Trevor Wilson

October 19th 06, 10:53 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
> message
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Peter wrote:
>>>> Is the Ayre C-5xe Universal "Silver Disc" Player really
>>>> the best "CD Redbook" Player in the world, as a number
>>>> of reviewers in both the USA and Europe seem to believe?
>
>>> Well since a $39 dvd player sounds the same as the ayre
>>> (in double blind tests) it doesn't really matter.
>
>> **Bull****. Cite any such test.
>
> Nobody wants to loan me an Ayre, on the chance that it would indeed be
> humiliated by the $39 DVD player.

**It would be difficult to find a player as bad as a cheap DVD player.

>
>>All the budget DVD
>> players I've examined have serious and audible flaws.
>
> Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
> Trevor.

**Immediately after you provide a blind test to show us the difference
between blondes and brunettes.

>
>> Even a 15 year old CD player can beat the pants off them.
>
> Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
> Trevor.

**The differences are not that subtle. Try it. Let me know how you go. ANy
cheap, $39.00 DVD player, compared to a Rotel RCD951 or RCD971. Both
machines are several years old, easy to find and employ good, solid sesible
technology (muting relays, decent output chips). Let me know how you go. I
trust you.

>
>> Cheap DVD players use primitive output OP amps, which are
>> similar to the late 1970s vintage 4558 type.
>
> That's not the results of a time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled
> test results, Trevor. That's just techhie gobbeldy-gook. Assault on the
> senses by numbers.

**Nope. I just deal in facts. $39.00 DVD players suck (sonically). They're
fine when used through modern HT receivers though.

>
>> Even the
>> very first CD players (Philips/Marantz and Sony CDP101)
>> used the vastly superior 5534 and LM833 types.
>
> So what? All the poor output OP amp has to do is cleanly pass a 22 KHz 2
> volt signal. The slew-rate of that signal is what, Trevor?
>
>> Amost every CD player since, has used these chips. NOw, I have
>> no idea what the Ayre sounds like, but I can tell you
>> that any reasonable CD player sounds better than a budget
>> DVD player.
>
> Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
> Trevor.

**No need. But let me know when you've performed the test. You're in for a
big surprise.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

George M. Middius

October 19th 06, 11:28 PM

Fella said:

> > Lots!

> So you do actually say things like that. Hmm...

Krooglish is real. Make no mistake.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Arny Krueger

October 19th 06, 11:33 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>> in message
>>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> Peter wrote:
>>>>> Is the Ayre C-5xe Universal "Silver Disc" Player
>>>>> really the best "CD Redbook" Player in the world, as
>>>>> a number of reviewers in both the USA and Europe seem
>>>>> to believe?
>>
>>>> Well since a $39 dvd player sounds the same as the ayre
>>>> (in double blind tests) it doesn't really matter.

>>> **Bull****. Cite any such test.

It's common sense given the measured performance of a typical cheap DVD
player.

>> Nobody wants to loan me an Ayre, on the chance that it
>> would indeed be humiliated by the $39 DVD player.
>
> **It would be difficult to find a player as bad as a
> cheap DVD player.

Try a mid-priced CD player of say 10 years ago.

>>> All the budget DVD
>>> players I've examined have serious and audible flaws.
>>
>> Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
>> bias-controlled test results, Trevor.

> **Immediately after you provide a blind test to show us
> the difference between blondes and brunettes.

Easy - just ask them to tell you the color of their hair.

>>> Even a 15 year old CD player can beat the pants off
>>> them.

>> Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
>> bias-controlled test results, Trevor.

> **The differences are not that subtle.

Opinion stated as proof.

> Try it.

Not my job. You're the one making the claims, Trevor.

Besides, if I found that you were wrong, you would just claim that I didn't
do the test right.

> Let me
> know how you go. ANy cheap, $39.00 DVD player, compared
> to a Rotel RCD951 or RCD971. Both machines are several
> years old, easy to find and employ good, solid sesible
> technology (muting relays, decent output chips). Let me
> know how you go. I trust you.
>>> Cheap DVD players use primitive output OP amps, which
>>> are similar to the late 1970s vintage 4558 type.

>> That's not the results of a time-synched,
>> level-matched, bias-controlled test results, Trevor.
>> That's just techhie gobbeldy-gook. Assault on the senses
>> by numbers.

> **Nope. I just deal in facts.

Show us your facts, not your parts numbers.

> $39.00 DVD players suck
> (sonically). They're fine when used through modern HT
> receivers though.

Oh, that's a laugh. You think that modern HT receivers just happen to have
the antidote for the sound of modern DVD players?

>>> Even the
>>> very first CD players (Philips/Marantz and Sony CDP101)
>>> used the vastly superior 5534 and LM833 types.

>> So what? All the poor output OP amp has to do is
>> cleanly pass a 22 KHz 2 volt signal. The slew-rate of
>> that signal is what, Trevor?

Note that Trevor can't calculate slew rate. Do I have to post the formula
for him?

>>> Amost every CD player since, has used these chips.
>>> NOw, I have no idea what the Ayre sounds like, but I
>>> can tell you that any reasonable CD player sounds better than a
>>> budget
> DVD player.
>>
>> Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
>> bias-controlled test results, Trevor.

> **No need. But let me know when you've performed the
> test. You're in for a big surprise.

Where would there be a surprise? You're long on claims and short on proof
Trevor, as you have been several times before.

Eeyore

October 20th 06, 01:41 AM

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound respectable
> are pretty simple:
>
> * Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
> * Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something better. 5534/2 will be
> fine, though I prefer the AD825.
>
> Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD player by several
> hundred percent.

As aftermarket mods for sure.

Graham

Trevor Wilson

October 20th 06, 02:19 AM

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound respectable
>> are pretty simple:
>>
>> * Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
>> * Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something better. 5534/2 will
>> be
>> fine, though I prefer the AD825.
>>
>> Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD player by several
>> hundred percent.
>
> As aftermarket mods for sure.

**And if installed by the manufacturer, around 3 Bucks.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jenn

October 20th 06, 05:12 AM

In article om>,
"Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> <<snip>>
>
> > >
> > > Many violins sound "better" when processed through mastering and
> > > replaying vinyl than they do live, but hi-fi is about "making it the
> > > same" and not "better". If you want my-fi, get a good stereo parametric
> > > EQ and a compressor. Be honest about it. It isn't a moral failing. But
> > > it isn't fidelity. It's niceness.
> >
> > This, of course, speaks to the reasons one listens to their audio
> > systems. IOW, does one listen for accuracy, or does one listen for
> > music that sounds like music? In regards to audio, this seems like the
> > eternal question.
>
> It should sound like music to the extent the original performance
> "sounded like music", in the case of a representational recording, or
> to the extent the producers intended it to "sound like music" in the
> case of constucted music (multitracked, edited, mixed performances) .

Of course.

> Consider that euphony and music are not synonymous, and that in all
> music, but especially in 20th century compositions, dysphony is
> employed.

What is "dysphony"?

> It is as important as the silence when the whole group plays
> a rest. Apparatus that dulls this, musically speaking, is as offensive
> as that which "sours' the euphony, where present.

>
> If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment on an ad hoc basis,
> at least acknowledge this to be the case. Posession of a good stereo EQ
> (graphic or parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the case of
> mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of post-recording compression
> improves the listenability of high dynamic range content in noisy
> environments) is not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
> comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would not be the case.

I understand your point of course. My point is what good is "accuracy"
if instruments don't sound like instruments or voices like voices?

> >
> > >
> > > Violinists choose violins for career enhancing reasons-orchestras make
> > > good second violinists with Old Cremona instruments first violinists,
> > > because then the orchestra feels its penis is bigger. Old violins are
> > > about penis size and not music, like old guitars, just more money
> > > involved. And whether the violinist or conductor EVEN HAS a penis is
> > > irrelevant. The orchestra has a phantom weenie, like Madge in her
> > > crotch grabbing phase. Since the biggest four-stringed, bowed penises
> > > are 300+ years old they don't really sound all that great, so
> > > processing helps.
> >
> > Well, I couldn't disagree more.
>
> Even leading apologists for high dollar vintage instruments will,
> between the lines, concede that the "fleet" of Old Cremona instruments
> is probably past the peak of its excellence

Some would say that, some wouldn't.

> and that playing an
> instrument only improves it to a certain extent after which it takes a
> toll. And the love for these instruments manifested by leading
> orchestral players is not without a substantial attention-receiving
> component.

Are you saying that orchestras will pay the huge bucks they have to pay
for an old instrument for supposed "substantial attention"?

>
> Further, the art of bowed instrument construction is probably at its
> peak today, as so much more is known about every detail of the process.
>
>
> In fifty to a hundred years, Cremona violins will join the serpents
> and sackbuts and rebecs and virginals as museum display pieces, played
> only for historical interest, and considered-rightly- as quaint
> artifacts rather than essential musical tools for modern musicians.
> >
> > >
> > > FWIW, the older generation of violinists and violin recordings were
> > > more euphonic, plus which their "axes' were half a century younger and
> > > sounded better,
> >
> > Again, this is a generalization with which I disagree.
>
> Well, an instrument 300 years old today was only 250 in 1956! Surely
> we can agree on the arithmetic!

lol Of course.

Players are going to go for what instrument helps them to make the best
sound their technique allows. Their livelihood depends on their sound.
Whatever vintage of instrument help them to get the sound they need,
they will go for.

Fella

October 20th 06, 07:58 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>"Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>
>>>"Fella" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>
>
>>>>Why don't you just walk over to your local HE dealer and
>>>>take one home for audition?
>
>
>>>That would be Audio Dimensions on N Woodward near my
>>>daughter's house.
>
>
>>>They are the guys who sold me my bigger NHTs, and told
>>>me that I'd burn them out by driving them with a Mackie
>>>M1200. Long story short - the NHTs out-survived the
>>>M1200 by at least 5 years. Seriously though, they are
>>>pretty good guys.
>>
>>>Too far to walk.
>
>
>>They finally took your driver's license?
>
>
> Forgot how to read again Sander, or is your memory that short?
>
> To refresh your mind, please see the OP's comment about walking, at the top
> of this post.
>
>

Ok ok arny, sheeeeeeeesh, ok, here's a step by step instructions thingy.
DRIVE your car, park your car, get *out* of your car and *walk* to the
shop and *open* its door and get an audition version of the ayre. Then
*go* home arny, yea, go. Then arny, hook it up to whatever disgusting
amp you have and have a listen. Then arny, hook it up to whatever
disgusting abx box you have and do those abxist masturbations to "find
out" that under the abx conditions the ayre sounds the same as your main
system cd transport, decoder, united $39 dvd video player you got from
wart mart or whatever disgusting place you get your mainstream korean
gear from.

And bret, just think somewhat before answering this post too. Don't come
up with stuff like "wart mart? What art mart? In a united dvd player
transport and decoder are in the same box" etc.. It's arny's job to
write responses like that.

Arny Krueger

October 20th 06, 12:35 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> I understand your point of course. My point is what good
> is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like instruments
> or voices like voices?

Please explain how adding audible noise and distortion to the sound of
instruments and voices makes them sound more like instruments and voices for
persons with normal hearing.

Arny Krueger

October 20th 06, 12:45 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
message
> "Eeyore" > wrote
> in message ...
>>
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound
>>> respectable are pretty simple:
>>>
>>> * Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
>>> * Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something
>>> better. 5534/2 will be
>>> fine, though I prefer the AD825.
>>>
>>> Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD
>>> player by several hundred percent.
>>
>> As aftermarket mods for sure.

> **And if installed by the manufacturer, around 3 Bucks.

5532s are under $0.50 each in quantity, and that's pretty much all it takes
to get rid of the dreaded 4558s in this application.

The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad for the application as
some make out, in actual use. For example, some rag on its lack of slew
rate. However none of the RAO critics seem to be able to calculate the slew
rate of a 20 Hz 2 volt rms sine wave. For them, here is a slew rate
calculator http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electronic/a741p3.html
..

paul packer

October 20th 06, 01:30 PM

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:45:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Start them at the same time, and apply manual drag to a CD disc

Eh?

Arny Krueger

October 20th 06, 02:07 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:45:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Start them at the same time, and apply manual drag to a
>> CD disc
>
> Eh?

Generally, you have to take the cover off the CD player to do this.

George M. Middius

October 20th 06, 02:29 PM

paul packer said:

> >Start them at the same time, and apply manual drag to a CD disc

> Eh?

Do you want to torture yourself or not?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Arny Krueger

October 20th 06, 03:14 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
>>> If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment on
>>> an ad hoc basis, at least acknowledge this to be the
>>> case. Posession of a good stereo EQ (graphic or
>>> parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the case
>>> of mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of
>>> post-recording compression improves the listenability
>>> of high dynamic range content in noisy environments) is
>>> not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
>>> comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would not
>>> be the case.
>>
>> I understand your point of course. My point is what
>> good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
>> instruments or voices like voices?
>
>
> If instruments don't sound like instruments and voices
> don't sound like voices, then you don't have "accuracy."
> Luckily, it isn't hard at all to have accuracy in between
> the transducers at either end of the chain.
>
> At the listening end, we thus really only have to worry
> about the speakers on out to your ears. (It _is_ a worry,
> since the problems here are orders of magnitude greater
> than those in the electronics in the chain.)

And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that she can only get
certain instruments to sound right when the signal chain includes a medium
that is nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to perform accurately.
She's equally adamant that she's never found a highly-accurate medium to do
the job right.

I guarantee you that ABXing the CD format and getting positive results is
just as hard, as it is easy to get negative results while ABX-ing the LP
format. IOW, the LP format *always* leaves relatively big audible
footprints on whatever is processed through it, and the CD format need not
leave any audible footprints at all.

Jenn

October 20th 06, 04:57 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > I understand your point of course. My point is what good
> > is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like instruments
> > or voices like voices?
>
> Please explain how adding audible noise and distortion to the sound of
> instruments and voices makes them sound more like instruments and voices for
> persons with normal hearing.

I don't know, as I've stated before.

Arny Krueger

October 20th 06, 05:03 PM

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:14:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment on
>>>>> an ad hoc basis, at least acknowledge this to be the
>>>>> case. Posession of a good stereo EQ (graphic or
>>>>> parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the case
>>>>> of mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of
>>>>> post-recording compression improves the listenability
>>>>> of high dynamic range content in noisy environments)
>>>>> is not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
>>>>> comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would not
>>>>> be the case.
>>>>
>>>> I understand your point of course. My point is what
>>>> good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
>>>> instruments or voices like voices?
>>>
>>>
>>> If instruments don't sound like instruments and voices
>>> don't sound like voices, then you don't have "accuracy."
>>> Luckily, it isn't hard at all to have accuracy in
>>> between the transducers at either end of the chain.
>>>
>>> At the listening end, we thus really only have to worry
>>> about the speakers on out to your ears. (It _is_ a
>>> worry, since the problems here are orders of magnitude
>>> greater than those in the electronics in the chain.)
>>
>> And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that she
>> can only get certain instruments to sound right when the
>> signal chain includes a medium that is
>> nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to perform
>> accurately. She's equally adamant that she's never found
>> a highly-accurate medium to do the job right.

> It isn't just Jenn though. There are other people who
> feel the same way.

Yes, Stephen and Harry seems to be others of them. On Usenet, they make up a
noisy minority.

> I can't figure out _why_ they do this, but there it is...

I suspect that I've figured a lot of it out. Due to pride, most if not all
of the afflicted are ever going to agree with any of the diagnoses.

>> I guarantee you that ABXing the CD format and getting
>> positive results is just as hard, as it is easy to get
>> negative results while ABX-ing the LP format. IOW, the
>> LP format *always* leaves relatively big audible
>> footprints on whatever is processed through it, and the
>> CD format need not leave any audible footprints at all.

> I would agree with that. Vinyl is just not a transparent
> medium; it always colors the content.

On that people who understand the two technologies will agree.

> It's sort of like windows made of hand-blown glass. Some
> people may like the hand-made glass better, or feel it
> has more "character," and it certainly keeps the wind
> out. However, if you use glass to see through, the
> machine-made glass is far superior.

Three reasons not to agree that modern glass is superior.

(1) Your vision is so bad that you don't see the waveyness of hand-blown
glass windows.]

(2) Glass is always a liquid at standard temperatures and it sags in the
long haul - leading to an appearance that is something like hand-blown glass
over many decades.

(3) You're so used to the waveyness, that you see flat as if it was wavy.
This definately happens with curved-faceplate CRTs.

> I expect my stereo system to be as transparent as
> possible so I can "see" through to the original
> performance. I don't want a rose-tinted stereo system
> that makes everything sound happy. :-)

Agreed. People who have colored systems will tend to see some recordings as
being very exceptional, and others that are really pretty good as sounding
flat. People with accurate systems will tend to have a less spectacular
sound, but with a higher percentage of the recordings.

Arny Krueger

October 20th 06, 05:04 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>> I understand your point of course. My point is what
>>> good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
>>> instruments or voices like voices?
>>
>> Please explain how adding audible noise and distortion
>> to the sound of instruments and voices makes them sound
>> more like instruments and voices for persons with normal
>> hearing.

> I don't know, as I've stated before.

There are explanations, but you've rejected them.

Arny Krueger

October 20th 06, 05:24 PM

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com

> If you balanced and blueprinted that old Buick straight
> eight, using new rings and pistons, put on a good full
> flow and bypass oil filter and a effective crankcase vent
> system, an electronic ignition and something a little
> better for induction than that old single barrel carb, I
> bet the Buick would go 12,000 miles between oil changes
> too.

However, the block, crank and mains are still made out of old-tech
materials. There does appear to be a business in updating the technology of
old cars, but a full engine swap seems to be a big part of the game.

So, no dice.

> And replacing the kingpin front end with a Mustang
> II style setup with a power rack and ball joints and
> urethane bushings, it would handle pretty good as well as
> not needing greasing too.

I think you'd solve the lube problems, but the high CG and ancient geometry
of the suspension would still dictate how it handles. That and of course the
tires.

> And it would be a hell of a lot cooler than that Milan.

You forgot about adding air conditioning to that old Buick. ;-)

Bill Riel

October 20th 06, 05:34 PM

In article >,
says...

> (2) Glass is always a liquid at standard temperatures and it sags in the
> long haul - leading to an appearance that is something like hand-blown glass
> over many decades.

A very minor nit, but this is a pervasive urban legend and is in fact
false. Glass is not a liquid at standard temperatures and does not
"flow" as commonly believed: http://glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html

--
Bill

Arny Krueger

October 20th 06, 05:43 PM

"Bill Riel" > wrote in message
t
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>> (2) Glass is always a liquid at standard temperatures
>> and it sags in the long haul - leading to an appearance
>> that is something like hand-blown glass over many
>> decades.
>
> A very minor nit, but this is a pervasive urban legend
> and is in fact false. Glass is not a liquid at standard
> temperatures and does not "flow" as commonly believed:
> http://glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html

I looked at your reference, and did some other browsing around. Point taken.
Visible glass flow at room temp is not a strong effect.

George M. Middius

October 20th 06, 06:12 PM

Time to bring out the big insult guns.

> > I don't know, as I've stated before.

> There are explanations, but you've rejected them.

Not really.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

MiNe 109

October 20th 06, 06:15 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> >> And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that she
> >> can only get certain instruments to sound right when the
> >> signal chain includes a medium that is
> >> nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to perform
> >> accurately. She's equally adamant that she's never found
> >> a highly-accurate medium to do the job right.
>
> > It isn't just Jenn though. There are other people who
> > feel the same way.
>
> Yes, Stephen and Harry seems to be others of them. On Usenet, they make up a
> noisy minority.

No, I feel that vinyl does enough right to sound good in ways that favor
certain types of music.

CDs can sound good.

Stephen

Harry Lavo

October 20th 06, 08:27 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..

<snip>

> Agreed. People who have colored systems will tend to see some recordings
> as being very exceptional, and others that are really pretty good as
> sounding flat. People with accurate systems will tend to have a less
> spectacular sound, but with a higher percentage of the recordings.

The world according to Arny, translated into how an audiophle would
interpret the above:

People with "colored" (in Arny's terms, almost all really high-end) systems
can tell those recordings that sound exceptional from those which sound less
than exceptional (Arny calls them "flat").

People with "accurate" (in Arny terms Best Buy mid-fi) systems tend to have
everything sound the same (Arny calls it "less spectacular"...some might
call it "mediocre").

Read your words again, Arny. That's basically what you seem to have said.
Do you want to take the oath?

Arny Krueger

October 20th 06, 08:41 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
> <snip>
>
>> Agreed. People who have colored systems will tend to see
>> some recordings as being very exceptional, and others
>> that are really pretty good as sounding flat. People
>> with accurate systems will tend to have a less
>> spectacular sound, but with a higher percentage of the
>> recordings.

Good example of how Harry Lavo free-associates on a long, probably somewhat
wet Friday afternoon:

> The world according to Arny, translated into how an
> audiophle would interpret the above:
>
> People with "colored" (in Arny's terms, almost all really
> high-end) systems can tell those recordings that sound
> exceptional from those which sound less than exceptional
> (Arny calls them "flat").
> People with "accurate" (in Arny terms Best Buy mid-fi)
> systems tend to have everything sound the same (Arny
> calls it "less spectacular"...some might call it
> "mediocre").

> Read your words again, Arny. That's basically what you
> seem to have said.

Only in your mind, Harry.

> Do you want to take the oath?

Sounds like you need a good 12-step program, Harry.

[email protected]

October 20th 06, 09:57 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
> message
> > "Fella" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> Peter wrote:
> >>> Is the Ayre C-5xe Universal "Silver Disc" Player really
> >>> the best "CD Redbook" Player in the world, as a number
> >>> of reviewers in both the USA and Europe seem to believe?
>
> >> Well since a $39 dvd player sounds the same as the ayre
> >> (in double blind tests) it doesn't really matter.
>
> > **Bull****. Cite any such test.
>
> Nobody wants to loan me an Ayre, on the chance that it would indeed be
> humiliated by the $39 DVD player.
>
> >All the budget DVD
> > players I've examined have serious and audible flaws.
>
> Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
> Trevor.
>
> > Even a 15 year old CD player can beat the pants off them.
>
> Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
> Trevor.
>
> > Cheap DVD players use primitive output OP amps, which are
> > similar to the late 1970s vintage 4558 type.
>
> That's not the results of a time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled
> test results, Trevor. That's just techhie gobbeldy-gook. Assault on the
> senses by numbers.
>
> > Even the
> > very first CD players (Philips/Marantz and Sony CDP101)
> > used the vastly superior 5534 and LM833 types.
>
> So what? All the poor output OP amp has to do is cleanly pass a 22 KHz 2
> volt signal. The slew-rate of that signal is what, Trevor?
>
> > Amost every CD player since, has used these chips. NOw, I have
> > no idea what the Ayre sounds like, but I can tell you
> > that any reasonable CD player sounds better than a budget
> > DVD player.
>
> Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
> Trevor.
======================================
Our own Gulliver in full flight :
> Show us your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled test results,
> Trevor.

You first. Where are your TS, LM, BC ( an oh so cunning cryptonym for
ABX) listening test results?

If you had any idea Gulliver what science is all about you'd know that
it is about experimental evidence. If you recommend a method to do a
listening test for differences between audio components it is up to you
to show that it works.

As I said to you many times before choose what even you agree sounds
different from each other like different kinds of loudspeaker. (For
details see Sean Olive's loudspeaker comparisons in JAES). Have a
statistically significant large panel of listeners: both genders,
different ages, different levels of musical experience.

Show that you get better results using your method than without.it in a
study acceptable for the editors of a professional peer- reviewed
journal. Till then Gulliver....see you..
Ludovic Mirabel.

Arny Krueger

October 20th 06, 10:20 PM

> wrote in message
s.com

>> Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
>> bias-controlled test results, Trevor.
> ======================================

> Our own Gulliver in full flight :
>> Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
>> bias-controlled test results, Trevor.

Seems like the snot disease is catchy

> You first. Where are your TS, LM, BC ( an oh so cunning
> cryptonym for ABX) listening test results?

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

> If you had any idea Gulliver what science is all about
> you'd know that it is about experimental evidence. If you
> recommend a method to do a listening test for differences
> between audio components it is up to you to show that it
> works.

Tell it to the ITU:

http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I/e

Jenn

October 21st 06, 12:09 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>
> >>> I understand your point of course. My point is what
> >>> good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
> >>> instruments or voices like voices?
> >>
> >> Please explain how adding audible noise and distortion
> >> to the sound of instruments and voices makes them sound
> >> more like instruments and voices for persons with normal
> >> hearing.
>
> > I don't know, as I've stated before.
>
> There are explanations, but you've rejected them.

I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those things sound
compared to instruments and voices based on my experience with same.
That's all that matters to me. How many times must you be told that to
understand it?

Jenn

October 21st 06, 12:26 AM

In article om>,
"Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> <<snip>>
> >
> > > Consider that euphony and music are not synonymous, and that in all
> > > music, but especially in 20th century compositions, dysphony is
> > > employed.
> >
> > What is "dysphony"?
>
> It's the antonym, the opposite of euphony.

Well, it's a nice word you made up there! ;-)

> In this context, I mean it
> to mean a unit or process that affects the timbre or other sonic
> characteristics of the instrument in a way that makes it less pleasing,
> rather than more pleasing, to listen to.
>
> >
> > > It is as important as the silence when the whole group plays
> > > a rest. Apparatus that dulls this, musically speaking, is as offensive
> > > as that which "sours' the euphony, where present.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment on an ad hoc basis,
> > > at least acknowledge this to be the case. Posession of a good stereo EQ
> > > (graphic or parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the case of
> > > mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of post-recording compression
> > > improves the listenability of high dynamic range content in noisy
> > > environments) is not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
> > > comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would not be the case.
> >
> > I understand your point of course. My point is what good is "accuracy"
> > if instruments don't sound like instruments or voices like voices?
>
> I can tell a banjo from a resonator guitar, or Johnny Cash from Bob
> Dylan, or Susannah McCorkle from Marilyn Monroe or Diana Krall, to use
> non-classical examples, on a record played on any old record player one
> might find at a yard sale or through ear buds on a cheesy MP3 player
> very easily. Now you may say: Yes, but in each case you can tell it is
> a recording and not actually them standing there! (If I see Johnny,
> Susannah, or MM standing next to me....uh oh....) That wall is pretty
> tough to break. It happens only occasionally with the best recordings
> and systems and rooms, no matter what.
>
> Now, I'll be the first to say that in many instances the LP of a
> performance, especially old ones found in unplayed shape, is the best
> sonic document available of a given performance. That isn't going to
> change either, because of the prevalence of bad mastering techniques,
> lost master tapes, "sticky shed" and other tape impairments, etc, etc.
> But the following is also unassailable:
>
> 1. Many, maybe even most, LPs are not exactly world class.

Of course.

>
> 2. LP is NOT AS GOOD as other analog media, particularly half-inch
> half track tape at 30 ips, on properly set up professional Ampex,
> Studer, or other such decks. NO LP pressing can completely encompass
> the "resolution" (I hate that word, since audio saloon whores have
> pounded it into the carpet) of good tape, not even some of the really
> magnificent direct to disk audiophile projects in the 70s and early
> 80s. And they were some of the best vinyl ever.

Agreed.

>
> 3. CD has limits but nevertheless there are some pretty good CDs out
> there.

Agreed.

> In the case of popular music from the mid-60s and back with no
> audible content over 10-12 kHz to begin with, and also in the cases of
> some classical releases generated from mag film, tape, transcription
> discs, etc. the CD is as good as you are ever going to get-the CD is
> performing to the limits of the media it comes from. You might as well
> lay back, close your eyes and think of England.
>
> 4. In the case of new recordings it is unlikely that the vinyl is
> going to be better than the highbit digital releases. For one thing,
> though there are some great mastering guys with great tools working
> today, they are not getting any younger, neither are their lathes and
> heads, and no one is too serious about keeping the supply chain going
> at the highest level of performance. Who's building a new world class
> cutting head? And are the blanks of the highest quality? Yes, vinyl
> will continue, but the retro and DJ markets drive it, just like guitar
> amps drive new vacuum tube manufacture. Unless a huge renaissance of
> SERIOUS vinyl buffs with the highest buying standards breaks out that
> infrastructure can't last. If you simply can't abide digital
> reproduction whatsoever, you are in a lot of trouble. I was hoping for
> an open reel renaissance, but that is not going to happen.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Violinists choose violins for career enhancing reasons-orchestras
> > > > > make
> > > > > good second violinists with Old Cremona instruments first violinists,
> > > > > because then the orchestra feels its penis is bigger. Old violins are
> > > > > about penis size and not music, like old guitars, just more money
> > > > > involved. And whether the violinist or conductor EVEN HAS a penis is
> > > > > irrelevant. The orchestra has a phantom weenie, like Madge in her
> > > > > crotch grabbing phase. Since the biggest four-stringed, bowed penises
> > > > > are 300+ years old they don't really sound all that great, so
> > > > > processing helps.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I couldn't disagree more.
> > >
> > > Even leading apologists for high dollar vintage instruments will,
> > > between the lines, concede that the "fleet" of Old Cremona instruments
> > > is probably past the peak of its excellence
> >
> > Some would say that, some wouldn't.
> >
> > > and that playing an
> > > instrument only improves it to a certain extent after which it takes a
> > > toll. And the love for these instruments manifested by leading
> > > orchestral players is not without a substantial attention-receiving
> > > component.
> >
> > Are you saying that orchestras will pay the huge bucks they have to pay
> > for an old instrument for supposed "substantial attention"?
>
> Absolutely.

How much attention does the L.A.Phil get for owning some Strads? Before
the theft and recovery of a Strad cello a couple of years ago, what
percentage of ticket buyers do you suppose even knew that the LAP owned
old instruments?

> Good modern instruments are at their peak yet musicians
> (with nice houses on the coasts) take out instrument mortgages for
> three times their house value. It isn't WGBD on their part
> personally-it's good business since owning the instrument gets them a
> better gig, because of institutional WGBD.

Well, now you're onto private ownership as opposed to orchestral
ownership.

> >
> > >
> > > Further, the art of bowed instrument construction is probably at its
> > > peak today, as so much more is known about every detail of the process.
> > >
> > >
> > > In fifty to a hundred years, Cremona violins will join the serpents
> > > and sackbuts and rebecs and virginals as museum display pieces, played
> > > only for historical interest, and considered-rightly- as quaint
> > > artifacts rather than essential musical tools for modern musicians.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW, the older generation of violinists and violin recordings were
> > > > > more euphonic, plus which their "axes' were half a century younger
> > > > > and
> > > > > sounded better,
> > > >
> > > > Again, this is a generalization with which I disagree.
> > >
> > > Well, an instrument 300 years old today was only 250 in 1956! Surely
> > > we can agree on the arithmetic!
> >
> > lol Of course.
> >
> > Players are going to go for what instrument helps them to make the best
> > sound their technique allows. Their livelihood depends on their sound.
> > Whatever vintage of instrument help them to get the sound they need,
> > they will go for.
>
> I'm certain that as in all human endeavors the sound is not the sole
> determinant, but one piece of the puzzle: a worn-out instrument is of
> value only to a pure collector. But the fact is that just as mechanics
> go way in hock for a Snap-On tool box stuffed full of male jewelry they
> use five percent of regularly-status, you see- a musician is looking at
> it from a number of angles. A highly prestigious instrument is a career
> enhancer, gets them publicity, gets their orchestra publicity, etc,
> etc. Classical music is, unless you are strictly an amateur, a
> business-show business- and it's no different in its bottom line-you
> put asses in the seats or you go home and get a real job. Audiences
> want gawk value and having a 300 year old instrument the price of a
> corporate jet is something to gawk at. To think otherwise is naivete
> at its zenith-such as believing that country music is about real
> working people or that rock and roll is really about youth rebellion
> and freedom or that Republicans are more moral than Democrats (or vice
> versa.)

I would think that the vast majority of concert goers have no idea of
the origin or vintage of the instruments being played. I doubt that if
Joshua Bell suddenly switched from a Strad to an allegedly equally
sounding modern instrument, that he would sell even one less ticket to
his concerts.

Jenn

October 21st 06, 12:29 AM

In article >,
Stuart Krivis > wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >> If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment on an ad hoc basis,
> >> at least acknowledge this to be the case. Posession of a good stereo EQ
> >> (graphic or parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the case of
> >> mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of post-recording compression
> >> improves the listenability of high dynamic range content in noisy
> >> environments) is not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
> >> comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would not be the case.
> >
> >I understand your point of course. My point is what good is "accuracy"
> >if instruments don't sound like instruments or voices like voices?
>
>
> If instruments don't sound like instruments and voices don't sound
> like voices, then you don't have "accuracy."

You have an accurate home product if the master sounded that way.

> Luckily, it isn't hard at
> all to have accuracy in between the transducers at either end of the
> chain.
>
> At the listening end, we thus really only have to worry about the
> speakers on out to your ears. (It _is_ a worry, since the problems
> here are orders of magnitude greater than those in the electronics in
> the chain.)
>
> >
> >Players are going to go for what instrument helps them to make the best
> >sound their technique allows. Their livelihood depends on their sound.
> >Whatever vintage of instrument help them to get the sound they need,
> >they will go for.
>
> It's a very subjective thing, so I would imagine that there are other
> things involved besides the quality of sound the instrument allows.

Sure there are other things. But professional musicians need to earn a
living. They aren't going to chance having an inferior sound in order
to have the other things.

>
> It's pretty easy to envision a violinist to perceive a certain violin
> as sounding better, even if it doesn't in actuality. An exclusive
> "brand name" or high price tag may very well change perceptions. Even
> the looks of the instrument can do that.
>
> We could even take it further and speculate that the violinist who
> owns an "elite" instrument might then feel more confident and thus
> play better. So the subjective becomes objective. :-)
>
> There are certainly some objective things that belong at this end of
> the music (the performance end), but subjective judgement is also
> apropos here because we are _making_ music.

OF COURSE it's subjective.

Jenn

October 21st 06, 12:31 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
>
> > On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:14:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment on
> >>>>> an ad hoc basis, at least acknowledge this to be the
> >>>>> case. Posession of a good stereo EQ (graphic or
> >>>>> parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the case
> >>>>> of mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of
> >>>>> post-recording compression improves the listenability
> >>>>> of high dynamic range content in noisy environments)
> >>>>> is not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
> >>>>> comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would not
> >>>>> be the case.
> >>>>
> >>>> I understand your point of course. My point is what
> >>>> good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
> >>>> instruments or voices like voices?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If instruments don't sound like instruments and voices
> >>> don't sound like voices, then you don't have "accuracy."
> >>> Luckily, it isn't hard at all to have accuracy in
> >>> between the transducers at either end of the chain.
> >>>
> >>> At the listening end, we thus really only have to worry
> >>> about the speakers on out to your ears. (It _is_ a
> >>> worry, since the problems here are orders of magnitude
> >>> greater than those in the electronics in the chain.)
> >>
> >> And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that she
> >> can only get certain instruments to sound right when the
> >> signal chain includes a medium that is
> >> nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to perform
> >> accurately. She's equally adamant that she's never found
> >> a highly-accurate medium to do the job right.
>
> > It isn't just Jenn though. There are other people who
> > feel the same way.
>
> Yes, Stephen and Harry seems to be others of them. On Usenet, they make up a
> noisy minority.
>
> > I can't figure out _why_ they do this, but there it is...
>
> I suspect that I've figured a lot of it out. Due to pride, most if not all
> of the afflicted are ever going to agree with any of the diagnoses.

Says the person who called obviously synthed music files on his website
recordings of acoustic instruments, and still has doubts about it.

George M. Middius

October 21st 06, 12:31 AM

Jenn said to ConcreteCraniumBorg:

> I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those things sound
> compared to instruments and voices based on my experience with same.
> That's all that matters to me. How many times must you be told that to
> understand it?

Minimum 490 times.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Jenn

October 21st 06, 12:54 AM

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> Jenn said to ConcreteCraniumBorg:
>
> > I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those things sound
> > compared to instruments and voices based on my experience with same.
> > That's all that matters to me. How many times must you be told that to
> > understand it?
>
> Minimum 490 times.

I'm getting close.

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 01:19 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>
>>>>> I understand your point of course. My point is what
>>>>> good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
>>>>> instruments or voices like voices?
>>>>
>>>> Please explain how adding audible noise and distortion
>>>> to the sound of instruments and voices makes them sound
>>>> more like instruments and voices for persons with
>>>> normal hearing.

>>> I don't know, as I've stated before.

>> There are explanations, but you've rejected them.

> I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those
> things sound compared to instruments and voices based on
> my experience with same. That's all that matters to me.

So which LPs of yours are in fact performances that are entirely composed of
voices and instruments that you have ever heard live?

> How many times must you be told that to understand it?

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 01:20 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:14:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment
>>>>>>> on an ad hoc basis, at least acknowledge this to be
>>>>>>> the case. Posession of a good stereo EQ (graphic or
>>>>>>> parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the
>>>>>>> case of mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of
>>>>>>> post-recording compression improves the
>>>>>>> listenability of high dynamic range content in
>>>>>>> noisy environments) is not wrong morally. It does
>>>>>>> make some recordings comprehensible or enjoyable
>>>>>>> where otherwise would not be the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand your point of course. My point is what
>>>>>> good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
>>>>>> instruments or voices like voices?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If instruments don't sound like instruments and voices
>>>>> don't sound like voices, then you don't have
>>>>> "accuracy." Luckily, it isn't hard at all to have
>>>>> accuracy in between the transducers at either end of
>>>>> the chain.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the listening end, we thus really only have to
>>>>> worry about the speakers on out to your ears. (It
>>>>> _is_ a worry, since the problems here are orders of
>>>>> magnitude greater than those in the electronics in
>>>>> the chain.)
>>>>
>>>> And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that
>>>> she can only get certain instruments to sound right
>>>> when the signal chain includes a medium that is
>>>> nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to perform
>>>> accurately. She's equally adamant that she's never
>>>> found a highly-accurate medium to do the job right.
>>
>>> It isn't just Jenn though. There are other people who
>>> feel the same way.
>>
>> Yes, Stephen and Harry seems to be others of them. On
>> Usenet, they make up a noisy minority.
>>
>>> I can't figure out _why_ they do this, but there it
>>> is...
>>
>> I suspect that I've figured a lot of it out. Due to
>> pride, most if not all of the afflicted are ever going
>> to agree with any of the diagnoses.

> Says the person who called obviously synthed music files
> on his website recordings of acoustic instruments, and
> still has doubts about it.

Says a person who prefers her music with added audible noise and distortion.

George M. Middius

October 21st 06, 01:44 AM

Jenn said:

> > > What is "dysphony"?

> > It's the antonym, the opposite of euphony.

> Well, it's a nice word you made up there! ;-)

The word is real. Bratwig made up his bizarre definition:

dysphony <medicine> A difficulty in producing vocal sounds;
enfeebled or depraved voice.

Here's a very similar def:

DYS'PHONY, n. [Gr. bad, hard; and voice.] A difficulty of
speaking, occasioned by an ill disposition of the organs of speech.

Brattie probably should have just said dissonance.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Jenn

October 21st 06, 02:29 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:14:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment
> >>>>>>> on an ad hoc basis, at least acknowledge this to be
> >>>>>>> the case. Posession of a good stereo EQ (graphic or
> >>>>>>> parametric) or a compressor (particularly in the
> >>>>>>> case of mobile equipment, where a tasteful use of
> >>>>>>> post-recording compression improves the
> >>>>>>> listenability of high dynamic range content in
> >>>>>>> noisy environments) is not wrong morally. It does
> >>>>>>> make some recordings comprehensible or enjoyable
> >>>>>>> where otherwise would not be the case.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I understand your point of course. My point is what
> >>>>>> good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
> >>>>>> instruments or voices like voices?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If instruments don't sound like instruments and voices
> >>>>> don't sound like voices, then you don't have
> >>>>> "accuracy." Luckily, it isn't hard at all to have
> >>>>> accuracy in between the transducers at either end of
> >>>>> the chain.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At the listening end, we thus really only have to
> >>>>> worry about the speakers on out to your ears. (It
> >>>>> _is_ a worry, since the problems here are orders of
> >>>>> magnitude greater than those in the electronics in
> >>>>> the chain.)
> >>>>
> >>>> And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that
> >>>> she can only get certain instruments to sound right
> >>>> when the signal chain includes a medium that is
> >>>> nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to perform
> >>>> accurately. She's equally adamant that she's never
> >>>> found a highly-accurate medium to do the job right.
> >>
> >>> It isn't just Jenn though. There are other people who
> >>> feel the same way.
> >>
> >> Yes, Stephen and Harry seems to be others of them. On
> >> Usenet, they make up a noisy minority.
> >>
> >>> I can't figure out _why_ they do this, but there it
> >>> is...
> >>
> >> I suspect that I've figured a lot of it out. Due to
> >> pride, most if not all of the afflicted are ever going
> >> to agree with any of the diagnoses.
>
> > Says the person who called obviously synthed music files
> > on his website recordings of acoustic instruments, and
> > still has doubts about it.
>
> Says a person who prefers her music with added audible noise and distortion.

Whatever it takes to make sound right.

[email protected]

October 21st 06, 02:37 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> s.com
>
>
> >> Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
> >> bias-controlled test results, Trevor.
> > ======================================
>
> > Our own Gulliver in full flight :
> >> Show us your time-synched, level-matched,
> >> bias-controlled test results, Trevor.
>
> Seems like the snot disease is catchy
>
> > You first. Where are your TS, LM, BC ( an oh so cunning
> > cryptonym for ABX) listening test results?
>
> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_data.htm
>
> > If you had any idea Gulliver what science is all about
> > you'd know that it is about experimental evidence. If you
> > recommend a method to do a listening test for differences
> > between audio components it is up to you to show that it
> > works.
>
> Tell it to the ITU:
>
> http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I/e
==============================

Gulliver performs a deconstruction of my posting::

The inconvenient bits litter the floor:

He ressuscitates the joke "research" in the Carlstrom web site:
I said:
"Have a statistically significant large panel of listeners: both
genders, different ages, different levels of musical experience."

Krueger's idea of the "statistically significant, large... etc panel":
10, 9 and 6 in the three trials he quotes.
The first comparison.

Their comment (That Gulliver strategically omits):

> .> >:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400, (A 200 watt transistor amp. L.M.)
> >> > two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
> >> > right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
> >> > Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
> >> > Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
> >> > which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
> >> > not bad but less than flat

As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering subtle differences"- like
the subtleties between 200 and 7 watts
.. .
They would have nver managed without ABX.
QED.

2nd comparison:) Paoli60M- whatever that was. (No details available).
62% of the
panelists got it right.ie "different"
38% got it wrong 3rd comparison: Dynaco 400 vs. something called
Swartz40 (20 watts/channel).

3rd comparison: Swartz 40 ( a 20 watt transistor) vs Dynaco 400, Their
comment: "The Swartz 40 is a 20 Watt per channel power amplifier with
quasi-complementary ouputs built exactly to the five transistor per
channel design in the RCA Transistor Manual." No mention that it was
not properly designed.

Out of six (repeat six!) panelists 4 incorrectly said they were the
same and only 2 guessed that they were different..

Now we face a conundrum. According to the chapel level-matched
competently designed amps. should sound the same. That is their
explanation when asked about the Stereo Review amp test when everything
did sound the same to most of the panelists.
But here they sound different. By a margin of 4 against 2. Compare
with the test #1

He has the brass to quote these tiny numbers, contradictory results as
his best evidence that his "bias controlled" test works!.

Can you wonder that this "research" was never submitted to a journal
and stayed since 1977in a private website to be quoted by Krueger?.
In the hope that no one will bother to look at it closely..

His second piece of "evidence". From that well known audio hi-fi
authority International Communications. Union:

"BS.1116-1 (10/97)] Methods for the subjective assessment of small
impairments in audio systems including multichannel sound systems
Remove "

The word "Remove" is there in his document. ABX is not mentioned .
Only Arny knows what on earth this Alice in Wonderland quote is
supposed to mean.

No wonder that he amputated this my request as well
"Show that you get better results using your method than without.it in
a
study acceptable for the editors of a professional peer- reviewed
journal"

A few remarks: "level-controlled"- who could object? A sound precaution
when choosing your component in an audio shop, "time-synchronised"- it
seems to me that asimple way to achieve this is to put the two
components for comparison on different sides (witrh random changes from
side to side to defeat room effects etc.). This way is scorned by
Arny-it isn't his party line. I use it not as a "test' but to make my
choices easier.
"Bias controlled"?. Here we get into a big problem. We all have huge
biases built in: age, education, musical interests and experience. My
choice is highly unlikely to be the same as that of a car radio boom,
boom, boom enthusiast. And vice versa.
Hence the requirement for as large a panel as possible..

Try again Gulliver.
Ludovic Mirabel

Jenn

October 21st 06, 09:01 AM

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 09:20 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
> > "Eeyore" > wrote
> >> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >>> The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound
> >>> respectable are pretty simple:
> >>>
> >>> * Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
> >>> * Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something
> >>> better. 5534/2 will be
> >>> fine, though I prefer the AD825.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD
> >>> player by several hundred percent.
> >>
> >> As aftermarket mods for sure.
>
> > **And if installed by the manufacturer, around 3 Bucks.
>
> 5532s are under $0.50 each in quantity, and that's pretty much all it takes
> to get rid of the dreaded 4558s in this application.
>
> The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad for the application as
> some make out, in actual use.

Strange then that no credible audio manufacturer uses them. Heck the NJM4560 is
about 2 cents more and is close to 5532 performance already.

4558ss do however figure in cheap Asian disco gear and graphic EQs.

> For example, some rag on its lack of slew
> rate. However none of the RAO critics seem to be able to calculate the slew
> rate of a 20 Hz 2 volt rms sine wave. For them, here is a slew rate
> calculator http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electronic/a741p3.html

20Hz is hardly the issue is it ?

sr = 2.pi.f.Vpk btw.

Graham

Trevor Wilson

October 21st 06, 09:41 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
> message
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound
>>>> respectable are pretty simple:
>>>>
>>>> * Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
>>>> * Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something
>>>> better. 5534/2 will be
>>>> fine, though I prefer the AD825.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD
>>>> player by several hundred percent.
>>>
>>> As aftermarket mods for sure.
>
>> **And if installed by the manufacturer, around 3 Bucks.
>
> 5532s are under $0.50 each in quantity, and that's pretty much all it
> takes to get rid of the dreaded 4558s in this application.

**Don't forget the relay. It all adds up.

>
> The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad for the application
> as some make out, in actual use.

**Yeah, it is. It is EXACTLY as bad as people think it is. It is for that
reason that Philips and Sony chose MUCH better chips for their first CD
players. And that was at a time when 4558s were MUCH cheaper than
5532/LM833s. Why do you think they used more expensive chips? For yuks? Or
because they were actually better.

For example, some rag on its lack of slew
> rate. However none of the RAO critics seem to be able to calculate the
> slew rate of a 20 Hz 2 volt rms sine wave. For them, here is a slew rate
> calculator
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electronic/a741p3.html

**Yep, your ability focus on ONE aspect of OP amp performance is duly noted.
If you care to examine the spec sheets, you may care to note several other
areas where the 4558 is seriously deficit. It is probably for those reasons
that Philips/Sony chose to use far higher performance OP amps in their
players.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 10:25 AM

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> > The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad for the application
> > as some make out, in actual use.
>
> **Yeah, it is. It is EXACTLY as bad as people think it is. It is for that
> reason that Philips and Sony chose MUCH better chips for their first CD
> players. And that was at a time when 4558s were MUCH cheaper than
> 5532/LM833s. Why do you think they used more expensive chips? For yuks? Or
> because they were actually better.

How about we challenge Arny to ABX compare some op-amps ?

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 10:34 AM

Jenn wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > "Jenn" > wrote
>
> > > I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those
> > > things sound compared to instruments and voices based on
> > > my experience with same. That's all that matters to me.
> >
> > So which LPs of yours are in fact performances that are entirely composed of
> > voices and instruments that you have ever heard live?
>
> You're asking the wrong question, Arny. I've tried to explain this to
> you a couple of times. I'll try once again after dinner.

Good Lord ! Doesn't Arny believe such things exist ?

Graham

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 11:17 AM

"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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand your point of course. My point is what
>>>>>>> good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
>>>>>>> instruments or voices like voices?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please explain how adding audible noise and
>>>>>> distortion to the sound of instruments and voices
>>>>>> makes them sound more like instruments and voices
>>>>>> for persons with normal hearing.
>>
>>>>> I don't know, as I've stated before.
>>
>>>> There are explanations, but you've rejected them.
>>
>>> I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those
>>> things sound compared to instruments and voices based on
>>> my experience with same. That's all that matters to me.
>>
>> So which LPs of yours are in fact performances that are
>> entirely composed of voices and instruments that you
>> have ever heard live?
>
> Very few of course, but your question is beside the
> point. Let me try this again:

> Every, for example, violin that one hears live has a
> distinctive quality. Whether it is a Strad or a Costco,
> there are identifiable characteristics to the sound that
> tell you it is a violin.

How do these characteristics get transported to your living room, Jenn?

> I hear something in CDs of
> violin sound (both solo and sections, but it's more
> pronounced in sections) that is unlike the sound of ANY
> of the thousands of violins that I've heard in my
> lifetime.

Probably some prejudice that you developed a tightly-held belief in, Jenn.

> It's obviously not a gross enough problem that
> it prohibits one from distinguishing them as violins, but
> there is something about the sound that is fundamentally
> unlike the sound of any violin that I've ever
> experienced.

Odd that every CD wopuld have has this given all the variations in
production techniques. There is one thing that every CD does have when you
play it, and that is Jenn's knowlege that she's listening to a CD.

> This effect is most pronounced to me in
> upper range violin, upper range flute/picc, upper range
> clarinet, and upper range soprano voice. Otherwise I
> think that the sound of CDs is often quite good.

So there we have it, Jenn is prejudiced against CDs for some unknown and
presumably unknowable reason.

Instead, Jenn prefers music that has been through that ancient sonic
mixmaster called the LP format.

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 11:18 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:14:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment
>>>>>>>>> on an ad hoc basis, at least acknowledge this to
>>>>>>>>> be the case. Posession of a good stereo EQ
>>>>>>>>> (graphic or parametric) or a compressor
>>>>>>>>> (particularly in the case of mobile equipment,
>>>>>>>>> where a tasteful use of post-recording
>>>>>>>>> compression improves the listenability of high
>>>>>>>>> dynamic range content in noisy environments) is
>>>>>>>>> not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
>>>>>>>>> comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would
>>>>>>>>> not be the case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand your point of course. My point is
>>>>>>>> what good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound
>>>>>>>> like instruments or voices like voices?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If instruments don't sound like instruments and
>>>>>>> voices don't sound like voices, then you don't have
>>>>>>> "accuracy." Luckily, it isn't hard at all to have
>>>>>>> accuracy in between the transducers at either end of
>>>>>>> the chain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the listening end, we thus really only have to
>>>>>>> worry about the speakers on out to your ears. (It
>>>>>>> _is_ a worry, since the problems here are orders of
>>>>>>> magnitude greater than those in the electronics in
>>>>>>> the chain.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that
>>>>>> she can only get certain instruments to sound right
>>>>>> when the signal chain includes a medium that is
>>>>>> nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to
>>>>>> perform accurately. She's equally adamant that she's
>>>>>> never found a highly-accurate medium to do the job
>>>>>> right.
>>>>
>>>>> It isn't just Jenn though. There are other people who
>>>>> feel the same way.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Stephen and Harry seems to be others of them. On
>>>> Usenet, they make up a noisy minority.
>>>>
>>>>> I can't figure out _why_ they do this, but there it
>>>>> is...
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that I've figured a lot of it out. Due to
>>>> pride, most if not all of the afflicted are ever going
>>>> to agree with any of the diagnoses.
>>
>>> Says the person who called obviously synthed music files
>>> on his website recordings of acoustic instruments, and
>>> still has doubts about it.
>>
>> Says a person who prefers her music with added audible
>> noise and distortion.
>
> Whatever it takes to make sound right.

So where is the corresponding source of noise and distortion in a live
performance, Jenn?

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 11:20 AM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound
>>>>> respectable are pretty simple:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
>>>>> * Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something
>>>>> better. 5534/2 will be
>>>>> fine, though I prefer the AD825.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD
>>>>> player by several hundred percent.
>>>>
>>>> As aftermarket mods for sure.
>>
>>> **And if installed by the manufacturer, around 3 Bucks.
>>
>> 5532s are under $0.50 each in quantity, and that's
>> pretty much all it takes to get rid of the dreaded 4558s
>> in this application.
>>
>> The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad for
>> the application as some make out, in actual use.
>
> Strange then that no credible audio manufacturer uses
> them.

They serve no purpose in this application.

> Heck the NJM4560 is about 2 cents more and is close
> to 5532 performance already.

Seems like.

> 4558ss do however figure in cheap Asian disco gear and
> graphic EQs.

What are we to conclude from this odd factoid?

>> For example, some rag on its lack of slew
>> rate. However none of the RAO critics seem to be able to
>> calculate the slew rate of a 20 Hz 2 volt rms sine wave.
>> For them, here is a slew rate calculator
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electronic/a741p3.html

> 20Hz is hardly the issue is it ?

I meant 20 KHz.

> sr = 2.pi.f.Vpk btw.

So what is the SR of a 22 KHz 2 volt sine wave and how does that compare to
the specs for the NJM 4558?

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 11:24 AM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>> in message
>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>> in message ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound
>>>>> respectable are pretty simple:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
>>>>> * Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something
>>>>> better. 5534/2 will be
>>>>> fine, though I prefer the AD825.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD
>>>>> player by several hundred percent.
>>>>
>>>> As aftermarket mods for sure.
>>
>>> **And if installed by the manufacturer, around 3 Bucks.

>> 5532s are under $0.50 each in quantity, and that's
>> pretty much all it takes to get rid of the dreaded 4558s
>> in this application.

> **Don't forget the relay. It all adds up.

Here's your challenge Trevor - prove that the NJM 4558 actually causes some
real world problem. Loss of measured performance or loss of sonic
performance, as established by a fair test.

>> The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad for
>> the application as some make out, in actual use.

> **Yeah, it is. It is EXACTLY as bad as people think it
> is. It is for that reason that Philips and Sony chose
> MUCH better chips for their first CD players. And that
> was at a time when 4558s were MUCH cheaper than
> 5532/LM833s. Why do you think they used more expensive
> chips? For yuks? Or because they were actually better.

The early CD players were built so far in the past, using parts and
methodologies that are no longer current, that this is an unproductive
approach. In 1983 GM built cars with computer-controlled carburators which
they have not done for years. Why would we re-visit their choices of
carburators in 2006?

> For example, some rag on its lack of slew
>> rate. However none of the RAO critics seem to be able to
>> calculate the slew rate of a 20 Hz 2 volt rms sine wave.
>> For them, here is a slew rate calculator
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electronic/a741p3.html

> **Yep, your ability focus on ONE aspect of OP amp
> performance is duly noted. If you care to examine the
> spec sheets, you may care to note several other areas
> where the 4558 is seriously deficit. It is probably for
> those reasons that Philips/Sony chose to use far higher
> performance OP amps in their players.

Here's your challenge Trevor - prove that the NJM 4558 actually causes some
real world problem. Loss of measured performance or loss of sonic
performance, as established by a fair test.

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 11:26 AM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>
>>> The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad
>>> for the application as some make out, in actual use.
>>
>> **Yeah, it is. It is EXACTLY as bad as people think it
>> is. It is for that reason that Philips and Sony chose
>> MUCH better chips for their first CD players. And that
>> was at a time when 4558s were MUCH cheaper than
>> 5532/LM833s. Why do you think they used more expensive
>> chips? For yuks? Or because they were actually better.
>
> How about we challenge Arny to ABX compare some op-amps ?

Been there, done that - with up to 20 of them cascaded.

The ones we cascaded have been damned many times - TL074s.

ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like. Bottom line is that
when measurements suggested that there was enough distortion to be audible,
the distortion was audible. As long as you operate these devices in
accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines (avoid excess noise and
distortion), they are sonically transparent.

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 11:36 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> So there we have it, Jenn is prejudiced against CDs for some unknown and
> presumably unknowable reason.

Why don't you try exploring possible reasons for her criticisms instead of dismissing
them out of hand ?

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 11:37 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> So where is the corresponding source of noise and distortion in a live
> performance, Jenn?

Eh ?

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 11:42 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >> 5532s are under $0.50 each in quantity, and that's
> >> pretty much all it takes to get rid of the dreaded 4558s
> >> in this application.
> >>
> >> The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad for
> >> the application as some make out, in actual use.
> >
> > Strange then that no credible audio manufacturer uses
> > them.
>
> They serve no purpose in this application.
>
> > Heck the NJM4560 is about 2 cents more and is close
> > to 5532 performance already.
>
> Seems like.
>
> > 4558ss do however figure in cheap Asian disco gear and
> > graphic EQs.
>
> What are we to conclude from this odd factoid?

That they belong only in cheap **** ?

> >> For example, some rag on its lack of slew
> >> rate. However none of the RAO critics seem to be able to
> >> calculate the slew rate of a 20 Hz 2 volt rms sine wave.
> >> For them, here is a slew rate calculator
> >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electronic/a741p3.html
>
> > 20Hz is hardly the issue is it ?
>
> I meant 20 KHz.
>
> > sr = 2.pi.f.Vpk btw.
>
> So what is the SR of a 22 KHz 2 volt sine wave and how does that compare to
> the specs for the NJM 4558?

Oh it'll make it for sure. Practical expereince says they still sound ****
though. Then again maybe there's another artifact of cheap circuit design at
play ?

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 11:45 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
> >>
> >>> The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad
> >>> for the application as some make out, in actual use.
> >>
> >> **Yeah, it is. It is EXACTLY as bad as people think it
> >> is. It is for that reason that Philips and Sony chose
> >> MUCH better chips for their first CD players. And that
> >> was at a time when 4558s were MUCH cheaper than
> >> 5532/LM833s. Why do you think they used more expensive
> >> chips? For yuks? Or because they were actually better.
> >
> > How about we challenge Arny to ABX compare some op-amps ?
>
> Been there, done that - with up to 20 of them cascaded.
>
> The ones we cascaded have been damned many times - TL074s.

I've never damned a TL07x. They were purpose designed for audio I still use
them in specific applications.

> ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like. Bottom line is that
> when measurements suggested that there was enough distortion to be audible,
> the distortion was audible.

At what percentage ?

> As long as you operate these devices in
> accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines (avoid excess noise and
> distortion), they are sonically transparent.

TL07x series. I entirely agree.

How about cascading some 4558s ?

Graham

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 11:45 AM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> So there we have it, Jenn is prejudiced against CDs for
>> some unknown and presumably unknowable reason.
>
> Why don't you try exploring possible reasons for her
> criticisms instead of dismissing them out of hand ?

What's to explore? Her mind is made up, as always.

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 11:48 AM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
>> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
>
> Eh ?

Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this badness that she believes
CDs always impose on music is to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise
and distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD player is sonically
transparent - it adds or subtracts nothing that is discernable. How can a
transparent medium do a worse job of reproducing music than a
non-transparent one?

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 11:50 AM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>> 5532s are under $0.50 each in quantity, and that's
>>>> pretty much all it takes to get rid of the dreaded
>>>> 4558s in this application.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad
>>>> for the application as some make out, in actual use.
>>>
>>> Strange then that no credible audio manufacturer uses
>>> them.
>>
>> They serve no purpose in this application.
>>
>>> Heck the NJM4560 is about 2 cents more and is close
>>> to 5532 performance already.
>>
>> Seems like.
>>
>>> 4558ss do however figure in cheap Asian disco gear and
>>> graphic EQs.
>>
>> What are we to conclude from this odd factoid?
>
> That they belong only in cheap **** ?
>
>
>>>> For example, some rag on its lack of slew
>>>> rate. However none of the RAO critics seem to be able
>>>> to calculate the slew rate of a 20 Hz 2 volt rms sine
>>>> wave. For them, here is a slew rate calculator
>>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electronic/a741p3.html
>>
>>> 20Hz is hardly the issue is it ?
>>
>> I meant 20 KHz.
>>
>>> sr = 2.pi.f.Vpk btw.
>>
>> So what is the SR of a 22 KHz 2 volt sine wave and how
>> does that compare to the specs for the NJM 4558?
>
> Oh it'll make it for sure. Practical expereince says they
> still sound **** though. Then again maybe there's another
> artifact of cheap circuit design at play ?

Nahh Graham. You've never actually done serious listening comparisons of CD
players, or comparisons of them to the original signal that was recorded on
the CD. You simply don't know what you are talking about. You compare CD
players like Marc compares turntables, in many cases.

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 11:53 AM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad
>>>>> for the application as some make out, in actual use.
>>>>
>>>> **Yeah, it is. It is EXACTLY as bad as people think it
>>>> is. It is for that reason that Philips and Sony chose
>>>> MUCH better chips for their first CD players. And that
>>>> was at a time when 4558s were MUCH cheaper than
>>>> 5532/LM833s. Why do you think they used more expensive
>>>> chips? For yuks? Or because they were actually better.
>>>
>>> How about we challenge Arny to ABX compare some op-amps
>>> ?
>>
>> Been there, done that - with up to 20 of them cascaded.
>>
>> The ones we cascaded have been damned many times -
>> TL074s.
>
> I've never damned a TL07x. They were purpose designed for
> audio I still use them in specific applications.
>
>
>> ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like.
>> Bottom line is that when measurements suggested that
>> there was enough distortion to be audible, the
>> distortion was audible.
>
> At what percentage ?

More than 0.1%.

>> As long as you operate these devices in
>> accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines (avoid
>> excess noise and distortion), they are sonically
>> transparent.
>
> TL07x series. I entirely agree.
>
> How about cascading some 4558s ?

Sounds like work. If I do the work, it will be second-guessed until it has
no meaning. Check the RAO archives for the usual second-guessing aproaches.

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 01:32 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> So there we have it, Jenn is prejudiced against CDs for
> >> some unknown and presumably unknowable reason.
> >
> > Why don't you try exploring possible reasons for her
> > criticisms instead of dismissing them out of hand ?
>
> What's to explore? Her mind is made up, as always.

I was actually thinking about what her ears tell her mind.

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 01:35 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
> >> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
> >
> > Eh ?
>
> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this badness that she believes
> CDs always impose on music is to listen to LPs.

I suspect an unfortunately poor choice in CD players myself.

> LP's impose audible noise
> and distortion on the music they reproduce.

Noise without question. How audible that distortion is in practice bears further
investigation.

> A good CD player is sonically
> transparent - it adds or subtracts nothing that is discernable.

I wish that were true. I think it has to be *very good * before it is.

> How can a
> transparent medium do a worse job of reproducing music than a
> non-transparent one?

If the principle behind your assertion were 100% correct you would have a very
good point. I suggest you query the principle therefore.

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 01:38 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >> So what is the SR of a 22 KHz 2 volt sine wave and how
> >> does that compare to the specs for the NJM 4558?
> >
> > Oh it'll make it for sure. Practical expereince says they
> > still sound **** though. Then again maybe there's another
> > artifact of cheap circuit design at play ?
>
> Nahh Graham. You've never actually done serious listening comparisons of CD
> players, or comparisons of them to the original signal that was recorded on
> the CD.

Have you ?

> You simply don't know what you are talking about.

I earn my living in pro-audio. Do you ?

> You compare CD players like Marc compares turntables, in many cases.

What does that mean ?

I have actually only a few minutes ago been comparing 2 players in a situation
where the only difference is the player. I don't reckon the casual listener
might notice the difference but I sure can.

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 01:44 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" > wrote
>
> >>> How about we challenge Arny to ABX compare some op-amps ?
> >>
> >> Been there, done that - with up to 20 of them cascaded.
> >>
> >> The ones we cascaded have been damned many times - TL074s.
> >
> > I've never damned a TL07x. They were purpose designed for
> > audio I still use them in specific applications.
> >
> >> ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like.
> >> Bottom line is that when measurements suggested that
> >> there was enough distortion to be audible, the
> >> distortion was audible.
> >
> > At what percentage ?
>
> More than 0.1%.

That's -60dB. Hardly convincing. That's what I used to believe before doing
that HH / Crimson test.

I now reckon 0.01% is the figure to target as a *MINIMUM* i.e -80dB.

> >> As long as you operate these devices in
> >> accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines (avoid
> >> excess noise and distortion), they are sonically
> >> transparent.
> >
> > TL07x series. I entirely agree.
> >
> > How about cascading some 4558s ?
>
> Sounds like work.

Of course it is ! Isn't it worth doing ?

Or do you think you know everything ?

> If I do the work, it will be second-guessed until it has
> no meaning. Check the RAO archives for the usual second-guessing aproaches.

OTOH you might redeem your halo if you actually pulled your finger out.

Graham

dave weil

October 21st 06, 02:02 PM

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 06:17:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Instead, Jenn prefers music that has been through that ancient sonic
>mixmaster called the LP format.

It's lovely to wake up to another snotbomb from Arnold.

George M. Middius

October 21st 06, 02:02 PM

Eeyore said:

> > > So which LPs of yours are in fact performances that are entirely composed of
> > > voices and instruments that you have ever heard live?

> > You're asking the wrong question, Arny. I've tried to explain this to
> > you a couple of times. I'll try once again after dinner.

> Good Lord ! Doesn't Arny believe such things exist ?

Do you believe the Russians and the Ukrainians have nuclear weapons they
might someday use on Western countries?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

October 21st 06, 02:05 PM

The Krooborg bashes its head against the same brick wall for the
10,000th time, hoping against hope that this time the wall will give.

> > Why don't you try exploring possible reasons for her
> > criticisms instead of dismissing them out of hand ?

> What's to explore? Her mind is made up, as always.

The cyborg ichor pouring out of the Krooborg's external organic
integument should tell it that the brick wall is still tougher. How many
more "experiments" will the Beast conduct before it accepts an obvious
fact of life?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 02:27 PM

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Eeyore said:
>
> > > > So which LPs of yours are in fact performances that are entirely composed of
> > > > voices and instruments that you have ever heard live?
>
> > > You're asking the wrong question, Arny. I've tried to explain this to
> > > you a couple of times. I'll try once again after dinner.
>
> > Good Lord ! Doesn't Arny believe such things exist ?
>
> Do you believe the Russians and the Ukrainians have nuclear weapons

Yes.

> they might someday use on Western countries?

The USA ? Russia and the Ukraine are European countries. Ukraine's already asked to be
admitted to the EU. The only thing stopping Russia is injured pride most likely.

Graham

dizzy

October 21st 06, 02:51 PM

Eeyore wrote:

>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote in
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >
>> >> So there we have it, Jenn is prejudiced against CDs for
>> >> some unknown and presumably unknowable reason.
>> >
>> > Why don't you try exploring possible reasons for her
>> > criticisms instead of dismissing them out of hand ?
>>
>> What's to explore? Her mind is made up, as always.
>
>I was actually thinking about what her ears tell her mind.

Because that issue's been beaten to death?

Harry Lavo

October 21st 06, 04:42 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
>>> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
>>
>> Eh ?
>
> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this badness that she
> believes CDs always impose on music is to listen to LPs. LP's impose
> audible noise and distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD player
> is sonically transparent - it adds or subtracts nothing that is
> discernable. How can a transparent medium do a worse job of reproducing
> music than a non-transparent one?

It also changes how transients are reproduced....not exactly a little
failing, Arny.

Harry Lavo

October 21st 06, 04:45 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad
>>>> for the application as some make out, in actual use.
>>>
>>> **Yeah, it is. It is EXACTLY as bad as people think it
>>> is. It is for that reason that Philips and Sony chose
>>> MUCH better chips for their first CD players. And that
>>> was at a time when 4558s were MUCH cheaper than
>>> 5532/LM833s. Why do you think they used more expensive
>>> chips? For yuks? Or because they were actually better.
>>
>> How about we challenge Arny to ABX compare some op-amps ?
>
> Been there, done that - with up to 20 of them cascaded.
>
> The ones we cascaded have been damned many times - TL074s.
>
> ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like. Bottom line is that
> when measurements suggested that there was enough distortion to be
> audible, the distortion was audible. As long as you operate these devices
> in accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines (avoid excess noise
> and distortion), they are sonically transparent.

Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it interferes with the
process of musical listening itself.

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 06:07 PM

Harry Lavo wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> > ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like. Bottom line is that
> > when measurements suggested that there was enough distortion to be
> > audible, the distortion was audible. As long as you operate these devices
> > in accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines (avoid excess noise
> > and distortion), they are sonically transparent.
>
> Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it interferes with the
> process of musical listening itself.

I've been wondering about this myself.

Graham

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 06:12 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> in
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> So there we have it, Jenn is prejudiced against CDs for
>>>> some unknown and presumably unknowable reason.
>>>
>>> Why don't you try exploring possible reasons for her
>>> criticisms instead of dismissing them out of hand ?
>>
>> What's to explore? Her mind is made up, as always.
>
> I was actually thinking about what her ears tell her mind.

The ears never tell the brain anything at all. Ears just send collections of
impulses to the brain. The brain makes what it will out of them.
Perceptions are based on all things that a person has ever perceived ,
including the new perceptions that just arrived.

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 06:15 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> in message
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
>>>> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
>>>
>>> Eh ?
>>
>> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this
>> badness that she believes CDs always impose on music is
>> to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise and
>> distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD player
>> is sonically transparent - it adds or subtracts nothing
>> that is discernable. How can a transparent medium do a
>> worse job of reproducing music than a non-transparent
>> one?

> It also changes how transients are reproduced....not
> exactly a little failing, Arny.

Harry, you talk like someone who has never done an unbiased evaluation of a
good implementation of the 16/44 format.

I talk like someone who has done unbiased evaluations of good
implementations of the 16/44 format many times over the past 25 or so years.

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 06:19 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> in
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>
>>>>> How about we challenge Arny to ABX compare some
>>>>> op-amps ?
>>>>
>>>> Been there, done that - with up to 20 of them cascaded.
>>>>
>>>> The ones we cascaded have been damned many times -
>>>> TL074s.
>>>
>>> I've never damned a TL07x. They were purpose designed
>>> for audio I still use them in specific applications.
>>>
>>>> ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like.
>>>> Bottom line is that when measurements suggested that
>>>> there was enough distortion to be audible, the
>>>> distortion was audible.
>>>
>>> At what percentage ?
>>
>> More than 0.1%.
>
> That's -60dB. Hardly convincing. That's what I used to
> believe before doing that HH / Crimson test.

I see no evidence about what the actual levels of nonlinear distortion were
on that very day.

> I now reckon 0.01% is the figure to target as a *MINIMUM*
> i.e -80dB.

Rekoning and knowing are two different things.

>>>> As long as you operate these devices in
>>>> accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines
>>>> (avoid excess noise and distortion), they are sonically
>>>> transparent.
>>>
>>> TL07x series. I entirely agree.
>>>
>>> How about cascading some 4558s ?
>>
>> Sounds like work.
>
> Of course it is ! Isn't it worth doing ?

For you perhaps, not me.

> Or do you think you know everything ?

The issue is not what I know, but what others know about this issue.

>> If I do the work, it will be second-guessed until it has
>> no meaning. Check the RAO archives for the usual
>> second-guessing aproaches.

> OTOH you might redeem your halo if you actually pulled
> your finger out.

The idea that 4558 unity gain buffers running at 2 volts into 10K impedance
loads cause audible difficultites is your issue, not mine. If I do some
kind of listening test that shows them to be blameless, you'll just claim
its my hearing, which you have criticized severly before. I'd be a fool to
do a test when you think so little of my hearing.

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 06:20 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> in message
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad
>>>>> for the application as some make out, in actual use.
>>>>
>>>> **Yeah, it is. It is EXACTLY as bad as people think it
>>>> is. It is for that reason that Philips and Sony chose
>>>> MUCH better chips for their first CD players. And that
>>>> was at a time when 4558s were MUCH cheaper than
>>>> 5532/LM833s. Why do you think they used more expensive
>>>> chips? For yuks? Or because they were actually better.
>>>
>>> How about we challenge Arny to ABX compare some op-amps
>>> ?
>>
>> Been there, done that - with up to 20 of them cascaded.
>>
>> The ones we cascaded have been damned many times -
>> TL074s. ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like.
>> Bottom line is that when measurements suggested that
>> there was enough distortion to be audible, the
>> distortion was audible. As long as you operate these
>> devices in accordance with reasonable engineering
>> guidelines (avoid excess noise and distortion), they are
>> sonically transparent.
>
> Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it
> interferes with the process of musical listening itself.

Thanks Harry for excusing me from Graham's challenge.

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 06:20 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>
>>> ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like.
>>> Bottom line is that when measurements suggested that
>>> there was enough distortion to be audible, the
>>> distortion was audible. As long as you operate these
>>> devices in accordance with reasonable engineering
>>> guidelines (avoid excess noise and distortion), they
>>> are sonically transparent.
>>
>> Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it
>> interferes with the process of musical listening itself.
>
> I've been wondering about this myself.

Thanks Graham for excusing me from your proposed test.

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 06:20 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> The ears never tell the brain anything at all.

Spoken like a true Borg for sure !

Music isn't something you'd relate to is it ?

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 06:22 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> I talk like someone who has done unbiased evaluations of good
> implementations of the 16/44 format many times over the past 25 or so years.

So you accept that bad implementations are commonplace.

I'm pleased to hear that.

Graham

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 06:22 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> in
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>> So what is the SR of a 22 KHz 2 volt sine wave and how
>>>> does that compare to the specs for the NJM 4558?
>>>
>>> Oh it'll make it for sure. Practical expereince says
>>> they still sound **** though. Then again maybe there's
>>> another artifact of cheap circuit design at play ?
>>
>> Nahh Graham. You've never actually done serious
>> listening comparisons of CD players, or comparisons of
>> them to the original signal that was recorded on the CD.
>
> Have you ?

Of course.

>> You simply don't know what you are talking about.
>
> I earn my living in pro-audio. Do you ?

Irrelevant.

>> You compare CD players like Marc compares turntables, in
>> many cases.

> What does that mean ?

> I have actually only a few minutes ago been comparing 2
> players in a situation where the only difference is the
> player. I don't reckon the casual listener might notice
> the difference but I sure can.

So how did you do the level matching and time-synching?

Oh, and have you suddenly started believing in the need for blind tests?

Arny Krueger

October 21st 06, 06:23 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> The ears never tell the brain anything at all.
>
> Spoken like a true Borg for sure !

OK Graham, so we can add ignornace of perception to your list of
non-copetencies?

> Music isn't something you'd relate to is it ?

Irrelevant to the issue of ear-brain interfacing.

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 06:29 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" > wrote
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >>>> ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like.
> >>>> Bottom line is that when measurements suggested that
> >>>> there was enough distortion to be audible, the
> >>>> distortion was audible.
> >>>
> >>> At what percentage ?
> >>
> >> More than 0.1%.
> >
> > That's -60dB. Hardly convincing. That's what I used to
> > believe before doing that HH / Crimson test.
>
> I see no evidence about what the actual levels of nonlinear distortion were
> on that very day.

You just said 0.1%.

Was it 0.1% or *NOT* ? Make you mind up man !

> > I now reckon 0.01% is the figure to target as a *MINIMUM*
> > i.e -80dB.
>
> Rekoning and knowing are two different things.

Based on common sense.

CD quality PCM has artifacts in the -90dB region so what's wrong with targeting
-80 ? It sounds rather modest to me.

> >>>> As long as you operate these devices in
> >>>> accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines
> >>>> (avoid excess noise and distortion), they are sonically
> >>>> transparent.
> >>>
> >>> TL07x series. I entirely agree.
> >>>
> >>> How about cascading some 4558s ?
> >>
> >> Sounds like work.
> >
> > Of course it is ! Isn't it worth doing ?
>
> For you perhaps, not me.

You mean you just want to bask in the reflected glory of your imagined
victories over human hearing ?

> > Or do you think you know everything ?
>
> The issue is not what I know, but what others know about this issue.

It would seem that I know more than you.

> >> If I do the work, it will be second-guessed until it has
> >> no meaning. Check the RAO archives for the usual
> >> second-guessing aproaches.
>
> > OTOH you might redeem your halo if you actually pulled
> > your finger out.
>
> The idea that 4558 unity gain buffers running at 2 volts into 10K impedance
> loads cause audible difficultites is your issue, not mine.

No, it's everyones' if they are indeed defective.

> If I do some
> kind of listening test that shows them to be blameless, you'll just claim
> its my hearing, which you have criticized severly before. I'd be a fool to
> do a test when you think so little of my hearing.

What kind of lame excuse is that ? I thought ABX testing was infallible !

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 06:30 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
> > Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it
> > interferes with the process of musical listening itself.
>
> Thanks Harry for excusing me from Graham's challenge.

Thanks Arny for admitting that ABX tests are a piece of **** wrt music.

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 06:32 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like.
> >>> Bottom line is that when measurements suggested that
> >>> there was enough distortion to be audible, the
> >>> distortion was audible. As long as you operate these
> >>> devices in accordance with reasonable engineering
> >>> guidelines (avoid excess noise and distortion), they
> >>> are sonically transparent.
> >>
> >> Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it
> >> interferes with the process of musical listening itself.
> >
> > I've been wondering about this myself.
>
> Thanks Graham for excusing me from your proposed test.

You are indeed excused - not least from serious consideration about
audio listening tests. I rate ABX as as being rather like a blunderbuss.
Not a very effective tool except at close range.

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 06:33 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
>
> > I earn my living in pro-audio. Do you ?
>
> Irrelevant.

Obfuscation noted.

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 06:35 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
>
> > I have actually only a few minutes ago been comparing 2
> > players in a situation where the only difference is the
> > player. I don't reckon the casual listener might notice
> > the difference but I sure can.
>
> So how did you do the level matching

Eezy peezy !

> and time-synching?

Press the buttons at the right time ?

> Oh, and have you suddenly started believing in the need for blind tests?

Not for me. I have nothing to prove. Besides I'm agnostic on such tests.

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 06:37 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> The ears never tell the brain anything at all.
> >
> > Spoken like a true Borg for sure !
>
> OK Graham, so we can add ignornace of perception to your list of
> non-copetencies?

Can we add deafness to yours ? As in incapability of distinguishing a
real instrument from a synthesiser.

> > Music isn't something you'd relate to is it ?
>
> Irrelevant to the issue of ear-brain interfacing.

Speaks volumes ! Wait 'til George gets to see this !

Graham

Jenn

October 21st 06, 06:44 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:
> >>>
> >>>> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:14:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
> >>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If you wish to add euphony for your own enjoyment
> >>>>>>>>> on an ad hoc basis, at least acknowledge this to
> >>>>>>>>> be the case. Posession of a good stereo EQ
> >>>>>>>>> (graphic or parametric) or a compressor
> >>>>>>>>> (particularly in the case of mobile equipment,
> >>>>>>>>> where a tasteful use of post-recording
> >>>>>>>>> compression improves the listenability of high
> >>>>>>>>> dynamic range content in noisy environments) is
> >>>>>>>>> not wrong morally. It does make some recordings
> >>>>>>>>> comprehensible or enjoyable where otherwise would
> >>>>>>>>> not be the case.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I understand your point of course. My point is
> >>>>>>>> what good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound
> >>>>>>>> like instruments or voices like voices?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If instruments don't sound like instruments and
> >>>>>>> voices don't sound like voices, then you don't have
> >>>>>>> "accuracy." Luckily, it isn't hard at all to have
> >>>>>>> accuracy in between the transducers at either end of
> >>>>>>> the chain.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> At the listening end, we thus really only have to
> >>>>>>> worry about the speakers on out to your ears. (It
> >>>>>>> _is_ a worry, since the problems here are orders of
> >>>>>>> magnitude greater than those in the electronics in
> >>>>>>> the chain.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant that
> >>>>>> she can only get certain instruments to sound right
> >>>>>> when the signal chain includes a medium that is
> >>>>>> nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to
> >>>>>> perform accurately. She's equally adamant that she's
> >>>>>> never found a highly-accurate medium to do the job
> >>>>>> right.
> >>>>
> >>>>> It isn't just Jenn though. There are other people who
> >>>>> feel the same way.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, Stephen and Harry seems to be others of them. On
> >>>> Usenet, they make up a noisy minority.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I can't figure out _why_ they do this, but there it
> >>>>> is...
> >>>>
> >>>> I suspect that I've figured a lot of it out. Due to
> >>>> pride, most if not all of the afflicted are ever going
> >>>> to agree with any of the diagnoses.
> >>
> >>> Says the person who called obviously synthed music files
> >>> on his website recordings of acoustic instruments, and
> >>> still has doubts about it.
> >>
> >> Says a person who prefers her music with added audible
> >> noise and distortion.
> >
> > Whatever it takes to make sound right.
>
> So where is the corresponding source of noise and distortion in a live
> performance, Jenn?

The better question is where is the annoying high frequency sound in
live music?

Jenn

October 21st 06, 06:45 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
> >> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
> >
> > Eh ?
>
> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this badness that she believes
> CDs always impose on music is to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise
> and distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD player is sonically
> transparent - it adds or subtracts nothing that is discernable. How can a
> transparent medium do a worse job of reproducing music than a
> non-transparent one?

Depends on the source material.

Jenn

October 21st 06, 06:47 PM

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > "Eeyore" > wrote in
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > >
> > >> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
> > >> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
> > >
> > > Eh ?
> >
> > Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this badness that she
> > believes
> > CDs always impose on music is to listen to LPs.
>
> I suspect an unfortunately poor choice in CD players myself.

Nope, I like the sound of my CD player more than most that I've heard,
and it has been very well reviewed all over the place. Most
importantly, I hear what I hear on every CD player that I've yet heard.

Jenn

October 21st 06, 06:51 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I understand your point of course. My point is what
> >>>>>>> good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
> >>>>>>> instruments or voices like voices?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please explain how adding audible noise and
> >>>>>> distortion to the sound of instruments and voices
> >>>>>> makes them sound more like instruments and voices
> >>>>>> for persons with normal hearing.
> >>
> >>>>> I don't know, as I've stated before.
> >>
> >>>> There are explanations, but you've rejected them.
> >>
> >>> I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those
> >>> things sound compared to instruments and voices based on
> >>> my experience with same. That's all that matters to me.
> >>
> >> So which LPs of yours are in fact performances that are
> >> entirely composed of voices and instruments that you
> >> have ever heard live?
> >
> > Very few of course, but your question is beside the
> > point. Let me try this again:
>
> > Every, for example, violin that one hears live has a
> > distinctive quality. Whether it is a Strad or a Costco,
> > there are identifiable characteristics to the sound that
> > tell you it is a violin.
>
> How do these characteristics get transported to your living room, Jenn?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

>
> > I hear something in CDs of
> > violin sound (both solo and sections, but it's more
> > pronounced in sections) that is unlike the sound of ANY
> > of the thousands of violins that I've heard in my
> > lifetime.
>
> Probably some prejudice that you developed a tightly-held belief in, Jenn.

Actually I'm prejudiced in favor of CDs. I want them to be better than
the best LPs.

>
> > It's obviously not a gross enough problem that
> > it prohibits one from distinguishing them as violins, but
> > there is something about the sound that is fundamentally
> > unlike the sound of any violin that I've ever
> > experienced.
>
> Odd that every CD wopuld have has this given all the variations in
> production techniques.

But every CD also has a great deal in common.

> There is one thing that every CD does have when you
> play it, and that is Jenn's knowlege that she's listening to a CD.

Ditto for you with LPs.

>
> > This effect is most pronounced to me in
> > upper range violin, upper range flute/picc, upper range
> > clarinet, and upper range soprano voice. Otherwise I
> > think that the sound of CDs is often quite good.
>
> So there we have it, Jenn is prejudiced against CDs for some unknown and
> presumably unknowable reason.

Incorrect. See above.

>
> Instead, Jenn prefers music that has been through that ancient sonic
> mixmaster called the LP format.

No, Jenn prefers live music.

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 07:17 PM

Jenn wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > "Eeyore" > wrote in
> > > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
> > > >> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
> > > >
> > > > Eh ?
> > >
> > > Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this badness that she
> > > believes
> > > CDs always impose on music is to listen to LPs.
> >
> > I suspect an unfortunately poor choice in CD players myself.
>
> Nope, I like the sound of my CD player more than most that I've heard,
> and it has been very well reviewed all over the place. Most
> importantly, I hear what I hear on every CD player that I've yet heard.

Well.....

Can I suggest you check ebay for a Denon DCD-1700 every so often ? It's
what I have and recent auditioning suggests it was an excellent choice.
They are beautifully made btw. A piece of serious engineering.

It was the first CD player I heard that sounded truly authentic. Arny,
choke on that if you like.

Graham

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 07:18 PM

Jenn wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > Instead, Jenn prefers music that has been through that ancient sonic
> > mixmaster called the LP format.
>
> No, Jenn prefers live music.

Graham does too.

Graham

dave weil

October 21st 06, 07:27 PM

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:20:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>> Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it
>>> interferes with the process of musical listening itself.
>>
>> I've been wondering about this myself.
>
>Thanks Graham for excusing me from your proposed test.

Thank you Arnold for excusing ALL of us from the requirements of a
test.

'preciate it...

Jenn

October 21st 06, 07:38 PM

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > "Eeyore" > wrote in
> > > > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
> > > > >> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eh ?
> > > >
> > > > Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this badness that she
> > > > believes
> > > > CDs always impose on music is to listen to LPs.
> > >
> > > I suspect an unfortunately poor choice in CD players myself.
> >
> > Nope, I like the sound of my CD player more than most that I've heard,
> > and it has been very well reviewed all over the place. Most
> > importantly, I hear what I hear on every CD player that I've yet heard.
>
> Well.....
>
> Can I suggest you check ebay for a Denon DCD-1700 every so often ? It's
> what I have and recent auditioning suggests it was an excellent choice.
> They are beautifully made btw. A piece of serious engineering.
>
> It was the first CD player I heard that sounded truly authentic. Arny,
> choke on that if you like.
>
>
> Graham

Actually, I think that I use one at work. I'll check on Monday for the
model #.

[email protected]

October 21st 06, 07:56 PM

Eeyore wrote:
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >
> > > ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like. Bottom line is that
> > > when measurements suggested that there was enough distortion to be
> > > audible, the distortion was audible. As long as you operate these devices
> > > in accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines (avoid excess noise
> > > and distortion), they are sonically transparent.
> >
> > Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it interferes with the
> > process of musical listening itself.
>
> I've been wondering about this myself.
>
> Graham

With all due respect- time to stop wondering. ALL the listening
comparisons between one and all audio components using ABX, that were
published anywhere resulted in a "The panel hears no differnce" vote..

No one; but no one; reported a decent-sized, representative panel
ABXing ANY comparable audio components with a positive outcome like::
"Yes most of us heard the difference"

For details see my reply to Arny on the topic yesterday. All he could
quote was a joke "research" in 1997 by a "panel" ranging from 1 (yes
one) to 10 that triumphantly heard .
the difference between a 10 watt DIY Heathkit and a 200 watt Dynaco
inspite of ABXing. But they were defeated by a 20 watt amp compared
with the same Dynaco while still ABXing.
That is his evidence that ABX works.
Ludovic Mirabel

George M. Middius

October 21st 06, 08:14 PM

Eeyore said:

> Thanks Arny for admitting that ABX tests are a piece of **** wrt music.

Excellent!

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

October 21st 06, 08:15 PM

Eeyore said:

> > > Music isn't something you'd relate to is it ?

> > Irrelevant to the issue of ear-brain interfacing.

> Speaks volumes ! Wait 'til George gets to see this !

I've addressed all of Krooger's remarks of this sort in my sig block.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Eeyore

October 21st 06, 08:23 PM

" wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like. Bottom line is that
> > > > when measurements suggested that there was enough distortion to be
> > > > audible, the distortion was audible. As long as you operate these devices
> > > > in accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines (avoid excess noise
> > > > and distortion), they are sonically transparent.
> > >
> > > Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it interferes with the
> > > process of musical listening itself.
> >
> > I've been wondering about this myself.
> >
> > Graham
>
> With all due respect- time to stop wondering. ALL the listening
> comparisons between one and all audio components using ABX, that were
> published anywhere resulted in a "The panel hears no differnce" vote..

Given Arny's indiferrence to synthed instruments vs real ones I really have a
problem understanding what this damn ABX test is supposed to prove.

> No one; but no one; reported a decent-sized, representative panel
> ABXing ANY comparable audio components with a positive outcome like::
> "Yes most of us heard the difference"

I can imagine it would be very easy to do this.

> For details see my reply to Arny on the topic yesterday. All he could
> quote was a joke "research" in 1997 by a "panel" ranging from 1 (yes
> one) to 10 that triumphantly heard .
> the difference between a 10 watt DIY Heathkit and a 200 watt Dynaco
> inspite of ABXing. But they were defeated by a 20 watt amp compared
> with the same Dynaco while still ABXing.
> That is his evidence that ABX works.

Yeah right !

Graham

Harry Lavo

October 21st 06, 08:28 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>> in message
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
>>>>> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
>>>>
>>>> Eh ?
>>>
>>> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this
>>> badness that she believes CDs always impose on music is
>>> to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise and
>>> distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD player
>>> is sonically transparent - it adds or subtracts nothing
>>> that is discernable. How can a transparent medium do a
>>> worse job of reproducing music than a non-transparent
>>> one?
>
>> It also changes how transients are reproduced....not
>> exactly a little failing, Arny.
>
> Harry, you talk like someone who has never done an unbiased evaluation of
> a good implementation of the 16/44 format.
>
> I talk like someone who has done unbiased evaluations of good
> implementations of the 16/44 format many times over the past 25 or so
> years.

Funny you should mention that, Arny.

I just got done with a level-matched comparison of four Ampex Dolby B
third-generation tapes from the early '70's to recordings of same made from
those tapes via my Marantz 560 professional CD recorder.

The tapes are from that rare set of two dozen that Ampex issued near the end
of life of pre-recorded tapes, just before Barclay-Crocker became sole
surviving distributor of same. Two were London's - Mehta and the LA
Philharmonic playing Saint-Saens 3rd Symphony (the "Organ") and the same
forces playing Holst's The Planets. These were recorded on a Hollywood
Sound Stage (hi Jenn!). The other two were DG's: Claudio Abbado and the LSO
performing Tschaikovsky's 5th Symphony (the worst recording of the bunch)
and Robert Szidon, Piano, playing Ives Piano Sonata No 2 (the "Concord") and
the Three Page Sonata. Walter Stangl played viola and Dieter-Sonntag,
flute, on the disk, which has very fine piano sound. All these tapes have
not been played for twenty-five years, when they were stored under good
conditions. All tapes were in good condition, and were run through the
machine once before recording just to "loosen them up". Only one seemed to
need or benefit from this treatment, attesting to their good storage
conditions.

Tapes were played on/recorded from a Teac 4070 tape machine (1/4" 7.5ips)
through a Teach AN-180 outboard Dobly B recorder (Teac's best) into an Onkyo
P301 preamp and out to the Marantz 560. The CD's were played back then in
synchronization with the tapes. CD playback was from my Sony C2000ES into a
DTI Pro and on into my Proceed PDP DAC. This combo edges the C2000ES by
itself, and represents the best sound from CD's my system can offer. The
DAC is 18bit, the Marantz 560 of course 16bit. So the CD playback was
conventional 44.1/16, versus straight analog at about 65-70db S/N from the
tape machine/Dolby B combo. Since the Dolby B machine has adjustable final
output, this was used to level match the signal to the CD system coming out
of the preamp using a Heathkit VTVM.

My previous experience has been that the Marantz, recording from other
sources, produces recordings that are as good as CD can give...better than
all but the very best commercial recordings. So I am comfortable that this
test is about as favorable to CD as one can give.

Arny, there are differences. They are subtle but they are there. Perhaps
the most telling is on the Holst disk (the two LA Philharmonic tapes have
very, very fine sound)...where the tympanies sound exceptionally life-like.
They have that "taughtness" of mallet hitting skin that is so hard to
reproduce accurately....during the section (Jupiter or Saturn, can't
remember which) where these play a prominent role the sound is
extraordinary, as they are played both loudly and softly against a quiet
orchestral backdrop, which just enough ambience to add richness. The CD
provides a "sharpness" to the tympany that just isn't there...in the
recording, or for that matter, at a symphony concert. Further listening
suggests two other subtle changes wrought by the CD. First, the soundstage
is affected...it is "flatter" (less deep) and some of the ambience
disappears, as well as the sense of "center-fill" The sound appears to
gravitate slightly to the two speakers, and away from a three-dimensional
image. Secondly, the orchestra loses some definition as it builds to
climax...there is a subtle congestion and "sharpening" of the sound. This
is subtle enough that it comes across more as a sense of strain in listening
than in an audible defect per se, but with careful listening the source of
the strain is revealed.

Now Arny will have a fit because I did not do a double-blind test. So be
it. But for anybody else willing to grant that double-blind tests for
purpose of open-ended listening may have flaws, that is the result I heard.

Jenn

October 21st 06, 08:36 PM

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >>> "Eeyore" > wrote
> >>> in message
> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
> >>>>> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
> >>>>
> >>>> Eh ?
> >>>
> >>> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this
> >>> badness that she believes CDs always impose on music is
> >>> to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise and
> >>> distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD player
> >>> is sonically transparent - it adds or subtracts nothing
> >>> that is discernable. How can a transparent medium do a
> >>> worse job of reproducing music than a non-transparent
> >>> one?
> >
> >> It also changes how transients are reproduced....not
> >> exactly a little failing, Arny.
> >
> > Harry, you talk like someone who has never done an unbiased evaluation of
> > a good implementation of the 16/44 format.
> >
> > I talk like someone who has done unbiased evaluations of good
> > implementations of the 16/44 format many times over the past 25 or so
> > years.
>
> Funny you should mention that, Arny.
>
> I just got done with a level-matched comparison of four Ampex Dolby B
> third-generation tapes from the early '70's to recordings of same made from
> those tapes via my Marantz 560 professional CD recorder.
>
> The tapes are from that rare set of two dozen that Ampex issued near the end
> of life of pre-recorded tapes, just before Barclay-Crocker became sole
> surviving distributor of same. Two were London's - Mehta and the LA
> Philharmonic playing Saint-Saens 3rd Symphony (the "Organ") and the same
> forces playing Holst's The Planets.

Great recordings.

> These were recorded on a Hollywood
> Sound Stage (hi Jenn!).

The old MGM, IIRC. They never recorded at Dorothy Chandler, their
concert hall, due to bad acoustics. Now I believe they DO record at
their new home, the great Disney Concert Hall. Most of their old
recordings were done at UCLA, an excellent hall.

> The other two were DG's: Claudio Abbado and the LSO
> performing Tschaikovsky's 5th Symphony (the worst recording of the bunch)
> and Robert Szidon, Piano, playing Ives Piano Sonata No 2 (the "Concord") and
> the Three Page Sonata.

DGG: mostly uck, IMO.

> Walter Stangl played viola and Dieter-Sonntag,
> flute, on the disk, which has very fine piano sound. All these tapes have
> not been played for twenty-five years, when they were stored under good
> conditions. All tapes were in good condition, and were run through the
> machine once before recording just to "loosen them up". Only one seemed to
> need or benefit from this treatment, attesting to their good storage
> conditions.
>
> Tapes were played on/recorded from a Teac 4070 tape machine (1/4" 7.5ips)
> through a Teach AN-180 outboard Dobly B recorder (Teac's best) into an Onkyo
> P301 preamp and out to the Marantz 560. The CD's were played back then in
> synchronization with the tapes. CD playback was from my Sony C2000ES into a
> DTI Pro and on into my Proceed PDP DAC. This combo edges the C2000ES by
> itself, and represents the best sound from CD's my system can offer. The
> DAC is 18bit, the Marantz 560 of course 16bit. So the CD playback was
> conventional 44.1/16, versus straight analog at about 65-70db S/N from the
> tape machine/Dolby B combo. Since the Dolby B machine has adjustable final
> output, this was used to level match the signal to the CD system coming out
> of the preamp using a Heathkit VTVM.
>
> My previous experience has been that the Marantz, recording from other
> sources, produces recordings that are as good as CD can give...better than
> all but the very best commercial recordings. So I am comfortable that this
> test is about as favorable to CD as one can give.
>
> Arny, there are differences. They are subtle but they are there. Perhaps
> the most telling is on the Holst disk (the two LA Philharmonic tapes have
> very, very fine sound)...where the tympanies sound exceptionally life-like.
> They have that "taughtness" of mallet hitting skin that is so hard to
> reproduce accurately....during the section (Jupiter or Saturn, can't
> remember which) where these play a prominent role the sound is
> extraordinary, as they are played both loudly and softly against a quiet
> orchestral backdrop, which just enough ambience to add richness. The CD
> provides a "sharpness" to the tympany that just isn't there...in the
> recording, or for that matter, at a symphony concert. Further listening
> suggests two other subtle changes wrought by the CD. First, the soundstage
> is affected...it is "flatter" (less deep) and some of the ambience
> disappears, as well as the sense of "center-fill" The sound appears to
> gravitate slightly to the two speakers, and away from a three-dimensional
> image. Secondly, the orchestra loses some definition as it builds to
> climax...there is a subtle congestion and "sharpening" of the sound. This
> is subtle enough that it comes across more as a sense of strain in listening
> than in an audible defect per se, but with careful listening the source of
> the strain is revealed.
>
> Now Arny will have a fit because I did not do a double-blind test. So be
> it. But for anybody else willing to grant that double-blind tests for
> purpose of open-ended listening may have flaws, that is the result I heard.

Interesting.

[email protected]

October 21st 06, 08:41 PM

Jenn wrote:
> 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
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I understand your point of course. My point is what
> > >>>>>>> good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
> > >>>>>>> instruments or voices like voices?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Please explain how adding audible noise and
> > >>>>>> distortion to the sound of instruments and voices
> > >>>>>> makes them sound more like instruments and voices
> > >>>>>> for persons with normal hearing.
> > >>
> > >>>>> I don't know, as I've stated before.
> > >>
> > >>>> There are explanations, but you've rejected them.
> > >>
> > >>> I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those
> > >>> things sound compared to instruments and voices based on
> > >>> my experience with same. That's all that matters to me.
> > >>
> > >> So which LPs of yours are in fact performances that are
> > >> entirely composed of voices and instruments that you
> > >> have ever heard live?
> > >
> > > Very few of course, but your question is beside the
> > > point. Let me try this again:
> >
> > > Every, for example, violin that one hears live has a
> > > distinctive quality. Whether it is a Strad or a Costco,
> > > there are identifiable characteristics to the sound that
> > > tell you it is a violin.
> >
> > How do these characteristics get transported to your living room, Jenn?
>
> Sorry, I don't understand the question.
>
> >
> > > I hear something in CDs of
> > > violin sound (both solo and sections, but it's more
> > > pronounced in sections) that is unlike the sound of ANY
> > > of the thousands of violins that I've heard in my
> > > lifetime.
> >
> > Probably some prejudice that you developed a tightly-held belief in, Jenn.
>
> Actually I'm prejudiced in favor of CDs. I want them to be better than
> the best LPs.
>
> >
> > > It's obviously not a gross enough problem that
> > > it prohibits one from distinguishing them as violins, but
> > > there is something about the sound that is fundamentally
> > > unlike the sound of any violin that I've ever
> > > experienced.
> >
> > Odd that every CD wopuld have has this given all the variations in
> > production techniques.
>
> But every CD also has a great deal in common.
>
> > There is one thing that every CD does have when you
> > play it, and that is Jenn's knowlege that she's listening to a CD.
>
> Ditto for you with LPs.
>
> >
> > > This effect is most pronounced to me in
> > > upper range violin, upper range flute/picc, upper range
> > > clarinet, and upper range soprano voice. Otherwise I
> > > think that the sound of CDs is often quite good.
> >
> > So there we have it, Jenn is prejudiced against CDs for some unknown and
> > presumably unknowable reason.
>
> Incorrect. See above.
>
> >
> > Instead, Jenn prefers music that has been through that ancient sonic
> > mixmaster called the LP format.
>
> No, Jenn prefers live music
===========================

> No, Jenn prefers live music

Thank you for inserting at last a note of audio reality into this
technicians' argument.

Anyone who listens to the so-called "acoustic' (a very unfortunate
terminology) music knows that any and all reproduced music has the same
relation to live as a reproduction has to the original painting. Some
technologies are better and some worse but live is still different.
To my old and badly abused ears orchestral violins whether on LP or CD
sound very far from the true thing one hears in a concert hall.

I agree that between the two a few lps succeed in giving me a better
illusion than many if not all cds.

But it still is not the true thing.

And while at it I think this state of affairs is even worse when it
comes to bass on most ( if not all) cds. The cellos and bass violins
have a boo boo sound. The drum sounds like my grandson's discarded
toy..

Obviously I'll be told that I should get a better room or a better
system or both but here and there I heard the best of hi-fi from the
mono days onwards and if anything some of the 60s' lps were better than
anything since. As for cds and bass- many of the early symphonic ones
are simply unlistenable. Nowadays I'd say that by and large some cds
are better than many lps ever were.

I'll let the engineers talk about engineering...
Ludovic Mirabel

Harry Lavo

October 21st 06, 09:13 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> >
>> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> . ..
>> >>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> >>> in message
>> >>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
>> >>>>> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Eh ?
>> >>>
>> >>> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this
>> >>> badness that she believes CDs always impose on music is
>> >>> to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise and
>> >>> distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD player
>> >>> is sonically transparent - it adds or subtracts nothing
>> >>> that is discernable. How can a transparent medium do a
>> >>> worse job of reproducing music than a non-transparent
>> >>> one?
>> >
>> >> It also changes how transients are reproduced....not
>> >> exactly a little failing, Arny.
>> >
>> > Harry, you talk like someone who has never done an unbiased evaluation
>> > of
>> > a good implementation of the 16/44 format.
>> >
>> > I talk like someone who has done unbiased evaluations of good
>> > implementations of the 16/44 format many times over the past 25 or so
>> > years.
>>
>> Funny you should mention that, Arny.
>>
>> I just got done with a level-matched comparison of four Ampex Dolby B
>> third-generation tapes from the early '70's to recordings of same made
>> from
>> those tapes via my Marantz 560 professional CD recorder.
>>
>> The tapes are from that rare set of two dozen that Ampex issued near the
>> end
>> of life of pre-recorded tapes, just before Barclay-Crocker became sole
>> surviving distributor of same. Two were London's - Mehta and the LA
>> Philharmonic playing Saint-Saens 3rd Symphony (the "Organ") and the same
>> forces playing Holst's The Planets.
>
> Great recordings.

You know, I agree...was a bit bowled over by both the sound and the quality
of the performance. I'm not a big Mehta fan, but that is mostly due to his
later work, where he often just seems to "mail it in". His work with the
NYP was IMO the low point for that orchestra.

But these are fine performances...I seem to prefer the Holst to the
Slatkin/St Louis which many consider the finest on SACD, and the Saint-Saens
to the Leinsdorf/Boston Symph which I have both on LP and on SACD.

>
>> These were recorded on a Hollywood
>> Sound Stage (hi Jenn!).
>
> The old MGM, IIRC. They never recorded at Dorothy Chandler, their
> concert hall, due to bad acoustics. Now I believe they DO record at
> their new home, the great Disney Concert Hall. Most of their old
> recordings were done at UCLA, an excellent hall.
>
>> The other two were DG's: Claudio Abbado and the LSO
>> performing Tschaikovsky's 5th Symphony (the worst recording of the bunch)
>> and Robert Szidon, Piano, playing Ives Piano Sonata No 2 (the "Concord")
>> and
>> the Three Page Sonata.
>
> DGG: mostly uck, IMO.

For orchestral work, I agree completely.

For chamber music, I've found they vary wildly from disk to disk.

>
>> Walter Stangl played viola and Dieter-Sonntag,
>> flute, on the disk, which has very fine piano sound. All these tapes
>> have
>> not been played for twenty-five years, when they were stored under good
>> conditions. All tapes were in good condition, and were run through the
>> machine once before recording just to "loosen them up". Only one seemed
>> to
>> need or benefit from this treatment, attesting to their good storage
>> conditions.
>>
>> Tapes were played on/recorded from a Teac 4070 tape machine (1/4" 7.5ips)
>> through a Teach AN-180 outboard Dobly B recorder (Teac's best) into an
>> Onkyo
>> P301 preamp and out to the Marantz 560. The CD's were played back then
>> in
>> synchronization with the tapes. CD playback was from my Sony C2000ES
>> into a
>> DTI Pro and on into my Proceed PDP DAC. This combo edges the C2000ES by
>> itself, and represents the best sound from CD's my system can offer. The
>> DAC is 18bit, the Marantz 560 of course 16bit. So the CD playback was
>> conventional 44.1/16, versus straight analog at about 65-70db S/N from
>> the
>> tape machine/Dolby B combo. Since the Dolby B machine has adjustable
>> final
>> output, this was used to level match the signal to the CD system coming
>> out
>> of the preamp using a Heathkit VTVM.
>>
>> My previous experience has been that the Marantz, recording from other
>> sources, produces recordings that are as good as CD can give...better
>> than
>> all but the very best commercial recordings. So I am comfortable that
>> this
>> test is about as favorable to CD as one can give.
>>
>> Arny, there are differences. They are subtle but they are there.
>> Perhaps
>> the most telling is on the Holst disk (the two LA Philharmonic tapes have
>> very, very fine sound)...where the tympanies sound exceptionally
>> life-like.
>> They have that "taughtness" of mallet hitting skin that is so hard to
>> reproduce accurately....during the section (Jupiter or Saturn, can't
>> remember which) where these play a prominent role the sound is
>> extraordinary, as they are played both loudly and softly against a quiet
>> orchestral backdrop, which just enough ambience to add richness. The CD
>> provides a "sharpness" to the tympany that just isn't there...in the
>> recording, or for that matter, at a symphony concert. Further listening
>> suggests two other subtle changes wrought by the CD. First, the
>> soundstage
>> is affected...it is "flatter" (less deep) and some of the ambience
>> disappears, as well as the sense of "center-fill" The sound appears to
>> gravitate slightly to the two speakers, and away from a three-dimensional
>> image. Secondly, the orchestra loses some definition as it builds to
>> climax...there is a subtle congestion and "sharpening" of the sound.
>> This
>> is subtle enough that it comes across more as a sense of strain in
>> listening
>> than in an audible defect per se, but with careful listening the source
>> of
>> the strain is revealed.
>>
>> Now Arny will have a fit because I did not do a double-blind test. So be
>> it. But for anybody else willing to grant that double-blind tests for
>> purpose of open-ended listening may have flaws, that is the result I
>> heard.
>
> Interesting.

Yeah, to me it is becaue my experience with SACD is different. Wish I had
one of thos Teac DSD recorders to try the same thing over and see the
difference, if any. That machine would allow recording to DSD, to 96/24,
and to 192/24 as well as to 44.1/16. Anybody want to put up a grand and
eventually take possession of the machine, in exchange for a little testing
time-out?

Jenn

October 21st 06, 10:00 PM

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > message
> > >
> > > .com
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > >> message
> > > >>
> > > >> igy.
> > > >> com
> > > >>> In article
> > > >>> >, "Arny
> > > >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > >>>> message
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> odig
> > > >>>> y.
> > > >>>> com
> > > >>>>> In article
> > > >>>>> >, "Arny
> > > >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > >>>>>> message
> > > >>>>>> .
> > > >>>>>> prod
> > > >>>>>> ig
> > > >>>>>> y.
> > > >>>>>> com
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I understand your point of course. My point is what
> > > >>>>>>> good is "accuracy" if instruments don't sound like
> > > >>>>>>> instruments or voices like voices?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Please explain how adding audible noise and
> > > >>>>>> distortion to the sound of instruments and voices
> > > >>>>>> makes them sound more like instruments and voices
> > > >>>>>> for persons with normal hearing.
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> I don't know, as I've stated before.
> > > >>
> > > >>>> There are explanations, but you've rejected them.
> > > >>
> > > >>> I know how things sound to my ears/brain and how those
> > > >>> things sound compared to instruments and voices based on
> > > >>> my experience with same. That's all that matters to me.
> > > >>
> > > >> So which LPs of yours are in fact performances that are
> > > >> entirely composed of voices and instruments that you
> > > >> have ever heard live?
> > > >
> > > > Very few of course, but your question is beside the
> > > > point. Let me try this again:
> > >
> > > > Every, for example, violin that one hears live has a
> > > > distinctive quality. Whether it is a Strad or a Costco,
> > > > there are identifiable characteristics to the sound that
> > > > tell you it is a violin.
> > >
> > > How do these characteristics get transported to your living room, Jenn?
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand the question.
> >
> > >
> > > > I hear something in CDs of
> > > > violin sound (both solo and sections, but it's more
> > > > pronounced in sections) that is unlike the sound of ANY
> > > > of the thousands of violins that I've heard in my
> > > > lifetime.
> > >
> > > Probably some prejudice that you developed a tightly-held belief in,
> > > Jenn.
> >
> > Actually I'm prejudiced in favor of CDs. I want them to be better than
> > the best LPs.
> >
> > >
> > > > It's obviously not a gross enough problem that
> > > > it prohibits one from distinguishing them as violins, but
> > > > there is something about the sound that is fundamentally
> > > > unlike the sound of any violin that I've ever
> > > > experienced.
> > >
> > > Odd that every CD wopuld have has this given all the variations in
> > > production techniques.
> >
> > But every CD also has a great deal in common.
> >
> > > There is one thing that every CD does have when you
> > > play it, and that is Jenn's knowlege that she's listening to a CD.
> >
> > Ditto for you with LPs.
> >
> > >
> > > > This effect is most pronounced to me in
> > > > upper range violin, upper range flute/picc, upper range
> > > > clarinet, and upper range soprano voice. Otherwise I
> > > > think that the sound of CDs is often quite good.
> > >
> > > So there we have it, Jenn is prejudiced against CDs for some unknown and
> > > presumably unknowable reason.
> >
> > Incorrect. See above.
> >
> > >
> > > Instead, Jenn prefers music that has been through that ancient sonic
> > > mixmaster called the LP format.
> >
> > No, Jenn prefers live music
> ===========================
>
> > No, Jenn prefers live music
>
> Thank you for inserting at last a note of audio reality into this
> technicians' argument.
>
> Anyone who listens to the so-called "acoustic' (a very unfortunate
> terminology) music knows that any and all reproduced music has the same
> relation to live as a reproduction has to the original painting. Some
> technologies are better and some worse but live is still different.
> To my old and badly abused ears orchestral violins whether on LP or CD
> sound very far from the true thing one hears in a concert hall.
>
> I agree that between the two a few lps succeed in giving me a better
> illusion than many if not all cds.
>
> But it still is not the true thing.
>
> And while at it I think this state of affairs is even worse when it
> comes to bass on most ( if not all) cds. The cellos and bass violins
> have a boo boo sound. The drum sounds like my grandson's discarded
> toy..
>
> Obviously I'll be told that I should get a better room or a better
> system or both but here and there I heard the best of hi-fi from the
> mono days onwards and if anything some of the 60s' lps were better than
> anything since. As for cds and bass- many of the early symphonic ones
> are simply unlistenable. Nowadays I'd say that by and large some cds
> are better than many lps ever were.
>
> I'll let the engineers talk about engineering...
> Ludovic Mirabel

I agree with most of the above. While I don't like the bass on many
CDs, I like it a great deal on others. Probably a problem with who
operates the board, would think.

[email protected]

October 22nd 06, 12:05 AM

Eeyore wrote:
> " wrote:
>
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > Harry Lavo wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like. Bottom line is that
> > > > > when measurements suggested that there was enough distortion to be
> > > > > audible, the distortion was audible. As long as you operate these devices
> > > > > in accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines (avoid excess noise
> > > > > and distortion), they are sonically transparent.
> > > >
> > > > Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it interferes with the
> > > > process of musical listening itself.
> > >
> > > I've been wondering about this myself.
> > >
> > > Graham
> >
> > With all due respect- time to stop wondering. ALL the listening
> > comparisons between one and all audio components using ABX, that were
> > published anywhere resulted in a "The panel hears no differnce" vote..
>
> Given Arny's indiferrence to synthed instruments vs real ones I really have a
> problem understanding what this damn ABX test is supposed to prove.
>
>
> > No one; but no one; reported a decent-sized, representative panel
> > ABXing ANY comparable audio components with a positive outcome like::
> > "Yes most of us heard the difference"
>
> I can imagine it would be very easy to do this.
>
>
> > For details see my reply to Arny on the topic yesterday. All he could
> > quote was a joke "research" in 1997 by a "panel" ranging from 1 (yes
> > one) to 10 that triumphantly heard .
> > the difference between a 10 watt DIY Heathkit and a 200 watt Dynaco
> > inspite of ABXing. But they were defeated by a 20 watt amp compared
> > with the same Dynaco while still ABXing.
> > That is his evidence that ABX works.
>
> Yeah right !
>
> Graham
======================

> I can imagine it would be very easy to do this.

Am I right guessing that you mean "should"?. Because in the best
component comparing: blind test that I know of: (Sean E. Olive,
Differnces in performance....,JAES, vol. 51,#9, 2003, p.608 +) the
listeners knew which speaker they preferred but were not able to
identify one from the other from test to test.
And if people can not identify speakers what in audio can they
identify?
Ludovic Mirabel
with 300 panelists of various ages and experience
>

[email protected]

October 22nd 06, 12:05 AM

ScottW

October 22nd 06, 12:18 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Eeyore wrote:
>> " wrote:
>>
>> > Eeyore wrote:
>> > > Harry Lavo wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > > >
>> > > > > ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like. Bottom line is
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > when measurements suggested that there was enough distortion to be
>> > > > > audible, the distortion was audible. As long as you operate these
>> > > > > devices
>> > > > > in accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines (avoid excess
>> > > > > noise
>> > > > > and distortion), they are sonically transparent.
>> > > >
>> > > > Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it interferes
>> > > > with the
>> > > > process of musical listening itself.
>> > >
>> > > I've been wondering about this myself.
>> > >
>> > > Graham
>> >
>> > With all due respect- time to stop wondering. ALL the listening
>> > comparisons between one and all audio components using ABX, that were
>> > published anywhere resulted in a "The panel hears no differnce" vote..
>>
>> Given Arny's indiferrence to synthed instruments vs real ones I really have a
>> problem understanding what this damn ABX test is supposed to prove.
>>
>>
>> > No one; but no one; reported a decent-sized, representative panel
>> > ABXing ANY comparable audio components with a positive outcome like::
>> > "Yes most of us heard the difference"
>>
>> I can imagine it would be very easy to do this.
>>
>>
>> > For details see my reply to Arny on the topic yesterday. All he could
>> > quote was a joke "research" in 1997 by a "panel" ranging from 1 (yes
>> > one) to 10 that triumphantly heard .
>> > the difference between a 10 watt DIY Heathkit and a 200 watt Dynaco
>> > inspite of ABXing. But they were defeated by a 20 watt amp compared
>> > with the same Dynaco while still ABXing.
>> > That is his evidence that ABX works.
>>
>> Yeah right !
>>
>> Graham
> ======================
>
>> I can imagine it would be very easy to do this.
>
> Am I right guessing that you mean "should"?. Because in the best
> component comparing: blind test that I know of: (Sean E. Olive,
> Differnces in performance....,JAES, vol. 51,#9, 2003, p.608 +) the
> listeners knew which speaker they preferred but were not able to
> identify one from the other from test to test.
> And if people can not identify speakers what in audio can they
> identify?
> Ludovic Mirabel
> with 300 panelists of various ages and experience

So is ABX the only test protocol you reject or is it all
blind tests?

ScottW

paul packer

October 22nd 06, 02:41 AM

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 06:17:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Odd that every CD wopuld have has this given all the variations in
>production techniques.

Eh?

> There is one thing that every CD does have when you
>play it, and that is Jenn's knowlege that she's listening to a CD.

Eh?

paul packer

October 22nd 06, 02:42 AM

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:23:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Eeyore" > wrote in
>message
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> The ears never tell the brain anything at all.
>>
>> Spoken like a true Borg for sure !
>
>OK Graham, so we can add ignornace of perception to your list of
>non-copetencies?

Eh?

paul packer

October 22nd 06, 02:44 AM

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:02:23 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 06:17:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>Instead, Jenn prefers music that has been through that ancient sonic
>>mixmaster called the LP format.
>
>It's lovely to wake up to another snotbomb from Arnold.

That's only because you're not the target. :-)

[email protected]

October 22nd 06, 02:57 AM

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> " wrote:
> >>
> >> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> > > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like. Bottom line is
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > when measurements suggested that there was enough distortion to be
> >> > > > > audible, the distortion was audible. As long as you operate these
> >> > > > > devices
> >> > > > > in accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines (avoid excess
> >> > > > > noise
> >> > > > > and distortion), they are sonically transparent.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it interferes
> >> > > > with the
> >> > > > process of musical listening itself.
> >> > >
> >> > > I've been wondering about this myself.
> >> > >
> >> > > Graham
> >> >
> >> > With all due respect- time to stop wondering. ALL the listening
> >> > comparisons between one and all audio components using ABX, that were
> >> > published anywhere resulted in a "The panel hears no differnce" vote..
> >>
> >> Given Arny's indiferrence to synthed instruments vs real ones I really have a
> >> problem understanding what this damn ABX test is supposed to prove.
> >>
> >>
> >> > No one; but no one; reported a decent-sized, representative panel
> >> > ABXing ANY comparable audio components with a positive outcome like::
> >> > "Yes most of us heard the difference"
> >>
> >> I can imagine it would be very easy to do this.
> >>
> >>
> >> > For details see my reply to Arny on the topic yesterday. All he could
> >> > quote was a joke "research" in 1997 by a "panel" ranging from 1 (yes
> >> > one) to 10 that triumphantly heard .
> >> > the difference between a 10 watt DIY Heathkit and a 200 watt Dynaco
> >> > inspite of ABXing. But they were defeated by a 20 watt amp compared
> >> > with the same Dynaco while still ABXing.
> >> > That is his evidence that ABX works.
> >>
> >> Yeah right !
> >>
> >> Graham
> > ======================
> >
> >> I can imagine it would be very easy to do this.
> >
> > Am I right guessing that you mean "should"?. Because in the best
> > component comparing: blind test that I know of: (Sean E. Olive,
> > Differnces in performance....,JAES, vol. 51,#9, 2003, p.608 +) the
> > listeners knew which speaker they preferred but were not able to
> > identify one from the other from test to test.
> > And if people can not identify speakers what in audio can they
> > identify?
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> > with 300 panelists of various ages and experience
>
> So is ABX the only test protocol you reject or is it all
> blind tests?
>
> ScottW
========================================
Strange question. "All blind tests" for what?
For instance: double blind testing was THE breakthrough in medical
therapy.And of course that is where it was first "invented" to become
the gold standard of evidential medicine.

In audio I think that it is perfectly legitimate to use it for well
defined research purposes: eg. perception of phase difference. But it
is not my area of competence so I' shall not be more specific..

For comparing components:No and no and no. Preferences are by
definition untestable. Even the bare recognition of difference is so
dependent on individual's experience, age , gender, education, musical
preference that a "test" for components that would be valid for all
humans is an oxymoron.
You're in the country of "personal".

All you can conclude from a blind listening "tes"t such as S. Olive's
loudspeaker test is that *majority* of experienced listeners preferred
flatter frequency speakers. Majority of the audio students and audio
salesmen did not. Amusingly audio reviewers did worse than other
groups. So the "test" has results valid for some people only- ie it is
not a "test".

As it happens I think that personal blinded comparisons help me to
concentrate. I wouldn't dream of telling others that my results are
"scientific" and will work for them
What I said about difference applies tenfold to preference.

There ain't no listening "test" for audio components. There are only
opinions. And it is for you to decide if the opinion comes from a
source that will work for you.
Ludovic Mirabel.

ScottW

October 22nd 06, 03:31 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Eeyore wrote:
>> >> " wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Eeyore wrote:
>> >> > > Harry Lavo wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like. Bottom line
>> >> > > > > is
>> >> > > > > that
>> >> > > > > when measurements suggested that there was enough distortion to be
>> >> > > > > audible, the distortion was audible. As long as you operate these
>> >> > > > > devices
>> >> > > > > in accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines (avoid excess
>> >> > > > > noise
>> >> > > > > and distortion), they are sonically transparent.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it interferes
>> >> > > > with the
>> >> > > > process of musical listening itself.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I've been wondering about this myself.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Graham
>> >> >
>> >> > With all due respect- time to stop wondering. ALL the listening
>> >> > comparisons between one and all audio components using ABX, that were
>> >> > published anywhere resulted in a "The panel hears no differnce" vote..
>> >>
>> >> Given Arny's indiferrence to synthed instruments vs real ones I really
>> >> have a
>> >> problem understanding what this damn ABX test is supposed to prove.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > No one; but no one; reported a decent-sized, representative panel
>> >> > ABXing ANY comparable audio components with a positive outcome like::
>> >> > "Yes most of us heard the difference"
>> >>
>> >> I can imagine it would be very easy to do this.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > For details see my reply to Arny on the topic yesterday. All he could
>> >> > quote was a joke "research" in 1997 by a "panel" ranging from 1 (yes
>> >> > one) to 10 that triumphantly heard .
>> >> > the difference between a 10 watt DIY Heathkit and a 200 watt Dynaco
>> >> > inspite of ABXing. But they were defeated by a 20 watt amp compared
>> >> > with the same Dynaco while still ABXing.
>> >> > That is his evidence that ABX works.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah right !
>> >>
>> >> Graham
>> > ======================
>> >
>> >> I can imagine it would be very easy to do this.
>> >
>> > Am I right guessing that you mean "should"?. Because in the best
>> > component comparing: blind test that I know of: (Sean E. Olive,
>> > Differnces in performance....,JAES, vol. 51,#9, 2003, p.608 +) the
>> > listeners knew which speaker they preferred but were not able to
>> > identify one from the other from test to test.
>> > And if people can not identify speakers what in audio can they
>> > identify?
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>> > with 300 panelists of various ages and experience
>>
>> So is ABX the only test protocol you reject or is it all
>> blind tests?
>>
>> ScottW
> ========================================
> Strange question. "All blind tests" for what?

for things audible.

> For instance: double blind testing was THE breakthrough in medical
> therapy.And of course that is where it was first "invented" to become
> the gold standard of evidential medicine.
>
> In audio I think that it is perfectly legitimate to use it for well
> defined research purposes: eg. perception of phase difference. But it
> is not my area of competence so I' shall not be more specific..
>
> For comparing components:No and no and no. Preferences are by
> definition untestable. Even the bare recognition of difference is so
> dependent on individual's experience, age , gender, education, musical
> preference that a "test" for components that would be valid for all
> humans is an oxymoron.
> You're in the country of "personal".
>
> All you can conclude from a blind listening "tes"t such as S. Olive's
> loudspeaker test is that *majority* of experienced listeners preferred
> flatter frequency speakers. Majority of the audio students and audio
> salesmen did not. Amusingly audio reviewers did worse than other
> groups. So the "test" has results valid for some people only- ie it is
> not a "test".
>
> As it happens I think that personal blinded comparisons help me to
> concentrate. I wouldn't dream of telling others that my results are
> "scientific" and will work for them
> What I said about difference applies tenfold to preference.
>
> There ain't no listening "test" for audio components. There are only
> opinions. And it is for you to decide if the opinion comes from a
> source that will work for you.

The source of my opinion works quite well for me, thanks :).

ScottW

George M. Middius

October 22nd 06, 03:35 AM

paul packer said:

> >It's lovely to wake up to another snotbomb from Arnold.

> That's only because you're not the target. :-)

Somebody should congratulate Turdy for mastering the advanced vocabulary
word "snot".

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Arny Krueger

October 22nd 06, 11:09 AM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> I talk like someone who has done unbiased evaluations of
>> good implementations of the 16/44 format many times over
>> the past 25 or so years.
>
> So you accept that bad implementations are commonplace.

Yes. Every CDROM I've tested had potentially audible flaws when used as an
audio CD player.

The noise performance of that portable CD player I tested a few days ago was
marginal, mostly I think because of its electronic skip prevention circuits.

> I'm pleased to hear that.

I don't know why.

Arny Krueger

October 22nd 06, 11:24 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>>> in message
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
>>>>>> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
>>>>>
>>>>> Eh ?
>>>>
>>>> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this
>>>> badness that she believes CDs always impose on music is
>>>> to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise and
>>>> distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD
>>>> player is sonically transparent - it adds or subtracts
>>>> nothing that is discernable. How can a transparent
>>>> medium do a worse job of reproducing music than a
>>>> non-transparent one?
>>
>>> It also changes how transients are reproduced....not
>>> exactly a little failing, Arny.
>>
>> Harry, you talk like someone who has never done an
>> unbiased evaluation of a good implementation of the
>> 16/44 format. I talk like someone who has done unbiased evaluations of
>> good implementations of the 16/44 format many times over
>> the past 25 or so years.
>
> Funny you should mention that, Arny.
>
> I just got done with a level-matched comparison of four
> Ampex Dolby B third-generation tapes from the early '70's
> to recordings of same made from those tapes via my
> Marantz 560 professional CD recorder.
> The tapes are from that rare set of two dozen that Ampex
> issued near the end of life of pre-recorded tapes, just
> before Barclay-Crocker became sole surviving distributor
> of same. Two were London's - Mehta and the LA
> Philharmonic playing Saint-Saens 3rd Symphony (the
> "Organ") and the same forces playing Holst's The Planets.
> These were recorded on a Hollywood Sound Stage (hi
> Jenn!). The other two were DG's: Claudio Abbado and the
> LSO performing Tschaikovsky's 5th Symphony (the worst
> recording of the bunch) and Robert Szidon, Piano, playing
> Ives Piano Sonata No 2 (the "Concord") and the Three Page
> Sonata. Walter Stangl played viola and Dieter-Sonntag,
> flute, on the disk, which has very fine piano sound. All
> these tapes have not been played for twenty-five years,
> when they were stored under good conditions. All tapes
> were in good condition, and were run through the machine
> once before recording just to "loosen them up". Only one
> seemed to need or benefit from this treatment, attesting
> to their good storage conditions.
> Tapes were played on/recorded from a Teac 4070 tape
> machine (1/4" 7.5ips) through a Teach AN-180 outboard
> Dobly B recorder (Teac's best) into an Onkyo P301 preamp
> and out to the Marantz 560. The CD's were played back
> then in synchronization with the tapes. CD playback was
> from my Sony C2000ES into a DTI Pro and on into my
> Proceed PDP DAC. This combo edges the C2000ES by itself,
> and represents the best sound from CD's my system can
> offer. The DAC is 18bit, the Marantz 560 of course
> 16bit. So the CD playback was conventional 44.1/16,
> versus straight analog at about 65-70db S/N from the tape
> machine/Dolby B combo. Since the Dolby B machine has
> adjustable final output, this was used to level match the
> signal to the CD system coming out of the preamp using a
> Heathkit VTVM.
> My previous experience has been that the Marantz,
> recording from other sources, produces recordings that
> are as good as CD can give...better than all but the very
> best commercial recordings. So I am comfortable that
> this test is about as favorable to CD as one can give.
> Arny, there are differences. They are subtle but they
> are there. Perhaps the most telling is on the Holst disk
> (the two LA Philharmonic tapes have very, very fine
> sound)...where the tympanies sound exceptionally
> life-like. They have that "taughtness" of mallet hitting
> skin that is so hard to reproduce accurately....during
> the section (Jupiter or Saturn, can't remember which)
> where these play a prominent role the sound is
> extraordinary, as they are played both loudly and softly
> against a quiet orchestral backdrop, which just enough
> ambience to add richness. The CD provides a "sharpness"
> to the tympany that just isn't there...in the recording,
> or for that matter, at a symphony concert. Further
> listening suggests two other subtle changes wrought by
> the CD. First, the soundstage is affected...it is
> "flatter" (less deep) and some of the ambience
> disappears, as well as the sense of "center-fill" The
> sound appears to gravitate slightly to the two speakers,
> and away from a three-dimensional image. Secondly, the
> orchestra loses some definition as it builds to
> climax...there is a subtle congestion and "sharpening" of
> the sound. This is subtle enough that it comes across
> more as a sense of strain in listening than in an audible
> defect per se, but with careful listening the source of
> the strain is revealed.

> Now Arny will have a fit because I did not do a
> double-blind test. So be it. But for anybody else
> willing to grant that double-blind tests for purpose of
> open-ended listening may have flaws, that is the result
> I heard.

Nahh Harry, what you heard were likely tracking and calibration problems.
Your reference source, the Dolby tape, isn't 0.1 dB stable over the audio
band.

The rather grotesquely variable performance of analog tape when played by
moderate-quality tape machines like the Teac 4070 is well known among
professionals. Recording studios used far better equipment, and for a
reason.

Here's an experiment for any analog tape bigot to do: Record a 1 KHz and
then a 15 KHz tone on a tape. Then measure the amplitude of the playback
with a meter that has reasonably quick response and an expanded scale that
you can read within 0.1 dB. On the 1 KHz tone, the needle will fluctuate,
and on the 15 KHz tone the needle will bounce around. The only exceptions
will be analog tape machines of the highest caliber such as the later and
very best Ampex and Otari machines.

If I was going to try to indict the 16/44 format, I'd use a reference source
that had even higher performance such as 24/96 or 24/192. In fact, that's
what I did - I used 24/96 at
http://www/pcabx/com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .

BTW http://www/pcabx/com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm proves that it is
not all that hard to hear differences in ABX tests. The tests involving
sample rates that are much lower than 44.1 KHz will yield positive results -
on even fairly primitive gear like a computer with an on-board sound card
and cheap computer speakers.

Arny Krueger

October 22nd 06, 11:27 AM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> Yeah, to me it is becaue my experience with SACD is
> different. Wish I had one of thos Teac DSD recorders to
> try the same thing over and see the difference, if any. That machine would
> allow recording to DSD, to 96/24, and
> to 192/24 as well as to 44.1/16. Anybody want to put up
> a grand and eventually take possession of the machine, in
> exchange for a little testing time-out?

If it wasn't for Harry's paranoia over PCs and PCM, he could handle all of
those formats, right up to 24/192. All he would have to do is waltz down to
the nearest Guitar Center, and pick up an M-Audio Audiophile 24/192. Maybe
he can't afford the <$200 expense on his limited budget. Maybe he lacks the
technical skills to open up his PC and install the card.

Arny Krueger

October 22nd 06, 11:30 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>

>> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this
>> badness that she believes CDs always impose on music is
>> to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise and
>> distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD player
>> is sonically transparent - it adds or subtracts nothing
>> that is discernable. How can a transparent medium do a
>> worse job of reproducing music than a non-transparent
>> one?

> Depends on the source material.

Nope. A good CD player should have no difficulties with any musical source.
The problem here is probably in the head of the listener. So-called
Subjectivists keep rattling on and on about their ears, while objectivists
know that the most powerful organ in the human body is the brain.

Maybe the subjectivists are right, and their brains do have less reasoning
power than their ears.

Arny Krueger

October 22nd 06, 11:31 AM

"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:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:14:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Stuart Krivis" > wrote in
>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:12:13 GMT, Jenn
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you wish to add euphony for your own
>>>>>>>>>>> enjoyment on an ad hoc basis, at least
>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge this to be the case. Posession of a
>>>>>>>>>>> good stereo EQ (graphic or parametric) or a
>>>>>>>>>>> compressor (particularly in the case of mobile
>>>>>>>>>>> equipment, where a tasteful use of
>>>>>>>>>>> post-recording compression improves the
>>>>>>>>>>> listenability of high dynamic range content in
>>>>>>>>>>> noisy environments) is not wrong morally. It
>>>>>>>>>>> does make some recordings comprehensible or
>>>>>>>>>>> enjoyable where otherwise would not be the case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I understand your point of course. My point is
>>>>>>>>>> what good is "accuracy" if instruments don't
>>>>>>>>>> sound like instruments or voices like voices?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If instruments don't sound like instruments and
>>>>>>>>> voices don't sound like voices, then you don't
>>>>>>>>> have "accuracy." Luckily, it isn't hard at all to
>>>>>>>>> have accuracy in between the transducers at
>>>>>>>>> either end of the chain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the listening end, we thus really only have to
>>>>>>>>> worry about the speakers on out to your ears. (It
>>>>>>>>> _is_ a worry, since the problems here are orders
>>>>>>>>> of magnitude greater than those in the
>>>>>>>>> electronics in the chain.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And that's the problem with Jenn. She's adamant
>>>>>>>> that she can only get certain instruments to sound
>>>>>>>> right when the signal chain includes a medium that
>>>>>>>> is nearly-impossible, if not impossible to get to
>>>>>>>> perform accurately. She's equally adamant that
>>>>>>>> she's never found a highly-accurate medium to do
>>>>>>>> the job right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't just Jenn though. There are other people
>>>>>>> who feel the same way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, Stephen and Harry seems to be others of them. On
>>>>>> Usenet, they make up a noisy minority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't figure out _why_ they do this, but there it
>>>>>>> is...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that I've figured a lot of it out. Due to
>>>>>> pride, most if not all of the afflicted are ever
>>>>>> going to agree with any of the diagnoses.
>>>>
>>>>> Says the person who called obviously synthed music
>>>>> files on his website recordings of acoustic
>>>>> instruments, and still has doubts about it.
>>>>
>>>> Says a person who prefers her music with added audible
>>>> noise and distortion.
>>>
>>> Whatever it takes to make sound right.
>>
>> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
>> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
>
> The better question is where is the annoying high
> frequency sound in live music?

If an audible sound is in a well-done 16/44 recording, then it is in the
source.

Arny Krueger

October 22nd 06, 11:35 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com

> With all due respect- time to stop wondering. ALL the
> listening comparisons between one and all audio
> components using ABX, that were published anywhere
> resulted in a "The panel hears no differnce" vote..

Nonsense.

> No one; but no one; reported a decent-sized,
> representative panel ABXing ANY comparable audio
> components with a positive outcome like:: "Yes most of us
> heard the difference"

Nonsense.

If you read more serious audio forums like Hydrogen audio, you would find
numerous reports of hearing differences in ABX and ABC/hr tests. Sound and
Vision has also reported audible differences in ABX tests.

Anybody who uses the PCABX web site as it directs will hear audible
differences in ABX tests.

BTW it should be known that Mirabel has admitted that he can't make the
PCABX comparator work at all, because he lacks the simple skills with PC
file management that it entails.

Harry Lavo

October 22nd 06, 02:58 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>>>> in message
>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So where is the corresponding source of noise and
>>>>>>> distortion in a live performance, Jenn?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eh ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this
>>>>> badness that she believes CDs always impose on music is
>>>>> to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise and
>>>>> distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD
>>>>> player is sonically transparent - it adds or subtracts
>>>>> nothing that is discernable. How can a transparent
>>>>> medium do a worse job of reproducing music than a
>>>>> non-transparent one?
>>>
>>>> It also changes how transients are reproduced....not
>>>> exactly a little failing, Arny.
>>>
>>> Harry, you talk like someone who has never done an
>>> unbiased evaluation of a good implementation of the
>>> 16/44 format. I talk like someone who has done unbiased evaluations of
>>> good implementations of the 16/44 format many times over
>>> the past 25 or so years.
>>
>> Funny you should mention that, Arny.
>>
>> I just got done with a level-matched comparison of four
>> Ampex Dolby B third-generation tapes from the early '70's
>> to recordings of same made from those tapes via my
>> Marantz 560 professional CD recorder.
>> The tapes are from that rare set of two dozen that Ampex
>> issued near the end of life of pre-recorded tapes, just
>> before Barclay-Crocker became sole surviving distributor
>> of same. Two were London's - Mehta and the LA
>> Philharmonic playing Saint-Saens 3rd Symphony (the
>> "Organ") and the same forces playing Holst's The Planets.
>> These were recorded on a Hollywood Sound Stage (hi
>> Jenn!). The other two were DG's: Claudio Abbado and the
>> LSO performing Tschaikovsky's 5th Symphony (the worst
>> recording of the bunch) and Robert Szidon, Piano, playing
>> Ives Piano Sonata No 2 (the "Concord") and the Three Page
>> Sonata. Walter Stangl played viola and Dieter-Sonntag,
>> flute, on the disk, which has very fine piano sound. All
>> these tapes have not been played for twenty-five years,
>> when they were stored under good conditions. All tapes
>> were in good condition, and were run through the machine
>> once before recording just to "loosen them up". Only one
>> seemed to need or benefit from this treatment, attesting
>> to their good storage conditions.
>> Tapes were played on/recorded from a Teac 4070 tape
>> machine (1/4" 7.5ips) through a Teach AN-180 outboard
>> Dobly B recorder (Teac's best) into an Onkyo P301 preamp
>> and out to the Marantz 560. The CD's were played back
>> then in synchronization with the tapes. CD playback was
>> from my Sony C2000ES into a DTI Pro and on into my
>> Proceed PDP DAC. This combo edges the C2000ES by itself,
>> and represents the best sound from CD's my system can
>> offer. The DAC is 18bit, the Marantz 560 of course
>> 16bit. So the CD playback was conventional 44.1/16,
>> versus straight analog at about 65-70db S/N from the tape
>> machine/Dolby B combo. Since the Dolby B machine has
>> adjustable final output, this was used to level match the
>> signal to the CD system coming out of the preamp using a
>> Heathkit VTVM.
>> My previous experience has been that the Marantz,
>> recording from other sources, produces recordings that
>> are as good as CD can give...better than all but the very
>> best commercial recordings. So I am comfortable that
>> this test is about as favorable to CD as one can give.
>> Arny, there are differences. They are subtle but they
>> are there. Perhaps the most telling is on the Holst disk
>> (the two LA Philharmonic tapes have very, very fine
>> sound)...where the tympanies sound exceptionally
>> life-like. They have that "taughtness" of mallet hitting
>> skin that is so hard to reproduce accurately....during
>> the section (Jupiter or Saturn, can't remember which)
>> where these play a prominent role the sound is
>> extraordinary, as they are played both loudly and softly
>> against a quiet orchestral backdrop, which just enough
>> ambience to add richness. The CD provides a "sharpness"
>> to the tympany that just isn't there...in the recording,
>> or for that matter, at a symphony concert. Further
>> listening suggests two other subtle changes wrought by
>> the CD. First, the soundstage is affected...it is
>> "flatter" (less deep) and some of the ambience
>> disappears, as well as the sense of "center-fill" The
>> sound appears to gravitate slightly to the two speakers,
>> and away from a three-dimensional image. Secondly, the
>> orchestra loses some definition as it builds to
>> climax...there is a subtle congestion and "sharpening" of
>> the sound. This is subtle enough that it comes across
>> more as a sense of strain in listening than in an audible
>> defect per se, but with careful listening the source of
>> the strain is revealed.
>
>> Now Arny will have a fit because I did not do a
>> double-blind test. So be it. But for anybody else
>> willing to grant that double-blind tests for purpose of
>> open-ended listening may have flaws, that is the result
>> I heard.
>
> Nahh Harry, what you heard were likely tracking and calibration problems.
> Your reference source, the Dolby tape, isn't 0.1 dB stable over the audio
> band.

Bullcrap, Arny. The calibration was done using Ampex reference tape at
700hz -10db, and again at 700hz 0db, along with spot checks for frequency
response at -10db from 30hz up to 15khz. Both the 4070 and the AN-180 have
pretty good meters...the AN-180 has professional VU metters. Needle bounce
was small to the point of there being no problem getting an accurate average
reading.

> The rather grotesquely variable performance of analog tape when played by
> moderate-quality tape machines like the Teac 4070 is well known among
> professionals. Recording studios used far better equipment, and for a
> reason.

You once again show that you do not think much about good testing. The fact
is, absolutely no settings were changed between the first play to record,
and the second play to compare. The volume adjustment, which was minor,
occurs at the end of the playback chain, and has nothing to do with the tape
deck playback levels, or the Dolby calibration. Thus any Dolby errors (of
which I could hear none, although they are hard to detect by ear at less
than 1db) were constant to the recording and the comparative playback.
Dolby errors don't change from play to play...they are constant if they
exist at all. Moreover, recording to CD doesn't somehow "correct" Dolby
errors...as your assertions on fake musical samples indicate, you should
believe in a proper comparison even if the "source" is flawed. Changed your
tune?

> Here's an experiment for any analog tape bigot to do: Record a 1 KHz and
> then a 15 KHz tone on a tape. Then measure the amplitude of the playback
> with a meter that has reasonably quick response and an expanded scale that
> you can read within 0.1 dB. On the 1 KHz tone, the needle will fluctuate,
> and on the 15 KHz tone the needle will bounce around. The only exceptions
> will be analog tape machines of the highest caliber such as the later and
> very best Ampex and Otari machines.
>
> If I was going to try to indict the 16/44 format, I'd use a reference
> source that had even higher performance such as 24/96 or 24/192. In fact,
> that's what I did - I used 24/96 at
> http://www/pcabx/com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .

We all know your preference for digital and computers, Arny. My preference
is for duplicating analog sound, so that is the test bed. And your
complaints about "analog tape machines such as the 4070" are ridiculous.
These machines were built at the zenith of the open-reel era, and were fine
machines by any objective standards....we are talking machines that were
built like a tank and cost over $1000 in 1971. The recordings were also
done during this time period, so the equipment was SOTA for their
time....early '70's, which many people considered to produce the *best*
sounding analog of any era.

> BTW http://www/pcabx/com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm proves that it
> is not all that hard to hear differences in ABX tests. The tests
> involving sample rates that are much lower than 44.1 KHz will yield
> positive results - on even fairly primitive gear like a computer with an
> on-board sound card and cheap computer speakers.

Note Arny's attempt to disrespect the test through feints and parries,
rather than deal with the issues raised. You'd almost think I had chosen
the dreaded LP as the source material, rather than a limited production
third generation tape.

Harry Lavo

October 22nd 06, 02:59 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Yeah, to me it is becaue my experience with SACD is
>> different. Wish I had one of thos Teac DSD recorders to
>> try the same thing over and see the difference, if any. That machine
>> would allow recording to DSD, to 96/24, and
>> to 192/24 as well as to 44.1/16. Anybody want to put up
>> a grand and eventually take possession of the machine, in
>> exchange for a little testing time-out?
>
> If it wasn't for Harry's paranoia over PCs and PCM, he could handle all of
> those formats, right up to 24/192. All he would have to do is waltz down
> to the nearest Guitar Center, and pick up an M-Audio Audiophile 24/192.
> Maybe he can't afford the <$200 expense on his limited budget. Maybe he
> lacks the technical skills to open up his PC and install the card.

Or maybe I don't think recording to my DAW using my Presonus Firebox is the
way to do the test, Arny.

Harry Lavo

October 22nd 06, 03:03 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>
>>> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this
>>> badness that she believes CDs always impose on music is
>>> to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise and
>>> distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD player
>>> is sonically transparent - it adds or subtracts nothing
>>> that is discernable. How can a transparent medium do a
>>> worse job of reproducing music than a non-transparent
>>> one?
>
>> Depends on the source material.
>
> Nope. A good CD player should have no difficulties with any musical
> source. The problem here is probably in the head of the listener.
> So-called Subjectivists keep rattling on and on about their ears, while
> objectivists know that the most powerful organ in the human body is the
> brain.

While Arny continues to ignore the fact that modern research has shown that
the brain doesn't just "interpret" the ear (his words in another post) but
form an interactive circuit that actively provides feedback and adjustments
*to* the ears as well as receiving information from them. This causes the
ears to actually adjust their response and sensitivity in a contextual
fashion.

Suppose that might be why a totally unnatural "listening test" such as ABX
might pose difficulties (confusion, fatigue) when listening to music?

>
> Maybe the subjectivists are right, and their brains do have less reasoning
> power than their ears.

Gratuitous slam noted.

[email protected]

October 22nd 06, 06:44 PM

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> >> " wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> >> > > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > > ABX tests have also been done of 741s, and the like. Bottom line
> >> >> > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > when measurements suggested that there was enough distortion to be
> >> >> > > > > audible, the distortion was audible. As long as you operate these
> >> >> > > > > devices
> >> >> > > > > in accordance with reasonable engineering guidelines (avoid excess
> >> >> > > > > noise
> >> >> > > > > and distortion), they are sonically transparent.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Or the ABX test itself is seriously deficient in that it interferes
> >> >> > > > with the
> >> >> > > > process of musical listening itself.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I've been wondering about this myself.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Graham
> >> >> >
> >> >> > With all due respect- time to stop wondering. ALL the listening
> >> >> > comparisons between one and all audio components using ABX, that were
> >> >> > published anywhere resulted in a "The panel hears no differnce" vote..
> >> >>
> >> >> Given Arny's indiferrence to synthed instruments vs real ones I really
> >> >> have a
> >> >> problem understanding what this damn ABX test is supposed to prove.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > No one; but no one; reported a decent-sized, representative panel
> >> >> > ABXing ANY comparable audio components with a positive outcome like::
> >> >> > "Yes most of us heard the difference"
> >> >>
> >> >> I can imagine it would be very easy to do this.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > For details see my reply to Arny on the topic yesterday. All he could
> >> >> > quote was a joke "research" in 1997 by a "panel" ranging from 1 (yes
> >> >> > one) to 10 that triumphantly heard .
> >> >> > the difference between a 10 watt DIY Heathkit and a 200 watt Dynaco
> >> >> > inspite of ABXing. But they were defeated by a 20 watt amp compared
> >> >> > with the same Dynaco while still ABXing.
> >> >> > That is his evidence that ABX works.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah right !
> >> >>
> >> >> Graham
> >> > ======================
> >> >
> >> >> I can imagine it would be very easy to do this.
> >> >
> >> > Am I right guessing that you mean "should"?. Because in the best
> >> > component comparing: blind test that I know of: (Sean E. Olive,
> >> > Differnces in performance....,JAES, vol. 51,#9, 2003, p.608 +) the
> >> > listeners knew which speaker they preferred but were not able to
> >> > identify one from the other from test to test.
> >> > And if people can not identify speakers what in audio can they
> >> > identify?
> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >> > with 300 panelists of various ages and experience
> >>
> >> So is ABX the only test protocol you reject or is it all
> >> blind tests?
> >>
> >> ScottW
> > ========================================
> > Strange question. "All blind tests" for what?
>
> for things audible.
>
>
> > For instance: double blind testing was THE breakthrough in medical
> > therapy.And of course that is where it was first "invented" to become
> > the gold standard of evidential medicine.
> >
> > In audio I think that it is perfectly legitimate to use it for well
> > defined research purposes: eg. perception of phase difference. But it
> > is not my area of competence so I' shall not be more specific..
> >
> > For comparing components:No and no and no. Preferences are by
> > definition untestable. Even the bare recognition of difference is so
> > dependent on individual's experience, age , gender, education, musical
> > preference that a "test" for components that would be valid for all
> > humans is an oxymoron.
> > You're in the country of "personal".
> >
> > All you can conclude from a blind listening "tes"t such as S. Olive's
> > loudspeaker test is that *majority* of experienced listeners preferred
> > flatter frequency speakers. Majority of the audio students and audio
> > salesmen did not. Amusingly audio reviewers did worse than other
> > groups. So the "test" has results valid for some people only- ie it is
> > not a "test".
> >
> > As it happens I think that personal blinded comparisons help me to
> > concentrate. I wouldn't dream of telling others that my results are
> > "scientific" and will work for them
> > What I said about difference applies tenfold to preference.
> >
> > There ain't no listening "test" for audio components. There are only
> > opinions. And it is for you to decide if the opinion comes from a
> > source that will work for you.
>
> The source of my opinion works quite well for me, thanks :).
>
> ScottW

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I said:
> > There ain't no listening "test" for audio components. There are only
> > opinions. And it is for you to decide if the opinion comes from a
> > source that will work for you.
>
ScottW. answered:
> The source of my opinion works quite well for me, thanks :).

I'm glad we agree on nearly everything. Your preferences work *for
you* and so they should.

"Nearly" because as regards the funny sign I'll have to think it over
a few times before I burst out laughing. Will notify you.
Ludovic Mirabel

[email protected]

October 22nd 06, 06:44 PM

Jenn

October 22nd 06, 07:30 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
>
> >> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this
> >> badness that she believes CDs always impose on music is
> >> to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise and
> >> distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD player
> >> is sonically transparent - it adds or subtracts nothing
> >> that is discernable. How can a transparent medium do a
> >> worse job of reproducing music than a non-transparent
> >> one?
>
> > Depends on the source material.
>
> Nope. A good CD player should have no difficulties with any musical source.
> The problem here is probably in the head of the listener. So-called
> Subjectivists keep rattling on and on about their ears, while objectivists
> know that the most powerful organ in the human body is the brain.

Guess what. Subjectivists know that as well. When I say "ears" I'm
presuming that people know that this includes the brain. It's common
knowledge.

>
> Maybe the subjectivists are right, and their brains do have less reasoning
> power than their ears.

Maybe Arny has difficulty making any post without an attempted insult.

Arny Krueger

October 22nd 06, 09:07 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Yeah, to me it is becaue my experience with SACD is
>>> different. Wish I had one of thos Teac DSD recorders to
>>> try the same thing over and see the difference, if any.
>>> That machine would allow recording to DSD, to 96/24, and
>>> to 192/24 as well as to 44.1/16. Anybody want to put up
>>> a grand and eventually take possession of the machine,
>>> in exchange for a little testing time-out?
>>
>> If it wasn't for Harry's paranoia over PCs and PCM, he
>> could handle all of those formats, right up to 24/192.
>> All he would have to do is waltz down to the nearest
>> Guitar Center, and pick up an M-Audio Audiophile 24/192.
>> Maybe he can't afford the <$200 expense on his limited
>> budget. Maybe he lacks the technical skills to open up
>> his PC and install the card.
>
> Or maybe I don't think recording to my DAW using my
> Presonus Firebox is the way to do the test, Arny.

Harry, is the problem that despite your ranting and raving about SACD, you
saved money with a lower-capability box that only does 24/96? Note that
this is an external Firewire box that let you dodge the bullet and not open
your PC up.

Arny Krueger

October 22nd 06, 09:20 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

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

>> Nahh Harry, what you heard were likely tracking and
>> calibration problems. Your reference source, the Dolby
>> tape, isn't 0.1 dB stable over the audio band.
>
> Bullcrap, Arny. The calibration was done using Ampex
> reference tape at 700hz -10db, and again at 700hz 0db,
> along with spot checks for frequency response at -10db
> from 30hz up to 15khz. Both the 4070 and the AN-180 have
> pretty good meters...the AN-180 has professional VU
> metters. Needle bounce was small to the point of there
> being no problem getting an accurate average reading.

Time to face the facts, Harry. Standard Vu meters don't even have 0.1 dB
calibrations. They don't have 0.2 or 0.3 or even 0.4 dB calibrataions.
Accurate observations within 0.1 dB are basically mission impossible.

>> The rather grotesquely variable performance of analog
>> tape when played by moderate-quality tape machines like
>> the Teac 4070 is well known among professionals.
>> Recording studios used far better equipment, and for a
>> reason.
>
> You once again show that you do not think much about good
> testing. The fact is, absolutely no settings were
> changed between the first play to record, and the second
> play to compare.

No settings needed to be changed. Analog tape varies that much while it is
playing.

> The volume adjustment, which was minor,
> occurs at the end of the playback chain, and has nothing
> to do with the tape deck playback levels, or the Dolby
> calibration. Thus any Dolby errors (of which I could
> hear none, although they are hard to detect by ear at
> less than 1db) were constant to the recording and the
> comparative playback. Dolby errors don't change from play
> to play...they are constant if they exist at all.

Harry apparently lives in an imaginary universe where mid-fi analog tape
equipment plays consistently.

> Moreover, recording to CD doesn't somehow "correct" Dolby
> errors...as your assertions on fake musical samples
> indicate, you should believe in a proper comparison even
> if the "source" is flawed. Changed your tune?

You're free-associating Harry. I never said any such thing.

As far as flawed sources go - when the sources are on media that inhently
plays inconsistently, its a randomizing variable.

>> Here's an experiment for any analog tape bigot to do: Record a 1 KHz and
>> then a 15 KHz tone on a tape. Then
>> measure the amplitude of the playback with a meter that
>> has reasonably quick response and an expanded scale that
>> you can read within 0.1 dB. On the 1 KHz tone, the
>> needle will fluctuate, and on the 15 KHz tone the needle
>> will bounce around. The only exceptions will be analog
>> tape machines of the highest caliber such as the later
>> and very best Ampex and Otari machines.

>> If I was going to try to indict the 16/44 format, I'd
>> use a reference source that had even higher performance
>> such as 24/96 or 24/192. In fact, that's what I did - I
>> used 24/96 at
>> http://www/pcabx/com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .

> We all know your preference for digital and computers,
> Arny.

Harry, you seem to be unaware of the fact that there is now no digital audio
gear of significance that doesn't have some kind of computer under the
covers, whether its a general purpose chip like a Pentium IV, or a DSP. Do
you disqualify all of the SACD mastering gear that runs on computers?

> My preference is for duplicating analog sound, so
> that is the test bed.

Analog sound is by definition inconsistent. It's highly inconsistent unless
you carefully control the relevant variables. If you're talking analog tape,
that means high end professional gear which is not what you used.

> And your complaints about "analog
> tape machines such as the 4070" are ridiculous. These
> machines were built at the zenith of the open-reel era,
> and were fine machines by any objective standards....

They were little better than mid-fi, compared to the true top machines in
the industry such as the high-end Otari and Ampex machines.

> we are talking machines that were built like a tank and cost
> over $1000 in 1971.

The zenith of analog tape took place like a decade later and cost 4-10 times
more.

> The recordings were also done
> during this time period, so the equipment was SOTA for
> their time....early '70's, which many people considered
> to produce the *best* sounding analog of any era.

A Teac 4070 as a SOTA machine? LOL! Obviously you were never allowed into
a SOTA recording studio way back then, or you'd sing a different tune.

>> BTW
>> http://www/pcabx/com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm proves that it is
>> not all that hard to hear differences
>> in ABX tests. The tests involving sample rates that are
>> much lower than 44.1 KHz will yield positive results -
>> on even fairly primitive gear like a computer with an
>> on-board sound card and cheap computer speakers.

> Note Arny's attempt to disrespect the test through feints
> and parries, rather than deal with the issues raised.

Nonsense, Harry. Anybody who calls a Teac 4070 a SOTA machine is overdosing
in hype from a company that had to invent the Tascam brand in order to
interest the professional market at all.

> You'd almost think I had chosen the dreaded LP as the
> source material, rather than a limited production third
> generation tape.

Find some good SOTA analog hardware and try again, Harry. One of the
benefits of digital is that $200 will now buy you a computer interface whose
performance can't be duplicated with analog at any price.

Arny Krueger

October 22nd 06, 09:21 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this
>>>> badness that she believes CDs always impose on music is
>>>> to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise and
>>>> distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD
>>>> player is sonically transparent - it adds or subtracts
>>>> nothing that is discernable. How can a transparent
>>>> medium do a worse job of reproducing music than a
>>>> non-transparent one?
>>
>>> Depends on the source material.
>>
>> Nope. A good CD player should have no difficulties with
>> any musical source. The problem here is probably in the
>> head of the listener. So-called Subjectivists keep
>> rattling on and on about their ears, while objectivists
>> know that the most powerful organ in the human body is
>> the brain.

> Guess what. Subjectivists know that as well. When I say
> "ears" I'm presuming that people know that this includes
> the brain. It's common knowledge.

Only after I pointed it out to you, Jenn.

>> Maybe the subjectivists are right, and their brains do
>> have less reasoning power than their ears.

> Maybe Arny has difficulty making any post without an
> attempted insult.

If the shoe fits and you put it on Jenn, it isn't my fault.

Jenn

October 22nd 06, 09:27 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 has said that the only way she can avoid this
> >>>> badness that she believes CDs always impose on music is
> >>>> to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise and
> >>>> distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD
> >>>> player is sonically transparent - it adds or subtracts
> >>>> nothing that is discernable. How can a transparent
> >>>> medium do a worse job of reproducing music than a
> >>>> non-transparent one?
> >>
> >>> Depends on the source material.
> >>
> >> Nope. A good CD player should have no difficulties with
> >> any musical source. The problem here is probably in the
> >> head of the listener. So-called Subjectivists keep
> >> rattling on and on about their ears, while objectivists
> >> know that the most powerful organ in the human body is
> >> the brain.
>
> > Guess what. Subjectivists know that as well. When I say
> > "ears" I'm presuming that people know that this includes
> > the brain. It's common knowledge.
>
> Only after I pointed it out to you, Jenn.

Incorrect, Arny. I've understood it since undergrad school.

>
> >> Maybe the subjectivists are right, and their brains do
> >> have less reasoning power than their ears.
>
> > Maybe Arny has difficulty making any post without an
> > attempted insult.
>
> If the shoe fits and you put it on Jenn, it isn't my fault.

Except that it doesn't fit. Since it doesn't fit, you should quit.

Arny Krueger

October 22nd 06, 10:09 PM

Jenn

October 22nd 06, 10:27 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 has said that the only way she can avoid this
> >>>>>> badness that she believes CDs always impose on music
> >>>>>> is to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible noise and
> >>>>>> distortion on the music they reproduce. A good CD
> >>>>>> player is sonically transparent - it adds or
> >>>>>> subtracts nothing that is discernable. How can a
> >>>>>> transparent medium do a worse job of reproducing
> >>>>>> music than a non-transparent one?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Depends on the source material.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope. A good CD player should have no difficulties with
> >>>> any musical source. The problem here is probably in the
> >>>> head of the listener. So-called Subjectivists keep
> >>>> rattling on and on about their ears, while objectivists
> >>>> know that the most powerful organ in the human body is
> >>>> the brain.
> >>
> >>> Guess what. Subjectivists know that as well. When I
> >>> say "ears" I'm presuming that people know that this
> >>> includes the brain. It's common knowledge.
>
> If it's such common knowlege, why do you sound so ignorant when you talk
> about it?

False premise, as I don't. Would you like to discuss musical sound
perception seriously?

>
> >> Only after I pointed it out to you, Jenn.
>
> > Incorrect, Arny. I've understood it since undergrad
> > school.
>
> Sure Jenn and I've understood quantum physics since I was in kindergarten.
> ;-)

No doubt you believe that. I'm not stating that I knew all there is to
know on the topic in undergrad school, nor do I now. Neither do you.
But anyone who passed elementary biology knows that it is the ear and
the brain together that allows perception.

>
> >>>> Maybe the subjectivists are right, and their brains do
> >>>> have less reasoning power than their ears.
> >>
> >>> Maybe Arny has difficulty making any post without an
> >>> attempted insult.
>
> >> If the shoe fits and you put it on Jenn, it isn't my
> >> fault.
>
> > Except that it doesn't fit.
>
> Didn't keep you from putting it on.

Posting to make an observation that nearly every post you make contains
an attempt to insult is "putting it on"?

>
> > Since it doesn't fit, you should quit.
>
> The point is Jenn that you're talking around the problem. You've
> consistently used naive teminology to discuss perception. I don't think I've
> ever seen you write an insightful, mature thing about it. Now you want us
> to grant you expertise about it.

Would you like to have a serious discussion about it?

Arny Krueger

October 22nd 06, 10:34 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
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this
>>>>>>>> badness that she believes CDs always impose on
>>>>>>>> music is to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible
>>>>>>>> noise and distortion on the music they reproduce.
>>>>>>>> A good CD player is sonically transparent - it
>>>>>>>> adds or subtracts nothing that is discernable. How
>>>>>>>> can a transparent medium do a worse job of
>>>>>>>> reproducing music than a non-transparent one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depends on the source material.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. A good CD player should have no difficulties
>>>>>> with any musical source. The problem here is
>>>>>> probably in the head of the listener. So-called
>>>>>> Subjectivists keep rattling on and on about their
>>>>>> ears, while objectivists know that the most powerful
>>>>>> organ in the human body is the brain.
>>>>
>>>>> Guess what. Subjectivists know that as well. When I
>>>>> say "ears" I'm presuming that people know that this
>>>>> includes the brain. It's common knowledge.
>>
>> If it's such common knowlege, why do you sound so
>> ignorant when you talk about it?
>
> False premise, as I don't. Would you like to discuss
> musical sound perception seriously?
>
>>
>>>> Only after I pointed it out to you, Jenn.
>>
>>> Incorrect, Arny. I've understood it since undergrad
>>> school.
>>
>> Sure Jenn and I've understood quantum physics since I
>> was in kindergarten. ;-)
>
> No doubt you believe that.

That's why I put a smiley after it, Jenn.

> I'm not stating that I knew
> all there is to know on the topic in undergrad school,
> nor do I now.

Frankly Jenn, you talk and act like you learned very little about perception
outside of some basic rudiments.

> Neither do you. But anyone who passed
> elementary biology knows that it is the ear and the brain
> together that allows perception.

Wrong. At this time there are several operable technologies for perceiving
sound that don't involve the use of a human ear.

>>>>> Maybe the subjectivists are right, and their brains
>>>>>> do have less reasoning power than their ears.
>
>>>>> Maybe Arny has difficulty making any post without an
>>>>> attempted insult.
>>
>>>> If the shoe fits and you put it on Jenn, it isn't my
>>>> fault.
>>
>>> Except that it doesn't fit.
>>
>> Didn't keep you from putting it on.

> Posting to make an observation that nearly every post you
> make contains an attempt to insult is "putting it on"?

Yes, somehow you think that there something newsworthy about that
observation.

>>> Since it doesn't fit, you should quit.

>> The point is Jenn that you're talking around the
>> problem. You've consistently used naive teminology to
>> discuss perception. I don't think I've ever seen you
>> write an insightful, mature thing about it. Now you
>> want us to grant you expertise about it.

> Would you like to have a serious discussion about it?

I don't think you're capable of that, Jenn.

Jenn

October 22nd 06, 10:39 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
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jenn has said that the only way she can avoid this
> >>>>>>>> badness that she believes CDs always impose on
> >>>>>>>> music is to listen to LPs. LP's impose audible
> >>>>>>>> noise and distortion on the music they reproduce.
> >>>>>>>> A good CD player is sonically transparent - it
> >>>>>>>> adds or subtracts nothing that is discernable. How
> >>>>>>>> can a transparent medium do a worse job of
> >>>>>>>> reproducing music than a non-transparent one?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Depends on the source material.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nope. A good CD player should have no difficulties
> >>>>>> with any musical source. The problem here is
> >>>>>> probably in the head of the listener. So-called
> >>>>>> Subjectivists keep rattling on and on about their
> >>>>>> ears, while objectivists know that the most powerful
> >>>>>> organ in the human body is the brain.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Guess what. Subjectivists know that as well. When I
> >>>>> say "ears" I'm presuming that people know that this
> >>>>> includes the brain. It's common knowledge.
> >>
> >> If it's such common knowlege, why do you sound so
> >> ignorant when you talk about it?
> >
> > False premise, as I don't. Would you like to discuss
> > musical sound perception seriously?
> >
> >>
> >>>> Only after I pointed it out to you, Jenn.
> >>
> >>> Incorrect, Arny. I've understood it since undergrad
> >>> school.
> >>
> >> Sure Jenn and I've understood quantum physics since I
> >> was in kindergarten. ;-)
> >
> > No doubt you believe that.
>
> That's why I put a smiley after it, Jenn.
>
> > I'm not stating that I knew
> > all there is to know on the topic in undergrad school,
> > nor do I now.
>
> Frankly Jenn, you talk and act like you learned very little about perception
> outside of some basic rudiments.

Do you want to have a serious discussion about it?

>
> > Neither do you. But anyone who passed
> > elementary biology knows that it is the ear and the brain
> > together that allows perception.
>
> Wrong. At this time there are several operable technologies for perceiving
> sound that don't involve the use of a human ear.

Obviously I'm speaking normal circumstances, Arny.

>
> >>>>> Maybe the subjectivists are right, and their brains
> >>>>>> do have less reasoning power than their ears.
> >
> >>>>> Maybe Arny has difficulty making any post without an
> >>>>> attempted insult.
> >>
> >>>> If the shoe fits and you put it on Jenn, it isn't my
> >>>> fault.
> >>
> >>> Except that it doesn't fit.
> >>
> >> Didn't keep you from putting it on.
>
> > Posting to make an observation that nearly every post you
> > make contains an attempt to insult is "putting it on"?
>
> Yes, somehow you think that there something newsworthy about that
> observation.

Point granted. The truth about nearly every post you make containing an
attempt to insult is indeed well known.

>
> >>> Since it doesn't fit, you should quit.
>
> >> The point is Jenn that you're talking around the
> >> problem. You've consistently used naive teminology to
> >> discuss perception. I don't think I've ever seen you
> >> write an insightful, mature thing about it. Now you
> >> want us to grant you expertise about it.
>
> > Would you like to have a serious discussion about it?
>
> I don't think you're capable of that, Jenn.

You didn't answer the question. Would you like to have a serious
discussion about it?

Trevor Wilson

October 22nd 06, 10:55 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
> message
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>>> in message
>>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>>> in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound
>>>>>> respectable are pretty simple:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
>>>>>> * Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something
>>>>>> better. 5534/2 will be
>>>>>> fine, though I prefer the AD825.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD
>>>>>> player by several hundred percent.
>>>>>
>>>>> As aftermarket mods for sure.
>>>
>>>> **And if installed by the manufacturer, around 3 Bucks.
>
>>> 5532s are under $0.50 each in quantity, and that's
>>> pretty much all it takes to get rid of the dreaded 4558s
>>> in this application.
>
>> **Don't forget the relay. It all adds up.
>
> Here's your challenge Trevor - prove that the NJM 4558 actually causes
> some real world problem. Loss of measured performance or loss of sonic
> performance, as established by a fair test.

**Done and done.

>
>>> The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad for
>>> the application as some make out, in actual use.
>
>> **Yeah, it is. It is EXACTLY as bad as people think it
>> is. It is for that reason that Philips and Sony chose
>> MUCH better chips for their first CD players. And that
>> was at a time when 4558s were MUCH cheaper than
>> 5532/LM833s. Why do you think they used more expensive
>> chips? For yuks? Or because they were actually better.
>
> The early CD players were built so far in the past, using parts and
> methodologies that are no longer current, that this is an unproductive
> approach. In 1983 GM built cars with computer-controlled carburators
> which they have not done for years. Why would we re-visit their choices of
> carburators in 2006?

**CD players (from all manufacturers) used 5532/LM833 chips, 'till very
recently. In the early days, there were MUCH cheaper chips available, yet
they chose not to use them. 5 years ago, there were STILL cheaper chips
available, yet they still chose not to use them. Around 5 years ago, some
manufacturers (Rotel, et al) began using higher performance chips (and more
expensive) than the 5532/LM833 types. Curious, huh?

>
>> For example, some rag on its lack of slew
>>> rate. However none of the RAO critics seem to be able to
>>> calculate the slew rate of a 20 Hz 2 volt rms sine wave.
>>> For them, here is a slew rate calculator
>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electronic/a741p3.html
>
>> **Yep, your ability focus on ONE aspect of OP amp
>> performance is duly noted. If you care to examine the
>> spec sheets, you may care to note several other areas
>> where the 4558 is seriously deficit. It is probably for
>> those reasons that Philips/Sony chose to use far higher
>> performance OP amps in their players.
>
> Here's your challenge Trevor - prove that the NJM 4558 actually causes
> some real world problem. Loss of measured performance or loss of sonic
> performance, as established by a fair test.

**Done and done.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

George M. Middius

October 22nd 06, 10:58 PM

Church is out and the Krooborg is on the warpath.

> your ranting and raving

Is that what your pastor said to you, Arnii?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Arny Krueger

October 22nd 06, 11:38 PM

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>> in message
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" >
>>>> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Eeyore" >
>>>>> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The steps required to make a cheap DVD player sound
>>>>>>> respectable are pretty simple:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Dump the muting transistors and use relays.
>>>>>>> * Dump the 4558 style output chips and use something
>>>>>>> better. 5534/2 will be
>>>>>>> fine, though I prefer the AD825.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, such mods will eclipse the RRP of the DVD
>>>>>>> player by several hundred percent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As aftermarket mods for sure.
>>>>
>>>>> **And if installed by the manufacturer, around 3
>>>>> Bucks.
>>
>>>> 5532s are under $0.50 each in quantity, and that's
>>>> pretty much all it takes to get rid of the dreaded
>>>> 4558s in this application.
>>
>>> **Don't forget the relay. It all adds up.
>>
>> Here's your challenge Trevor - prove that the NJM 4558
>> actually causes some real world problem. Loss of
>> measured performance or loss of sonic performance, as
>> established by a fair test.
>
> **Done and done.
>
>>
>>>> The problem is that the NJM 4558 isn't nearly as bad
>>>> for the application as some make out, in actual use.
>>
>>> **Yeah, it is. It is EXACTLY as bad as people think it
>>> is. It is for that reason that Philips and Sony chose
>>> MUCH better chips for their first CD players. And that
>>> was at a time when 4558s were MUCH cheaper than
>>> 5532/LM833s. Why do you think they used more expensive
>>> chips? For yuks? Or because they were actually better.
>>
>> The early CD players were built so far in the past,
>> using parts and methodologies that are no longer
>> current, that this is an unproductive approach. In 1983
>> GM built cars with computer-controlled carburators which
>> they have not done for years. Why would we re-visit
>> their choices of carburators in 2006?
>
> **CD players (from all manufacturers) used 5532/LM833
> chips, 'till very recently. In the early days, there were
> MUCH cheaper chips available, yet they chose not to use
> them. 5 years ago, there were STILL cheaper chips
> available, yet they still chose not to use them. Around 5
> years ago, some manufacturers (Rotel, et al) began using
> higher performance chips (and more expensive) than the
> 5532/LM833 types. Curious, huh?
>>
>>> For example, some rag on its lack of slew
>>>> rate. However none of the RAO critics seem to be able
>>>> to calculate the slew rate of a 20 Hz 2 volt rms sine
>>>> wave. For them, here is a slew rate calculator
>>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electronic/a741p3.html
>>
>>> **Yep, your ability focus on ONE aspect of OP amp
>>> performance is duly noted. If you care to examine the
>>> spec sheets, you may care to note several other areas
>>> where the 4558 is seriously deficit. It is probably for
>>> those reasons that Philips/Sony chose to use far higher
>>> performance OP amps in their players.
>>
>> Here's your challenge Trevor - prove that the NJM 4558
>> actually causes some real world problem. Loss of
>> measured performance or loss of sonic performance, as
>> established by a fair test.
>
> **Done and done.

<Followed by absolutely nothing in the way of evidence.>

Obviously, empty claims on Trevor's part.

Harry Lavo

October 23rd 06, 02:23 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yeah, to me it is becaue my experience with SACD is
>>>> different. Wish I had one of thos Teac DSD recorders to
>>>> try the same thing over and see the difference, if any.
>>>> That machine would allow recording to DSD, to 96/24, and
>>>> to 192/24 as well as to 44.1/16. Anybody want to put up
>>>> a grand and eventually take possession of the machine,
>>>> in exchange for a little testing time-out?
>>>
>>> If it wasn't for Harry's paranoia over PCs and PCM, he
>>> could handle all of those formats, right up to 24/192.
>>> All he would have to do is waltz down to the nearest
>>> Guitar Center, and pick up an M-Audio Audiophile 24/192.
>>> Maybe he can't afford the <$200 expense on his limited
>>> budget. Maybe he lacks the technical skills to open up
>>> his PC and install the card.
>>
>> Or maybe I don't think recording to my DAW using my
>> Presonus Firebox is the way to do the test, Arny.
>
> Harry, is the problem that despite your ranting and raving about SACD, you
> saved money with a lower-capability box that only does 24/96? Note that
> this is an external Firewire box that let you dodge the bullet and not
> open your PC up.

It's an external firewire box because it feeds into a Shuttle DAW that is
optimized as a workstation for firewire. My burneers also use firewire. It
is 96/24 because for my purposes it is being used to transcribe some
cassette tapes into the DAW, and simply to test the workstation. It is
ultimately going to my son to use on his machine to record his music...for
me, it is and was simply a functional learning device.

For my future recording work I will be using a Mackie 400 firewire with two
extra inputs and full 192/24 capability.

Harry Lavo

October 23rd 06, 02:46 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>
>>> Nahh Harry, what you heard were likely tracking and
>>> calibration problems. Your reference source, the Dolby
>>> tape, isn't 0.1 dB stable over the audio band.
>>
>> Bullcrap, Arny. The calibration was done using Ampex
>> reference tape at 700hz -10db, and again at 700hz 0db,
>> along with spot checks for frequency response at -10db
>> from 30hz up to 15khz. Both the 4070 and the AN-180 have
>> pretty good meters...the AN-180 has professional VU
>> metters. Needle bounce was small to the point of there
>> being no problem getting an accurate average reading.
>
> Time to face the facts, Harry. Standard Vu meters don't even have 0.1 dB
> calibrations. They don't have 0.2 or 0.3 or even 0.4 dB calibrataions.
> Accurate observations within 0.1 dB are basically mission impossible.

You are the one raising this red herring. That level of accuracy is not
required with Dolby B to have the perception of accurate reproduction.
Moreover, as I have pointed out, whatever error there is was operational on
both recording and the comparison itself. You are simply obfuscating Arny,
and you know it. Why? Because I observed something you can't refute and
don't want to hear.

>
>>> The rather grotesquely variable performance of analog
>>> tape when played by moderate-quality tape machines like
>>> the Teac 4070 is well known among professionals.
>>> Recording studios used far better equipment, and for a
>>> reason.
>>
>> You once again show that you do not think much about good
>> testing. The fact is, absolutely no settings were
>> changed between the first play to record, and the second
>> play to compare.
>
No settings needed to be changed. Analog tape varies that much while it is
playing.

Arny, stop your incredible bull****. None of this is at all relevant to the
test under question. It is simply obfuscation on your part.

>
>> The volume adjustment, which was minor,
>> occurs at the end of the playback chain, and has nothing
>> to do with the tape deck playback levels, or the Dolby
>> calibration. Thus any Dolby errors (of which I could
>> hear none, although they are hard to detect by ear at
>> less than 1db) were constant to the recording and the
>> comparative playback. Dolby errors don't change from play
>> to play...they are constant if they exist at all.
>
> Harry apparently lives in an imaginary universe where mid-fi analog tape
> equipment plays consistently.

More attempts to obfuscate.

>
>> Moreover, recording to CD doesn't somehow "correct" Dolby
>> errors...as your assertions on fake musical samples
>> indicate, you should believe in a proper comparison even
>> if the "source" is flawed. Changed your tune?
>
> You're free-associating Harry. I never said any such thing.

News to members of this newsgroup, I am sure.

>
As far as flawed sources go - when the sources are on media that inhently
plays inconsistently, its a randomizing variable.

Arny the types of microflucuations you are speaking of have *no* affect on
the comparative sound quality I am talking about and you know it. You are
simply throwing up smoke and mirrors because you don't like my reported
results. Typical of your overall level of intellectual honesty, I guess.

>
>>> Here's an experiment for any analog tape bigot to do: Record a 1 KHz and
>>> then a 15 KHz tone on a tape. Then
>>> measure the amplitude of the playback with a meter that
>>> has reasonably quick response and an expanded scale that
>>> you can read within 0.1 dB. On the 1 KHz tone, the
>>> needle will fluctuate, and on the 15 KHz tone the needle
>>> will bounce around. The only exceptions will be analog
>>> tape machines of the highest caliber such as the later
>>> and very best Ampex and Otari machines.
>
>>> If I was going to try to indict the 16/44 format, I'd
>>> use a reference source that had even higher performance
>>> such as 24/96 or 24/192. In fact, that's what I did - I
>>> used 24/96 at
>>> http://www/pcabx/com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .
>
>> We all know your preference for digital and computers,
>> Arny.
>
Harry, you seem to be unaware of the fact that there is now no digital audio
gear of significance that doesn't have some kind of computer under the
covers, whether its a general purpose chip like a Pentium IV, or a DSP. Do
you disqualify all of the SACD mastering gear that runs on computers?

I live with five computers in the house Arny, including a dedicated audio
DAW. You know damn well that I am not knocking computers...I'm knocking the
fact that you are fixated in feeding everything into a computer so you can
use your ABX test. I simply have no use for that approach.

>
>> My preference is for duplicating analog sound, so
>> that is the test bed.
>
> Analog sound is by definition inconsistent. It's highly inconsistent
> unless you carefully control the relevant variables. If you're talking
> analog tape, that means high end professional gear which is not what you
> used.

I'm talking third generation master tapes produced using professional gear,
and played back on very fine semi-pro gear, Arny. You really think it woud
sound different on my Ampex 440b? It won't. In recording, yes. In
playback of prerecorded tapes, no. I used the semi-pro machine because the
output levels of it and the semi-pro outboard Dolby B are matched. It is a
very high quality standard. You are uncomfortable simply because you can no
longer criticize the use of LP for the analog sound source.

>> And your complaints about "analog
>> tape machines such as the 4070" are ridiculous. These
>> machines were built at the zenith of the open-reel era,
>> and were fine machines by any objective standards....
>
They were little better than mid-fi, compared to the true top machines in
the industry such as the high-end Otari and Ampex machines. I happen to
have an Ampex 440b set up in my basement studio, as well as a four channel
Otari MX-12, the very machines you are talking about. I can run them
through my main system, and have. They have no audible advantage playing
back pre-recorded tapes.
>
>> we are talking machines that were built like a tank and cost
>> over $1000 in 1971.
>
>The zenith of analog tape took place like a decade later and cost 4-10
>times more.

That's my Otari. But for semi-pro machines designed for high end home use,
the zenith was about 1972. These machines continued to be produced in one
model or another for the next ten years.

>
>> The recordings were also done
>> during this time period, so the equipment was SOTA for
>> their time....early '70's, which many people considered
>> to produce the *best* sounding analog of any era.
>
A Teac 4070 as a SOTA machine? LOL! Obviously you were never allowed into
a SOTA recording studio way back then, or you'd sing a different tune.

Asshole. I am talking semi-pro home machines, if you would ever stop
pontificating and read in context.

Actually, the SOTA home machine, which I also had, was the Teac 7030. And
guess what Arny, the measured performance of the 4070 at 7.5ips was
identical to the 7030 at 7.5ips. No difference. Nada. Zip. They used the
same motors, capstan design, electronics, and only a slightly modified
headstack. They played back the same...Ampex calibration tape. They
recorded and played back the same....my own record/playback calibration.

>
>
>>> BTW
>>> http://www/pcabx/com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm proves that it is
>>> not all that hard to hear differences
>>> in ABX tests. The tests involving sample rates that are
>>> much lower than 44.1 KHz will yield positive results -
>>> on even fairly primitive gear like a computer with an
>>> on-board sound card and cheap computer speakers.
>
>> Note Arny's attempt to disrespect the test through feints
>> and parries, rather than deal with the issues raised.
>

Nonsense, Harry. Anybody who calls a Teac 4070 a SOTA machine is overdosing
in hype from a company that had to invent the Tascam brand in order to
interest the professional market at all.

That was a marketing decision...the fact is, the machines were basically the
same. By using a different brand and channel, they could reach the pro
market...and did.

>
>> You'd almost think I had chosen the dreaded LP as the
>> source material, rather than a limited production third
>> generation tape.
>
Find some good SOTA analog hardware and try again, Harry. One of the
benefits of digital is that $200 will now buy you a computer interface whose
performance can't be duplicated with analog at any price.
>

Notice that Arny has used strawmen and feints and misdirection to try to
sidetrack the test, which of course he doesn't want to acknowledge as having
any validity. The only problem is that anybody with any pro or semi-pro
recording experience knows he is blowing smoke.

[email protected]

October 23rd 06, 06:38 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > With all due respect- time to stop wondering. ALL the
> > listening comparisons between one and all audio
> > components using ABX, that were published anywhere
> > resulted in a "The panel hears no differnce" vote..
>
> Nonsense.
>
> > No one; but no one; reported a decent-sized,
> > representative panel ABXing ANY comparable audio
> > components with a positive outcome like:: "Yes most of us
> > heard the difference"
>
> Nonsense.

Strong words!
Let me instruct you Gulliver for the 20th time what makes a reference.
I pick up at random a copy of an article by Olive and Toole.in the
JAES.

At the end there is a column titled " References". There are 24 of
them there .
Every single one goes like this: Author(s) name(s), Title, Journal
where published, Volume, Number, Page(s)

Now let's like at Krueger's idea of a refernce:
>
> If you read more serious audio forums like Hydrogen audio, you would find
> numerous reports of hearing differences in ABX and ABC/hr tests. Sound and
> Vision has also reported audible differences in ABX tests.

If you submitted to the Editor of JAES an article instructing the
reader to browse through web pages of a web forum- no year, no month,
no title- you would by shown the door not only for ignorance but for
insolence as well.

By the way . Have you given up on the Oakland website?. No spirited
defence? Just a strategic retreat to the anonymous postings ,
somewhere, sometime in Hydrogen Audio. Have you got a third line of
defence ready to fall back on?
>
> Anybody who uses the PCABX web site as it directs will hear audible
> differences in ABX tests.

Anybody other than those who will not. Got any statistics? A few
details such as which components were being compared ? You think that
you can get away with anything because this is only RAO or are you just
totally ignorant of the basic rules of scientific evidence and
controversy rules.?
>
> BTW it should be known that Mirabel has admitted that he can't make the
> PCABX comparator work at all, because he lacks the simple skills with PC
> file management that it entails.

And he could not be bothered to apply himself.

Why? Because a proponent of a method for differentiating components who
invokes Goddess science does the validating research before he jumps
into print in pop audio mags, goes on the web and markets a switching
device.

That research should have statistically valid number of listeners with
sizable groups of both genders, various ages, education level,
representing all the levels of musical experience and preference.
Ideally there should also be a comparable group of randomly selected
"controls" using another method (eg. open-eyed listening to components
with masked identities.) The ABX group should have statistically
superior results to the control group.

If you had done that (and you have had four decades to do it) you could
submit an article to a professional journal and wait for confirmation
from your peers. You would not have to resort to silly dodges of
sending people to no house number addresses.
Ludovic Mirabel

P.S
Five years ago I reviewed ALL the available, published magasine
comparisons of audio components by listening panels. (Web does not
count. Anybody can post anything he likes on the Web. Witness- our
Gulliver.)

First pertinent report located was comparison of speaker cables.
>> (L.Greenhill, St. Review, Aug. 83
Conclusion : Negative teat. Majority of panel can not hear any
differences

Next the listening tests for high end amplifiers (Masters I.G.and Clark
D.L. St. Review, p.78, Jan. '89)
Conclusion:Ditto .

Finally Masters and Clark tested CD players (St. Review, p,50, Jan
'86) with similar Nil result.

Abundant evidence that if one uses ABX to compare any electrically
comparable audio components majority verdict will invariably be: "They
all sound the same"

Krueger comment. They could not hear any differences because well
designed components sound the same.
Why then not test speakers and cartridges? Gulliver is never at a loss:
Why bother? Everyone knows they sound different.

So components either sound the same or else sound so different that
testing it is waste of time. I asked him: Why then bother with ABX?
Still waiting for an answer.

This time I anticipate another switching to "mute" and then the
irrepressible Gulliver, relying on short memorie, will pop up somewhere
again

I said the following once before but will repeat verbatim to save time:
You want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a just arrived
issue of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled,.trial of amoxicillin for
..acute otitis media in children"
You know how many subjects? 512 children.

Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an antibiotic L.M.) had a modest: about 9%
better cure rate at 14 days over placebo".

Thank your lucky stars that reputable medical drug research is not like
its ABX caricature.

).

Arny Krueger

October 23rd 06, 01:49 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, to me it is becaue my experience with SACD is
>>>>> different. Wish I had one of thos Teac DSD recorders
>>>>> to try the same thing over and see the difference, if
>>>>> any. That machine would allow recording to DSD, to
>>>>> 96/24, and to 192/24 as well as to 44.1/16. Anybody
>>>>> want to put up a grand and eventually take possession
>>>>> of the machine, in exchange for a little testing
>>>>> time-out?
>>>>
>>>> If it wasn't for Harry's paranoia over PCs and PCM, he
>>>> could handle all of those formats, right up to 24/192.
>>>> All he would have to do is waltz down to the nearest
>>>> Guitar Center, and pick up an M-Audio Audiophile
>>>> 24/192. Maybe he can't afford the <$200 expense on his
>>>> limited budget. Maybe he lacks the technical skills to
>>>> open up his PC and install the card.
>>>
>>> Or maybe I don't think recording to my DAW using my
>>> Presonus Firebox is the way to do the test, Arny.
>>
>> Harry, is the problem that despite your ranting and
>> raving about SACD, you saved money with a
>> lower-capability box that only does 24/96? Note that
>> this is an external Firewire box that let you dodge the
>> bullet and not open your PC up.

> It's an external firewire box because it feeds into a
> Shuttle DAW that is optimized as a workstation for
> firewire.

What other than a lack of PCI slots, a good firewire port on the MB, and
fear of opening a PC up would make a DAW optimized for Firewire?

> My burners also use firewire.

Reliability and compactness suggests that periperals like optical drives and
audio interfaces are best put into the PC chassis.

> It is 96/24
> because for my purposes it is being used to transcribe
> some cassette tapes into the DAW, and simply to test the
> workstation.

Heaven forbid that you'd actually listen to the thing or record say vinyl
with it.

> It is ultimately going to my son to use on
> his machine to record his music...for me, it is and was
> simply a functional learning device.

Well, that would be a bessed event.

> For my future recording work I will be using a Mackie 400
> firewire with two extra inputs and full 192/24 capability.

Think you'll get over the fact that the Mackie box doesn't do DSD?

Arny Krueger

October 23rd 06, 02:15 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>
>>>> Nahh Harry, what you heard were likely tracking and
>>>> calibration problems. Your reference source, the Dolby
>>>> tape, isn't 0.1 dB stable over the audio band.
>>>
>>> Bullcrap, Arny. The calibration was done using Ampex
>>> reference tape at 700hz -10db, and again at 700hz 0db,
>>> along with spot checks for frequency response at -10db
>>> from 30hz up to 15khz. Both the 4070 and the AN-180
>>> have pretty good meters...the AN-180 has professional VU
>>> metters. Needle bounce was small to the point of there
>>> being no problem getting an accurate average reading.
>>
>> Time to face the facts, Harry. Standard Vu meters don't
>> even have 0.1 dB calibrations. They don't have 0.2 or
>> 0.3 or even 0.4 dB calibrataions. Accurate observations
>> within 0.1 dB are basically mission impossible.
>
> You are the one raising this red herring. That level of
> accuracy is not required with Dolby B to have the
> perception of accurate reproduction.

Maybe for your old tired ears, Harry. But you're the one claiming that the
results you've developed with this setup that is highly flawed by modern
standards, are somehow indicative or even interesting.

Evaluating 16/44 using a third-rate analog tape machine and a consumer Dolby
B adaptor that's old enough to drive were it human, is almost as invalid as
evaluating SACD by comparing it to playing the same tired old vinyl over and
over again.

> Moreover, as I have
> pointed out, whatever error there is was operational on
> both recording and the comparison itself.

No, there's a strong random variable - the third-rate analog tape machine
and the ancient Dolby B adaptor that exacerbates the randomness of the
third-rate analog tape machine.

> You are simply obfuscating Arny, and you know it.

Sue me for actually knowing something about analog tape.

> Why?

So that the truth outs.

> Because I observed something you can't refute and don't want to
> hear.

In your dreams, Harry.

>>>> The rather grotesquely variable performance of analog
>>>> tape when played by moderate-quality tape machines like
>>>> the Teac 4070 is well known among professionals.
>>>> Recording studios used far better equipment, and for a
>>>> reason.

>>> You once again show that you do not think much about
>>> good testing. The fact is, absolutely no settings were
>>> changed between the first play to record, and the second
>>> play to compare.

> No settings needed to be changed. Analog tape varies that
> much while it is playing.

> Arny, stop your incredible bull****.

Come on Harry, the tape mavens over in RAP will verify this. If you check
Google, you'll find that one of the Scott's just lately commented in a
different context, on the randomness of all but the finest and most modern
analog tape machines playing wide tracks at high speeds. Your Teac 4070
strikes out by missing three pitched balls:

1. Not a top quality tape machine
2. Not a modern tape machine
3. Not a modern quality tape machine in top condition.

> None of this is at all relevant to the test under question.

Of course it is. It's a monumental screw-up on your part Harry, based on
your lack of practical knowlege of the medium that you're working with.

> It is simply obfuscation on your part.

Just the facts.

>>> The volume adjustment, which was minor,
>>> occurs at the end of the playback chain, and has nothing
>>> to do with the tape deck playback levels, or the Dolby
>>> calibration. Thus any Dolby errors (of which I could
>>> hear none, although they are hard to detect by ear at
>>> less than 1db) were constant to the recording and the
>>> comparative playback. Dolby errors don't change from
>>> play >> to play...they are constant if they exist at all.
>>
>> Harry apparently lives in an imaginary universe where
>> mid-fi analog tape equipment plays consistently.

> More attempts to obfuscate.

Just the facts, Harry.

>>> Moreover, recording to CD doesn't somehow "correct"
>>> Dolby errors...as your assertions on fake musical
>>> samples indicate, you should believe in a proper
>>> comparison even if the "source" is flawed. Changed your tune?

>> You're free-associating Harry. I never said any such
>> thing.

> News to members of this newsgroup, I am sure.

Quote me saying what you claim Harry.

> As far as flawed sources go - when the sources are on
> media that inhently plays inconsistently, its a
> randomizing variable.

> Arny the types of microflucuations you are speaking of
> have *no* affect on the comparative sound quality I am
> talking about and you know it.

Yeah, that's why true pros demanded that their work be done on first rate
machines like the better later Ampex and Otaris, and wide, fast tape. What
you didn't say is that your so-called near master tape references were
probably 1/4 track 7.5 ips, which is nothing like 1/2 track 15 ips. Given
their vintage, there might even be some sticky shed going on.

> You are simply throwing
> up smoke and mirrors because you don't like my reported
> results. Typical of your overall level of intellectual
> honesty, I guess.

Harry, its quite clear that I've accidentally blundered into knowing more
far about analog tape than you will probably ever know, given your closed
mind.

It appears that in your little hysterical world an aged quarter-track 7.5
ips tape playing on an superannuated glorified consumer tape deck through a
legacy technology Dolby B adaptor, all in questionable states of operability
are the standard by which we're all supposed to judge modern digital.

>>>> Here's an experiment for any analog tape bigot to do:
>>>> Record a 1 KHz and then a 15 KHz tone on a tape. Then
>>>> measure the amplitude of the playback with a meter that
>>>> has reasonably quick response and an expanded scale
>>>> that you can read within 0.1 dB. On the 1 KHz tone, the
>>>> needle will fluctuate, and on the 15 KHz tone the
>>>> needle will bounce around. The only exceptions will be analog
>>>> tape machines of the highest caliber such as the later
>>>> and very best Ampex and Otari machines.

>>>> If I was going to try to indict the 16/44 format, I'd
>>>> use a reference source that had even higher performance
>>>> such as 24/96 or 24/192. In fact, that's what I did -

>>>> I used 24/96 at
>>>> http://www/pcabx/com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

>>> We all know your preference for digital and computers,
>>> Arny.

> Harry, you seem to be unaware of the fact that there is
> now no digital audio gear of significance that doesn't
> have some kind of computer under the covers, whether its
> a general purpose chip like a Pentium IV, or a DSP. Do
> you disqualify all of the SACD mastering gear that runs
> on computers?

> I live with five computers in the house Arny, including a
> dedicated audio DAW. You know damn well that I am not
> knocking computers...I'm knocking the fact that you are
> fixated in feeding everything into a computer so you can
> use your ABX test.

Harry, no matter how much you quake at night with anxiety about passing
audio through a computer, there is nothing wrong with doing that.

> I simply have no use for that approach.

Right, because if you admitted that there's nothing wrong with passing audio
through a computer, you'd have no believable excuse for doing
bias-controled, time-synched, level-matched listening tests.

>>> My preference is for duplicating analog sound, so
>>> that is the test bed.

>> Analog sound is by definition inconsistent. It's highly
>> inconsistent unless you carefully control the relevant
>> variables. If you're talking analog tape, that means
>> high end professional gear which is not what you used.

> I'm talking third generation master tapes produced using
> professional gear, and played back on very fine semi-pro
> gear, Arny.

You didn't mention the quarter-track 7.5 ips mixmaster that this all passed
through, Harry.

> You really think it woud sound different on
> my Ampex 440b?

An Ampex 440b is hardly a modern, SOTA tape recorder. BTW it would sound
different on your 440b because the 440b no doubt has half-track heads which
would necessarily have different frequency response than 1/4 track heads,
even if everything else was the same, which it wasn't.

> It won't. In recording, yes. In playback of prerecorded tapes, no.

Speaks to your ignorance of the hard-to-control variables related to playing
analog tape, Harry.

> I used the semi-pro
> machine because the output levels of it and the semi-pro
> outboard Dolby B are matched. It is a very high quality
> standard.

Only by 1970s consumer standards.

> You are uncomfortable simply because you can
> no longer criticize the use of LP for the analog sound
> source.

It appears that you came pretty close to jumping from the frying pan to the
fire, Harry.

If you want a real thrill, try running an Audio Rightmark on your analog
tape equipment, Harry. Compare Dolby B to straight-through just the tape
machine. Compare that to running the same suite of technical tests on your
little project studio Firewire interface, and weep for the lost days of
analog.

Harry, I know that sucessfully running the Audio Rightmark suite is no doubt
beyond you, so I'm prepared for your dismissal of this check and balance on
your reference quality analog setup.

>>> And your complaints about "analog
>>> tape machines such as the 4070" are ridiculous. These
>>> machines were built at the zenith of the open-reel era,
>>> and were fine machines by any objective standards....

> They were little better than mid-fi, compared to the true
> top machines in the industry such as the high-end Otari
> and Ampex machines.

That's one of my points, Harrry. It's good to see you finally admit it.

> I happen to have an Ampex 440b set
> up in my basement studio, as well as a four channel Otari
> MX-12, the very machines you are talking about. I can
> run them through my main system, and have. They have no
> audible advantage playing back pre-recorded tapes.

I'd bet money that if we did a level-matched, time-synched, blind test of
transcriptions made both ways, there would positive results. Furthermore,
I'd bet that you lack the technical ability and candor that it would take
for you to actually test the three tape machines you have with the Audio
Rightmark test, and post the results.

>>> we are talking machines that were built like a tank
>>> and cost over $1000 in 1971.
>>
>> The zenith of analog tape took place like a decade later
>> and cost 4-10 times more.

> That's my Otari. But for semi-pro machines designed for
> high end home use, the zenith was about 1972. These
> machines continued to be produced in one model or another
> for the next ten years.

And the good ones received additional refinements for the next decade or so.
But, they couldn't over come the basic limitations of analog tape which take
many forms.

>>> The recordings were also done
>>> during this time period, so the equipment was SOTA for
>>> their time....early '70's, which many people considered
>>> to produce the *best* sounding analog of any era.

> A Teac 4070 as a SOTA machine? LOL! Obviously you were
> never allowed into a SOTA recording studio way back then,
> or you'd sing a different tune.

> Asshole.

End of discussion on the grounds of personal abuse from Harry.

Arny Krueger

October 23rd 06, 02:17 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>
>>> With all due respect- time to stop wondering. ALL the
>>> listening comparisons between one and all audio
>>> components using ABX, that were published anywhere
>>> resulted in a "The panel hears no differnce" vote..
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>>> No one; but no one; reported a decent-sized,
>>> representative panel ABXing ANY comparable audio
>>> components with a positive outcome like:: "Yes most of
>>> us heard the difference"
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> Strong words!

Not by RAO standards.

> Let me instruct you Gulliver for the 20th time what makes
> a reference. I pick up at random a copy of an article by
> Olive and Toole.in the JAES.

> At the end there is a column titled " References". There
> are 24 of them there .
> Every single one goes like this: Author(s) name(s),
> Title, Journal where published, Volume, Number, Page(s)

> Now let's like at Krueger's idea of a refernce:

>> If you read more serious audio forums like Hydrogen
>> audio, you would find numerous reports of hearing
>> differences in ABX and ABC/hr tests. Sound and Vision
>> has also reported audible differences in ABX tests.

> If you submitted to the Editor of JAES an article
> instructing the reader to browse through web pages of a
> web forum- no year, no month, no title- you would by
> shown the door not only for ignorance but for insolence
> as well.

Guess what Mirabel - RAO is not comparable to the JAES.

> By the way . Have you given up on the Oakland website?.

The ABX website got moved to the current location due to the preferences of
its owner, David Carlstrom.

> No spirited defence? Just a strategic retreat to the
> anonymous postings , somewhere, sometime in Hydrogen
> Audio. Have you got a third line of defence ready to fall
> back on?

End of discussiooon the grounds of Mirabel's dismissive attitude.

Harry Lavo

October 23rd 06, 02:22 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, to me it is becaue my experience with SACD is
>>>>>> different. Wish I had one of thos Teac DSD recorders
>>>>>> to try the same thing over and see the difference, if
>>>>>> any. That machine would allow recording to DSD, to
>>>>>> 96/24, and to 192/24 as well as to 44.1/16. Anybody
>>>>>> want to put up a grand and eventually take possession
>>>>>> of the machine, in exchange for a little testing
>>>>>> time-out?
>>>>>
>>>>> If it wasn't for Harry's paranoia over PCs and PCM, he
>>>>> could handle all of those formats, right up to 24/192.
>>>>> All he would have to do is waltz down to the nearest
>>>>> Guitar Center, and pick up an M-Audio Audiophile
>>>>> 24/192. Maybe he can't afford the <$200 expense on his
>>>>> limited budget. Maybe he lacks the technical skills to
>>>>> open up his PC and install the card.
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe I don't think recording to my DAW using my
>>>> Presonus Firebox is the way to do the test, Arny.
>>>
>>> Harry, is the problem that despite your ranting and
>>> raving about SACD, you saved money with a
>>> lower-capability box that only does 24/96? Note that
>>> this is an external Firewire box that let you dodge the
>>> bullet and not open your PC up.
>
>> It's an external firewire box because it feeds into a
>> Shuttle DAW that is optimized as a workstation for
>> firewire.
>
> What other than a lack of PCI slots, a good firewire port on the MB, and
> fear of opening a PC up would make a DAW optimized for Firewire?

Configuration of services and hardware settings in the DAW. Just FYI I have
three native firewire ports and three add-ons. Plus three native USB 2.0's
and two add-ons.

>
>> My burners also use firewire.
>
> Reliability and compactness suggests that periperals like optical drives
> and audio interfaces are best put into the PC chassis.

Both my NEC CD-R/RW Burner and my NEC DVD-R/RW work flawlessly and reliably
as firewire add-ons.

>> It is 96/24
>> because for my purposes it is being used to transcribe
>> some cassette tapes into the DAW, and simply to test the
>> workstation.
>
Heaven forbid that you'd actually listen to the thing or record say vinyl
with it.

I have a professional Marantz CD recorder in my main audio system to record
vinyl....why would I duplicate the setup to record on my DAW?

>
>> It is ultimately going to my son to use on
>> his machine to record his music...for me, it is and was
>> simply a functional learning device.
>
> Well, that would be a bessed event.

Yep...I believe there is no substitue for hands-on experience. No
"theory=evidence" for me.

And for my son...yes it is a blessed event...although he hasn't been doing
too badly with his PortaStudio and feeding directly into his computer via
his analog in's. But the Firebox will be an improvement for his system.

>
>> For my future recording work I will be using a Mackie 400
>> firewire with two extra inputs and full 192/24 capability.
>
> Think you'll get over the fact that the Mackie box doesn't do DSD?

I plan to record four channel at 192/24 using the Mackie. That is close
enough in DSD sound based on my experimentation to "make the grade".
Frankly, if I didn't want quad capability I would have bought the Teac.

Harry Lavo

October 23rd 06, 03:25 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>
>>>>> Nahh Harry, what you heard were likely tracking and
>>>>> calibration problems. Your reference source, the Dolby
>>>>> tape, isn't 0.1 dB stable over the audio band.
>>>>
>>>> Bullcrap, Arny. The calibration was done using Ampex
>>>> reference tape at 700hz -10db, and again at 700hz 0db,
>>>> along with spot checks for frequency response at -10db
>>>> from 30hz up to 15khz. Both the 4070 and the AN-180
>>>> have pretty good meters...the AN-180 has professional VU
>>>> metters. Needle bounce was small to the point of there
>>>> being no problem getting an accurate average reading.
>>>
>>> Time to face the facts, Harry. Standard Vu meters don't
>>> even have 0.1 dB calibrations. They don't have 0.2 or
>>> 0.3 or even 0.4 dB calibrataions. Accurate observations
>>> within 0.1 dB are basically mission impossible.
>>
>> You are the one raising this red herring. That level of
>> accuracy is not required with Dolby B to have the
>> perception of accurate reproduction.
>
> Maybe for your old tired ears, Harry. But you're the one claiming that the
> results you've developed with this setup that is highly flawed by modern
> standards, are somehow indicative or even interesting.
>
> Evaluating 16/44 using a third-rate analog tape machine and a consumer
> Dolby B adaptor that's old enough to drive were it human, is almost as
> invalid as evaluating SACD by comparing it to playing the same tired old
> vinyl over and over again.
>
>> Moreover, as I have
>> pointed out, whatever error there is was operational on
>> both recording and the comparison itself.
>
> No, there's a strong random variable - the third-rate analog tape machine
> and the ancient Dolby B adaptor that exacerbates the randomness of the
> third-rate analog tape machine.
>
>> You are simply obfuscating Arny, and you know it.
>
> Sue me for actually knowing something about analog tape.
>
>> Why?
>
> So that the truth outs.
>
>> Because I observed something you can't refute and don't want to
>> hear.
>
> In your dreams, Harry.
>
>>>>> The rather grotesquely variable performance of analog
>>>>> tape when played by moderate-quality tape machines like
>>>>> the Teac 4070 is well known among professionals.
>>>>> Recording studios used far better equipment, and for a
>>>>> reason.
>
>>>> You once again show that you do not think much about
>>>> good testing. The fact is, absolutely no settings were
>>>> changed between the first play to record, and the second
>>>> play to compare.
>
>> No settings needed to be changed. Analog tape varies that
>> much while it is playing.
>
>> Arny, stop your incredible bull****.
>
> Come on Harry, the tape mavens over in RAP will verify this. If you check
> Google, you'll find that one of the Scott's just lately commented in a
> different context, on the randomness of all but the finest and most modern
> analog tape machines playing wide tracks at high speeds. Your Teac 4070
> strikes out by missing three pitched balls:
>
> 1. Not a top quality tape machine
> 2. Not a modern tape machine
> 3. Not a modern quality tape machine in top condition.
>
>> None of this is at all relevant to the test under question.
>
> Of course it is. It's a monumental screw-up on your part Harry, based on
> your lack of practical knowlege of the medium that you're working with.
>
>> It is simply obfuscation on your part.
>
> Just the facts.
>
>>>> The volume adjustment, which was minor,
>>>> occurs at the end of the playback chain, and has nothing
>>>> to do with the tape deck playback levels, or the Dolby
>>>> calibration. Thus any Dolby errors (of which I could
>>>> hear none, although they are hard to detect by ear at
>>>> less than 1db) were constant to the recording and the
>>>> comparative playback. Dolby errors don't change from
>>>> play >> to play...they are constant if they exist at all.
>>>
>>> Harry apparently lives in an imaginary universe where
>>> mid-fi analog tape equipment plays consistently.
>
>> More attempts to obfuscate.
>
> Just the facts, Harry.
>
>>>> Moreover, recording to CD doesn't somehow "correct"
>>>> Dolby errors...as your assertions on fake musical
>>>> samples indicate, you should believe in a proper
>>>> comparison even if the "source" is flawed. Changed your tune?
>
>>> You're free-associating Harry. I never said any such
>>> thing.
>
>> News to members of this newsgroup, I am sure.
>
> Quote me saying what you claim Harry.
>
>> As far as flawed sources go - when the sources are on
>> media that inhently plays inconsistently, its a
>> randomizing variable.
>
>> Arny the types of microflucuations you are speaking of
>> have *no* affect on the comparative sound quality I am
>> talking about and you know it.
>
> Yeah, that's why true pros demanded that their work be done on first rate
> machines like the better later Ampex and Otaris, and wide, fast tape. What
> you didn't say is that your so-called near master tape references were
> probably 1/4 track 7.5 ips, which is nothing like 1/2 track 15 ips. Given
> their vintage, there might even be some sticky shed going on.
>
>> You are simply throwing
>> up smoke and mirrors because you don't like my reported
>> results. Typical of your overall level of intellectual
>> honesty, I guess.
>
> Harry, its quite clear that I've accidentally blundered into knowing more
> far about analog tape than you will probably ever know, given your closed
> mind.
>
> It appears that in your little hysterical world an aged quarter-track 7.5
> ips tape playing on an superannuated glorified consumer tape deck through
> a legacy technology Dolby B adaptor, all in questionable states of
> operability are the standard by which we're all supposed to judge modern
> digital.
>
>>>>> Here's an experiment for any analog tape bigot to do:
>>>>> Record a 1 KHz and then a 15 KHz tone on a tape. Then
>>>>> measure the amplitude of the playback with a meter that
>>>>> has reasonably quick response and an expanded scale
>>>>> that you can read within 0.1 dB. On the 1 KHz tone, the
>>>>> needle will fluctuate, and on the 15 KHz tone the
>>>>> needle will bounce around. The only exceptions will be analog
>>>>> tape machines of the highest caliber such as the later
>>>>> and very best Ampex and Otari machines.
>
>>>>> If I was going to try to indict the 16/44 format, I'd
>>>>> use a reference source that had even higher performance
>>>>> such as 24/96 or 24/192. In fact, that's what I did -
>
>>>>> I used 24/96 at
>>>>> http://www/pcabx/com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
>
>
>>>> We all know your preference for digital and computers,
>>>> Arny.
>
>> Harry, you seem to be unaware of the fact that there is
>> now no digital audio gear of significance that doesn't
>> have some kind of computer under the covers, whether its
>> a general purpose chip like a Pentium IV, or a DSP. Do
>> you disqualify all of the SACD mastering gear that runs
>> on computers?
>
>> I live with five computers in the house Arny, including a
>> dedicated audio DAW. You know damn well that I am not
>> knocking computers...I'm knocking the fact that you are
>> fixated in feeding everything into a computer so you can
>> use your ABX test.
>
> Harry, no matter how much you quake at night with anxiety about passing
> audio through a computer, there is nothing wrong with doing that.
>
>> I simply have no use for that approach.
>
> Right, because if you admitted that there's nothing wrong with passing
> audio through a computer, you'd have no believable excuse for doing
> bias-controled, time-synched, level-matched listening tests.
>
>>>> My preference is for duplicating analog sound, so
>>>> that is the test bed.
>
>>> Analog sound is by definition inconsistent. It's highly
>>> inconsistent unless you carefully control the relevant
>>> variables. If you're talking analog tape, that means
>>> high end professional gear which is not what you used.
>
>> I'm talking third generation master tapes produced using
>> professional gear, and played back on very fine semi-pro
>> gear, Arny.
>
> You didn't mention the quarter-track 7.5 ips mixmaster that this all
> passed through, Harry.
>
>> You really think it woud sound different on
>> my Ampex 440b?
>
> An Ampex 440b is hardly a modern, SOTA tape recorder. BTW it would sound
> different on your 440b because the 440b no doubt has half-track heads
> which would necessarily have different frequency response than 1/4 track
> heads, even if everything else was the same, which it wasn't.
>
>> It won't. In recording, yes. In playback of prerecorded tapes, no.
>
> Speaks to your ignorance of the hard-to-control variables related to
> playing analog tape, Harry.
>
>> I used the semi-pro
>> machine because the output levels of it and the semi-pro
>> outboard Dolby B are matched. It is a very high quality
>> standard.
>
> Only by 1970s consumer standards.
>
>> You are uncomfortable simply because you can
>> no longer criticize the use of LP for the analog sound
>> source.
>
> It appears that you came pretty close to jumping from the frying pan to
> the fire, Harry.
>
> If you want a real thrill, try running an Audio Rightmark on your analog
> tape equipment, Harry. Compare Dolby B to straight-through just the tape
> machine. Compare that to running the same suite of technical tests on your
> little project studio Firewire interface, and weep for the lost days of
> analog.
>
> Harry, I know that sucessfully running the Audio Rightmark suite is no
> doubt beyond you, so I'm prepared for your dismissal of this check and
> balance on your reference quality analog setup.
>
>>>> And your complaints about "analog
>>>> tape machines such as the 4070" are ridiculous. These
>>>> machines were built at the zenith of the open-reel era,
>>>> and were fine machines by any objective standards....
>
>> They were little better than mid-fi, compared to the true
>> top machines in the industry such as the high-end Otari
>> and Ampex machines.
>
> That's one of my points, Harrry. It's good to see you finally admit it.
>
>> I happen to have an Ampex 440b set
>> up in my basement studio, as well as a four channel Otari
>> MX-12, the very machines you are talking about. I can
>> run them through my main system, and have. They have no
>> audible advantage playing back pre-recorded tapes.
>
> I'd bet money that if we did a level-matched, time-synched, blind test of
> transcriptions made both ways, there would positive results. Furthermore,
> I'd bet that you lack the technical ability and candor that it would take
> for you to actually test the three tape machines you have with the Audio
> Rightmark test, and post the results.
>
>>>> we are talking machines that were built like a tank
>>>> and cost over $1000 in 1971.
>>>
>>> The zenith of analog tape took place like a decade later
>>> and cost 4-10 times more.
>
>> That's my Otari. But for semi-pro machines designed for
>> high end home use, the zenith was about 1972. These
>> machines continued to be produced in one model or another
>> for the next ten years.
>
> And the good ones received additional refinements for the next decade or
> so. But, they couldn't over come the basic limitations of analog tape
> which take many forms.
>
>>>> The recordings were also done
>>>> during this time period, so the equipment was SOTA for
>>>> their time....early '70's, which many people considered
>>>> to produce the *best* sounding analog of any era.
>
>> A Teac 4070 as a SOTA machine? LOL! Obviously you were
>> never allowed into a SOTA recording studio way back then,
>> or you'd sing a different tune.
>
>> Asshole.
>
> End of discussion on the grounds of personal abuse from Harry.

Please note that Arny has avoided any comment on the controlled test itself,
instead trying to obfuscate the issue with a discussion of the pro's and
con's of semi-pro vs. professional machines as if I don't know anything
about them (but he hopes you don't so his obsfucation bears weight -- I
happen to own both, and have with tape since the sixties, and know how to
calibrate and evaluate the machines). None of this has any relevance to the
AB comparison made.