Ultra-High Sample Rate Discussion

[Arny Krueger]

http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf


"
Conclusion:
There is an inescapable tradeoff between faster sampling on one hand and a
loss of accuracy,
increased data size and much additional processing requirement on the other
hand.
AD converter designers can not generate 20 bits at MHz speeds, yet they
often utilize a circuit
yielding a few bits at MHz speeds as a step towards making many bits at
lower speeds.

The compromise between speed and accuracy is a permanent engineering and
scientific
reality.

Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal
rate.
It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio distortions.

While there is no up side to operation at excessive speeds, there are
further disadvantages:

1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data (impacting data storage
and data
transmission speed requirements).

2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase in the required
processing
power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further compromise in audio
quality.
The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal
bandwidth. Audio
industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal rates. The
promotion of such ideas
is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more
detail. Weather
motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the
wrong direction, are
stating the opposite of what is true.
"

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf
>
>
> "
> Conclusion:
> There is an inescapable tradeoff between faster sampling
on one hand and a
> loss of accuracy,
> increased data size and much additional processing
requirement on the other
> hand.
> AD converter designers can not generate 20 bits at MHz
speeds, yet they
> often utilize a circuit
> yielding a few bits at MHz speeds as a step towards making
many bits at
> lower speeds.
>
> The compromise between speed and accuracy is a permanent
engineering and
> scientific
> reality.
>
> Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster
than the optimal
> rate.
> It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio
distortions.
>
> While there is no up side to operation at excessive
speeds, there are
> further disadvantages:
>
> 1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data
(impacting data storage
> and data
> transmission speed requirements).
>
> 2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase
in the required
> processing
> power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further
compromise in audio
> quality.
> The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the
required signal
> bandwidth. Audio
> industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal
rates. The
> promotion of such ideas
> is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more
accuracy and/or more
> detail. Weather
> motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading
the industry in the
> wrong direction, are
> stating the opposite of what is true.
> "
>

So with SACDs 2.8MHz sampling and 1 bit resolution doesn't
that therefore overcome this problem with PCM? It would
have been great if this article had of touched on that.

Regards TT

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
> http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf
>>
>>
>> "
>> Conclusion:
>> There is an inescapable tradeoff between faster sampling
>> on one hand and a loss of accuracy,
>> increased data size and much additional processing
>> requirement on the other hand.
>> AD converter designers can not generate 20 bits at MHz
>> speeds, yet they often utilize a circuit
>> yielding a few bits at MHz speeds as a step towards
>> making many bits at lower speeds.
>>
>> The compromise between speed and accuracy is a permanent
>> engineering and scientific
>> reality.
>>
>> Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster
>> than the optimal rate.
>> It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio
>> distortions.
>>
>> While there is no up side to operation at excessive
>> speeds, there are further disadvantages:
>>
>> 1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data
>> (impacting data storage and data
>> transmission speed requirements).
>>
>> 2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant
>> increase in the required processing
>> power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further
>> compromise in audio quality.
>> The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the
>> required signal bandwidth. Audio
>> industry salesman have been promoting faster than
>> optimal rates. The promotion of such ideas
>> is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more
>> accuracy and/or more detail. Weather
>> motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading
>> the industry in the wrong direction, are
>> stating the opposite of what is true.
>> "
>>
>
> So with SACDs 2.8MHz sampling and 1 bit resolution doesn't
> that therefore overcome this problem with PCM?

Doesn't seem like SACD makes much of a difference in this regard. Remember
that the basic message is that 96 KHz sampling is already more than enough
for the best possible sounding audio.

>It would have been great if this article had of touched on that.

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

: > So with SACDs 2.8MHz sampling and 1 bit resolution
doesn't
: > that therefore overcome this problem with PCM?
:
: Doesn't seem like SACD makes much of a difference in this
regard. Remember
: that the basic message is that 96 KHz sampling is already
more than enough
: for the best possible sounding audio.
:
From my limited understanding I gained the impression that
192kHz was losing the 24 bit resolution.

Quote: "There is a tradeoff between speed and accuracy" and
"Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster
than the optimal rate. It compromises the accuracy which
ends up as audio distortions."

So surely if higher sample rates lose bits then *IF* you
only have 1 bit to start with it would be very hard to lose
it. Or if you did then that would be very sad indeed ;-)

I read this as higher sample rates are good *if* you had the
processing power not to lose bits. So like I said I would
have been more interested in the comparison with SACD/DSD as
it would seem it overcomes the problems as presented in the
article.

BTW to quote from the above again "Sampling audio signals at
192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate" so it
would appear he says the optimal rate is approx 64kHz. So
where does that leave your 44.1kHz which is perfect in your
opinion? I believe I could live with 64/24 CDs quite nicely
;-)

Regards TT

[eric]

> 44.1 is clearly inadequate. The harsh treble overtone structures many
> listeners report from CD vis-a-vis vinyl and analog tape are more than
> figments of their imaginations: they are almost certainly artifacts of
> the necessity of having more bandwidth than the signal can occupy. The
> oscilloscope community figured that out in the 40s and many in the
> audio field-Neve et al- have demonstrated it over and over. Yet, Arny
> isn't listening.

I think that it is more the 16 bits that is inadaquate. The dynamic range
this presents covers basic listening requirements if everything in the
mastering chain is done perfectly. 24 would be much better.

As far as 44.1, I think that these 'harsh treble overtones' are not due to
any flaw in the basic specification. They are either due to the rolloffs
that occur in analog reproduction wear and tear making users un-used to
hearing flat reproduction, or poor implementations of anti-alias filters.

MAYBE there is an advantage to going to 48 or 50 KHz, but anything more is
gross overkill.

The analogy to oscilloscopes is, to anyone who has owned and used
oscilloscopes, hogwash. So long as your flat frequency response covers
the range of interest there is no problem. If there is a requirement
to have a higher bandwidth scope than the signal you are measuring it
arises from the usual practice of scope manufacturer specifying the
frequency range at the -3 db response point. If you are working with 20
MHz signals a 20 MHz scope (down 3db at 20 MHz) is not going to be
satisfactory.

[Eeyore]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we will but use it.

I'm sure it's no accident that many top recording studios use 24/96 and now 192
as well.

Graham

[TT]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message ...
:
:
: Bret Ludwig wrote:
:
: > We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we
will but use it.
:
: I'm sure it's no accident that many top recording studios
use 24/96 and now 192
: as well.
:
: Graham
:
I understood they have been using 32 bit for some time now.
So it would be 32/96 or 32/192.

Regards TT

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> So with SACDs 2.8MHz sampling and 1 bit resolution
>>> doesn't that therefore overcome this problem with PCM?
>>
>> Doesn't seem like SACD makes much of a difference in
>> this regard. Remember that the basic message is that 96
>> KHz sampling is already more than enough for the best
>> possible sounding audio.
>>
> From my limited understanding I gained the impression that
> 192kHz was losing the 24 bit resolution.

In fact there are no practical converters operating at any sample rate that
would be appropriate for audio, that also deliver true 24 bit resolution.

The way I interpret Lavry's statement is that all other things being equal,
operations at 192 KHz will be signficicantly degraded compared to operation
at about 1/3 that rate.

> Quote: "There is a tradeoff between speed and accuracy"
> and "Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times
> faster than the optimal rate. It compromises the accuracy
> which ends up as audio distortions."

IOW a given converter that operates at 192 KHz will not have the high
resolution it has when operating in the 64 KHz range.

> So surely if higher sample rates lose bits then *IF* you
> only have 1 bit to start with it would be very hard to
> lose it. Or if you did then that would be very sad
> indeed ;-)

Don't confuse the terminology "1 bit converter" with the effective
resolution of the converter being in the range from 14 to 20 bits for audio.
The terminology "1 bit converter" related to some internal operational
details.

> I read this as higher sample rates are good *if* you had
> the processing power not to lose bits.

It is not really about processing power as much as it is about the
effectiveness of various elements of the converter itself. 1 bit convertors
work with pulses. As the sample rate goes up, elements of the converter lose
accuracy, and the pulses start getting a little mangled and prone to being
slightly misinterpreted.

> So like I said I
> would have been more interested in the comparison with
> SACD/DSD as it would seem it overcomes the problems as
> presented in the article.

Unlikely. SACD uses some of the same kinds of circuit elements as a
so-called "1 Bit" ADC or SACD. As the SACD converter treis to run faster and
faster, these same circuit elements also lose accuracy in a similar fashion
as they do inside the 1-bit converter.

> BTW to quote from the above again "Sampling audio signals
> at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate"
> so it would appear he says the optimal rate is approx
> 64kHz. So where does that leave your 44.1kHz which is
> perfect in your opinion? I believe I could live with
> 64/24 CDs quite nicely ;-)

It is a fact that converter accuracy and price/performance are no longer the
stumbling blocks to sound quality that they once were.

There is no reliable evidence that the 16/44 data format is a stumbling
block to the sonically-accurate reproduction of music thqat is distributed
to end-users. However, not all of the market that Lavry sells to is
sufficiently aware of this. Lavry's problem is that some of the people in
the market he serves, think that very high sample rates have a practical
justification.

[Eeyore]

TT wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message ...
> :
> :
> : Bret Ludwig wrote:
> :
> : > We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we
> : > will but use it.
> :
> : I'm sure it's no accident that many top recording studios
> : use 24/96 and now 192 as well.
> :
> : Graham
> :
> I understood they have been using 32 bit for some time now.
> So it would be 32/96 or 32/192.

Absolutely not. There would be no point. In fact 20 bit would be fine. Since
data tends to be stored by the byte, 24 bits is more convenient though.

They do use 32 bit processors in the PCs of course ( since the i486 ) and decent
DSP chips typically have 56 bit or better MAC registers.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> >
> > BTW to quote from the above again "Sampling audio signals at
> > 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate" so it
> > would appear he says the optimal rate is approx 64kHz. So
> > where does that leave your 44.1kHz which is perfect in your
> > opinion? I believe I could live with 64/24 CDs quite nicely
>
> 64 would put the Nyquist limit at 30 kHz and that IMO would be a big
> improvement over CD, and in fact, 96 really is probably enough. The
> primary point is that 44 is NOT.

44.1 is at best *questionable*.

It's a real shame they didn't choose 48 since that would have made such
discussion much more academic.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "TT" > wrote in message
>
> > From my limited understanding I gained the impression that
> > 192kHz was losing the 24 bit resolution.
>
> In fact there are no practical converters operating at any sample rate that
> would be appropriate for audio, that also deliver true 24 bit resolution.

None deliver true 24 bit for sure. The reason for 24 bit converters is to ensure
that the bits 'really doing the work' are accurate. 20 accurate bits is hunky
dory.

Older ( 16 bit ) converters typically had serious non-linearity problems with
the bottom few bits which were clearly audible ( and measurable ).


Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com
> It's crap, because the premise fails to answer the
> question, "compared to what"?
>
> As bit throughput, storage space, and processing power
> steadily increase each year, 192 kHz goes from being an
> onerous requirement requiring great sacrifice to
> something more and more trivially handled.

But, it serves no purpose. It distracts people from far more important
issues.

> While I
> suspect it is indeed way more than is actually required,
> the downside, once serious, is now less and less so.

So what? Following your logic, I need to have my car upgraded to over 1,000
horsepower as compared to its current 225 horsepower, because the cost of
upgrading to over 1,000 horsepower is not as prohibitive as it once was.

> 44.1 is clearly inadequate.

Assertion without proof or even supporting evidence.

>The harsh treble overtone
> structures many listeners report from CD vis-a-vis vinyl
> and analog tape are more than figments of their
> imaginations: they are almost certainly artifacts of the
> necessity of having more bandwidth than the signal can
> occupy

No bias-controlled listening tests confirm this. It is well-known that
people's biases can cause them to perceive problems that don't really exist.

>. The oscilloscope community figured that out in
> the 40s and many in the audio field-Neve et al- have
> demonstrated it over and over.

Neve demonstrated no such thing. If you understand what Neve said, he
basically said that circuitry that resonates at say 40 KHz can have audible
effects below 15 KHz. If you look at the corresponding frequency response
curve you see that his circuit components such as input transformers did
indeed have effects on the order a few dB below 15 KHz even though they were
resonating at several times that frequency. This is just the well-known
behavior of resonant circuits.

> Yet, Arny isn't listening.

Bret apparently did not pay attention to his sophomore electrical circuits
class that covered resonant circuits, if he ever actually even took such a
class. Or maybe he can't apply what he learned to practical audio circuits.

> Those CDs that sound the best are usually those of
> material from a time where the treble cutoff was 10 kHz
> or less, functionally.

No such thing. In fact high-sample-rate material (24/96) with strong
harmonics right up to 20 KHz are audibly unchanged by a proper job of
downsampling to 44 KHz, and even lower.

> This should tell us something too.
> Unless, like Arny, we are quite literally not listening.

Obviously Bret you are listening to what I say, and quite irritated by it.
Too bad you can't rise to the occasion and share some wise words.

> The CD was a serious compromise made in the early 80s to
> put all of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony on one single-sided
> optical disc easily producible at then-current technology
> at a diameter a drive accomodating it could fit in a 5
> 1/4" floppy drive bay. And, in all fairness, it could
> have been worse-a lot worse. But to uphold it as the gold
> standard is idiocy.

Show us your bias-controlled listening tests that support your claims, Bret.
My friends and I did our homework. We subjected high-quality musical signals
from live performances to 16/44 coding, in one of the finest studios in the
Detroit area, which was under the direction of Robert Dennis who is still
working professionally to this day. We used over a dozen musicians, audio
engineers, and experienced audiophiles as our listening panel. No
distinguishable differences were found.

> We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we will but use it.

It is true that I have dozens of channels of converters that are capable of
running at 24/96 and 24/192. I've used them to record music from broadband
sources and compared the results to what happens when the signal is further
downsampled to 16/44. No audible difference for either myself or my friends.

Anybody with high sample rate converters, who wants to listen to examples of
this issue being played out with broadband musical sounds can do so by
downloading files from http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
..

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" > wrote in message

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message ...
>>
>>
>> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>>
>>> We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we
>>> will but use it.

>> I'm sure it's no accident that many top recording
>> studios use 24/96 and now 192 as well.

That they have the capability is a slam dunk. Do they use it? I suspect that
a lot of work, most work, is being done at lower sample rates. The word is
out. Well-known quality-conscious recording engineers like Katz and
Massenburg have said that going higher than 44 KHz has no audible benefits,
in their experience.

One of the dirty little secrets of the failed introductions of SACD and
DVD-A was the fact that a lot of the recordings they distributed were
actually based on masters that were sampled at 44 or 48 KHz. Higher sample
rate masters simply did not exist.

> I understood they have been using 32 bit for some time
> now. So it would be 32/96 or 32/192.

Heck, I use 32 bits for mixing, but that's a different issue.

In fact it is practically impossible to create an audio signal from an
acoustical source under the most favorable conditions in a real-world studio
or concert hall that has more than about 13 bits resolution. There are just
too many sources of incidental noise, starting with the musicians
themselves.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com
>> BTW to quote from the above again "Sampling audio
>> signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the
>> optimal rate" so it would appear he says the optimal
>> rate is approx 64kHz. So where does that leave your
>> 44.1kHz which is perfect in your opinion? I believe I
>> could live with 64/24 CDs quite nicely
>
>
> 64 would put the Nyquist limit at 30 kHz and that IMO
> would be a big improvement over CD, and in fact, 96
> really is probably enough. The primary point is that 44
> is NOT.

Baseless assertions are just cheap shots.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "TT" > wrote in message
>>
>>> From my limited understanding I gained the impression
>>> that 192kHz was losing the 24 bit resolution.
>>
>> In fact there are no practical converters operating at
>> any sample rate that would be appropriate for audio,
>> that also deliver true 24 bit resolution.
>
> None deliver true 24 bit for sure. The reason for 24 bit
> converters is to ensure that the bits 'really doing the
> work' are accurate. 20 accurate bits is hunky dory.
>
> Older ( 16 bit ) converters typically had serious
> non-linearity problems with the bottom few bits which
> were clearly audible ( and measurable ).

Actually, some of the older converters had nonlinearity problems at mid
levels and even high levels.

In the early days converters were based on networks of discrete resistors
whose temperature didn't necessarily track perfectly. If they had tracked,
then changes in temperature would results in just a change in over-all scale
factor. But since the discrete resistors might drift separately, there would
missing steps and steps that were too high. These kinds of errors might be
more likely for bits with low absolute magnitude, but they could be at high
levels as well. Monolythic resistor networks intially lacked the required
precision needed for the finest converters.

One of the most common early digital recorders was made by 3M, and had
field-adjustable converters. They were field-adjustable becauase they tended
to drift. If they weren't kept properly adjusted, the results were pretty
predictable. There were missing steps and wrong-sized steps. This is the
recorder of "Bop 'Till You Drop" infamy.

A number of early converters, including the converters in the CDP 101 were
based on 8 bit converters. The converter would do two conversions per
sample. On the first conversion it would be fed the 8 low order bits, and be
attenuated by a factor of 256. The second conversion would be based on the 8
high-order bits, but it would not be attenuated. Both conversions were
stored in a sort of a sample/hold circuit that effectively added them and
held them, and then clocked out the correct voltage when both conversions
were complete. This system had the potential to have larger errors at 256
step intervals.

However, highly effective converters have been available since the first
days of the CD format. In 1972 I worked with a hybrid computer that had 16
bit converters that were accurate down to the LSB and ran at something like
200,000 conversions per second.

So-called Sigma-Delta converters became popular in the early 1990s. They are
inherently incapable of having missing codes or steps that are significantly
outsized or undersized. They manifest their inaccuracies in the form that
seems to be more like random noise. IME these converters have very little
sample-to-sample variation. They are designed to have a certain amount of
resolution, and that's what they all deliver.

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>> It's crap, because the premise fails to answer the
>> question, "compared to what"?
>>
>> As bit throughput, storage space, and processing power
>> steadily increase each year, 192 kHz goes from being an
>> onerous requirement requiring great sacrifice to
>> something more and more trivially handled.
>
> But, it serves no purpose. It distracts people from far more important
> issues.
>
>> While I
>> suspect it is indeed way more than is actually required,
>> the downside, once serious, is now less and less so.
>
> So what? Following your logic, I need to have my car upgraded to over
> 1,000 horsepower as compared to its current 225 horsepower, because the
> cost of upgrading to over 1,000 horsepower is not as prohibitive as it
> once was.
>
>> 44.1 is clearly inadequate.
>
> Assertion without proof or even supporting evidence.


My ears are evidence enough. I agree that 192 kHZ is overkill for a sampling
rate and it would just complicate an already complicated process but 44.1
kHZ at 16 bit by nature requires that a lot of information gets left out
when dithering down. Many people can hear it clearly, especially those of us
that remember 2" tape to vinyl.


>>The harsh treble overtone
>> structures many listeners report from CD vis-a-vis vinyl
>> and analog tape are more than figments of their
>> imaginations: they are almost certainly artifacts of the
>> necessity of having more bandwidth than the signal can
>> occupy
>
> No bias-controlled listening tests confirm this. It is well-known that
> people's biases can cause them to perceive problems that don't really
> exist.


I hear that! (no pun intended) That's why I never mix-down with cans. If I
mix-down with a great set of headphones, it takes me twice as long because I
always hear stuff that's not there.


>>. The oscilloscope community figured that out in
>> the 40s and many in the audio field-Neve et al- have
>> demonstrated it over and over.
>
> Neve demonstrated no such thing. If you understand what Neve said, he
> basically said that circuitry that resonates at say 40 KHz can have
> audible effects below 15 KHz. If you look at the corresponding frequency
> response curve you see that his circuit components such as input
> transformers did indeed have effects on the order a few dB below 15 KHz
> even though they were resonating at several times that frequency. This is
> just the well-known behavior of resonant circuits.
>
>> Yet, Arny isn't listening.
>
> Bret apparently did not pay attention to his sophomore electrical circuits
> class that covered resonant circuits, if he ever actually even took such a
> class. Or maybe he can't apply what he learned to practical audio
> circuits.
>
>> Those CDs that sound the best are usually those of
>> material from a time where the treble cutoff was 10 kHz
>> or less, functionally.
>
> No such thing. In fact high-sample-rate material (24/96) with strong
> harmonics right up to 20 KHz are audibly unchanged by a proper job of
> downsampling to 44 KHz, and even lower.


This is a very important aspect that this thread that hasn't had much
address. An engineer can use the best algorythm in the world and at the end
of the day they are still tossing information in the garbage. I was
recording at 16/44 for a while simply because I figured if it was going to
get dithered down to that in the end I might as well get all the information
I could on the front side. The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down, though the average
listener doesn't usually notice. The CD is an unfortunate example of the
dumbing down of our society and until there is a marketable improvement in
technology, it will remain. There are a lot of people out there that have
never heard amazing music and likely never will simply because they are
never around it. They are quite happy with their iPods.


>> This should tell us something too.
>> Unless, like Arny, we are quite literally not listening.
>
> Obviously Bret you are listening to what I say, and quite irritated by it.
> Too bad you can't rise to the occasion and share some wise words.
>
>> The CD was a serious compromise made in the early 80s to
>> put all of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony on one single-sided
>> optical disc easily producible at then-current technology
>> at a diameter a drive accomodating it could fit in a 5
>> 1/4" floppy drive bay. And, in all fairness, it could
>> have been worse-a lot worse. But to uphold it as the gold
>> standard is idiocy.
>
> Show us your bias-controlled listening tests that support your claims,
> Bret. My friends and I did our homework. We subjected high-quality musical
> signals from live performances to 16/44 coding, in one of the finest
> studios in the Detroit area, which was under the direction of Robert
> Dennis who is still working professionally to this day. We used over a
> dozen musicians, audio engineers, and experienced audiophiles as our
> listening panel. No distinguishable differences were found.
>
>> We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we will but use it.
>
> It is true that I have dozens of channels of converters that are capable
> of running at 24/96 and 24/192. I've used them to record music from
> broadband sources and compared the results to what happens when the signal
> is further downsampled to 16/44. No audible difference for either myself
> or my friends.
>
> Anybody with high sample rate converters, who wants to listen to examples
> of this issue being played out with broadband musical sounds can do so by
> downloading files from
> http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .
>

[R. Stanton]

On Nov 1, 12:04 pm, "Alan S" > wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in messagenews:abWdnTc2bpSb49XYnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comca st.com...
>
>
>
> > No such thing. In fact high-sample-rate material (24/96) with strong
> > harmonics right up to 20 KHz are audibly unchanged by a proper job of
> > downsampling to 44 KHz, and even lower.This is a very important aspect that this thread that hasn't had much
> address. An engineer can use the best algorythm in the world and at the end
> of the day they are still tossing information in the garbage. I was
> recording at 16/44 for a while simply because I figured if it was going to
> get dithered down to that in the end I might as well get all the information
> I could on the front side. The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
> better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down, though the average
> listener doesn't usually notice. The CD is an unfortunate example of the
> dumbing down of our society and until there is a marketable improvement in
> technology, it will remain. There are a lot of people out there that have
> never heard amazing music and likely never will simply because they are
> never around it. They are quite happy with their iPods.
>


When you convert 32/96 down to 16/44, does the 16/44 sound as good as
the original 32/96?

Bob Stanton

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> It's crap, because the premise fails to answer the
>>> question, "compared to what"?
>>>
>>> As bit throughput, storage space, and processing power
>>> steadily increase each year, 192 kHz goes from being an
>>> onerous requirement requiring great sacrifice to
>>> something more and more trivially handled.
>>
>> But, it serves no purpose. It distracts people from far
>> more important issues.
>>
>>> While I
>>> suspect it is indeed way more than is actually required,
>>> the downside, once serious, is now less and less so.
>>
>> So what? Following your logic, I need to have my car
>> upgraded to over 1,000 horsepower as compared to its
>> current 225 horsepower, because the cost of upgrading to
>> over 1,000 horsepower is not as prohibitive as it once
>> was.
>>> 44.1 is clearly inadequate.
>>
>> Assertion without proof or even supporting evidence.

> My ears are evidence enough.

For you, no doubt. It's well known that people's so-called ears serve their
beliefs and ego. Hence bias-controled listening tests.

> I agree that 192 kHZ is
> overkill for a sampling rate and it would just complicate
> an already complicated process but 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit by
> nature requires that a lot of information gets left out
> when dithering down.

Not at all. Ever look at the noise floor of one of your tracks or mix-downs?

It is interesting how this number nets out to be down to be in the same
range for just about everybody. Unless some special techniques are used, the
dynamic range of recorded tracks and mixes never gets up into even the 80 dB
range. That's over 10 dB shy of what 16 bits provides.

> Many people can hear it clearly,
> especially those of us that remember 2" tape to vinyl.

In fact 2" tape was rarely if ever transferred directly to vinyl. Vinyl was
usually cut from 1/2" 15 ips 2-track masters. I've been in a number of
mastering rooms and never seen a 2" machine in use there.

As far as tracks on 2" tape went, anything past 16 tracks involved a
performance compromise as compared to 1/2" 2-track.

>>> The harsh treble overtone
>>> structures many listeners report from CD vis-a-vis vinyl
>>> and analog tape are more than figments of their
>>> imaginations: they are almost certainly artifacts of the
>>> necessity of having more bandwidth than the signal can
>>> occupy

>> No bias-controlled listening tests confirm this. It is
>> well-known that people's biases can cause them to
>> perceive problems that don't really exist.

> I hear that! (no pun intended) That's why I never
> mix-down with cans.

Who said anything in this topic about mixing with heaphones?

> If I mix-down with a great set of
> headphones, it takes me twice as long because I always
> hear stuff that's not there.

let us know when you want to get back on-topic.

>>> The oscilloscope community figured that out in
>>> the 40s and many in the audio field-Neve et al- have
>>> demonstrated it over and over.

>> Neve demonstrated no such thing. If you understand what
>> Neve said, he basically said that circuitry that
>> resonates at say 40 KHz can have audible effects below
>> 15 KHz. If you look at the corresponding frequency
>> response curve you see that his circuit components such
>> as input transformers did indeed have effects on the
>> order a few dB below 15 KHz even though they were
>> resonating at several times that frequency. This is just
>> the well-known behavior of resonant circuits.
>>> Yet, Arny isn't listening.
>>
>> Bret apparently did not pay attention to his sophomore
>> electrical circuits class that covered resonant
>> circuits, if he ever actually even took such a class. Or
>> maybe he can't apply what he learned to practical audio
>> circuits.
>>> Those CDs that sound the best are usually those of
>>> material from a time where the treble cutoff was 10 kHz
>>> or less, functionally.
>>
>> No such thing. In fact high-sample-rate material (24/96)
>> with strong harmonics right up to 20 KHz are audibly
>> unchanged by a proper job of downsampling to 44 KHz, and
>> even lower.

> This is a very important aspect that this thread that
> hasn't had much address. An engineer can use the best
> algorythm in the world and at the end of the day they are
> still tossing information in the garbage. I was recording
> at 16/44 for a while simply because I figured if it was
> going to get dithered down to that in the end I might as
> well get all the information I could on the front side.

The problem is that there are recordings and there are recordings. I'm
addressing the best possible recordings made at 16/44. What you were using
is unknown to me.

> The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds better
> to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down, though the
> average listener doesn't usually notice.

"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your prejudices and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

> The CD is an
> unfortunate example of the dumbing down of our society
> and until there is a marketable improvement in
> technology, it will remain. There are a lot of people out
> there that have never heard amazing music and likely
> never will simply because they are never around it. They
> are quite happy with their iPods.

You make it sound like you're the only person in the world with access to
good recordings and the ears to hear them.
/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Alan S" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com
> >>> It's crap, because the premise fails to answer the
> >>> question, "compared to what"?
> >>>
> >>> As bit throughput, storage space, and processing power
> >>> steadily increase each year, 192 kHz goes from being an
> >>> onerous requirement requiring great sacrifice to
> >>> something more and more trivially handled.
> >>
> >> But, it serves no purpose. It distracts people from far
> >> more important issues.
> >>
> >>> While I
> >>> suspect it is indeed way more than is actually required,
> >>> the downside, once serious, is now less and less so.
> >>
> >> So what? Following your logic, I need to have my car
> >> upgraded to over 1,000 horsepower as compared to its
> >> current 225 horsepower, because the cost of upgrading to
> >> over 1,000 horsepower is not as prohibitive as it once
> >> was.
> >>> 44.1 is clearly inadequate.
> >>
> >> Assertion without proof or even supporting evidence.
>
> > My ears are evidence enough.
>
> For you, no doubt. It's well known that people's so-called ears serve their
> beliefs and ego. Hence bias-controled listening tests.
>
> > I agree that 192 kHZ is
> > overkill for a sampling rate and it would just complicate
> > an already complicated process but 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit by
> > nature requires that a lot of information gets left out
> > when dithering down.
>
> Not at all. Ever look at the noise floor of one of your tracks or mix-downs?
>
> It is interesting how this number nets out to be down to be in the same
> range for just about everybody. Unless some special techniques are used, the
> dynamic range of recorded tracks and mixes never gets up into even the 80 dB
> range. That's over 10 dB shy of what 16 bits provides.
>
> > Many people can hear it clearly,
> > especially those of us that remember 2" tape to vinyl.
>
> In fact 2" tape was rarely if ever transferred directly to vinyl. Vinyl was
> usually cut from 1/2" 15 ips 2-track masters. I've been in a number of
> mastering rooms and never seen a 2" machine in use there.
>
> As far as tracks on 2" tape went, anything past 16 tracks involved a
> performance compromise as compared to 1/2" 2-track.
>
> >>> The harsh treble overtone
> >>> structures many listeners report from CD vis-a-vis vinyl
> >>> and analog tape are more than figments of their
> >>> imaginations: they are almost certainly artifacts of the
> >>> necessity of having more bandwidth than the signal can
> >>> occupy
>
> >> No bias-controlled listening tests confirm this. It is
> >> well-known that people's biases can cause them to
> >> perceive problems that don't really exist.
>
> > I hear that! (no pun intended) That's why I never
> > mix-down with cans.
>
> Who said anything in this topic about mixing with heaphones?
>
> > If I mix-down with a great set of
> > headphones, it takes me twice as long because I always
> > hear stuff that's not there.
>
> let us know when you want to get back on-topic.
>
> >>> The oscilloscope community figured that out in
> >>> the 40s and many in the audio field-Neve et al- have
> >>> demonstrated it over and over.
>
> >> Neve demonstrated no such thing. If you understand what
> >> Neve said, he basically said that circuitry that
> >> resonates at say 40 KHz can have audible effects below
> >> 15 KHz. If you look at the corresponding frequency
> >> response curve you see that his circuit components such
> >> as input transformers did indeed have effects on the
> >> order a few dB below 15 KHz even though they were
> >> resonating at several times that frequency. This is just
> >> the well-known behavior of resonant circuits.
> >>> Yet, Arny isn't listening.
> >>
> >> Bret apparently did not pay attention to his sophomore
> >> electrical circuits class that covered resonant
> >> circuits, if he ever actually even took such a class. Or
> >> maybe he can't apply what he learned to practical audio
> >> circuits.
> >>> Those CDs that sound the best are usually those of
> >>> material from a time where the treble cutoff was 10 kHz
> >>> or less, functionally.
> >>
> >> No such thing. In fact high-sample-rate material (24/96)
> >> with strong harmonics right up to 20 KHz are audibly
> >> unchanged by a proper job of downsampling to 44 KHz, and
> >> even lower.
>
> > This is a very important aspect that this thread that
> > hasn't had much address. An engineer can use the best
> > algorythm in the world and at the end of the day they are
> > still tossing information in the garbage. I was recording
> > at 16/44 for a while simply because I figured if it was
> > going to get dithered down to that in the end I might as
> > well get all the information I could on the front side.
>
> The problem is that there are recordings and there are recordings. I'm
> addressing the best possible recordings made at 16/44. What you were using
> is unknown to me.
>
> > The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds better
> > to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down, though the
> > average listener doesn't usually notice.
>
> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

> and desire to
> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

[Arny Krueger]

"R. Stanton" > wrote in message
ups.com
> On Nov 1, 12:04 pm, "Alan S" > wrote:

>
> When you convert 32/96 down to 16/44, does the 16/44
> sound as good as the original 32/96?


He's doing sighted evaluations. It sounds however he thinks it should sound,
provided it doesn't sound really bad.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


>> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
>> prejudices

> No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with sound. Then, we listen
to what me must in order to get the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could easily encounter similar
situations.

>> and desire to
>> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

> How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have exceptional hearing and can
hear all sorts of things, or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
easily hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which is sighted
evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or mismatched synch between the
alternatives being listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to
cloth.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>The world is full of people who claim they have exceptional hearing and can
>hear all sorts of things, or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
>easily hear what they claim to hear.

>Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which is sighted
>evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or mismatched synch between the
>alternatives being listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to
>cloth.


Funny, never happened to me.

All my stuff sounds wonderful to me, because I like to listen to music
on it.

Not accurate? No hifi? Why should anyone care, as long as it sounds
good to me?

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

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Alan S" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com
>>>> It's crap, because the premise fails to answer the
>>>> question, "compared to what"?
>>>>
>>>> As bit throughput, storage space, and processing power
>>>> steadily increase each year, 192 kHz goes from being an
>>>> onerous requirement requiring great sacrifice to
>>>> something more and more trivially handled.
>>>
>>> But, it serves no purpose. It distracts people from far
>>> more important issues.
>>>
>>>> While I
>>>> suspect it is indeed way more than is actually required,
>>>> the downside, once serious, is now less and less so.
>>>
>>> So what? Following your logic, I need to have my car
>>> upgraded to over 1,000 horsepower as compared to its
>>> current 225 horsepower, because the cost of upgrading to
>>> over 1,000 horsepower is not as prohibitive as it once
>>> was.
>>>> 44.1 is clearly inadequate.
>>>
>>> Assertion without proof or even supporting evidence.
>
>> My ears are evidence enough.
>
> For you, no doubt. It's well known that people's so-called ears serve
> their beliefs and ego. Hence bias-controled listening tests.

The day your ears stop serving your ego is the day you will either be deaf
or dead Arny, lighten up there big fella. If you don't hear a difference
between tape, vinyl and cd's then you don't hear it. I do.

>> I agree that 192 kHZ is
>> overkill for a sampling rate and it would just complicate
>> an already complicated process but 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit by
>> nature requires that a lot of information gets left out
>> when dithering down.
>
> Not at all. Ever look at the noise floor of one of your tracks or
> mix-downs?

And what math determines whether or not the algorythm is tossing noise or
overtones? Dithering is dithering.

> It is interesting how this number nets out to be down to be in the same
> range for just about everybody. Unless some special techniques are used,
> the dynamic range of recorded tracks and mixes never gets up into even the
> 80 dB range. That's over 10 dB shy of what 16 bits provides.
>
>> Many people can hear it clearly,
>> especially those of us that remember 2" tape to vinyl.
>
> In fact 2" tape was rarely if ever transferred directly to vinyl. Vinyl
> was usually cut from 1/2" 15 ips 2-track masters. I've been in a number of
> mastering rooms and never seen a 2" machine in use there.
>
> As far as tracks on 2" tape went, anything past 16 tracks involved a
> performance compromise as compared to 1/2" 2-track.

C'mon Arny, don't be a smart ass. You know exactly what I was talking about,
niggling is not necessary. Why do you want to be adversarial?

>>>> The harsh treble overtone
>>>> structures many listeners report from CD vis-a-vis vinyl
>>>> and analog tape are more than figments of their
>>>> imaginations: they are almost certainly artifacts of the
>>>> necessity of having more bandwidth than the signal can
>>>> occupy
>
>>> No bias-controlled listening tests confirm this. It is
>>> well-known that people's biases can cause them to
>>> perceive problems that don't really exist.
>
>> I hear that! (no pun intended) That's why I never
>> mix-down with cans.
>
> Who said anything in this topic about mixing with heaphones?

If you notice, Mr. let's argue, (which I am not interested in I might add)
you stated "that people's biases can cause them to perceive problems that
don't really exist." I was just agreeing and sharing my experience with
that.

>> If I mix-down with a great set of
>> headphones, it takes me twice as long because I always
>> hear stuff that's not there.
>
> let us know when you want to get back on-topic.

HUP-two-three-four ...

>>>> The oscilloscope community figured that out in
>>>> the 40s and many in the audio field-Neve et al- have
>>>> demonstrated it over and over.
>
>>> Neve demonstrated no such thing. If you understand what
>>> Neve said, he basically said that circuitry that
>>> resonates at say 40 KHz can have audible effects below
>>> 15 KHz. If you look at the corresponding frequency
>>> response curve you see that his circuit components such
>>> as input transformers did indeed have effects on the
>>> order a few dB below 15 KHz even though they were
>>> resonating at several times that frequency. This is just
>>> the well-known behavior of resonant circuits.
>>>> Yet, Arny isn't listening.
>>>
>>> Bret apparently did not pay attention to his sophomore
>>> electrical circuits class that covered resonant
>>> circuits, if he ever actually even took such a class. Or
>>> maybe he can't apply what he learned to practical audio
>>> circuits.
>>>> Those CDs that sound the best are usually those of
>>>> material from a time where the treble cutoff was 10 kHz
>>>> or less, functionally.
>>>
>>> No such thing. In fact high-sample-rate material (24/96)
>>> with strong harmonics right up to 20 KHz are audibly
>>> unchanged by a proper job of downsampling to 44 KHz, and
>>> even lower.
>
>> This is a very important aspect that this thread that
>> hasn't had much address. An engineer can use the best
>> algorythm in the world and at the end of the day they are
>> still tossing information in the garbage. I was recording
>> at 16/44 for a while simply because I figured if it was
>> going to get dithered down to that in the end I might as
>> well get all the information I could on the front side.
>
> The problem is that there are recordings and there are recordings. I'm
> addressing the best possible recordings made at 16/44. What you were using
> is unknown to me.

I've done it with several different tools, Nuendo, Cubase, Pro-Tools on both
Mac and PC. Interestingly enough some of the better tracks came off an old
Roland VS-880. Must have been a good day.

>> The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds better
>> to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down, though the
>> average listener doesn't usually notice.
>
> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your prejudices and desire to
> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

No, now you are just being nasty. I said nothing about my desires or
perceiving myself as having exceptional hearing. Sound is as subjective as
color. I simply stated that I preferred to record at a higher resolution and
dither down, and that when I play recorded tracks for people, they don't
usually notice the difference. The comparison is between the recording
artist and the listener, not the superior listening man and the peons below
him. Come down here with the rest of us Arny, your ass is showing.

>> The CD is an
>> unfortunate example of the dumbing down of our society
>> and until there is a marketable improvement in
>> technology, it will remain. There are a lot of people out
>> there that have never heard amazing music and likely
>> never will simply because they are never around it. They
>> are quite happy with their iPods.
>
> You make it sound like you're the only person in the world with access to
> good recordings and the ears to hear them.

Once again, I am not making it sound like anything, you are taking it a way
of your choice, and not a very nice one at that. I was simply pointing out
that ... and let me clarify this so you don't get all upset .... In my
opinion (this is my opinion Arny whether you agree or not) There is a big
difference between tape, vinyl, cd's and mp3's. Many times in my life I have
taken people into the studio and they have come out and said that they had
never heard music sound like that. These are every day people that do not
work in the audio profession or profess to be audiophiles.

With the level of audio technology available these days there is the
potential for better sounding music (I know, you will stick to your bad ass
cd's) whether that potential will be utilized or not depends on demand. If
everyone is happy with their mp3's, then why change?

That's all I was saying Arny. Relax man. Take a minute, take your nipple
chafing pocket protector out of your pocket, loosen up your shirt, open a
nice cold beer and listen to your favorite cd. It can be a great day!

Oh, and beyond the rhetorical bull****, interesting post.

> /technical/sample_rates/index.htm .
>

[Alan S]

"R. Stanton" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> On Nov 1, 12:04 pm, "Alan S" > wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
>> messagenews:abWdnTc2bpSb49XYnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comca st.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > No such thing. In fact high-sample-rate material (24/96) with strong
>> > harmonics right up to 20 KHz are audibly unchanged by a proper job of
>> > downsampling to 44 KHz, and even lower.This is a very important aspect
>> > that this thread that hasn't had much
>> address. An engineer can use the best algorythm in the world and at the
>> end
>> of the day they are still tossing information in the garbage. I was
>> recording at 16/44 for a while simply because I figured if it was going
>> to
>> get dithered down to that in the end I might as well get all the
>> information
>> I could on the front side. The truth is that for whatever reason, it
>> sounds
>> better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down, though the average
>> listener doesn't usually notice. The CD is an unfortunate example of the
>> dumbing down of our society and until there is a marketable improvement
>> in
>> technology, it will remain. There are a lot of people out there that have
>> never heard amazing music and likely never will simply because they are
>> never around it. They are quite happy with their iPods.
>>
>
>
> When you convert 32/96 down to 16/44, does the 16/44 sound as good as
> the original 32/96?

No, not with the same gear. After mastering it sounds good on the systems
it's played on and at the end of the day, that's all that I really care
about, so it all works out fine in the end.

> Bob Stanton
>

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "R. Stanton" > wrote in message
> ups.com
>> On Nov 1, 12:04 pm, "Alan S" > wrote:
>
>>
>> When you convert 32/96 down to 16/44, does the 16/44
>> sound as good as the original 32/96?
>
>
> He's doing sighted evaluations. It sounds however he thinks it should
> sound, provided it doesn't sound really bad.
>
Gee Unca Arny, how'd you get that fancy science to teach you to hear through
your eyes? Would that be nearsighted or farsighted evaluations?

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> Not accurate? No hifi? Why should anyone care, as long as it sounds
> good to me?

OK, that's it. You're outta the Hive. Return your Krooble, your
eye-gouger, and any unopened jars of Hivie Earwax.




--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" > wrote in message
et
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "R. Stanton" > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> On Nov 1, 12:04 pm, "Alan S" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> When you convert 32/96 down to 16/44, does the 16/44
>>> sound as good as the original 32/96?
>>
>>
>> He's doing sighted evaluations. It sounds however he
>> thinks it should sound, provided it doesn't sound really
>> bad.

> Gee Unca Arny, how'd you get that fancy science to teach
> you to hear through your eyes? Would that be nearsighted
> or farsighted evaluations?

Those would be shortsighted evaluations, with a clear potential for
self-aggrandizement. Feel free to do whatever you need to do to get you
through the day in this regard.

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" > wrote in message
t
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Alan S" > wrote in message
>>

>>>>> While I
>>>>> suspect it is indeed way more than is actually
>>>>> required, the downside, once serious, is now less and
>>>>> less so.
>>>>
>>>> So what? Following your logic, I need to have my car
>>>> upgraded to over 1,000 horsepower as compared to its
>>>> current 225 horsepower, because the cost of upgrading
>>>> to over 1,000 horsepower is not as prohibitive as it
>>>> once was.
>>>>> 44.1 is clearly inadequate.
>>>>
>>>> Assertion without proof or even supporting evidence.
>>
>>> My ears are evidence enough.
>>
>> For you, no doubt. It's well known that people's
>> so-called ears serve their beliefs and ego. Hence
>> bias-controled listening tests.

> The day your ears stop serving your ego is the day you
> will either be deaf or dead Arny, lighten up there big
> fella. If you don't hear a difference between tape, vinyl
> and cd's then you don't hear it. I do.

As usual you're throwing irrelevant and false claims into the discussion
because you basically know that you're losing it.

>>> I agree that 192 kHZ is
>>> overkill for a sampling rate and it would just
>>> complicate an already complicated process but 44.1 kHZ
>>> at 16 bit by nature requires that a lot of information
>>> gets left out when dithering down.

>> Not at all. Ever look at the noise floor of one of your
>> tracks or mix-downs?

> And what math determines whether or not the algorythm is
> tossing noise or overtones?

There is no such selectivity.

>Dithering is dithering.

Exactly.

>> It is interesting how this number nets out to be down to
>> be in the same range for just about everybody. Unless
>> some special techniques are used, the dynamic range of
>> recorded tracks and mixes never gets up into even the 80
>> dB range. That's over 10 dB shy of what 16 bits
>> provides.
>>> Many people can hear it clearly,
>>> especially those of us that remember 2" tape to vinyl.
>>
>> In fact 2" tape was rarely if ever transferred directly
>> to vinyl. Vinyl was usually cut from 1/2" 15 ips
>> 2-track masters. I've been in a number of mastering
>> rooms and never seen a 2" machine in use there. As far as tracks on 2"
>> tape went, anything past 16
>> tracks involved a performance compromise as compared to
>> 1/2" 2-track.
>
> C'mon Arny, don't be a smart ass. You know exactly what I
> was talking about, niggling is not necessary. Why do you
> want to be adversarial?

Because you've already set the stage for being adversarial with all your
silly irrelevent comments.

>>>>> The harsh treble overtone
>>>>> structures many listeners report from CD vis-a-vis
>>>>> vinyl and analog tape are more than figments of their
>>>>> imaginations: they are almost certainly artifacts of
>>>>> the necessity of having more bandwidth than the
>>>>> signal can occupy
>>
>>>> No bias-controlled listening tests confirm this. It is
>>>> well-known that people's biases can cause them to
>>>> perceive problems that don't really exist.
>>
>>> I hear that! (no pun intended) That's why I never
>>> mix-down with cans.
>>
>> Who said anything in this topic about mixing with
>> heaphones?
>
> If you notice, Mr. let's argue, (which I am not
> interested in I might add) you stated "that people's
> biases can cause them to perceive problems that don't
> really exist." I was just agreeing and sharing my
> experience with that.

No way does that justify mentioning headphones.

>>> If I mix-down with a great set of
>>> headphones, it takes me twice as long because I always
>>> hear stuff that's not there.
>>
>> let us know when you want to get back on-topic.

> HUP-two-three-four ...

OK, you just want to blather irrelevant trash.

End of discussion.

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
>>> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
>>> prejudices
>
>> No doubt. We listen to what we like.
>
> Not if we're professionally engaged in working with sound. Then, we listen
> to what me must in order to get the job done.

Man aint that the truth! Nothin' like a long day of bad rap just to pay the
bills. I'm glad I get called in to mix for people I know, and I'm happy to
pay my engineers for my own projects so I don't have to do that.

> I submit that being a professional musician could easily encounter similar
> situations.

Hey! ... Buuuurp! .... Ya'll know any Skynnerd!!! and you gotta do it to
keep 'em happy. I actually like a lot of Lynnerd Skynnerd but after you've
played "Sweet Home Alabama" 1000 times ...

>>> and desire to
>>> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
>
>> How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.
>
> The world is full of people who claim they have exceptional hearing and
> can hear all sorts of things, or they say that anybody that has normal
> ears can easily hear what they claim to hear.

Is that anything like someone reading something and then deciding that the
person who was writing it was saying something that they weren't?

> Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which is sighted
> evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or mismatched synch between the
> alternatives being listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to
> cloth.
That's all fine Arny-poo but if you didn't notice (and you most obviously
didn't) I never claimed to have exceptional hearing. It may be that I do,
because I am asked very often to sit in on sessions and mix for people
because the respect my ear, but I don't claim it. As far as sight goes, I
use a variety of different tools to help with spectrum analysis,
normalization and other forms of level adjustment. I use tools for
dynamic/geometric effects like reverb, compression and delay. I do look at
those when I am using them, but my bet is that is not what you mean by
sighted. My thinking (and you can correct me if I am wrong) is that by
sighted you mean that I make my evaluations on what I hear at first listen
through what ever it is playing through? Try some Yamaha NS 10's before you
pipe it through the big Genelec's baby! The cruels! If you can make it sound
good through those you can make it sound good on anything!

[R. Stanton]

On Nov 1, 1:16 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in
>
>
> >> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
> >> prejudices
> > No doubt. We listen to what we like.Not if we're professionally engaged in working with sound. Then, we listen
> to what me must in order to get the job done.
>
> I submit that being a professional musician could easily encounter similar
> situations.
>
> >> and desire to
> >> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
> > How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.The world is full of people who claim they have exceptional hearing and can
> hear all sorts of things, or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
> easily hear what they claim to hear.
>
> Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which is sighted
> evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or mismatched synch between the
> alternatives being listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to
> cloth.

I hope I'm not drifting off topic, but speaker cables prove your point.
Those with golden ears hear differences in speaker cables. In
actuality, here are no audible differences in speaker cables.

Bob Stanton

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Alan S" > wrote in message
> t
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Alan S" > wrote in message
>>>
>
<snip>
>
> End of discussion.
>
That is your concept of a discussion? It felt more like I was being
attacked for no reason. Very sad display there Arny-poo.

[Alan S]

"R. Stanton" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> On Nov 1, 1:16 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>
>>
>> >> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
>> >> prejudices
>> > No doubt. We listen to what we like.Not if we're professionally
>> > engaged in working with sound. Then, we listen
>> to what me must in order to get the job done.
>>
>> I submit that being a professional musician could easily encounter
>> similar
>> situations.
>>
>> >> and desire to
>> >> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
>> > How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.The world is full of people
>> > who claim they have exceptional hearing and can
>> hear all sorts of things, or they say that anybody that has normal ears
>> can
>> easily hear what they claim to hear.
>>
>> Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which is sighted
>> evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or mismatched synch between the
>> alternatives being listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn
>> to
>> cloth.
>
> I hope I'm not drifting off topic, but speaker cables prove your point.
> Those with golden ears hear differences in speaker cables. In
> actuality, here are no audible differences in speaker cables.

I have never noticed any. Bad connections maybe, but never the speaker
cables themselves. Some folks claim they hear it, the last one I met was at
a store that sold very high end car audio products. He swore up and down
that my sound would be much better with the thirty dollar cables. I bought
the cheapies and it sounds just fine. Eric Johnson says he can tell what
kind of batteries are in his effects pedals by the tone. Sounds a little far
fetched to me, but then again, I'm not Eric. I will say this, Ray Hennig
here in Austin (he owns Heart of Texas Music) says that Eric can stand in
one room and tell you which type of Fender amp you are playing in another
room just by tone. Maybe if everything was set flat or something, I dunno.
Ray says he has seen him do it.

> Bob Stanton
>

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> >> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
> >> prejudices
>
> > No doubt. We listen to what we like.
>
> Not if we're professionally engaged in working with sound. Then, we listen
> to what me must in order to get the job done.
>
> I submit that being a professional musician could easily encounter similar
> situations.

Of course. I thought that discussion here was about home hi-fi,
however.

>
> >> and desire to
> >> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
>
> > How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.
>
> The world is full of people who claim they have exceptional hearing and can
> hear all sorts of things, or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
> easily hear what they claim to hear.
>
> Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which is sighted
> evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or mismatched synch between the
> alternatives being listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to
> cloth.

How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds better to me' is
just a statement of your prejudices and desire to be perceived as
having exceptional hearing"? Sounds to me like the OP simply made a
statement of preference.

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" > wrote in message
et
> That's all fine Arny-poo but if you didn't notice (and
> you most obviously didn't) I never claimed to have
> exceptional hearing.

Sure you did.

You claimed to hear difference that have never been reliably heard by any
known human, such as:

"The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds netter to me if I record
at 32/96 and dither down, though the average
listener doesn't usually notice."

Not only doesn't the average listener not notice, but neither will you, in a
proper listening test.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>>> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
>>>> prejudices
>>
>>> No doubt. We listen to what we like.
>>
>> Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
>> sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
>> the job done.
>>
>> I submit that being a professional musician could easily
>> encounter similar situations.
>
> Of course. I thought that discussion here was about home
> hi-fi, however.
>
>>
>>>> and desire to
>>>> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
>>
>>> How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.
>>
>> The world is full of people who claim they have
>> exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things, or
>> they say that anybody that has normal ears can easily
>> hear what they claim to hear.
>>
>> Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which
>> is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
>> mismatched synch between the alternatives being listened
>> to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to cloth.
>
> How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
> better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
> desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
> Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
> preference.

Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context quote. Here's the whole
enchelada:

"The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down, though the average
listener doesn't usually notice."

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >>
> >>
> >>>> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
> >>>> prejudices
> >>
> >>> No doubt. We listen to what we like.
> >>
> >> Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
> >> sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
> >> the job done.
> >>
> >> I submit that being a professional musician could easily
> >> encounter similar situations.
> >
> > Of course. I thought that discussion here was about home
> > hi-fi, however.
> >
> >>
> >>>> and desire to
> >>>> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
> >>
> >>> How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.
> >>
> >> The world is full of people who claim they have
> >> exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things, or
> >> they say that anybody that has normal ears can easily
> >> hear what they claim to hear.
> >>
> >> Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which
> >> is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
> >> mismatched synch between the alternatives being listened
> >> to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to cloth.
> >
> > How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
> > better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
> > desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
> > Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
> > preference.
>
> Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context quote. Here's the whole
> enchelada:
>
> "The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
> better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down, though the average
> listener doesn't usually notice."

Point taken, but I don't see that as a claim of greater hearing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
>>>>>> prejudices
>>>>
>>>>> No doubt. We listen to what we like.
>>>>
>>>> Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
>>>> sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
>>>> the job done.
>>>>
>>>> I submit that being a professional musician could
>>>> easily encounter similar situations.
>>>
>>> Of course. I thought that discussion here was about
>>> home hi-fi, however.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> and desire to
>>>>>> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
>>>>
>>>>> How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.
>>>>
>>>> The world is full of people who claim they have
>>>> exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things,
>>>> or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
>>>> easily hear what they claim to hear.
>>>>
>>>> Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch,
>>>> which is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
>>>> mismatched synch between the alternatives being
>>>> listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn
>>>> to cloth.
>>>
>>> How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
>>> better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
>>> desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
>>> Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
>>> preference.
>>
>> Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context
>> quote. Here's the whole enchelada:

>> "The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
>> better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down,
>> though the average listener doesn't usually notice."
>
> Point taken, but I don't see that as a claim of greater
> hearing.

Let me paraphrase a bit:

"I usually notice that it sounds better to me though the average listener
doesn't usually notice"

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.com
> >>>>
> >>>>>> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
> >>>>>> prejudices
> >>>>
> >>>>> No doubt. We listen to what we like.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
> >>>> sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
> >>>> the job done.
> >>>>
> >>>> I submit that being a professional musician could
> >>>> easily encounter similar situations.
> >>>
> >>> Of course. I thought that discussion here was about
> >>> home hi-fi, however.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> and desire to
> >>>>>> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
> >>>>
> >>>>> How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.
> >>>>
> >>>> The world is full of people who claim they have
> >>>> exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things,
> >>>> or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
> >>>> easily hear what they claim to hear.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch,
> >>>> which is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
> >>>> mismatched synch between the alternatives being
> >>>> listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn
> >>>> to cloth.
> >>>
> >>> How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
> >>> better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
> >>> desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
> >>> Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
> >>> preference.
> >>
> >> Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context
> >> quote. Here's the whole enchelada:
>
> >> "The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
> >> better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down,
> >> though the average listener doesn't usually notice."
> >
> > Point taken, but I don't see that as a claim of greater
> > hearing.
>
> Let me paraphrase a bit:
>
> "I usually notice that it sounds better to me though the average listener
> doesn't usually notice"

"Listener" not "hearer". There's an obvious difference.

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ups.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>
>>>>> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
>>>>> prejudices
>>>
>>>> No doubt. We listen to what we like.
>>>
>>> Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
>>> sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
>>> the job done.
>>>
>>> I submit that being a professional musician could easily
>>> encounter similar situations.
>>
>> Of course. I thought that discussion here was about home
>> hi-fi, however.
>>
>>>
>>>>> and desire to
>>>>> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
>>>
>>>> How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.
>>>
>>> The world is full of people who claim they have
>>> exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things, or
>>> they say that anybody that has normal ears can easily
>>> hear what they claim to hear.
>>>
>>> Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which
>>> is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
>>> mismatched synch between the alternatives being listened
>>> to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to cloth.
>>
>> How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
>> better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
>> desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
>> Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
>> preference.
>
> Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context quote. Here's the
> whole enchelada:
>
> "The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
> better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down, though the average
> listener doesn't usually notice."
>
Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why? I don't know, big deal.
I do know that I hear a difference in music that I record at 32/96 and music
I record at 16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me why, and
I have talked with a lot of engineers about it. You would think that if the
music is going to be dithered down to 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit anyway then it
would be just fine to record it at that resolution. So far the best
explanation is that in the dithering process certain frequencies are
averaged because of the need to reduce the sampling rate and this averaging
eliminates noise. To this day, I have never heard a 16/44 recording sound
like a 32/96 recording. It's not as warm. It's not enough to make a
difference for an enjoyable listening experience when listening to digitally
produced music. In short, I hear it, it doesn't bother me. Most of my
friends that visit me when I am in session do not hear the difference. This
in no way makes me superior, where Arny got on that bus, I don't know.

Listening to an excellent performance recorded on 2" tape from a well mixed,
even handed band of good players, in tune, in an acoustically tuned studio
through Genelec 1038B's blows any CD I have ever heard out of the water even
if it is played through the same system. The headroom makes a huge
difference. Because of that, the image that is created from dynamics is much
more accessible, and the overtones that you hear are much more present which
gives the music a warmer tone and bigger feel.

My general observation about the quality of recorded music these days is
that a lot of it suffers from over compression, and processing done through
low dollar digital gear that tries as hard as it can to emulate the effects
of high dollar analog gear. It's a blow and go world these days and music
production has kept up with the pace.

That being said, I am a digital advocate. The convenience and cost of
production has made opportunities for talent to get their material into a
market that has been railroaded by dollar oriented record companies for
years. I am just looking forward to the day when CD's sound better.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Alan S" > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ups.com
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>> message
> >>>
> >>> .com
> >>>
> >>>>> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
> >>>>> prejudices
> >>>
> >>>> No doubt. We listen to what we like.
> >>>
> >>> Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
> >>> sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
> >>> the job done.
> >>>
> >>> I submit that being a professional musician could easily
> >>> encounter similar situations.
> >>
> >> Of course. I thought that discussion here was about home
> >> hi-fi, however.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>> and desire to
> >>>>> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
> >>>
> >>>> How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.
> >>>
> >>> The world is full of people who claim they have
> >>> exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things, or
> >>> they say that anybody that has normal ears can easily
> >>> hear what they claim to hear.
> >>>
> >>> Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which
> >>> is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
> >>> mismatched synch between the alternatives being listened
> >>> to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to cloth.
> >>
> >> How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
> >> better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
> >> desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
> >> Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
> >> preference.
> >
> > Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context quote. Here's the
> > whole enchelada:
> >
> > "The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
> > better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down, though the average
> > listener doesn't usually notice."
> >
> Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why? I don't know, big deal.
> I do know that I hear a difference in music that I record at 32/96 and music
> I record at 16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me why, and
> I have talked with a lot of engineers about it. You would think that if the
> music is going to be dithered down to 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit anyway then it
> would be just fine to record it at that resolution. So far the best
> explanation is that in the dithering process certain frequencies are
> averaged because of the need to reduce the sampling rate and this averaging
> eliminates noise. To this day, I have never heard a 16/44 recording sound
> like a 32/96 recording. It's not as warm. It's not enough to make a
> difference for an enjoyable listening experience when listening to digitally
> produced music. In short, I hear it, it doesn't bother me. Most of my
> friends that visit me when I am in session do not hear the difference. This
> in no way makes me superior, where Arny got on that bus, I don't know.
>
> Listening to an excellent performance recorded on 2" tape from a well mixed,
> even handed band of good players, in tune, in an acoustically tuned studio
> through Genelec 1038B's blows any CD I have ever heard out of the water even
> if it is played through the same system. The headroom makes a huge
> difference. Because of that, the image that is created from dynamics is much
> more accessible, and the overtones that you hear are much more present which
> gives the music a warmer tone and bigger feel.
>
> My general observation about the quality of recorded music these days is
> that a lot of it suffers from over compression, and processing done through
> low dollar digital gear that tries as hard as it can to emulate the effects
> of high dollar analog gear. It's a blow and go world these days and music
> production has kept up with the pace.
>
> That being said, I am a digital advocate. The convenience and cost of
> production has made opportunities for talent to get their material into a
> market that has been railroaded by dollar oriented record companies for
> years. I am just looking forward to the day when CD's sound better.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.

[George M. Middius]

Alan S said:

> > End of discussion.

> That is your concept of a discussion? It felt more like I was being
> attacked for no reason.

Why should you be any different from the rest of us?

> Very sad display there Arny-poo.

Arnii's pastor told him to set aside more time for contemplative prayer.
Maybe that's why he ended your "discussion".





--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" > wrote in message
t
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
>>>>>> prejudices
>>>>
>>>>> No doubt. We listen to what we like.
>>>>
>>>> Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
>>>> sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
>>>> the job done.
>>>>
>>>> I submit that being a professional musician could
>>>> easily encounter similar situations.
>>>
>>> Of course. I thought that discussion here was about
>>> home hi-fi, however.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> and desire to
>>>>>> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
>>>>
>>>>> How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.
>>>>
>>>> The world is full of people who claim they have
>>>> exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things,
>>>> or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
>>>> easily hear what they claim to hear.
>>>>
>>>> Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch,
>>>> which is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
>>>> mismatched synch between the alternatives being
>>>> listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn
>>>> to cloth.
>>>
>>> How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
>>> better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
>>> desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
>>> Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
>>> preference.
>>
>> Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context
>> quote. Here's the whole enchelada:
>>
>> "The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
>> better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down,
>> though the average listener doesn't usually notice."
>>
> Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why?

Probably because you think you should.

> I don't know, big deal.

No different from saying that you can run a 2 minute mile.

> I do know that I hear a difference
> in music that I record at 32/96 and music I record at
> 16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me
> why, and I have talked with a lot of engineers about it.

OK, I've got an open mind. By some means send me a sound clip of one of your
32/96 files and I'll see if people can really hear a difference when it is
downsampled to 16/44.

Here's your chance to make your point very unambigiously.

[Alan S]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:19:16 GMT, "Alan S" > wrote:
>
>>the cheapies and it sounds just fine. Eric Johnson says he can tell what
>>kind of batteries are in his effects pedals by the tone. Sounds a little
>>far
>>fetched to me, but then again, I'm not Eric. I will say this, Ray Hennig
>>here in Austin (he owns Heart of Texas Music) says that Eric can stand in
>>one room and tell you which type of Fender amp you are playing in another
>>room just by tone. Maybe if everything was set flat or something, I dunno.
>>Ray says he has seen him do it.
>
>
> Telling the difference between models of Fender amps isn't so
> far-fetched.
>
> Telling what kind of batteries are powering an effects pedal is rather
> off the wall though. I'd need some proof before biting on that one.
>
>
I hear ya. And I felt the same way about the amps, but when you think about
it, a Deluxe Reverb can sound one hell of a lot like a Vibrolux. Maybe he
was comparing Twins to Champs or something. I have heard Deville's sound
just like Black face Twins. I wasn't there.

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Alan S" > wrote in message
> t
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
>>>>>>> prejudices
>>>>>
>>>>>> No doubt. We listen to what we like.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
>>>>> sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
>>>>> the job done.
>>>>>
>>>>> I submit that being a professional musician could
>>>>> easily encounter similar situations.
>>>>
>>>> Of course. I thought that discussion here was about
>>>> home hi-fi, however.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and desire to
>>>>>>> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.
>>>>>
>>>>> The world is full of people who claim they have
>>>>> exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things,
>>>>> or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
>>>>> easily hear what they claim to hear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch,
>>>>> which is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
>>>>> mismatched synch between the alternatives being
>>>>> listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn
>>>>> to cloth.
>>>>
>>>> How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
>>>> better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
>>>> desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
>>>> Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
>>>> preference.
>>>
>>> Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context
>>> quote. Here's the whole enchelada:
>>>
>>> "The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
>>> better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down,
>>> though the average listener doesn't usually notice."
>>>
>> Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why?
>
> Probably because you think you should.

That is your assumption, believe what you wish.

>> I don't know, big deal.
>
> No different from saying that you can run a 2 minute mile.

Yes it is very different. You could prove one way or another whether or not
I could run a 2 minute mile, you could never prove how red looks to me.

>> I do know that I hear a difference
>> in music that I record at 32/96 and music I record at
>> 16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me
>> why, and I have talked with a lot of engineers about it.
>
> OK, I've got an open mind. By some means send me a sound clip of one of
> your 32/96 files and I'll see if people can really hear a difference when
> it is downsampled to 16/44.
>
> Here's your chance to make your point very unambigiously.
>
Thank you for the offer, but I don't care enough to bother with it. The
stuff I hear at 32/96 is in a mix that is multi-tracked on a hard drive in a
proprietary format that will ultimately be mixed down to 44.1 kHZ 16 bit
stereo for CD. (I know, the .wav files aren't anything special but I would
have to export them and upload them and all that). If I get a wild hair,
I'll let you know, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Beside that, my point has been proven to me already since sound is
subjective, and it's my ears I am using to draw my conclusions about what I
am hearing. Anything else would just be an effort to get you to agree. I
would rather spend my time in the studio either making money or spending it.
Cheers!

[TT]

"Alan S" > wrote in message
et...
>> <snip>
> >
> > End of discussion.
> >
> That is your concept of a discussion? It felt more like I
was being
> attacked for no reason. Very sad display there Arny-poo.
>
IMHO there are a lot more people here agreeing with what you
are saying than with Arny.

I really can't see why Arny has a problem with anyone
working with 32/96or192 files, doing all their editing etc
and *then* final stage downmixing to 16/44.1. There is a
lot to be said about coping with the barest acceptable
quality or being able to use near infinite resolution and an
over abundance of headroom.

Imagine if Da Vinci did all his painting in Windows 16
colours and 1" square pixels? Probably acceptable (as Arny
will say) once you shrink the Mona Lisa down to a postage
stamp size and look at it at arms length.

BTW I think Arny should be locked in a room with a whole
stack of early CDs that were all mastered on the first
generation digital gear and made to listen to them on his
Sony CDP101 ;-)

Regards TT

[dizzy]

Eeyore wrote:

>Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>> We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we will but use it.
>
>I'm sure it's no accident that many top recording studios use 24/96 and now 192
>as well.

And that's no doubt useful, in the studio. In the music-delivery
system, the silver disk, CD sounds like good enough.

[dizzy]

Sander deWaal wrote:

>All my stuff sounds wonderful to me, because I like to listen to music
>on it.
>
>Not accurate? No hifi? Why should anyone care, as long as it sounds
>good to me?

Yes! Like using tone controls! 8)

[Harry Lavo]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>>
>> BTW to quote from the above again "Sampling audio signals at
>> 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate" so it
>> would appear he says the optimal rate is approx 64kHz. So
>> where does that leave your 44.1kHz which is perfect in your
>> opinion? I believe I could live with 64/24 CDs quite nicely
>
>
> 64 would put the Nyquist limit at 30 kHz and that IMO would be a big
> improvement over CD, and in fact, 96 really is probably enough. The
> primary point is that 44 is NOT.
>

64 was actually settled upon by the DVD-A consortium in Japan in the
early-mid '90's as sufficient. Whether they did any actual testing to
support this I don't know.

[dizzy]

Alan S wrote:

>That is your concept of a discussion? It felt more like I was being
>attacked for no reason. Very sad display there Arny-poo.

Well, whatever you meant, the fact of the matter is that 16 bits is
plenty for the final, "music-delivery" version of the music*, so your
"dithering down" comments were false.

The only possible knock on CD, as a music-delivery system, is the
22kHz bandwidth. And even that's highly suspect as mattering.

[dizzy]

Alan S wrote:

>Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why? I don't know, big deal.
>I do know that I hear a difference in music that I record at 32/96 and music
>I record at 16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me why, and
>I have talked with a lot of engineers about it. You would think that if the
>music is going to be dithered down to 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit anyway then it
>would be just fine to record it at that resolution.

This shows your utter ignorance. Best to keep quiet.

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

>"Listener" not "hearer". There's an obvious difference.

Don't start acting like Arny, Jenn.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Alan S" > wrote:

> I have never noticed any. Bad connections maybe, but never the speaker
> cables themselves. Some folks claim they hear it, the last one I met was at
> a store that sold very high end car audio products. He swore up and down
> that my sound would be much better with the thirty dollar cables. I bought
> the cheapies and it sounds just fine. Eric Johnson says he can tell what
> kind of batteries are in his effects pedals by the tone. Sounds a little far
> fetched to me, but then again, I'm not Eric. I will say this, Ray Hennig
> here in Austin (he owns Heart of Texas Music) says that Eric can stand in
> one room and tell you which type of Fender amp you are playing in another
> room just by tone. Maybe if everything was set flat or something, I dunno.
> Ray says he has seen him do it.

The battery thing has an explanation, something about a reduced output
after a certain period of use.

Eric does put his wallet where his ears are, aside from the guitars,
gear, and home studio, he remixed "Ah Via Musicom" when his record
company issued a substandard DVD release.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:19:16 GMT, "Alan S" > wrote:
>
> >the cheapies and it sounds just fine. Eric Johnson says he can tell what
> >kind of batteries are in his effects pedals by the tone. Sounds a little far
> >fetched to me, but then again, I'm not Eric. I will say this, Ray Hennig
> >here in Austin (he owns Heart of Texas Music) says that Eric can stand in
> >one room and tell you which type of Fender amp you are playing in another
> >room just by tone. Maybe if everything was set flat or something, I dunno.
> >Ray says he has seen him do it.
>
>
> Telling the difference between models of Fender amps isn't so
> far-fetched.
>
> Telling what kind of batteries are powering an effects pedal is rather
> off the wall though. I'd need some proof before biting on that one.

I think that's about regular vs alkaline or something. His website
claims he can "smell a dying battery a mile away" a more reasonable if
hyperbolic assertion.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" > wrote in message

> Jenn wrote:
>
>> "Listener" not "hearer". There's an obvious difference.

> Don't start acting like Arny, Jenn.

Actually, our local specialist in that kind of hair-splitting is Stephen.

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" > wrote in message
et
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Alan S" > wrote in message
>> t
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
>>>>>>>> prejudices
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No doubt. We listen to what we like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
>>>>>> sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to
>>>>>> get the job done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I submit that being a professional musician could
>>>>>> easily encounter similar situations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course. I thought that discussion here was about
>>>>> home hi-fi, however.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and desire to
>>>>>>>> be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The world is full of people who claim they have
>>>>>> exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things,
>>>>>> or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
>>>>>> easily hear what they claim to hear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch,
>>>>>> which is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels,
>>>>>> and/or mismatched synch between the alternatives
>>>>>> being listened to. Likely as not, their ears
>>>>>> suddenly turn to cloth.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
>>>>> better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices
>>>>> and desire to be perceived as having exceptional
>>>>> hearing"? Sounds to me like the OP simply made a
>>>>> statement of preference.
>>>>
>>>> Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context
>>>> quote. Here's the whole enchelada:
>>>>
>>>> "The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds
>>>> better to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down,
>>>> though the average listener doesn't usually notice."
>>>>
>>> Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why?
>>
>> Probably because you think you should.
>
> That is your assumption, believe what you wish.
>
>>> I don't know, big deal.
>>
>> No different from saying that you can run a 2 minute
>> mile.
>
> Yes it is very different. You could prove one way or
> another whether or not I could run a 2 minute mile, you
> could never prove how red looks to me.

Well if you want to claim that its all illusion and perception, and there's
no real hearing involved, fine with me.

>>> I do know that I hear a difference
>>> in music that I record at 32/96 and music I record at
>>> 16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me
>>> why, and I have talked with a lot of engineers about it.
>>
>> OK, I've got an open mind. By some means send me a sound
>> clip of one of your 32/96 files and I'll see if people
>> can really hear a difference when it is downsampled to
>> 16/44. Here's your chance to make your point very unambigiously.

> Thank you for the offer, but I don't care enough to
> bother with it. The stuff I hear at 32/96 is in a mix
> that is multi-tracked on a hard drive in a proprietary
> format that will ultimately be mixed down to 44.1 kHZ 16
> bit stereo for CD. (I know, the .wav files aren't
> anything special but I would have to export them and
> upload them and all that). If I get a wild hair, I'll let
> you know, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

OK, I'll put you down on the no-show list.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" > wrote in message

> "Alan S" declines Arnolds offer of being sucked into a
> nightmare :
>
>> I would rather spend my time in the studio either
>> making money or spending it.
>
> That's a very nasty thing to say.

It's one of the few actually sensible things that he's said! What's wrong
with you, Paul?

[Sander deWaal]

dizzy > said:


>>All my stuff sounds wonderful to me, because I like to listen to music
>>on it.

>>Not accurate? No hifi? Why should anyone care, as long as it sounds
>>good to me?


>Yes! Like using tone controls! 8)



And you'll never hear me complain about them.
However, some tone controls are more useful than others.

I still think you should try to get hold of one of those old Lux
preamps.
It shouldn't be too difficult to DIY a remote control for it, IMO.

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

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> While there is no up side to operation at excessive speeds, there are
> further disadvantages:
>
In a short news article Marantz reported increases in
fidelity up to 500 KHz... a 260% increase over 192
MHz.

> 1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data (impacting data
> storage and data transmission speed requirements).
>
I recently read about a studio in England that discarded
master tapes into a garbage bin due to a lack of physical
storage, without giving notice to owners... but they were
scarfed up by someone in the public.

Certainly storing information (music) digitally, regardless
of the size, is far more cost effective than tape.


> 2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase
> in the required processing power, resulting in very costly gear and/or
> further compromise in audio quality.
>
Those are only momentary technological problems. I guess
your new video production interests won't include HD
then. :)

Speaking of "processing power," the current fastest computer
in the world (IBM's BlueGene) will be leapfrogged with a new
super computer (Roadrunner). It uses 16,000 cell possessors
(used in Playstation 3) and 16,000 AMD Opteron
microprocessors achieving 1.6 petaflops (1,600 trillion)
calculations per second. And the operating system you ask,
Linux of course. :)


> The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal
> bandwidth. Audio industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal
> rates. The promotion of such ideas is based on the fallacy that faster
> rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail.
Physics theory would suggest that sampling rates are only
excessive if they exceed the energy pack rate in which sound
travels through the air. At its most fundamental level all analog
sound is digital/packet. IMO, what's needed is a new algorithm
for trans-coding analog to digital using these even higher rates.


> Weather motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the
> industry in the wrong direction, are stating the opposite of what is true.
>
You have never been an early user (empirical knowledge) of
new technologies, Arny. :)

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>> While there is no up side to operation at excessive
>> speeds, there are further disadvantages:
>>
> In a short news article Marantz reported increases in
> fidelity up to 500 KHz... a 260% increase over 192
> MHz.

Yes, there is an apocryphal story about Ken Ishiwata from Marantz blowing
that kind of smoke. Of course KI is well-known for his publicity and
marketing, not his knowlege of audio technology.


<snip quacking>

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message



>> IMHO there are a lot more people here agreeing with what
>> you are saying than with Arny.

>> I really can't see why Arny has a problem with anyone
>> working with 32/96or192 files, doing all their editing
>> etc and *then* final stage downmixing to 16/44.1.

I don't have any problem with people wasting their time that way. Indeed
I've did a fair amount of work like that until I smartened up.

>> There
>> is a lot to be said about coping with the barest
>> acceptable quality or being able to use near infinite
>> resolution and an over abundance of headroom.

This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill" format. 12/32 would IMO
and IME be "barest aqcceptable quality". Note that 12/32 still outperforms
vinyl and all consumer analog tape formats.

> I don't see that there's any problem with working with
> 32/96 or whatever. Feel free. :-)


Just wastes time and disk space. I work with recordings that are like 16
channels and run for an hour. That's gigabytes of data. Less data have
practical advantages, such as being able to fit the whole set of data on one
DVD instead of more than 1 DVD. Also, even with large, fast systems it can
take a while to downsample an hour's worth of mixdown for burning onto a CD.

> However, I haven't seen anything to indicate why it would
> sound better than 16/44.1. In the absense of that, we may
> conclude it's some sort of effect in the listener's mind,
> or that perhaps your 16/44.1 gear is defective or poorly
> made.

Agreed.

> Subjective, sighted listening tests are not reliable, nor
> are they conclusive. As I keep mentioning, there was the
> case where people at a show heard beneficial effects from
> a pizza box tripod being placed on top of a CD player.
> People _heard_ the effect when it was demonstrated by
> Enid Lumley. Later, in the absense of Enid, there was an
> absense of effects to the sound of CD players.

Agreed.

> That just completely destroys the validity of the claims
> of anyone who says "I like it" or "it sounds good to me."

Yes, the global significance of findings like that has a long unhappy
history of being negligable. When people post their findings for others to
read and comment on, there's an inherent implication that the findings could
be useful to a larger audience. But if the findings are based on experiences
that apply to just one person, or that go away when enough well-known
variables are properly managed, then those findings are futile.

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On 1 Nov 2006 17:13:36 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
> > wrote:
>
>> far smoother transitions. (HP now supports three
>> different architectures for serious business-Itanic,
>> Alpha, PA-RISC- PLUS x86. Broad Restructuring indeed!)
>
> I bet they were really ticked off at AMD for making a go
> of AMD64. I also wonder when Intel is going to pull the
> plug on i64 and what HP will do then.

> Are they still supporting the Alpha?

See below.

> I know most of the
> design engineers moved over to Intel, and they evidently
> sold the technology to them too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_Alpha

"The Alpha series was sold, along with DEC as a whole, to Compaq in 1998.
Compaq, already an Intel customer, decided to phase out Alpha in favor of
the forthcoming Intel Itanium architecture, and sold all Alpha intellectual
property to Intel in 2001, effectively "killing" the product.
Hewlett-Packard purchased Compaq later that same year, continuing
development of the existing product line until 2004, and promising to
continue selling Alpha-based systems, largely to the existing customer base,
until 2006."

[Alan S]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:19:50 GMT, "Alan S" > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> No different from saying that you can run a 2 minute mile.
>>
>>Yes it is very different. You could prove one way or another whether or
>>not
>>I could run a 2 minute mile, you could never prove how red looks to me.
>
> That's a bit of a red herring.
>
> Unless you're some kind of freak or perhaps color blind, your visual
> apparatus and neurological system are much the same as in any other
> member of the species you belong to.
>
> Red is red.


Sure it is, but it's interpretation is still subjective. Just because it is
a measured frequency doesn't mean it is always interpreted the same way. Or
moreover, if it is you couldn't say that it was the same for everyone
because we all have different bodies and minds. Maybe we agree on what it
is, (which is fine outside conversations like this) but there is no way to
prove that it "looks" the same to you as it does to me.

For example, I have a friend whole is color blind in some odd way that
causes him to see colors in ways that are somehow different. I think he sees
blue as grey or something, I don't remember the details, but it's something
like that. He is a very talented artist. He paints things unlike anyone I
have ever seen and his art is pleasing to the eye. People buy his stuff and
he makes a living at it because it is "good" art. If it's a nice day
outside - it's a nice day! Who cares if you get into the wind and I get into
the sun, the nice day is the sum of it's parts, but their interpretation is
still subjective.


> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that people hear things
> differently and thus anything goes in the sales of audio equipment -
> even stuff that is objectively crap.
>

C'mon, if you put a bowl of cherry Jello-O in front of next to a piece of
well made New York Cheesecake and try to convince me that they are equal
then you should be selling crappy audio gear to idiots Even if you did the
"unbiased blind taste test" the difference would be obvious. (I wouldn't buy
crap because you said it was good, but you can bet there's plenty of folks
who would!).

>>
>>Beside that, my point has been proven to me already since sound is
>>subjective, and it's my ears I am using to draw my conclusions about what
>>I
>>am hearing. Anything else would just be an effort to get you to agree. I
>>would rather spend my time in the studio either making money or spending
>>it.
>>Cheers!
>>
>
> Doesn't this make you horribly insecure about your skills in the
> studio? After all, if sound is totally subjective, how do you know
> what you're doing in the studio is right? Your ears could be really
> screwed up and what you think is wonderful sounds like dreck to
> everyone else.
>
>
Nope, it makes me confident. People ask me to mix for them. They ask me to
play my music, they call me to sit in at gigs at the last minute because
they know I'm a professional, they call me in for session work to lay down
either guitar, keyboard, bass, vocals or percussion tracks or mix their
stuff down for them, they ask me to set their stereo and entertainment
centers up, in short, people that know me respect my ear. I guess what they
are listening for is simular to what I am listening for. I never waste my
time worrying about whether or not my performance is "good" or not, it
inhibits my creativity. When I cut a dud, it's obvious and we do it again
until it kicks ass.

You know what's good and what isn't, who cares how you get there? Life is
too short to waste it niggling over pointless details.

Beyond all that, I am damned grateful I don't have perfect pitch! Good
relative pitch suits me fine.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
>> format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest aqcceptable
>> quality".
>
> It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.
>
>> Note that 12/32 still outperforms vinyl and all
>> consumer analog tape formats.
>
> Only in abstract ("on paper").

No, for real.

> Many people agree vinyl sounds better than CD.

Be truthful - give us a relative fraction of all music lovers who think that
way. Note that vinyl sales have again taken a nosedive, as have SACD and
DVD-A sales.

> I'll repeat that- Many people agree vinyl sounds better than CD.

Say it over and over again until it makes you feel good, if that's what it
takes to improve your thinking.

[Alan S]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:10:41 GMT, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "Alan S" > wrote:
>>
>>> I have never noticed any. Bad connections maybe, but never the speaker
>>> cables themselves. Some folks claim they hear it, the last one I met was
>>> at
>>> a store that sold very high end car audio products. He swore up and down
>>> that my sound would be much better with the thirty dollar cables. I
>>> bought
>>> the cheapies and it sounds just fine. Eric Johnson says he can tell what
>>> kind of batteries are in his effects pedals by the tone. Sounds a little
>>> far
>>> fetched to me, but then again, I'm not Eric. I will say this, Ray Hennig
>>> here in Austin (he owns Heart of Texas Music) says that Eric can stand
>>> in
>>> one room and tell you which type of Fender amp you are playing in
>>> another
>>> room just by tone. Maybe if everything was set flat or something, I
>>> dunno.
>>> Ray says he has seen him do it.
>>
>>The battery thing has an explanation, something about a reduced output
>>after a certain period of use.
>
> Most effects pedals are reasonably immune to differing voltage IME.
> I've seen them hooked up to the wrong wall wart with a difference of
> 1.5-3V from what they're supposed to have and they sounded the same.


Me too, I have used wrong power supplies and noticed no difference until
after the gig when I realized I was using the wrong power supply. That was
the only difference. Batteries on the other hand only work one way way for
me. They sound fine until the battery starts to lose it, and then the whole
thing starts to sound terrible.


> The battery chemistry itself is what is responsible for the discharge
> curve. I'm finding it hard to believe that any slight differences in
> construction will change that curve enough to matter. Also, the
> battery industry is very competitive and they all do much the same
> thing at the consumer 9V alkaline battery level.
>

Once the discharge reaches a point where it can no longer support the load,
it's starts to break up and crackle (at least with digital gear, I have
never used any all analog, battery powered gear, maybe there is a difference
there, I don't know. It would make sense, sort of the dim bulb effect).
Perhaps that's the tone varient he notices - sounds fine with good
batteries - sounds awful with half dead ones.

>>
>>Eric does put his wallet where his ears are, aside from the guitars,
>>gear, and home studio, he remixed "Ah Via Musicom" when his record
>>company issued a substandard DVD release.
>
> No argument there. I'm sure he does care about his music and how it
> sounds.
>
> I'm just reminded of one guitar player in a band that I did onstage
> mix for. He had a wah-wah pedal that he insisted was noisy. So, he had
> his roadie give it a shot of WD-40 before every performance. I even
> did it for him a few times. Now, the pot was sealed inside the body of
> the pedal and there was no way a shot of WD-40 from outside at the
> pivot of the pedal was going to make it into the inside of the pot.
>
> The guy would come out, smell the WD-40 and nod his head. Everything
> was ok. He'd then perceive that the "noise" was gone.
>
> In actuality, the pedal wasn't noisy before or after the application
> of some, in essense, snake oil. :-)
>
That's funny. Did he ever replace his pot? Oh, wait ... he probably did
before every gig!

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Signal" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
>>> format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest aqcceptable
>>> quality".
>>
>> It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.
>>
>>> Note that 12/32 still outperforms vinyl and all
>>> consumer analog tape formats.
>>

That is just simply not possible. It's a molecular verses binary issue. The
molecules will win simply because of math. And if you shuffle through your
data long enough to produce anything mathematically valid to dispute that
comment ... oh, you won't because of head room.

>> Only in abstract ("on paper").
>
> No, for real.
>
>> Many people agree vinyl sounds better than CD.

That's because it does. Why? Higher resolution.

> Be truthful - give us a relative fraction of all music lovers who think
> that way. Note that vinyl sales have again taken a nosedive, as have SACD
> and DVD-A sales.

A relative fraction? Man, please ... stop it. Ya killin' me ovah heah!

>> I'll repeat that- Many people agree vinyl sounds better than CD.
>
> Say it over and over again until it makes you feel good, if that's what it
> takes to improve your thinking.
>
Awww, Arny. That's to bad. Are you saying that in all of your experience you
have never heard a great record played through well balanced, high quality
gear? Give it a shot and then come back and honestly tell me it's the same
as a cd.

Maybe you record, rap? or disposable, juke box country music? That would
explain all of this. You record and mix hip-hop at 16/44 and it sound just
as good as higher resolutions. Right?

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:10:41 GMT, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Alan S" > wrote:
> >
> >> I have never noticed any. Bad connections maybe, but never the speaker
> >> cables themselves. Some folks claim they hear it, the last one I met was
> >> at
> >> a store that sold very high end car audio products. He swore up and down
> >> that my sound would be much better with the thirty dollar cables. I bought
> >> the cheapies and it sounds just fine. Eric Johnson says he can tell what
> >> kind of batteries are in his effects pedals by the tone. Sounds a little
> >> far
> >> fetched to me, but then again, I'm not Eric. I will say this, Ray Hennig
> >> here in Austin (he owns Heart of Texas Music) says that Eric can stand in
> >> one room and tell you which type of Fender amp you are playing in another
> >> room just by tone. Maybe if everything was set flat or something, I dunno.
> >> Ray says he has seen him do it.
> >
> >The battery thing has an explanation, something about a reduced output
> >after a certain period of use.
>
> Most effects pedals are reasonably immune to differing voltage IME.
> I've seen them hooked up to the wrong wall wart with a difference of
> 1.5-3V from what they're supposed to have and they sounded the same.

Well, the claim is about batteries. It could be that pedals don't care
about excess voltage but are sensitive to reductions.

> The battery chemistry itself is what is responsible for the discharge
> curve. I'm finding it hard to believe that any slight differences in
> construction will change that curve enough to matter. Also, the
> battery industry is very competitive and they all do much the same
> thing at the consumer 9V alkaline battery level.

The claim is that he can hear a "dying" battery, so that other stuff
isn't germane despite the original story.

> >Eric does put his wallet where his ears are, aside from the guitars,
> >gear, and home studio, he remixed "Ah Via Musicom" when his record
> >company issued a substandard DVD release.
>
> No argument there. I'm sure he does care about his music and how it
> sounds.
>
> I'm just reminded of one guitar player in a band that I did onstage
> mix for. He had a wah-wah pedal that he insisted was noisy. So, he had
> his roadie give it a shot of WD-40 before every performance. I even
> did it for him a few times. Now, the pot was sealed inside the body of
> the pedal and there was no way a shot of WD-40 from outside at the
> pivot of the pedal was going to make it into the inside of the pot.
>
> The guy would come out, smell the WD-40 and nod his head. Everything
> was ok. He'd then perceive that the "noise" was gone.
>
> In actuality, the pedal wasn't noisy before or after the application
> of some, in essense, snake oil. :-)

Better to oil the pedal than the guitarist.

Stephen

[Jenn]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

<snip>
> Red is red.
>
> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that people hear things
> differently <snip>

Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the differences among people
in sound reflection times.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to RibbetBorg:

> > The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that people hear things
> > differently <snip>

> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the differences among people
> in sound reflection times.

I think you two are talking past one another. Your position, which is
based on empirical evidence gleaned through actual tests, is completely at
odds with Ribbet's. Our little froggie's opinions are informed only by
what he wishes were true -- that humans were as indistinguishable as Hivie
drones. Of course all 'borgs hear things the same; that's because they all
have the same implants and wetware. But humans, who haven't suffered the
"improvements" adduced by assimilation, have varying abilities to hear, as
well as to do virtually everything else that humans do as individuals.

You can't defeat faith with facts, Jenn. Your experiences with the
Krooborg should have shown you that very plainly.






--

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

[Jenn]

In article >,
Signal > wrote:

> MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> >The claim is that he can hear a "dying" battery
>
> By "dying" do you mean a battery that is running out of juice? If
> that's his claim, isn't not very remarkable. Easily audible with many
> pedals.

And some DI boxes, for example.

[dizzy]

Signal wrote:

>"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>>This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill" format. 12/32 would IMO
>>and IME be "barest aqcceptable quality".
>
>It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.

LOL!

If that's true, vinyl must be way WAY below acceptable for serious
listening.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Signal > wrote:

> MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> >The claim is that he can hear a "dying" battery
>
> By "dying" do you mean a battery that is running out of juice? If
> that's his claim, isn't not very remarkable. Easily audible with many
> pedals.

Yes, but not the final gasping, spitting stage, I assume. I think one
old story is that he could tell alkaline from non-alkaline but that may
be exaggerated.

To be literal, the claim is that he can *smell* a dying battery a mile
away.

Some of his gear:

http://www.ericjohnson.com/flash/amps.html

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" > wrote in message


> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
> ...

>> I'm just reminded of one guitar player in a band that I
>> did onstage mix for. He had a wah-wah pedal that he
>> insisted was noisy. So, he had his roadie give it a shot
>> of WD-40 before every performance. I even did it for him
>> a few times. Now, the pot was sealed inside the body of
>> the pedal and there was no way a shot of WD-40 from
>> outside at the pivot of the pedal was going to make it
>> into the inside of the pot. The guy would come out, smell the WD-40 and
>> nod his
>> head. Everything was ok. He'd then perceive that the
>> "noise" was gone.

>> In actuality, the pedal wasn't noisy before or after the
>> application of some, in essense, snake oil. :-)

> That's funny. Did he ever replace his pot? Oh, wait ...
> he probably did before every gig!

Alan, you missed the point, which is that the guitar player based his
judgement of sound quality on his sighted evaluation of the condition of the
pot in his wah-wah pedal. He saw the WD-40 applied and then *heard* that
the pot was working properly.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Red is red.
>>
>> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that people
>> hear things differently <snip>
>
> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the
> differences among people in sound reflection times.

The primary reason that different people perceive things differently, given
that they have a reasonable opportunity to hear at all, is the difference in
the state of their brains. Here is an article that explains this and
illustrates it with a practical example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Signal" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
>>>> format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest aqcceptable
>>>> quality".
>>>
>>> It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.
>>>
>>>> Note that 12/32 still outperforms vinyl and all
>>>> consumer analog tape formats.

> That is just simply not possible.

Its a fact.

> It's a molecular verses binary issue.

It's dragging a rock over a piece of plastic that deforms while the rock is
dragged over it, versus a highly precise electrical operation.

>The molecules will win simply because of
> math. And if you shuffle through your data long enough to
> produce anything mathematically valid to dispute that
> comment ... oh, you won't because of head room.

Wanna try that again and make sense this time?

>>> Only in abstract ("on paper").
>>
>> No, for real.
>>
>>> Many people agree vinyl sounds better than CD.

> That's because it does. Why? Higher resolution.

That has been totally debunked many times.

>> Be truthful - give us a relative fraction of all music
>> lovers who think that way. Note that vinyl sales have
>> again taken a nosedive, as have SACD and DVD-A sales.

> A relative fraction? Man, please ... stop it. Ya killin'
> me ovah heah!

I think you're already dead, at least from the neck up.

>>> I'll repeat that- Many people agree vinyl sounds better
>>> than CD.

>> Say it over and over again until it makes you feel good,
>> if that's what it takes to improve your thinking.
>
> Awww, Arny. That's to bad. Are you saying that in all of
> your experience you have never heard a great record
> played through well balanced, high quality gear?

Any number of people have demonstrated to me what they called "a great
record
played through well balanced, high quality gear" I spent two days at HE2005
listening to this dog-and-pony show being repeated over and over again.

> Give it
> a shot and then come back and honestly tell me it's the
> same as a cd.

No, typically a LP sounds worse than a CD being played on a $39 DVD player,
all other things being equal.

> Maybe you record, rap? or disposable, juke box country
> music? That would explain all of this. You record and mix
> hip-hop at 16/44 and it sound just as good as higher
> resolutions. Right?

Wrong.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> If you want to talk percentages you'll need to reduce
> that group down to people who have heard vinyl done
> properly. Of those, I estimate 88% prefer the sound of
> vinyl compared to CD.

Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who have heard vinyl done
properly" to a carefully-selected group.

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" > wrote in message

> Signal wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>>> This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
>>> format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest acceptable
>>> quality".

>> It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.

> LOL!

> If that's true, vinyl must be way WAY below acceptable
> for serious listening.

Older audiophiles put up with vinyl for way too long for most of us.

Just about every music lover in the world abandoned the LP as quickly as
they could, once CDs became generally available. It was all about sound
quality.

I guess it is fair to question whether we actually could listen seriously to
music until we had digital. Until then there were many audible artifacts
that stood in the way of serious listening.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "dizzy" > wrote in message
>
>> Signal wrote:
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>>>> This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
>>>> format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest acceptable
>>>> quality".
>
>>> It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.
>
>> LOL!
>
>> If that's true, vinyl must be way WAY below acceptable
>> for serious listening.
>
> Older audiophiles put up with vinyl for way too long for most of us.
>
> Just about every music lover in the world abandoned the LP as quickly as
> they could, once CDs became generally available. It was all about sound
> quality.
>
> I guess it is fair to question whether we actually could listen seriously
> to music until we had digital. Until then there were many audible
> artifacts that stood in the way of serious listening.

Arny finally reveals the truth...he simply doesn't love *any* form of music,
or he would realize the utter nonsense he just spouted above.

[George M. Middius]

Harry Lavo said:

> > I guess it is fair to question whether we actually could listen seriously
> > to music until we had digital. Until then there were many audible
> > artifacts that stood in the way of serious listening.

> Arny finally reveals the truth...he simply doesn't love *any* form of music,
> or he would realize the utter nonsense he just spouted above.

Not unless he got over the insanity problem also.




--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "dizzy" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Signal wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>>>> This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
>>>>> format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest acceptable
>>>>> quality".
>>
>>>> It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.
>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>>> If that's true, vinyl must be way WAY below acceptable
>>> for serious listening.
>>
>> Older audiophiles put up with vinyl for way too long for
>> most of us. Just about every music lover in the world abandoned the
>> LP as quickly as they could, once CDs became generally
>> available. It was all about sound quality.

>> I guess it is fair to question whether we actually could
>> listen seriously to (recorded) music until we had digital. Until
>> then there were many audible artifacts that stood in the
>> way of serious listening.

> Arny finally reveals the truth...he simply doesn't love
> *any* form of music, or he would realize the utter
> nonsense he just spouted above.

Rather than just spouting off Harry, why not provide a logically-worked out
explanation of what you're trying to say. Note that the context of what I
was saying was obviously recorded music (which I've clarified), and that I
said nothing about my emotional reactions to music.

I don't know about you Harry, but for the first dozen or so years of my
life, reproduced music generally sounded pretty nasty to me. I regluarly
heard tons of live music, and every reproduced source fell well short. What
was there to love about reproduced music other than that I could recognize
the tunes and some of the voices and instruments?

Until recorded slipped the surly bonds of the LP format, there were always
clearly audible artifacts that traced back to the distribution media. That
distribution medium still has those audible artifacts, at least it did
through my 2-day visit to HE2005. has there been a signficiant general
upgrade to the LP format since then?

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Signal" > wrote in message
>
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> If you want to talk percentages you'll need to reduce
>> that group down to people who have heard vinyl done
>> properly. Of those, I estimate 88% prefer the sound of
>> vinyl compared to CD.
>
> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who have heard vinyl
> done properly" to a carefully-selected group.

Bull**** Arny. I told an antidote years ago on RAHE about having several
sets of friends over who were into music, but had never had vinyl. I
demonstrated via several pristine records (via Linn/Syrinx/Accuphase/Marcof)
and their CD equivalent (via Marantz 63SE/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP) which were
level matched (by markings on the volume know) and blind (not double blind).
All were bowled over and preferred the vinyl. All went out and bought
high-quality turntable/arm/cartridge combos within the next two years. One
has become an avid collector of records...newer audiophile versions, as well
as older, used versions.

*That* is what Signal meant when he said "people who have heard vinyl done
properly". That's the only valid universe.

BTW, do you remember your and your fellow "objectivist" responses:

*It was not a definitive test (I never claimed it was "definitive" nor
anything but an anecdote)*
*The volume had to be mismatched (it wasn't)*
*They could tell the vinyl because of the tics and pops (despite the lack
thereof being one of the criteria for source selection)*
*The mastering was the difference (despite my having chosen recordings that
were identical in balance, frequency response, dynamic range, etc.)*
*The comparison wasn't double blind (true, but single blind is hardly
chicken****)*
*It was "nonsense"*
*It was only preference, and said nothing about "reality"...."
*It was simply added distortion....probably true, but..."
*I was leading them on*
*They were being polite...*

Anything but the truth.....they preferred the *sound* emanating from the
vinyl over that of a very good CD system. For whatever reason...

I had a very similar experience (but not controlled) years earlier with a
neighbor (who is now the CEO of a major company). He had just bought a new,
state-of-the-then-art stereo system, CD based. Top of the line B&W
speakers. Conrad Johnson electronics, etc. Top of the line Sony CD player
(don't remember the model). His wife and he were vaguely
disappointed...they invited me to listen. I brought over my second system
turntable combo (Thorens TD-160super, Glassmat, Grace 747 arm, Dynavector
Ruby cartridge, Marcof headamp). Played same matched records/CD's (one of
which is Paul Simon's Graceland...can't remember the others). Wife: "Now
that's music". They went out and bought a high-end turntable system. This
was back in the mid-late '80's, at the height of "perfect sound forever".

This simple fact...that given a good comparison...many if not most people
prefer LP to CD, drove (and continues to drive) you (Arny) crazy.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Signal" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> If you want to talk percentages you'll need to reduce
>>> that group down to people who have heard vinyl done
>>> properly. Of those, I estimate 88% prefer the sound of
>>> vinyl compared to CD.
>>
>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who
>> have heard vinyl done properly" to a carefully-selected
>> group.
>
> Bull**** Arny. I told an anecdote years ago on RAHE
> about having several sets of friends over who were into
> music, but had never had vinyl. I demonstrated via
> several pristine records (via
> Linn/Syrinx/Accuphase/Marcof) and their CD equivalent
> (via Marantz 63SE/DTI Pro/Proceed PDP) which were level
> matched (by markings on the volume know) and blind (not
> double blind). All were bowled over and preferred the
> vinyl.

No doubt that was the sales pitch you gave, Harry.

> All went out and bought high-quality
> turntable/arm/cartridge combos within the next two years.
> One has become an avid collector of records...newer
> audiophile versions, as well as older, used versions.

Checking the archives I find that your description of the CD chain may be
quite incomplete.

I also can't find a post that fits your description.

Letsee: N=12 or less?

How many still listen to vinyl even once a month?

> *That* is what Signal meant when he said "people who have
> heard vinyl done properly". That's the only valid universe.

A formal definition of "people who have heard vinyl done properly". seems
to be elusive.

> BTW, do you remember your and your fellow "objectivist"
> responses:

> *It was not a definitive test (I never claimed it was
> "definitive" nor anything but an anecdote)*

> *The volume had to be mismatched (it wasn't)*

I don't trust you to be able to level-match vinyl and CD.

> *They could tell the vinyl because of the tics and pops
> (despite the lack thereof being one of the criteria for
> source selection)*

My hearing is still good enough that I've never heard vinyl without tics or
pops.

> *The mastering was the difference
> (despite my having chosen recordings that were identical
> in balance, frequency response, dynamic range, etc.)*

Actual recordings involved are unknown to me, despite searching google
archives.

> *The comparison wasn't double blind (true, but single
> blind is hardly chicken****)*

Actually, nobody with a brain has taken single blind tests seriously since
"Clever Hans".


> Anything but the truth.....they preferred the *sound*
> emanating from the vinyl over that of a very good CD
> system. For whatever reason...

The exception does not disprove the rule.

> I had a very similar experience (but not controlled)
> years earlier with a neighbor (who is now the CEO of a
> major company). He had just bought a new,
> state-of-the-then-art stereo system, CD based. Top of
> the line B&W speakers. Conrad Johnson electronics, etc.
> Top of the line Sony CD player (don't remember the
> model). His wife and he were vaguely disappointed...they
> invited me to listen. I brought over my second system
> turntable combo (Thorens TD-160super, Glassmat, Grace 747
> arm, Dynavector Ruby cartridge, Marcof headamp). Played
> same matched records/CD's (one of which is Paul Simon's
> Graceland...can't remember the others). Wife: "Now
> that's music". They went out and bought a high-end
> turntable system. This was back in the mid-late '80's,
> at the height of "perfect sound forever".

> This simple fact...that given a good comparison...many if
> not most people prefer LP to CD, drove (and continues to
> drive) you (Arny) crazy.

Not at all. I note that the last set of RIAA stats on their site show
something like a 30% drop in vinyl sales, and sharp drops in SACD sales.
You really know how to pick the winners!

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2005yrEndStats.pdf

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Alan S" > wrote in message
>
>
>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> I'm just reminded of one guitar player in a band that I
>>> did onstage mix for. He had a wah-wah pedal that he
>>> insisted was noisy. So, he had his roadie give it a shot
>>> of WD-40 before every performance. I even did it for him
>>> a few times. Now, the pot was sealed inside the body of
>>> the pedal and there was no way a shot of WD-40 from
>>> outside at the pivot of the pedal was going to make it
>>> into the inside of the pot. The guy would come out, smell the WD-40 and
>>> nod his
>>> head. Everything was ok. He'd then perceive that the
>>> "noise" was gone.
>
>>> In actuality, the pedal wasn't noisy before or after the
>>> application of some, in essense, snake oil. :-)
>
>> That's funny. Did he ever replace his pot? Oh, wait ...
>> he probably did before every gig!
>
> Alan, you missed the point, which is that the guitar player based his
> judgement of sound quality on his sighted evaluation of the condition of
> the pot in his wah-wah pedal. He saw the WD-40 applied and then *heard*
> that the pot was working properly.
>
Thanks for the policing Arny. It was a *pot* joke. You missed it.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >> Red is red.
> >>
> >> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that people
> >> hear things differently <snip>
> >
> > Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the
> > differences among people in sound reflection times.
>
> The primary reason that different people perceive things differently, given
> that they have a reasonable opportunity to hear at all, is the difference in
> the state of their brains.

We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

> Here is an article that explains this and
> illustrates it with a practical example:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)

LOL Another "working URL"?

[Alan S]

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> Alan S wrote:
>
>>Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why? I don't know, big
>>deal.
>>I do know that I hear a difference in music that I record at 32/96 and
>>music
>>I record at 16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me why,
>>and
>>I have talked with a lot of engineers about it. You would think that if
>>the
>>music is going to be dithered down to 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit anyway then it
>>would be just fine to record it at that resolution.
>
> This shows your utter ignorance. Best to keep quiet.
>
>
Now ditzy, you know you can do better than that. C'mon ... try a little
harder.

[George M. Middius]

Alan S said:

> >> That's funny. Did he ever replace his pot? Oh, wait ...
> >> he probably did before every gig!

> > Alan, you missed the point

Look at that -- the Krooborg borrowed some commas from somebody.

> Thanks for the policing Arny. It was a *pot* joke. You missed it.

Pot is forbidden in church.





--

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

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Alan S" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Signal" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
>>>>> format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest aqcceptable
>>>>> quality".
>>>>
>>>> It is way below acceptable for serious listening. Fact.
>>>>
>>>>> Note that 12/32 still outperforms vinyl and all
>>>>> consumer analog tape formats.
>
>> That is just simply not possible.
>
> Its a fact.
>
>> It's a molecular verses binary issue.
>
> It's dragging a rock over a piece of plastic that deforms while the rock
> is dragged over it, versus a highly precise electrical operation.


Man, do you ever thing before you type stuff? How can you say that playing
an LP is not a highly precise electrical operation?


>>The molecules will win simply because of
>> math. And if you shuffle through your data long enough to
>> produce anything mathematically valid to dispute that
>> comment ... oh, you won't because of head room.
>
> Wanna try that again and make sense this time?


You have obviously spent time in recording studios, you know what head room
is. The reason you can hit tape so hard is because it is an analog process
using millions of molecules that are not constrained by the limits of binary
recording. That is just one example of how much more information you can get
recording with analog. It's the difference between stairs and a slope.

Don't get me wrong here, as I had stated before, I am a digital recording
advocate for a number of reasons. As technology improves, hopefully we will
soon have a commercially viable playback medium that doesn't sound as cold
as CD's.

Have you ever been in a studio where someone records their tracks digitally
and then takes the final mix and runs it through tape before they send it
off for mastering? By that I mean they dump it on tape and then take it
right back off into a digital stereo track. It makes a difference. It warms
it up.


>>>> Only in abstract ("on paper").
>>>
>>> No, for real.
>>>
>>>> Many people agree vinyl sounds better than CD.
>
>> That's because it does. Why? Higher resolution.
>
> That has been totally debunked many times.
>
>>> Be truthful - give us a relative fraction of all music
>>> lovers who think that way. Note that vinyl sales have
>>> again taken a nosedive, as have SACD and DVD-A sales.
>
>> A relative fraction? Man, please ... stop it. Ya killin'
>> me ovah heah!
>
> I think you're already dead, at least from the neck up.
>
>>>> I'll repeat that- Many people agree vinyl sounds better
>>>> than CD.
>
>>> Say it over and over again until it makes you feel good,
>>> if that's what it takes to improve your thinking.
>>
>> Awww, Arny. That's to bad. Are you saying that in all of
>> your experience you have never heard a great record
>> played through well balanced, high quality gear?
>
> Any number of people have demonstrated to me what they called "a great
> record
> played through well balanced, high quality gear" I spent two days at
> HE2005 listening to this dog-and-pony show being repeated over and over
> again.
>
>> Give it
>> a shot and then come back and honestly tell me it's the
>> same as a cd.
>
> No, typically a LP sounds worse than a CD being played on a $39 DVD
> player, all other things being equal.
>
>> Maybe you record, rap? or disposable, juke box country
>> music? That would explain all of this. You record and mix
>> hip-hop at 16/44 and it sound just as good as higher
>> resolutions. Right?
>
> Wrong.
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> Red is red.
>>>>
>>>> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that people
>>>> hear things differently <snip>

>>> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the
>>> differences among people in sound reflection times.

>> The primary reason that different people perceive things
>> differently, given that they have a reasonable
>> opportunity to hear at all, is the difference in the
>> state of their brains.
>
> We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.

So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not involve the brain?

>> Here is an article that explains this and
>> illustrates it with a practical example:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)

> LOL Another "working URL"?

Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this link, too?

Here's another relevant link for you to mess up with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Alan S" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> "Signal" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This ignores the fact that 44/16 is an "overkill"
>>>>>> format. 12/32 would IMO and IME be "barest
>>>>>> aqcceptable quality".
>>>>>
>>>>> It is way below acceptable for serious listening.
>>>>> Fact.
>>>>>> Note that 12/32 still outperforms vinyl and all
>>>>>> consumer analog tape formats.
>>
>>> That is just simply not possible.
>>
>> Its a fact.
>>
>>> It's a molecular verses binary issue.
>>
>> It's dragging a rock over a piece of plastic that
>> deforms while the rock is dragged over it, versus a
>> highly precise electrical operation.

> Man, do you ever thing before you type stuff? How can you
> say that playing an LP is not a highly precise electrical
> operation?

Hhmm, about 50 years of experience with it.

>>> The molecules will win simply because of
>>> math. And if you shuffle through your data long enough
>>> to produce anything mathematically valid to dispute that
>>> comment ... oh, you won't because of head room.
>>
>> Wanna try that again and make sense this time?

> You have obviously spent time in recording studios, you
> know what head room is. The reason you can hit tape so
> hard is because it is an analog process using millions of
> molecules that are not constrained by the limits of
> binary recording.

Analog tape has plenty of limits of its own. One of its limitations is that
it is noisy, and another of its limitations is that it is highly imprecise.

> That is just one example of how much
> more information you can get recording with analog. It's
> the difference between stairs and a slope.

Between the noise and the imprecision, analog tape fails to act like the
ideal straight slope that infinite resolution demands.

> Don't get me wrong here, as I had stated before, I am a
> digital recording advocate for a number of reasons. As
> technology improves, hopefully we will soon have a
> commercially viable playback medium that doesn't sound as
> cold as CD's.

CDs are only as cold as you make them.

> Have you ever been in a studio where someone records
> their tracks digitally and then takes the final mix and
> runs it through tape before they send it off for
> mastering?

Yes. Analog tape is an EFX.

> By that I mean they dump it on tape and then
> take it right back off into a digital stereo track. It
> makes a difference. It warms it up.

The better approach is to make the recording sound warm without adding
audible noise and distortion.

Point out one of your cold sounding CDs, and I'll show you how to warm it
up.

[Alan S]

> Point out one of your cold sounding CDs, and I'll show you how to warm it
> up.
>
>
Anything, I would very much like to hear new ideas on warming up digital
recordings.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>> Red is red.
> >>>>
> >>>> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that people
> >>>> hear things differently <snip>
>
> >>> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the
> >>> differences among people in sound reflection times.
>
> >> The primary reason that different people perceive things
> >> differently, given that they have a reasonable
> >> opportunity to hear at all, is the difference in the
> >> state of their brains.
> >
> > We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.
>
> So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not involve the brain?

Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the primary reason
that people HEAR differently (what we were discussing) is differences in
the brain?

>
> >> Here is an article that explains this and
> >> illustrates it with a practical example:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)
>
> > LOL Another "working URL"?
>
> Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this link, too?

LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.

>
> Here's another relevant link for you to mess up with:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

No discussion of the pinna's role. If I referred you to the current
research in this matter, would you read it?

[Arny Krueger]

"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
>>>>> >, Here in
>>>>> Ohio > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Red is red.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that
>>>>>> people hear things differently <snip>
>>
>>>>> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the
>>>>> differences among people in sound reflection times.
>>
>>>> The primary reason that different people perceive
>>>> things differently, given that they have a reasonable
>>>> opportunity to hear at all, is the difference in the
>>>> state of their brains.
>>>
>>> We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.
>>
>> So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not
>> involve the brain?
>
> Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the
> primary reason that people HEAR differently (what we were
> discussing) is differences in the brain?
>
>>
>>>> Here is an article that explains this and
>>>> illustrates it with a practical example:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)
>>
>>> LOL Another "working URL"?
>>
>> Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this
>> link, too?
>
> LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.
>
>>
>> Here's another relevant link for you to mess up with:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
>
> No discussion of the pinna's role.

Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29

"The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is called the auricle, a
convoluted cup that arises from the opening of the ear canal on either side
of the head."

References:

http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html

"Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinna

"The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of the ear that resides
outside of the head (this may also be referred to as the auricle)."

>If I referred you to the current research in this matter, would you read
>it?

Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are well-known synonyms for
each other, what could you possibly contribute?

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" > wrote in message

>> Point out one of your cold sounding CDs, and I'll show
>> you how to warm it up.
>>
>>
> Anything, I would very much like to hear new ideas on
> warming up digital recordings.

It's a well-known 2-step process:

(1) Properly record something that is warm-sounding in the first place
(2) Listen to it in an unbiased state

[Jenn]

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
> >>>>> >, Here in
> >>>>> Ohio > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>> Red is red.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that
> >>>>>> people hear things differently <snip>
> >>
> >>>>> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the
> >>>>> differences among people in sound reflection times.
> >>
> >>>> The primary reason that different people perceive
> >>>> things differently, given that they have a reasonable
> >>>> opportunity to hear at all, is the difference in the
> >>>> state of their brains.
> >>>
> >>> We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.
> >>
> >> So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not
> >> involve the brain?
> >
> > Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the
> > primary reason that people HEAR differently (what we were
> > discussing) is differences in the brain?
> >
> >>
> >>>> Here is an article that explains this and
> >>>> illustrates it with a practical example:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)
> >>
> >>> LOL Another "working URL"?
> >>
> >> Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this
> >> link, too?
> >
> > LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.
> >
> >>
> >> Here's another relevant link for you to mess up with:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
> >
> > No discussion of the pinna's role.
>
> Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
>
> "The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is called the auricle, a
> convoluted cup that arises from the opening of the ear canal on either side
> of the head."
>
> References:
>
> http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html
>
> "Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinna
>
> "The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of the ear that resides
> outside of the head (this may also be referred to as the auricle)."
>
> >If I referred you to the current research in this matter, would you read
> >it?
>
> Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are well-known synonyms for
> each other, what could you possibly contribute?

LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you want to learn
something?

[Arny Krueger]

"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
>>>>>>> >, Here
>>>>>>> in Ohio > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> Red is red.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that
>>>>>>>> people hear things differently <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the
>>>>>>> differences among people in sound reflection times.
>>>>
>>>>>> The primary reason that different people perceive
>>>>>> things differently, given that they have a reasonable
>>>>>> opportunity to hear at all, is the difference in the
>>>>>> state of their brains.
>>>>>
>>>>> We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.
>>>>
>>>> So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not
>>>> involve the brain?
>>>
>>> Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the
>>> primary reason that people HEAR differently (what we
>>> were
>>> discussing) is differences in the brain?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Here is an article that explains this and
>>>>>> illustrates it with a practical example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)
>>>>
>>>>> LOL Another "working URL"?
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this
>>>> link, too?
>>>
>>> LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's another relevant link for you to mess up with:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
>>>
>>> No discussion of the pinna's role.
>>
>> Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
>>
>> "The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
>> called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises from
>> the opening of the ear canal on either side of the head."
>>
>> References:
>>
>> http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html
>>
>> "Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinna
>>
>> "The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of
>> the ear that resides outside of the head (this may also
>> be referred to as the auricle)."
>>
>>> If I referred you to the current research in this
>>> matter, would you read it?
>>
>> Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are
>> well-known synonyms for each other, what could you
>> possibly contribute?
>
> LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you want
> to learn something?

Give me a laugh, Jenn. Post the URL.

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Alan S" > wrote in message
>
>>> Point out one of your cold sounding CDs, and I'll show
>>> you how to warm it up.
>>>
>>>
>> Anything, I would very much like to hear new ideas on
>> warming up digital recordings.
>
> It's a well-known 2-step process:
>
> (1) Properly record something that is warm-sounding in the first place
> (2) Listen to it in an unbiased state
>
What a crock ... Bye Arny

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 06:44:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Signal" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> If you want to talk percentages you'll need to reduce
>>> that group down to people who have heard vinyl done
>>> properly. Of those, I estimate 88% prefer the sound of
>>> vinyl compared to CD.
>>
>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who
>> have heard vinyl done properly" to a carefully-selected
>> group.

> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard vinyl
> done properly.

Yes.

Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl properly. Maybe JA
tipped them off?

> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to admit they're wrong.

Exactly.

> What you really have to wonder is why it's so rare to
> hear the "superiority" of vinyl. Why is it so hard to
> "prove" the "superiority" of vinyl?

Obviouisly, it is all in the eyes of the beholden.

> What good is vinyl if it's so rarely "done properly?"


It gives bragging rights and preserves the air of mystery. It puts those of
us with hearing above 3 KHz in our places.

> Hmmm... I wonder if vinyl being "done properly" also
> includes the application of intoxicants?

Or inhilation?

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:25:23 +0000, Signal
> > wrote:
>
>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see that there's any problem with working with
>>> 32/96 or whatever. Feel free. :-)
>>>
>>> However, I haven't seen anything to indicate why it
>>> would sound better than 16/44.1. In the absense of
>>> that, we may conclude it's some sort of effect in the
>>> listener's mind, or that perhaps your 16/44.1 gear is
>>> defective or poorly made.
>>>
>>> Subjective, sighted listening tests are not reliable,
>>> nor are they conclusive. As I keep mentioning, there
>>> was the case where people at a show heard beneficial
>>> effects from a pizza box tripod being placed on top of
>>> a CD player. People _heard_ the effect when it was
>>> demonstrated by Enid Lumley. Later, in the absense of
>>> Enid, there was an absense of effects to the sound of
>>> CD players.
>>>
>>> That just completely destroys the validity of the
>>> claims of anyone who says "I like it" or "it sounds
>>> good to me."
>>
>> Except when Enid Lumley is in the room.
>
>
> Oh, so that's what you meant when you were telling Arny
> about vinyl being "done properly." You just keep Enid
> Lumley in your listening room and vinyl sounds wonderful.
>
> Lots of luck with that.

...especially since I hear that Enid has not aged particularly well.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:27:48 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> Red is red.
> >>
> >> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that people hear things
> >> differently <snip>
> >
> >Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the differences among people
> >in sound reflection times.
>
> The overall apparatus (internal and external) are similar enough that
> we can all use them to accomplish the same things.

Yes, barring abnormalities.

> Detecting predators
> and prey are usually the important things, although speech has become
> very important to humans.

Exactly.

> Sure, there are minute physical differences,
> but they're not enough to make one person prefer 1W SET amps over more
> accurate amps. (Just as an example.)

I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the evidence is very clear
that physical differences in the apparatus can and do cause differences
in the amount of reflected sound that reaches inner ear.

[Jenn]

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
> >>>>>>> >, Here
> >>>>>>> in Ohio > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>> Red is red.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that
> >>>>>>>> people hear things differently <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the
> >>>>>>> differences among people in sound reflection times.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The primary reason that different people perceive
> >>>>>> things differently, given that they have a reasonable
> >>>>>> opportunity to hear at all, is the difference in the
> >>>>>> state of their brains.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.
> >>>>
> >>>> So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not
> >>>> involve the brain?
> >>>
> >>> Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the
> >>> primary reason that people HEAR differently (what we
> >>> were
> >>> discussing) is differences in the brain?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Here is an article that explains this and
> >>>>>> illustrates it with a practical example:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)
> >>>>
> >>>>> LOL Another "working URL"?
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this
> >>>> link, too?
> >>>
> >>> LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's another relevant link for you to mess up with:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
> >>>
> >>> No discussion of the pinna's role.
> >>
> >> Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
> >>
> >> "The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
> >> called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises from
> >> the opening of the ear canal on either side of the head."
> >>
> >> References:
> >>
> >> http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html
> >>
> >> "Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"
> >>
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinna
> >>
> >> "The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of
> >> the ear that resides outside of the head (this may also
> >> be referred to as the auricle)."
> >>
> >>> If I referred you to the current research in this
> >>> matter, would you read it?
> >>
> >> Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are
> >> well-known synonyms for each other, what could you
> >> possibly contribute?
> >
> > LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you want
> > to learn something?
>
> Give me a laugh, Jenn.

Why would it be "a laugh", Arny?

> Post the URL.

The research that I have as part of a study by a scholarly study through
UCLA of which I am a participant (I've mentioned this here before)
aren't as yet on the web. The basic information is in books. Would you
like a list. I'll also ask the research team what I am allowed to place
here at this point, as the study is not completed and it isn't yet,
AFAIK, copyrighted.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

> >> In actuality, the pedal wasn't noisy before or after the application
> >> of some, in essense, snake oil. :-)
> >
> >Better to oil the pedal than the guitarist.
>
> He actually played better when well oiled up. Several shots of Jack
> Daniels slowed him down and he wasn't as able to try to impress you
> every second with his speed. He got much better tone when he was
> playing slower.

There is a film clip of Glenn Gould drinking a healthy shot of whiskey
before playing a note-perfect take of the last movement of Bach's
Italian Concerto. The trick is to be Glenn Gould before you drink, I
guess.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"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" > wrote
>>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ig
>>>>>>>> y.
>>>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> >, Here
>>>>>>>>> in Ohio > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> Red is red.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that
>>>>>>>>>> people hear things differently <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the
>>>>>>>>> differences among people in sound reflection
>>>>>>>>> times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The primary reason that different people perceive
>>>>>>>> things differently, given that they have a
>>>>>>>> reasonable opportunity to hear at all, is the
>>>>>>>> difference in the state of their brains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not
>>>>>> involve the brain?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the
>>>>> primary reason that people HEAR differently (what we
>>>>> were
>>>>> discussing) is differences in the brain?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is an article that explains this and
>>>>>>>> illustrates it with a practical example:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL Another "working URL"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this
>>>>>> link, too?
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's another relevant link for you to mess up
>>>>>> with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
>>>>>
>>>>> No discussion of the pinna's role.
>>>>
>>>> Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
>>>>
>>>> "The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
>>>> called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises from
>>>> the opening of the ear canal on either side of the
>>>> head."
>>>>
>>>> References:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html
>>>>
>>>> "Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinna
>>>>
>>>> "The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of
>>>> the ear that resides outside of the head (this may also
>>>> be referred to as the auricle)."
>>>>
>>>>> If I referred you to the current research in this
>>>>> matter, would you read it?

>>>> Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are
>>>> well-known synonyms for each other, what could you
>>>> possibly contribute?

>>> LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you want
>>> to learn something?
>>
>> Give me a laugh, Jenn.
>
> Why would it be "a laugh", Arny?

See above.

>> Post the URL.

> The research that I have as part of a study by a
> scholarly study through UCLA of which I am a participant
> (I've mentioned this here before) aren't as yet on the
> web. The basic information is in books. Would you like
> a list. I'll also ask the research team what I am
> allowed to place here at this point, as the study is not
> completed and it isn't yet, AFAIK, copyrighted.

IOW, you really had nothing in hand to share.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


> I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the
> evidence is very clear that physical differences in the
> apparatus can and do cause differences in the amount of
> reflected sound that reaches inner ear.

It's all about perception, Jenn. The ear isn't exactly simple, but it pales
in comparison to the brain. Suffice it to say that there is a lot that
happens in the brain that tends to significantly modify, and even nullify
fairly significant changes in the sound that reaches the inner ear and
beyond.

This is one reason why the PCABX site spends so much time on training people
how to hear differences in SQ due to technical differences in how it is
reproduced.

[Jenn]

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" > wrote
> >>>>>>>> in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> od
> >>>>>>>> ig
> >>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> >, Here
> >>>>>>>>> in Ohio > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>>> Red is red.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim that
> >>>>>>>>>> people hear things differently <snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the
> >>>>>>>>> differences among people in sound reflection
> >>>>>>>>> times.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The primary reason that different people perceive
> >>>>>>>> things differently, given that they have a
> >>>>>>>> reasonable opportunity to hear at all, is the
> >>>>>>>> difference in the state of their brains.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does not
> >>>>>> involve the brain?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that the
> >>>>> primary reason that people HEAR differently (what we
> >>>>> were
> >>>>> discussing) is differences in the brain?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Here is an article that explains this and
> >>>>>>>> illustrates it with a practical example:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> LOL Another "working URL"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you saying that you've botched up accessing this
> >>>>>> link, too?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here's another relevant link for you to mess up
> >>>>>> with:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No discussion of the pinna's role.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
> >>>>
> >>>> "The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
> >>>> called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises from
> >>>> the opening of the ear canal on either side of the
> >>>> head."
> >>>>
> >>>> References:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html
> >>>>
> >>>> "Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinna
> >>>>
> >>>> "The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of
> >>>> the ear that resides outside of the head (this may also
> >>>> be referred to as the auricle)."
> >>>>
> >>>>> If I referred you to the current research in this
> >>>>> matter, would you read it?
>
> >>>> Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are
> >>>> well-known synonyms for each other, what could you
> >>>> possibly contribute?
>
> >>> LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you want
> >>> to learn something?
> >>
> >> Give me a laugh, Jenn.
> >
> > Why would it be "a laugh", Arny?
>
> See above.

lol

>
> >> Post the URL.
>
> > The research that I have as part of a study by a
> > scholarly study through UCLA of which I am a participant
> > (I've mentioned this here before) aren't as yet on the
> > web. The basic information is in books. Would you like
> > a list. I'll also ask the research team what I am
> > allowed to place here at this point, as the study is not
> > completed and it isn't yet, AFAIK, copyrighted.
>
> IOW, you really had nothing in hand to share.

I have tons on hand to share. Do you want the list of the books or not?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the
> > evidence is very clear that physical differences in the
> > apparatus can and do cause differences in the amount of
> > reflected sound that reaches inner ear.
>
> It's all about perception, Jenn. The ear isn't exactly simple, but it pales
> in comparison to the brain. Suffice it to say that there is a lot that
> happens in the brain that tends to significantly modify, and even nullify
> fairly significant changes in the sound that reaches the inner ear and
> beyond.
>
> This is one reason why the PCABX site spends so much time on training people
> how to hear differences in SQ due to technical differences in how it is
> reproduced.

But there are differences in what reaches the inner ear (BEFORE it
reaches the brain).

[Arny Krueger]

"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" > wrote
>>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ig
>>>>>>>> y.
>>>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> od
>>>>>>>>>> ig
>>>>>>>>>> y.
>>>>>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Red is red.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim
>>>>>>>>>>>> that people hear things differently <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the
>>>>>>>>>>> differences among people in sound reflection
>>>>>>>>>>> times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The primary reason that different people perceive
>>>>>>>>>> things differently, given that they have a
>>>>>>>>>> reasonable opportunity to hear at all, is the
>>>>>>>>>> difference in the state of their brains.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does
>>>>>>>> not involve the brain?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that
>>>>>>> the primary reason that people HEAR differently
>>>>>>> (what we were
>>>>>>> discussing) is differences in the brain?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is an article that explains this and
>>>>>>>>>> illustrates it with a practical example:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL Another "working URL"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you saying that you've botched up accessing
>>>>>>>> this link, too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's another relevant link for you to mess up
>>>>>>>> with:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No discussion of the pinna's role.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
>>>>>> called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises from
>>>>>> the opening of the ear canal on either side of the
>>>>>> head."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> References:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinna
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of
>>>>>> the ear that resides outside of the head (this may
>>>>>> also be referred to as the auricle)."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I referred you to the current research in this
>>>>>>> matter, would you read it?

>>>>>> Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are
>>>>>> well-known synonyms for each other, what could you
>>>>>> possibly contribute?

>>>>> LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you
>>>>> want to learn something?
>>>>
>>>> Give me a laugh, Jenn.
>>>
>>> Why would it be "a laugh", Arny?
>>
>> See above.
>
> lol

>>>> Post the URL.

>>> The research that I have as part of a study by a
>>> scholarly study through UCLA of which I am a participant
>>> (I've mentioned this here before) aren't as yet on the
>>> web. The basic information is in books. Would you like
>>> a list. I'll also ask the research team what I am
>>> allowed to place here at this point, as the study is not
>>> completed and it isn't yet, AFAIK, copyrighted.
>>
>> IOW, you really had nothing in hand to share.

> I have tons on hand to share. Do you want the list of
> the books or not?

Save your keyboard time for your usual trolling, Jenn.

[Jenn]

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" > wrote
> >>>>>>>> in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> od
> >>>>>>>> ig
> >>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>> in message
> >>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>> pr
> >>>>>>>>>> od
> >>>>>>>>>> ig
> >>>>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Red is red.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that people hear things differently <snip>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and the
> >>>>>>>>>>> differences among people in sound reflection
> >>>>>>>>>>> times.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The primary reason that different people perceive
> >>>>>>>>>> things differently, given that they have a
> >>>>>>>>>> reasonable opportunity to hear at all, is the
> >>>>>>>>>> difference in the state of their brains.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does
> >>>>>>>> not involve the brain?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that
> >>>>>>> the primary reason that people HEAR differently
> >>>>>>> (what we were
> >>>>>>> discussing) is differences in the brain?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Here is an article that explains this and
> >>>>>>>>>> illustrates it with a practical example:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> LOL Another "working URL"?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Are you saying that you've botched up accessing
> >>>>>>>> this link, too?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Here's another relevant link for you to mess up
> >>>>>>>> with:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No discussion of the pinna's role.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
> >>>>>> called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises from
> >>>>>> the opening of the ear canal on either side of the
> >>>>>> head."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> References:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinna
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part of
> >>>>>> the ear that resides outside of the head (this may
> >>>>>> also be referred to as the auricle)."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If I referred you to the current research in this
> >>>>>>> matter, would you read it?
>
> >>>>>> Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle are
> >>>>>> well-known synonyms for each other, what could you
> >>>>>> possibly contribute?
>
> >>>>> LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you
> >>>>> want to learn something?
> >>>>
> >>>> Give me a laugh, Jenn.
> >>>
> >>> Why would it be "a laugh", Arny?
> >>
> >> See above.
> >
> > lol
>
> >>>> Post the URL.
>
> >>> The research that I have as part of a study by a
> >>> scholarly study through UCLA of which I am a participant
> >>> (I've mentioned this here before) aren't as yet on the
> >>> web. The basic information is in books. Would you like
> >>> a list. I'll also ask the research team what I am
> >>> allowed to place here at this point, as the study is not
> >>> completed and it isn't yet, AFAIK, copyrighted.
> >>
> >> IOW, you really had nothing in hand to share.
>
> > I have tons on hand to share. Do you want the list of
> > the books or not?
>
> Save your keyboard time for your usual trolling, Jenn.

lol As usual, you don't want to know the truth. You never disappoint.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>
> >>> I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the
> >>> evidence is very clear that physical differences in the
> >>> apparatus can and do cause differences in the amount of
> >>> reflected sound that reaches inner ear.
>
> >> It's all about perception, Jenn. The ear isn't exactly
> >> simple, but it pales in comparison to the brain. Suffice
> >> it to say that there is a lot that happens in the brain
> >> that tends to significantly modify, and even nullify
> >> fairly significant changes in the sound that reaches the
> >> inner ear and beyond.
> >>
> >> This is one reason why the PCABX site spends so much
> >> time on training people how to hear differences in SQ
> >> due to technical differences in how it is reproduced.
>
> > But there are differences in what reaches the inner ear
> > (BEFORE it reaches the brain).
>
> Not but, but of course. Nobody who is knowlegable about how we perceive
> bymeans of hearing thinks differently.

Then you would disagree with "Ohio's" statement. I'm glad that we agree.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>> I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the
>>> evidence is very clear that physical differences in the
>>> apparatus can and do cause differences in the amount of
>>> reflected sound that reaches inner ear.

>> It's all about perception, Jenn. The ear isn't exactly
>> simple, but it pales in comparison to the brain. Suffice
>> it to say that there is a lot that happens in the brain
>> that tends to significantly modify, and even nullify
>> fairly significant changes in the sound that reaches the
>> inner ear and beyond.
>>
>> This is one reason why the PCABX site spends so much
>> time on training people how to hear differences in SQ
>> due to technical differences in how it is reproduced.

> But there are differences in what reaches the inner ear
> (BEFORE it reaches the brain).

Not but, but of course. Nobody who is knowlegable about how we perceive
bymeans of hearing thinks differently.

[Arny Krueger]

"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" > wrote
>>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ig
>>>>>>>> y.
>>>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> od
>>>>>>>>>> ig
>>>>>>>>>> y.
>>>>>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>> pr
>>>>>>>>>>>> od
>>>>>>>>>>>> ig
>>>>>>>>>>>> y.
>>>>>>>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Red is red.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that people hear things differently <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the differences among people in sound
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflection times.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The primary reason that different people
>>>>>>>>>>>> perceive things differently, given that they
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a reasonable opportunity to hear at all,
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the difference in the state of their brains.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does
>>>>>>>>>> not involve the brain?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that
>>>>>>>>> the primary reason that people HEAR differently
>>>>>>>>> (what we were
>>>>>>>>> discussing) is differences in the brain?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is an article that explains this and
>>>>>>>>>>>> illustrates it with a practical example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LOL Another "working URL"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that you've botched up accessing
>>>>>>>>>> this link, too?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here's another relevant link for you to mess up
>>>>>>>>>> with:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No discussion of the pinna's role.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
>>>>>>>> called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises
>>>>>>>> from the opening of the ear canal on either side
>>>>>>>> of the head."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> References:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinna
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part
>>>>>>>> of the ear that resides outside of the head (this
>>>>>>>> may also be referred to as the auricle)."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I referred you to the current research in this
>>>>>>>>> matter, would you read it?
>>
>>>>>>>> Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle
>>>>>>>> are well-known synonyms for each other, what could
>>>>>>>> you possibly contribute?
>>
>>>>>>> LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you
>>>>>>> want to learn something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Give me a laugh, Jenn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would it be "a laugh", Arny?
>>>>
>>>> See above.
>>>
>>> lol
>>
>>>>>> Post the URL.
>>
>>>>> The research that I have as part of a study by a
>>>>> scholarly study through UCLA of which I am a
>>>>> participant (I've mentioned this here before) aren't
>>>>> as yet on the web. The basic information is in
>>>>> books. Would you like a list. I'll also ask the
>>>>> research team what I am allowed to place here at this
>>>>> point, as the study is not completed and it isn't
>>>>> yet, AFAIK, copyrighted.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, you really had nothing in hand to share.

>>> I have tons on hand to share.

It seems thjat you have nothng here that is readily obtainable or readily
sharable.

>>> Do you want the list of the books or not?

>> Save your keyboard time for your usual trolling, Jenn.

> lol As usual, you don't want to know the truth.

Jenn there is no such thing as "the truth". There is a lot of truth of one
kind or the other out there, but none of it is the truth.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to DebatingTradeBorg:

> > > I have tons on hand to share. Do you want the list of
> > > the books or not?

> > Save your keyboard time for your usual trolling, Jenn.

> lol As usual, you don't want to know the truth. You never disappoint.

Arnii is so busy "working" on Usenet that he can't spare the time to read
a book. Especially on a subject in which he claims expertiese™.




--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .


>>>>>> Sure, there are minute physical differences,
>>>>>> but they're not enough to make one person prefer 1W SET amps over
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> accurate amps. (Just as an example.)

>>>>> I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the
>>>>> evidence is very clear that physical differences in
>>>>> the apparatus can and do cause differences in the
>>>>> amount of reflected sound that reaches inner ear.
>>
>>>> It's all about perception, Jenn. The ear isn't exactly
>>>> simple, but it pales in comparison to the brain.
>>>> Suffice it to say that there is a lot that happens in
>>>> the brain that tends to significantly modify, and even
>>>> nullify fairly significant changes in the sound that
>>>> reaches the inner ear and beyond.
>>>>
>>>> This is one reason why the PCABX site spends so much
>>>> time on training people how to hear differences in SQ
>>>> due to technical differences in how it is reproduced.
>>
>>> But there are differences in what reaches the inner ear
>>> (BEFORE it reaches the brain).

>> Not but, but of course. Nobody who is knowlegable about
>> how we perceive bymeans of hearing thinks differently.

> Then you would disagree with "Ohio's" statement.

Non sequitor.

If you said that there are physical differences in the hearing apparatus of
people with normal hearing that would make one person prefer 1W SET amps
over more accurate amps, you're jumping to conclusions.

The ear is connected to a very powerful and dominant organ that undergoes a
lifetime of training and conditioning. That conditioning tends to equalize
many perceptions, up until the person's hearing falls well out of the normal
range.

Most people will develop a distaste for amps that produce inharmonic
distortion that they keep until they lose the ability to hear anything like
normally.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg reveals the core truth of the "debating trade".

> Jenn there is no such thing as "the truth".

Of course there isn't, Turdy. That's why you always "win".




--

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

[Ayn Marx]

Neither are we........................

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>


>Arnii is so busy "working" on Usenet that he can't spare the time to read
>a book. Especially on a subject in which he claims expertieseâ„¢.


LOL!

Middusi its like, theres existing anything worthy of, knowlege outside
off Goggle Midius, NoT ! ;-)

ROTFLMEEEOOOW ;-(

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

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >Arnii is so busy "working" on Usenet that he can't spare the time to read
> >a book. Especially on a subject in which he claims expertiese™.

> LOL!

In Krooglish, one says "That's LOL!"

> Middusi its like, theres existing anything worthy of, knowlege outside
> off Goggle Midius, NoT ! ;-)
>
> ROTFLMEEEOOOW ;-(

Would you like to be the Official Usenet Belt Sander?




--

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

[John Atkinson]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> >Arnii is so busy "working" on Usenet that he can't spare the time to read
> >a book. Especially on a subject in which he claims expertiese™.
>
> LOL!
>
> Middusi its like, theres existing anything worthy of, knowlege outside
> off Goggle Midius, NoT ! ;-)

That's one for the Archives! LOtS! ;-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Eeyore]

Ayn Marx wrote:

> Neither are we........................

Does anyone give a damn ?

Graham

[Jenn]

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

> Sander deWaal said:
>
> > >Arnii is so busy "working" on Usenet that he can't spare the time to read
> > >a book. Especially on a subject in which he claims expertiese™.
>
> > LOL!
>
> In Krooglish, one says "That's LOL!"
>
> > Middusi its like, theres existing anything worthy of, knowlege outside
> > off Goggle Midius, NoT ! ;-)
> >
> > ROTFLMEEEOOOW ;-(
>
> Would you like to be the Official Usenet Belt Sander?

Craftsman?

[Peter Wieck]

Eeyore wrote:
> Does anyone give a damn ?

No one but the three fleas. Funny how they orbit about each other and
are getting less and less traction.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..

<snip>

> Not at all. I note that the last set of RIAA stats on their site show
> something like a 30% drop in vinyl sales, and sharp drops in SACD sales.
> You really know how to pick the winners!
>
> http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2005yrEndStats.pdf
>
Seems to me we went over this same ground last year, and nobody could verify
that the RIAA statistics included a complete tally (or any tally, for that
matter) of web sales.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 06:44:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Signal" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you want to talk percentages you'll need to reduce
>>>> that group down to people who have heard vinyl done
>>>> properly. Of those, I estimate 88% prefer the sound of
>>>> vinyl compared to CD.
>>>
>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who
>>> have heard vinyl done properly" to a carefully-selected
>>> group.
>
>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard vinyl
>> done properly.
>
> Yes.
>
> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl properly. Maybe JA
> tipped them off?
>
>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to admit they're wrong.
>
> Exactly.

Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to even figure that
perhaps expectation bias might be at work....expectation that vinyl can't
possibly sound good?



>> What you really have to wonder is why it's so rare to
>> hear the "superiority" of vinyl. Why is it so hard to
>> "prove" the "superiority" of vinyl?
>
> Obviouisly, it is all in the eyes of the beholden.
>
>> What good is vinyl if it's so rarely "done properly?"
>
>
> It gives bragging rights and preserves the air of mystery. It puts those
> of us with hearing above 3 KHz in our places.
>
>> Hmmm... I wonder if vinyl being "done properly" also
>> includes the application of intoxicants?
>
> Or inhilation?


If the two of you are thinking of giving up your day jobs to become
comedians, a word of advice: *don't*!!

[dizzy]

Alan S wrote:

> dizzy wrote:
>>
>> Alan S wrote:
>>
>>>Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why? I don't know, big
>>>deal.
>>>I do know that I hear a difference in music that I record at 32/96 and
>>>music
>>>I record at 16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me why,
>>>and
>>>I have talked with a lot of engineers about it. You would think that if
>>>the
>>>music is going to be dithered down to 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit anyway then it
>>>would be just fine to record it at that resolution.
>>
>> This shows your utter ignorance. Best to keep quiet.
>>
>Now ditzy, you know you can do better than that. C'mon ... try a little
>harder.

Why bother, for someone who can't understand the fundamental
difference between recording with 16 bits and recording with 24 bits
and later dithering down to 16.

I also note that you haven't figured-out who to quote USENET posts
without massacring said quotes into illegibility. I take it you're
not a rocket scientist.

[dizzy]

Sander deWaal wrote:

>dizzy > said:
>
>>>All my stuff sounds wonderful to me, because I like to listen to music
>>>on it.
>
>>>Not accurate? No hifi? Why should anyone care, as long as it sounds
>>>good to me?
>
>>Yes! Like using tone controls! 8)
>
>And you'll never hear me complain about them.
>However, some tone controls are more useful than others.
>
>I still think you should try to get hold of one of those old Lux
>preamps.
>It shouldn't be too difficult to DIY a remote control for it, IMO.

Are you thinking tubed or SS?

[Ayn Marx]

On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 16:27 -0500, George M.Middius wrote:
>
> The Krooborg reveals the core truth of the "debating trade".
>
> > Jenn there is no such thing as "the truth".
>
> Of course there isn't, Turdy. That's why you always "win".
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

We are listening sorry to say

[Ayn Marx]

On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 13:47 -0800, Ayn Marx wrote:
> Neither are we........................
>

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>>> While there is no up side to operation at excessive
>>> speeds, there are further disadvantages:
>>>
>> In a short news article Marantz reported increases in
>> fidelity up to 500 KHz... a 260% increase over 192
>> MHz.
>
> Yes, there is an apocryphal story about Ken Ishiwata from
> Marantz blowing that kind of smoke. Of course KI is
> well-known for his publicity and marketing, not his knowlege
> of audio technology.
>
Zzzzzz....


> <snip quacking>
>
I'm enjoying my new found abilities which cause
you to run away from my threads. So you see me
as the bogeyman nowadays. Hehehe... nice hold
over you, to-be-sure.

[Sander deWaal]

dizzy > said:


>>I still think you should try to get hold of one of those old Lux
>>preamps.
>>It shouldn't be too difficult to DIY a remote control for it, IMO.


>Are you thinking tubed or SS?


The units I am thinking about, are all silicon solid state.
Though they may be 20 to 30 years old, they are built like tanks and
the tone controls are very effective and useful IMO.

The only drawback being that you most likely must recap the entire
amp, and check for bad solderings, switches and pots.

I'm a DIY-er, so I'm not very afraid of such problems.

If you're not, the cost of having this done may be considerable.
Apart from that, there are too many bad techs out there that don't
understand discrete analog electronics anymore.

If you're not familiar with a soldering iron and a multimeter, find
yourself a good (older) tech who knows his analog stuff.

I don't have a model number at hand right now, but with some googling,
you might come up with more than enough information.

As far as rempte controlling goes, this will depend on whether there
are (rotary) switches or pots in there for tone controls.
The switch functions can be emulated by relays, remote controlling a
potmeter may be a bit more difficult (but not impossible!).

I'd program a PIC or AVR to drive a couple of relays, with RC5 encoded
and an IR receiver attached.


If all this sounds like Chinese to you, forget about it all.
There are probably plenty of commercial remote-controlled preamps with
tone controls available, I don't know about that.
You might look at brands like Onkyo, Denon and Yamaha (if they still
make stereo gear).
I honestly don't know, since I build nearly all my electronics myself,
so I am not interested in commercial amplifiers.

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

[Jenn]

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.
>
>
> >>>>>> Sure, there are minute physical differences,
> >>>>>> but they're not enough to make one person prefer 1W SET amps over
> >>>>>> more
> >>>>>> accurate amps. (Just as an example.)
>
> >>>>> I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the
> >>>>> evidence is very clear that physical differences in
> >>>>> the apparatus can and do cause differences in the
> >>>>> amount of reflected sound that reaches inner ear.
> >>
> >>>> It's all about perception, Jenn. The ear isn't exactly
> >>>> simple, but it pales in comparison to the brain.
> >>>> Suffice it to say that there is a lot that happens in
> >>>> the brain that tends to significantly modify, and even
> >>>> nullify fairly significant changes in the sound that
> >>>> reaches the inner ear and beyond.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is one reason why the PCABX site spends so much
> >>>> time on training people how to hear differences in SQ
> >>>> due to technical differences in how it is reproduced.
> >>
> >>> But there are differences in what reaches the inner ear
> >>> (BEFORE it reaches the brain).
>
> >> Not but, but of course. Nobody who is knowlegable about
> >> how we perceive bymeans of hearing thinks differently.
>
> > Then you would disagree with "Ohio's" statement.
>
> Non sequitor.
>
> If you said that there are physical differences in the hearing apparatus of
> people with normal hearing that would make one person prefer 1W SET amps
> over more accurate amps, you're jumping to conclusions.

But I didn't say that, did I?

>
> The ear is connected to a very powerful and dominant organ that undergoes a
> lifetime of training and conditioning.

Of course.

> That conditioning tends to equalize
> many perceptions, up until the person's hearing falls well out of the normal
> range.

Where is the proof that "conditioning" trumps physiology?

>
> Most people will develop a distaste for amps that produce inharmonic
> distortion that they keep until they lose the ability to hear anything like
> normally.

[Jenn]

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" > wrote
> >>>>>>>> in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> od
> >>>>>>>> ig
> >>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>> in message
> >>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>> pr
> >>>>>>>>>> od
> >>>>>>>>>> ig
> >>>>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> s.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pr
> >>>>>>>>>>>> od
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ig
> >>>>>>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Red is red.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same goes for hearing. It's BS to claim
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that people hear things differently <snip>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not true. See the studies on the pinna and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the differences among people in sound
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reflection times.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The primary reason that different people
> >>>>>>>>>>>> perceive things differently, given that they
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have a reasonable opportunity to hear at all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is the difference in the state of their brains.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We were speaking of HEARING, Arny.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So what are you saying, Jenn - that hearing does
> >>>>>>>>>> not involve the brain?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Gee Arny, no I'm not. Where is your evidence that
> >>>>>>>>> the primary reason that people HEAR differently
> >>>>>>>>> (what we were
> >>>>>>>>> discussing) is differences in the brain?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Here is an article that explains this and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> illustrates it with a practical example:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> LOL Another "working URL"?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that you've botched up accessing
> >>>>>>>>>> this link, too?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> LOL Nope, just poking you in the ribs a bit.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Here's another relevant link for you to mess up
> >>>>>>>>>> with:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No discussion of the pinna's role.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ignorance of common synonyms for pinna, noted.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "The visible portion of the outer ear in humans is
> >>>>>>>> called the auricle, a convoluted cup that arises
> >>>>>>>> from the opening of the ear canal on either side
> >>>>>>>> of the head."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> References:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://www.ghorayeb.com/AnatomyAuricle.html
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Anatomy of the Auricle / Pinna"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinna
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "The pinna (Latin for feather) is the visible part
> >>>>>>>> of the ear that resides outside of the head (this
> >>>>>>>> may also be referred to as the auricle)."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If I referred you to the current research in this
> >>>>>>>>> matter, would you read it?
> >>
> >>>>>>>> Given that you don't know that pinna and auricle
> >>>>>>>> are well-known synonyms for each other, what could
> >>>>>>>> you possibly contribute?
> >>
> >>>>>>> LOL OF COURSE you wouldn't read it. Why would you
> >>>>>>> want to learn something?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Give me a laugh, Jenn.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why would it be "a laugh", Arny?
> >>>>
> >>>> See above.
> >>>
> >>> lol
> >>
> >>>>>> Post the URL.
> >>
> >>>>> The research that I have as part of a study by a
> >>>>> scholarly study through UCLA of which I am a
> >>>>> participant (I've mentioned this here before) aren't
> >>>>> as yet on the web. The basic information is in
> >>>>> books. Would you like a list. I'll also ask the
> >>>>> research team what I am allowed to place here at this
> >>>>> point, as the study is not completed and it isn't
> >>>>> yet, AFAIK, copyrighted.
> >>>>
> >>>> IOW, you really had nothing in hand to share.
>
> >>> I have tons on hand to share.
>
> It seems thjat you have nothng here that is readily obtainable or readily
> sharable.

You have university libraries near you. Do you want the references?

>
> >>> Do you want the list of the books or not?
>
> >> Save your keyboard time for your usual trolling, Jenn.
>
> > lol As usual, you don't want to know the truth.
>
> Jenn there is no such thing as "the truth". There is a lot of truth of one
> kind or the other out there, but none of it is the truth.

Really? That's an interesting statement.

[[email protected]]

Eeyore wrote:
> Ayn Marx wrote:
>
> > Neither are we........................
>
> Does anyone give a damn ?

Not us faux Taswegians thets fer shore.... HYUCK!!

[dizzy]

Sander deWaal wrote:

>The (Lux) units I am thinking about, are all silicon solid state.
>Though they may be 20 to 30 years old, they are built like tanks and
>the tone controls are very effective and useful IM

I looked into those, and the "linear equalizer" or whatever seems like
a neat feature. Unfortunately, I need much more control than the +/1
2 dB range that it as...

>(snip)
>If all this sounds like Chinese to you, forget about it all.

Not Chinese at all. I'm an EE, and I can handle a soldering iron, as
long is it's not surface mount and not lead-free solder. (I only use
good old-fashioned tin-lead resin-core solder 8)

>There are probably plenty of commercial remote-controlled preamps with
>tone controls available, I don't know about that.

Actually, there isn't plenty that meet my needs. Most of the ones
being made have extemely wimpy +/- 5 dB controls.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, there are minute physical differences,
>>>>>>>> but they're not enough to make one person prefer
>>>>>>>> 1W SET amps over more
>>>>>>>> accurate amps. (Just as an example.)
>>
>>>>>>> I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the
>>>>>>> evidence is very clear that physical differences in
>>>>>>> the apparatus can and do cause differences in the
>>>>>>> amount of reflected sound that reaches inner ear.
>>>>
>>>>>> It's all about perception, Jenn. The ear isn't
>>>>>> exactly simple, but it pales in comparison to the
>>>>>> brain. Suffice it to say that there is a lot that
>>>>>> happens in the brain that tends to significantly
>>>>>> modify, and even nullify fairly significant changes
>>>>>> in the sound that reaches the inner ear and beyond.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is one reason why the PCABX site spends so much
>>>>>> time on training people how to hear differences in SQ
>>>>>> due to technical differences in how it is reproduced.
>>>>
>>>>> But there are differences in what reaches the inner
>>>>> ear (BEFORE it reaches the brain).
>>
>>>> Not but, but of course. Nobody who is knowlegable about
>>>> how we perceive bymeans of hearing thinks differently.
>>
>>> Then you would disagree with "Ohio's" statement.
>>
>> Non sequitor.
>>
>> If you said that there are physical differences in the
>> hearing apparatus of people with normal hearing that
>> would make one person prefer 1W SET amps over more
>> accurate amps, you're jumping to conclusions.
>
> But I didn't say that, did I?

Did you?

Look Jenn, I'm tired of playing games with you. If you want to clarify what
you said, then do it in one post.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
> <snip>
>
>> Not at all. I note that the last set of RIAA stats on
>> their site show something like a 30% drop in vinyl
>> sales, and sharp drops in SACD sales. You really know
>> how to pick the winners!
>> http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2005yrEndStats.pdf
>>
> Seems to me we went over this same ground last year, and
> nobody could verify that the RIAA statistics included a
> complete tally (or any tally, for that matter) of web
> sales.

IOW, if Harry's confused by the facts, then Harry wants us all to be as
confused as he is.

You're obfuscating as usual, Harry.

[Jenn]

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.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>> Sure, there are minute physical differences,
> >>>>>>>> but they're not enough to make one person prefer
> >>>>>>>> 1W SET amps over more
> >>>>>>>> accurate amps. (Just as an example.)
> >>
> >>>>>>> I don't know about the sound of SET amps, but the
> >>>>>>> evidence is very clear that physical differences in
> >>>>>>> the apparatus can and do cause differences in the
> >>>>>>> amount of reflected sound that reaches inner ear.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> It's all about perception, Jenn. The ear isn't
> >>>>>> exactly simple, but it pales in comparison to the
> >>>>>> brain. Suffice it to say that there is a lot that
> >>>>>> happens in the brain that tends to significantly
> >>>>>> modify, and even nullify fairly significant changes
> >>>>>> in the sound that reaches the inner ear and beyond.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is one reason why the PCABX site spends so much
> >>>>>> time on training people how to hear differences in SQ
> >>>>>> due to technical differences in how it is reproduced.
> >>>>
> >>>>> But there are differences in what reaches the inner
> >>>>> ear (BEFORE it reaches the brain).
> >>
> >>>> Not but, but of course. Nobody who is knowlegable about
> >>>> how we perceive bymeans of hearing thinks differently.
> >>
> >>> Then you would disagree with "Ohio's" statement.
> >>
> >> Non sequitor.
> >>
> >> If you said that there are physical differences in the
> >> hearing apparatus of people with normal hearing that
> >> would make one person prefer 1W SET amps over more
> >> accurate amps, you're jumping to conclusions.
> >
> > But I didn't say that, did I?
>
> Did you?
>
> Look Jenn, I'm tired of playing games with you.

Then by all means you should stop doing it.

> If you want to clarify what
> you said, then do it in one post.

No need; simply re-read the above. Everything I wrote is very clear.

[Sander deWaal]

dizzy > said:


>>The (Lux) units I am thinking about, are all silicon solid state.
>>Though they may be 20 to 30 years old, they are built like tanks and
>>the tone controls are very effective and useful IM


>I looked into those, and the "linear equalizer" or whatever seems like
>a neat feature. Unfortunately, I need much more control than the +/1
>2 dB range that it as...


That's just the "tilt-EQ".
It allows for a 0, 1.5 or 3 dB tilting of the entire frequency curve
down or up the low or high side.
You'd be surprised how much 1.5 dB can do in this function!

There's usually also a "conventional" tone control, with at least +-
10 dB boost or cut on low and high, with adjustable corner
frequencies.
Usually a 3 step switch, but some have a continuous CF adjustment by
potmeters.

You could also buy an integrated and use it just as a preamp, as most,
if not all, Luxman amps from that era had a preout/main in
possibility.

I use the L100 integrated just as a preamp myself sometimes, just
because of the good tone control functions.
There's also a very good MC/MM preamp on board.


>>(snip)
>>If all this sounds like Chinese to you, forget about it all.


>Not Chinese at all. I'm an EE, and I can handle a soldering iron, as
>long is it's not surface mount and not lead-free solder. (I only use
>good old-fashioned tin-lead resin-core solder 8)


Good, so do I. ;-)
The lead-free solder stuff works OK on new projects, but to repair or
modify existing PCBs that were soldered with Sn/Pb in the first place,
mixing it with leadfree is asking for trouble.

BTW SMT can be useful, and through hole components are slowly phased
out, apart from power components that is.
In a few years, we'll just *have* to use SMT, or there's no hobby at
all.
Unless you've stashed enough TH components away for a lifetime, as I
have ;-)

OK, I just googled a bit and found two Lux models that might fit the
bill for you:
C1000 and C5000A.
See:
www.hifi-studio.de/hifi-klassiker/luxman.htm
Only in German.


>>There are probably plenty of commercial remote-controlled preamps with
>>tone controls available, I don't know about that.


>Actually, there isn't plenty that meet my needs. Most of the ones
>being made have extemely wimpy +/- 5 dB controls.


I'm sorry to hear that.
Maybe you should look at a different solution then, a remote
controlled (digital) equalizer from Behringer, Rane or something like
that, if they are equipped with RC that is.

If not, that's something easily added, if there's a I2C uP on board.
Usually, there is ;-)

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

[Sander deWaal]

Jenn > said:


>> Would you like to be the Official Usenet Belt Sander?


Methinks Peter would object, but thanks anyway.


>Craftsman?


I am.

Happy birthday (better late than never).
http://static.flickr.com/28/65693810_f09d28e6c9_m.jpg

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

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Not at all. I note that the last set of RIAA stats on
>>> their site show something like a 30% drop in vinyl
>>> sales, and sharp drops in SACD sales. You really know
>>> how to pick the winners!
>>> http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2005yrEndStats.pdf
>>>
>> Seems to me we went over this same ground last year, and
>> nobody could verify that the RIAA statistics included a
>> complete tally (or any tally, for that matter) of web
>> sales.
>
> IOW, if Harry's confused by the facts, then Harry wants us all to be as
> confused as he is.
>
> You're obfuscating as usual, Harry.

In other words, you don't know this year, either.

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >> Would you like to be the Official Usenet Belt Sander?

> Methinks Peter would object, but thanks anyway.

Hardly.™ That was the entire point. You're welcome, NOt! ;-(




--

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

[Jenn]

In article >,
Sander deWaal > wrote:

> Jenn > said:
>
>
> >> Would you like to be the Official Usenet Belt Sander?
>
>
> Methinks Peter would object, but thanks anyway.
>
>
> >Craftsman?
>
>
> I am.
>
> Happy birthday (better late than never).
> http://static.flickr.com/28/65693810_f09d28e6c9_m.jpg

Many thanks!

I had a wonderful day in Santa Barbara, and I ran into an old friend,
and that story loosely relates to this group. In high school, I played
my very first recording session. It was a guitar gig with a pioneering
"Jesus Movement" band called Children of the Day. Their first song, on
which I played, was perhaps the very first "Contemporary Christian"
song, called "For Those Tears I Died". It's sometimes called "Come to
the Water". The song became such a hit in Christian circles that it
made its way into many hymnals. Arny may well know this song. As an
aside, many churches later literally ripped the song out of their
hymnals when the composer and lead singer, Marsha Stevens, who I ran
into yesterday, came out as being gay. Anyway, it was a great song and
a great album. It was wonderful to see her again after many years, and
to remember my first paying recording session.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> many churches later literally ripped the song out of their hymnals when
> the composer and lead singer, Marsha Stevens ... came out as being gay.

The true spirit of christianity encapsulated -- tolerance above all.




--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Not at all. I note that the last set of RIAA stats on
>>>> their site show something like a 30% drop in vinyl
>>>> sales, and sharp drops in SACD sales. You really know
>>>> how to pick the winners!
>>>> http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2005yrEndStats.pdf
>>>>
>>> Seems to me we went over this same ground last year, and
>>> nobody could verify that the RIAA statistics included a
>>> complete tally (or any tally, for that matter) of web
>>> sales.
>>
>> IOW, if Harry's confused by the facts, then Harry wants
>> us all to be as confused as he is.
>>
>> You're obfuscating as usual, Harry.
>
> In other words, you don't know this year, either.

And neither do you Harry, it seems. I can't always be more knowlegable than
you are, just most of the time.

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
> Jenn said:
>
> > many churches later literally ripped the song out of their hymnals when
> > the composer and lead singer, Marsha Stevens ... came out as being gay.
>
> The true spirit of christianity encapsulated -- tolerance above all.
>
except tolerance for Christians, of course.

[Harry Lavo]

"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
>>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. I note that the last set of RIAA stats on
>>>>> their site show something like a 30% drop in vinyl
>>>>> sales, and sharp drops in SACD sales. You really know
>>>>> how to pick the winners!
>>>>> http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2005yrEndStats.pdf
>>>>>
>>>> Seems to me we went over this same ground last year, and
>>>> nobody could verify that the RIAA statistics included a
>>>> complete tally (or any tally, for that matter) of web
>>>> sales.
>>>
>>> IOW, if Harry's confused by the facts, then Harry wants
>>> us all to be as confused as he is.
>>>
>>> You're obfuscating as usual, Harry.
>>
>> In other words, you don't know this year, either.
>
> And neither do you Harry, it seems. I can't always be more knowlegable
> than you are, just most of the time.

However, since you introduced the stats into this immediate thread to make
the point that LP, SACD, and DVD-A sales are disappearing, it would seem you
have no interest in intellectual honesty. For anybody truly interested in
those media know that most sales nowadays are via the internet, and if they
are excluded from the statistics because of that, the statistics are bogus
so far as actual acceptance is concerned.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[Arny Krueger]

"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
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. I note that the last set of RIAA stats on
>>>>>> their site show something like a 30% drop in vinyl
>>>>>> sales, and sharp drops in SACD sales. You really know
>>>>>> how to pick the winners!
>>>>>> http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2005yrEndStats.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to me we went over this same ground last year,
>>>>> and nobody could verify that the RIAA statistics
>>>>> included a complete tally (or any tally, for that
>>>>> matter) of web sales.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, if Harry's confused by the facts, then Harry wants
>>>> us all to be as confused as he is.
>>>>
>>>> You're obfuscating as usual, Harry.
>>>
>>> In other words, you don't know this year, either.
>>
>> And neither do you Harry, it seems. I can't always be
>> more knowlegable than you are, just most of the time.
>
> However, since you introduced the stats into this
> immediate thread to make the point that LP, SACD, and
> DVD-A sales are disappearing, it would seem you have no
> interest in intellectual honesty.

Harry, no fair trying to injure those that read this forum that have brains
with ludicrous statements like this.

> For anybody truly
> interested in those media know that most sales nowadays
> are via the internet, and if they are excluded from the
> statistics because of that, the statistics are bogus so
> far as actual acceptance is concerned.

There's no evidence that online sales are excluded from RIAA stats. If they
were excluded as you cliam, they would show a preciptious (like 20-40%) drop
in overall sales.

> I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Try being honest for a change, Harry. Heck, I'll make it even easier - try
to be relevant.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> George M. Middius a scris:
> > Jenn said:
> >
> > > many churches later literally ripped the song out of their hymnals when
> > > the composer and lead singer, Marsha Stevens ... came out as being gay.
> >
> > The true spirit of christianity encapsulated -- tolerance above all.
> >
> except tolerance for Christians, of course.

Most christians that I know of these days draw their inspiration from
the Old Testament.

Those christians don't count.

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:11:28 GMT, "Alan S"
> > wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> It's a molecular verses binary issue.
>>>
>>> It's dragging a rock over a piece of plastic that
>>> deforms while the rock is dragged over it, versus a
>>> highly precise electrical operation.
>>
>>
>> Man, do you ever thing before you type stuff? How can
>> you say that playing an LP is not a highly precise
>> electrical operation?
>>
>
> Because it isn't highly precise.

Actually, it is very imprecise. As you no doubt know, poor dynamic range is
just another way to say "very imprecise".

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 06:44:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Signal" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you want to talk percentages you'll need to reduce
>>>>> that group down to people who have heard vinyl done
>>>>> properly. Of those, I estimate 88% prefer the sound of
>>>>> vinyl compared to CD.
>>>>
>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who
>>>> have heard vinyl done properly" to a carefully-selected
>>>> group.
>>
>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
>>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard vinyl
>>> done properly.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl
>> properly. Maybe JA tipped them off?
>>
>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to admit
>>> they're wrong.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to even
> figure that perhaps expectation bias might be at
> work....expectation that vinyl can't possibly sound good?

Harry, I thought that it was your position that audiophile opinions about
various formats weren't subject to expectation bias to a significant degree.
Obviously, if you really thought taht expectation bias was an issue, you'd
have used DBTs in *all* of the comparisons you've presented over the years.
Have you ever done a DBT comparing two distribution formats? Have you ever
done a time-synched, level-matched, DBT to support your effusive claims
regarding say SACD?

[Jenn]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
> >>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who
> >>>> have heard vinyl done properly" to a carefully-selected
> >>>> group.
> >>
> >>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
> >>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard vinyl
> >>> done properly.
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl properly. Maybe JA
> >> tipped them off?
> >>
> >>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to admit they're wrong.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >
> >Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to even figure that
> >perhaps expectation bias might be at work....expectation that vinyl can't
> >possibly sound good?
>
> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of vinyl. Someone said
> Arny had never heard vinyl "done right" and Arny then observed that
> all the vendors at HE2005 must have thus not been doing vinyl
> properly.
>
> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when defending sighted "tests"
> of equipment, you don't allow for things like expectation bias, yet
> you now you're pointing out that expectation bias may account for
> Arny's views on vinyl.

I think that you may have missed the irony that Harry was trying to
point out.

>
> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with vinyl in
> comparison with CD <snip>

Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres in the case of
the best LPs. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who
>>>>>> have heard vinyl done properly" to a
>>>>>> carefully-selected group.
>>>>
>>>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
>>>>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard
>>>>> vinyl
>>>>> done properly.
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl
>>>> properly. Maybe JA tipped them off?
>>>>
>>>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to admit
>>>>> they're wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to
>>> even figure that perhaps expectation bias might be at
>>> work....expectation that vinyl can't possibly sound
>>> good?
>>
>> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of vinyl.
>> Someone said Arny had never heard vinyl "done right" and
>> Arny then observed that all the vendors at HE2005 must
>> have thus not been doing vinyl properly.
>>
>> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when defending
>> sighted "tests" of equipment, you don't allow for things
>> like expectation bias, yet you now you're pointing out
>> that expectation bias may account for Arny's views on
>> vinyl.
>
> I think that you may have missed the irony that Harry was
> trying to point out.

Spoken like someone who has completely missed the glaring falsness of many
of Harry's claims about the inherent SQ of the DVD-A and SACD formats as
compared to plain old CD-A.

Jenn is prone to do this sort of thing because like Harry, she thinks there
is something inherently substandard about how CD-A reproduces things like
violin sound. She's invested untold amounts of money on inherently obsolete
equipment and recordings over the years because of her religious beliefs in
this regard.


>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with
>> vinyl in comparison with CD <snip>

> Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres in
> the case of the best LPs.

See what I mean?

BTW I have been having a big laugh at Stephen. He's been going on and on
about the incredible violin sound of a certain recording that I actually
went out and bought, to listen to for myself. It's a legacy recording from
days of vinyl, and no surprise it tends to make even modern playback
equipment sound like it was from the days of vinyl. I'm convinced that it is
a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of coloration that many vinyl
bigots have a pathological desire to have everything sound like.

Talk about expectation bias!

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who
> >>>>>> have heard vinyl done properly" to a
> >>>>>> carefully-selected group.
> >>>>
> >>>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
> >>>>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard
> >>>>> vinyl
> >>>>> done properly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl
> >>>> properly. Maybe JA tipped them off?
> >>>>
> >>>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to admit
> >>>>> they're wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> Exactly.
> >>>
> >>> Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to
> >>> even figure that perhaps expectation bias might be at
> >>> work....expectation that vinyl can't possibly sound
> >>> good?
> >>
> >> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of vinyl.
> >> Someone said Arny had never heard vinyl "done right" and
> >> Arny then observed that all the vendors at HE2005 must
> >> have thus not been doing vinyl properly.
> >>
> >> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when defending
> >> sighted "tests" of equipment, you don't allow for things
> >> like expectation bias, yet you now you're pointing out
> >> that expectation bias may account for Arny's views on
> >> vinyl.
> >
> > I think that you may have missed the irony that Harry was
> > trying to point out.
>
> Spoken like someone who has completely missed the glaring falsness of many
> of Harry's claims about the inherent SQ of the DVD-A and SACD formats as
> compared to plain old CD-A.

A. I haven't paid too much attention to those posts as I'm not (yet)
too interested in the topic.
B. Beside the point. Unless I miss my bet, Harry is pointing out the
irony that you speak of expectation bias in others but seem blind to
your own.

>
> Jenn is prone to do this sort of thing because like Harry, she thinks there
> is something inherently substandard about how CD-A reproduces things like
> violin sound.

My job is to please my ears, after all.

> She's invested untold amounts of money on inherently obsolete
> equipment and recordings over the years because of her religious beliefs in
> this regard.

It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing music in my home that
pleases my ears/brain. Radical. And btw, most of the time the best
medium for a give work is CD.

> >> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with
> >> vinyl in comparison with CD <snip>
>
> > Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres in
> > the case of the best LPs.
>
> See what I mean?

Well, damn me for hearing what I hear!

>
> BTW I have been having a big laugh at Stephen. He's been going on and on
> about the incredible violin sound of a certain recording that I actually
> went out and bought, to listen to for myself.

Which recording?

> It's a legacy recording from
> days of vinyl, and no surprise it tends to make even modern playback
> equipment sound like it was from the days of vinyl.

Wow, that good, huh?

> I'm convinced that it is
> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of coloration that many vinyl
> bigots have a pathological desire to have everything sound like.

As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that many CD bigots choose
to ignore?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message



>> Jenn is prone to do this sort of thing because like
>> Harry, she thinks there is something inherently
>> substandard about how CD-A reproduces things like violin
>> sound.
>
> My job is to please my ears, after all.

Thanks for admitting that you are currently unemployed, Jenn. ;-)

[Harry Lavo]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who
>>>>> have heard vinyl done properly" to a carefully-selected
>>>>> group.
>>>
>>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
>>>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard vinyl
>>>> done properly.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl properly. Maybe JA
>>> tipped them off?
>>>
>>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to admit they're wrong.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>>Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to even figure that
>>perhaps expectation bias might be at work....expectation that vinyl can't
>>possibly sound good?
>
> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of vinyl. Someone said
> Arny had never heard vinyl "done right" and Arny then observed that
> all the vendors at HE2005 must have thus not been doing vinyl
> properly.

So what do you *think* Arny meant by this?


> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when defending sighted "tests"
> of equipment, you don't allow for things like expectation bias, yet
> you now you're pointing out that expectation bias may account for
> Arny's views on vinyl.

I've never said sighted tests don't have the possibility of expectation
bias. I have said that sometimes the risk posed by same is small enough
that it can be ignored versus the difficulty of doing a good blind test in
the home. I've also said that one must evaluate the whole context to
determine the liklihood that a severe expectation bias seems likely.

In Arny's case, given his well known views on vinyl and on the high-end, it
is highly likely that if he did not hear really good sound from vinyl it was
because his mindset was such that he didn't *want* to hear same. I was at
the same show, and had no problem hearing good sound (and sometimes
not-so-good sound) from both vinyl and CD.



> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with vinyl in
> comparison with CD that I don't think we need to even listen to vinyl
> to conclude it's severely flawed.

But in ways that many find not compelling compared to the pleasures it can
provide.


> You will now, of course, shout that we have to listen and that what
> the listener likes best is indeed superior. That's the same as "De
> gustibus non est disputandum."

I rarely SHOUT on usenet. Usually the most I do is add *astericks* for
emphasis.


> Of course, that means that something like Craw (http://www.craw.com/)
> is just as good as Beethoven since there are people that just love
> Craw.

You are talking to the wrong guy. When it comes to sound, I am of the
"sound of live acoustic music" as an absolute standard persuasion. And when
it comes to music.....well, you must have missed my defense of the reason I
feel Classical music is a more elevated form.

>
>>>> Hmmm... I wonder if vinyl being "done properly" also
>>>> includes the application of intoxicants?
>>>
>>> Or inhilation?
>
>
>>If the two of you are thinking of giving up your day jobs to become
>>comedians, a word of advice: *don't*!!
>>
>
> Ok, I won't joke any more about you smoking crack while listening to
> LPs. :-)

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 06:44:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Signal" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to talk percentages you'll need to reduce
>>>>>> that group down to people who have heard vinyl done
>>>>>> properly. Of those, I estimate 88% prefer the sound of
>>>>>> vinyl compared to CD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who
>>>>> have heard vinyl done properly" to a carefully-selected
>>>>> group.
>>>
>>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
>>>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard vinyl
>>>> done properly.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl
>>> properly. Maybe JA tipped them off?
>>>
>>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to admit
>>>> they're wrong.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>> Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to even
>> figure that perhaps expectation bias might be at
>> work....expectation that vinyl can't possibly sound good?
>
> Harry, I thought that it was your position that audiophile opinions about
> various formats weren't subject to expectation bias to a significant
> degree. Obviously, if you really thought taht expectation bias was an
> issue, you'd have used DBTs in *all* of the comparisons you've presented
> over the years. Have you ever done a DBT comparing two distribution
> formats? Have you ever done a time-synched, level-matched, DBT to support
> your effusive claims regarding say SACD?

See my comments to "Here in Ohio" elsewhere.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
>
> >> Jenn is prone to do this sort of thing because like
> >> Harry, she thinks there is something inherently
> >> substandard about how CD-A reproduces things like violin
> >> sound.
> >
> > My job is to please my ears, after all.
>
> Thanks for admitting that you are currently unemployed, Jenn. ;-)

Oh...har! har! har! THAT was a real leg slapper! Actually I'm 110
percent of full time at the college and I turn down more outside work
than I cam take.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > > I think that you may have missed the irony that Harry was
> > > trying to point out.

> > Spoken like someone who has completely missed the glaring falsness of many
> > of Harry's claims about the inherent SQ of the DVD-A and SACD formats as
> > compared to plain old CD-A.

> A. I haven't paid too much attention to those posts as I'm not (yet)
> too interested in the topic.
> B. Beside the point. Unless I miss my bet, Harry is pointing out the
> irony that you speak of expectation bias in others but seem blind to
> your own.

The Krooborg's wetware ensures that everything always sounds the same to
it. Expectation biases are irrelevant. Differences are irrelevant. Vinyl
is irrelevant. Music has not been assimilated.





--

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

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Here in Ohio > wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with vinyl in
>> comparison with CD <snip>
>
> Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres in the case of
> the best LPs. ;-)

Had an interesting experience the other day. I picked up a pristine copy of
Wynton Marsalis's debut recording......The Haydn/Hummel/L. Mozart Turmpet
Concerto's with Leppard and the National Philharmonic Orchestra. On CBS.

I put it on as background music, since it is light stuff, while I finished
some household work. I found myself thinking...."that just doesn't sound
right". Annoying sound, yet without obvious mic'ng errors. So when I
finished I checked the jacket....found out that it was a CBS 1983 digital
recording done on JVC equipment using Schoeps mics (which I'm very familiar
with, and should have sounded superb).

Apparently vinyl is transparent enough to transmit the flaws of early
digital recording despite its "so many objective things wrong".

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Jenn is prone to do this sort of thing because like
>>>> Harry, she thinks there is something inherently
>>>> substandard about how CD-A reproduces things like
>>>> violin sound.
>>>
>>> My job is to please my ears, after all.
>>
>> Thanks for admitting that you are currently unemployed,
>> Jenn. ;-)
>
> Oh...har! har! har! THAT was a real leg slapper!
> Actually I'm 110 percent of full time at the college and
> I turn down more outside work than I cam take.

Are you adamant then that your work at the college involves pleasing
nodoby's ears but your own, Jenn?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with
>>> vinyl in comparison with CD <snip>
>>
>> Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres
>> in the case of the best LPs. ;-)
>
> Had an interesting experience the other day. I picked up
> a pristine copy of Wynton Marsalis's debut
> recording......The Haydn/Hummel/L. Mozart Turmpet
> Concerto's with Leppard and the National Philharmonic
> Orchestra. On CBS.

> I put it on as background music, since it is light stuff,
> while I finished some household work. I found myself
> thinking...."that just doesn't sound right". Annoying
> sound, yet without obvious mic'ng errors. So when I
> finished I checked the jacket....found out that it was a
> CBS 1983 digital recording done on JVC equipment using
> Schoeps mics (which I'm very familiar with, and should
> have sounded superb).

At this point, Harry when presented with a recording that he doesn't like
leaps to the following conclusions:

(1) He doesn't like the recording because it is faulty.
(2) There's not a chance that his dislike for the recording is just a matter
of personal taste.
(3) Harry has a perfect understanding of what I think the inherent flaws of
the vinyl medium are.
(4) The presumed flaws in the recording would be inaudible if vinyl was as
flawed as I think it is.

Any one of these logical leaps is easy to shoot massive holes into.

And now we have Harry's master flight of fancy:

> Apparently vinyl is transparent enough to transmit the
> flaws of early digital recording despite its "so many
> objective things wrong".

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who
>>>>>> have heard vinyl done properly" to a
>>>>>> carefully-selected group.
>>>>
>>>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
>>>>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard
>>>>> vinyl done properly.
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl
>>>> properly. Maybe JA tipped them off?
>>>>
>>>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to admit
>>>>> they're wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to
>>> even figure that perhaps expectation bias might be at
>>> work....expectation that vinyl can't possibly sound
>>> good?
>>
>> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of vinyl.
>> Someone said Arny had never heard vinyl "done right" and
>> Arny then observed that all the vendors at HE2005 must
>> have thus not been doing vinyl properly.
>
> So what do you *think* Arny meant by this?

Anybody who thinks I've never heard vinyl done right has a lot of flaws in
their thinking.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:49:03 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who
> >> >>>> have heard vinyl done properly" to a carefully-selected
> >> >>>> group.
> >> >>
> >> >>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
> >> >>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard vinyl
> >> >>> done properly.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes.
> >> >>
> >> >> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl properly. Maybe JA
> >> >> tipped them off?
> >> >>
> >> >>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to admit they're wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> Exactly.
> >> >
> >> >Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to even figure that
> >> >perhaps expectation bias might be at work....expectation that vinyl can't
> >> >possibly sound good?
> >>
> >> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of vinyl. Someone said
> >> Arny had never heard vinyl "done right" and Arny then observed that
> >> all the vendors at HE2005 must have thus not been doing vinyl
> >> properly.
> >>
> >> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when defending sighted "tests"
> >> of equipment, you don't allow for things like expectation bias, yet
> >> you now you're pointing out that expectation bias may account for
> >> Arny's views on vinyl.
> >
> >I think that you may have missed the irony that Harry was trying to
> >point out.
> >
>
> Perhaps. In that case, I do hope he won't quit his day job to become a
> comedian. :-)

Hey, he's better at it than Kerry! ;-)

>
>
> >>
> >> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with vinyl in
> >> comparison with CD <snip>
> >
> >Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres in the case of
> >the best LPs. ;-)
>
> And you can show that this is a consequence of them being on vinyl as
> opposed to CD?

Well, since I've heard timbres closer to real on the best LPs but on no
CDs...

>
> I also haven't noted any "wrong sounding timbres" on decent CDs.

Good for you then.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Jenn is prone to do this sort of thing because like
> >>>> Harry, she thinks there is something inherently
> >>>> substandard about how CD-A reproduces things like
> >>>> violin sound.
> >>>
> >>> My job is to please my ears, after all.
> >>
> >> Thanks for admitting that you are currently unemployed,
> >> Jenn. ;-)
> >
> > Oh...har! har! har! THAT was a real leg slapper!
> > Actually I'm 110 percent of full time at the college and
> > I turn down more outside work than I cam take.
>
> Are you adamant then that your work at the college involves pleasing
> nodoby's ears but your own, Jenn?

Obviously I was referring to my "job" in home audio, not my professional
work. What is YOUR job in regards to audio in your home?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Here in Ohio > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>
> >> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with vinyl in
> >> comparison with CD <snip>
> >
> > Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres in the case of
> > the best LPs. ;-)
>
> Had an interesting experience the other day. I picked up a pristine copy of
> Wynton Marsalis's debut recording......The Haydn/Hummel/L. Mozart Turmpet
> Concerto's with Leppard and the National Philharmonic Orchestra. On CBS.
>
> I put it on as background music, since it is light stuff, while I finished
> some household work. I found myself thinking...."that just doesn't sound
> right". Annoying sound, yet without obvious mic'ng errors. So when I
> finished I checked the jacket....found out that it was a CBS 1983 digital
> recording done on JVC equipment using Schoeps mics (which I'm very familiar
> with, and should have sounded superb).
>
> Apparently vinyl is transparent enough to transmit the flaws of early
> digital recording despite its "so many objective things wrong".

Good point.

It really is a horrible sounding recording of great performances.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:49:03 GMT, Jenn
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people
>>>>>>>> who have heard vinyl done properly" to a
>>>>>>>> carefully-selected group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
>>>>>>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard
>>>>>>> vinyl
>>>>>>> done properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl
>>>>>> properly. Maybe JA tipped them off?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to
>>>>>>> admit they're wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to
>>>>> even figure that perhaps expectation bias might be at
>>>>> work....expectation that vinyl can't possibly sound
>>>>> good?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of
>>>> vinyl. Someone said Arny had never heard vinyl "done
>>>> right" and Arny then observed that all the vendors at
>>>> HE2005 must have thus not been doing vinyl properly.
>>>>
>>>> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when defending
>>>> sighted "tests" of equipment, you don't allow for
>>>> things like expectation bias, yet you now you're
>>>> pointing out that expectation bias may account for
>>>> Arny's views on vinyl.
>>>
>>> I think that you may have missed the irony that Harry
>>> was trying to point out.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps. In that case, I do hope he won't quit his day
>> job to become a comedian. :-)
>
> Hey, he's better at it than Kerry! ;-)
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong
>>>> with vinyl in comparison with CD <snip>
>>>
>>> Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres
>>> in the case of the best LPs. ;-)
>>
>> And you can show that this is a consequence of them
>> being on vinyl as opposed to CD?
>
> Well, since I've heard timbres closer to real on the best
> LPs but on no CDs...
>
>>
>> I also haven't noted any "wrong sounding timbres" on
>> decent CDs.
>
> Good for you then.

It's called not having paranoid fears about CDs trashing the timbres of
acoustical intstruments.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Jenn is prone to do this sort of thing because like
>>>>>> Harry, she thinks there is something inherently
>>>>>> substandard about how CD-A reproduces things like
>>>>>> violin sound.
>>>>>
>>>>> My job is to please my ears, after all.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for admitting that you are currently unemployed,
>>>> Jenn. ;-)
>>>
>>> Oh...har! har! har! THAT was a real leg slapper!
>>> Actually I'm 110 percent of full time at the college and
>>> I turn down more outside work than I cam take.
>>
>> Are you adamant then that your work at the college
>> involves pleasing nodoby's ears but your own, Jenn?
>
> Obviously I was referring to my "job" in home audio, not
> my professional work.

Not obvious at all.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:49:03 GMT, Jenn
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people
> >>>>>>>> who have heard vinyl done properly" to a
> >>>>>>>> carefully-selected group.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
> >>>>>>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard
> >>>>>>> vinyl
> >>>>>>> done properly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl
> >>>>>> properly. Maybe JA tipped them off?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to
> >>>>>>> admit they're wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Exactly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to
> >>>>> even figure that perhaps expectation bias might be at
> >>>>> work....expectation that vinyl can't possibly sound
> >>>>> good?
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of
> >>>> vinyl. Someone said Arny had never heard vinyl "done
> >>>> right" and Arny then observed that all the vendors at
> >>>> HE2005 must have thus not been doing vinyl properly.
> >>>>
> >>>> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when defending
> >>>> sighted "tests" of equipment, you don't allow for
> >>>> things like expectation bias, yet you now you're
> >>>> pointing out that expectation bias may account for
> >>>> Arny's views on vinyl.
> >>>
> >>> I think that you may have missed the irony that Harry
> >>> was trying to point out.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Perhaps. In that case, I do hope he won't quit his day
> >> job to become a comedian. :-)
> >
> > Hey, he's better at it than Kerry! ;-)
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong
> >>>> with vinyl in comparison with CD <snip>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres
> >>> in the case of the best LPs. ;-)
> >>
> >> And you can show that this is a consequence of them
> >> being on vinyl as opposed to CD?
> >
> > Well, since I've heard timbres closer to real on the best
> > LPs but on no CDs...
> >
> >>
> >> I also haven't noted any "wrong sounding timbres" on
> >> decent CDs.
> >
> > Good for you then.
>
> It's called not having paranoid fears about CDs trashing the timbres of
> acoustical intstruments.

Yet another straw man argument.

[Jenn]

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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Jenn is prone to do this sort of thing because like
> >>>>>> Harry, she thinks there is something inherently
> >>>>>> substandard about how CD-A reproduces things like
> >>>>>> violin sound.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My job is to please my ears, after all.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for admitting that you are currently unemployed,
> >>>> Jenn. ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Oh...har! har! har! THAT was a real leg slapper!
> >>> Actually I'm 110 percent of full time at the college and
> >>> I turn down more outside work than I cam take.
> >>
> >> Are you adamant then that your work at the college
> >> involves pleasing nodoby's ears but your own, Jenn?
> >
> > Obviously I was referring to my "job" in home audio, not
> > my professional work.
>
> Not obvious at all.

It is to people who have normal reading skill.

[Arny Krueger]

"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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jenn is prone to do this sort of thing because like
>>>>>>>> Harry, she thinks there is something inherently
>>>>>>>> substandard about how CD-A reproduces things like
>>>>>>>> violin sound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My job is to please my ears, after all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for admitting that you are currently
>>>>>> unemployed, Jenn. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh...har! har! har! THAT was a real leg slapper!
>>>>> Actually I'm 110 percent of full time at the college
>>>>> and I turn down more outside work than I cam take.
>>>>
>>>> Are you adamant then that your work at the college
>>>> involves pleasing nodoby's ears but your own, Jenn?
>>>
>>> Obviously I was referring to my "job" in home audio, not
>>> my professional work.
>>
>> Not obvious at all.
>
> It is to people who have normal reading skill.

Says what independent authority?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:49:03 GMT, Jenn
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, Here in
>>>>> Ohio > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people
>>>>>>>>>> who have heard vinyl done properly" to a
>>>>>>>>>> carefully-selected group.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl
>>>>>>>>> proponent. Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just
>>>>>>>>> hasn't heard vinyl
>>>>>>>>> done properly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do
>>>>>>>> vinyl properly. Maybe JA tipped them off?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to
>>>>>>>>> admit they're wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to
>>>>>>> even figure that perhaps expectation bias might be
>>>>>>> at work....expectation that vinyl can't possibly
>>>>>>> sound good?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of
>>>>>> vinyl. Someone said Arny had never heard vinyl "done
>>>>>> right" and Arny then observed that all the vendors at
>>>>>> HE2005 must have thus not been doing vinyl properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when
>>>>>> defending sighted "tests" of equipment, you don't
>>>>>> allow for things like expectation bias, yet you now
>>>>>> you're pointing out that expectation bias may
>>>>>> account for Arny's views on vinyl.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that you may have missed the irony that Harry
>>>>> was trying to point out.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps. In that case, I do hope he won't quit his day
>>>> job to become a comedian. :-)
>>>
>>> Hey, he's better at it than Kerry! ;-)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong
>>>>>> with vinyl in comparison with CD <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres
>>>>> in the case of the best LPs. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> And you can show that this is a consequence of them
>>>> being on vinyl as opposed to CD?
>>>
>>> Well, since I've heard timbres closer to real on the
>>> best LPs but on no CDs...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also haven't noted any "wrong sounding timbres" on
>>>> decent CDs.
>>>
>>> Good for you then.
>>
>> It's called not having paranoid fears about CDs trashing
>> the timbres of acoustical intstruments.
>
> Yet another straw man argument.

Dismissive attitude noted.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong
>>>> with vinyl in comparison with CD <snip>
>>>
>>> Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres
>>> in the case of the best LPs. ;-)
>>
>> Had an interesting experience the other day. I picked
>> up a pristine copy of Wynton Marsalis's debut
>> recording......The Haydn/Hummel/L. Mozart Turmpet
>> Concerto's with Leppard and the National Philharmonic
>> Orchestra. On CBS.
>>
>> I put it on as background music, since it is light
>> stuff, while I finished some household work. I found
>> myself thinking...."that just doesn't sound right".
>> Annoying sound, yet without obvious mic'ng errors. So
>> when I finished I checked the jacket....found out that
>> it was a CBS 1983 digital recording done on JVC
>> equipment using Schoeps mics (which I'm very familiar
>> with, and should have sounded superb).
>>
>> Apparently vinyl is transparent enough to transmit the
>> flaws of early digital recording despite its "so many
>> objective things wrong".
>
> Good point.
>
> It really is a horrible sounding recording of great
> performances.

Being on LP may be a big part of the problem. Or, there may have been
serioius production problems elsewhere. Or both.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> BTW I have been having a big laugh at Stephen. He's been going on and on
> about the incredible violin sound of a certain recording that I actually
> went out and bought, to listen to for myself. It's a legacy recording from
> days of vinyl, and no surprise it tends to make even modern playback
> equipment sound like it was from the days of vinyl. I'm convinced that it is
> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of coloration that many vinyl
> bigots have a pathological desire to have everything sound like.
>
> Talk about expectation bias!

Nope. Read what I wrote about it. I simply asked what everyone thought
of it to generate discussion. I'll start a new thread to discuss the cd
version and give a more specific description of how it sounds on a
couple of my systems.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article

om>,
Jenn > wrote:

> > BTW I have been having a big laugh at Stephen. He's been going on and on
> > about the incredible violin sound of a certain recording that I actually
> > went out and bought, to listen to for myself.
>
> Which recording?

The Barbirolli English string music with Elgar and RVW.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing music
>> in my home that pleases my ears/brain. Radical. And
>> btw, most of the time the best medium for a give work is
>> CD.
>
> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
> superior sounding?
>>> I'm convinced that it is
>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a pathological
>>> desire to have everything sound like.

>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that many
>> CD bigots choose to ignore?

As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots chose to ignore!

> Which bad timbres might these be?

Ah, you know the bad timbres that might exist on badly-played or
badly-produced recordings.

> There is nothing
> inherent in the CD format that would change timbre,

Agreed.

> unlike with vinyl where harmonic distortions are a given.

Agreed. The LP format is far more likely to change both pitch and timbre
than CD.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


>> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when defending
>> sighted "tests" of equipment, you don't allow for things
>> like expectation bias, yet you now you're pointing out
>> that expectation bias may account for Arny's views on
>> vinyl.

> I've never said sighted tests don't have the possibility
> of expectation bias. I have said that sometimes the risk
> posed by same is small enough that it can be ignored
> versus the difficulty of doing a good blind test in the
> home.

Thanks Harry for admitting that you think that an invalid test is better
than no test at all.

> I've also said that one must evaluate the whole
> context to determine the liklihood that a severe
> expectation bias seems likely.

In the case of good SS and digital equipment, we have a built-in gauge of
the degree of expectation bias that is common with vinyl and valve bigots.
Posturing by regulars like Marc Phillips, Scott the legal eagle-makeup
expert, and Jenn deliniates that pretty well.

> In Arny's case, given his well known views on vinyl and
> on the high-end, it is highly likely that if he did not
> hear really good sound from vinyl it was because his
> mindset was such that he didn't *want* to hear same.

No, there is no controversy over the idea that the noise and distortion
inherent in vinyl is generally audible. This isn't one of Harry's diatribes
over the alleged serious audible flaws in the CD format.

> I was at the same show, and had no problem hearing good
> sound (and sometimes not-so-good sound) from both vinyl
> and CD.

Speaks to Harry's inability to hear sonic problems that are well-known to be
endemic in the LP format. Given that he also hears problems with the CD
format that aren't there we've got a pretty good picture of how bias-driven
Harry actually is.

>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with
>> vinyl in comparison with CD that I don't think we need
>> to even listen to vinyl to conclude it's severely flawed.

> But in ways that many find not compelling compared to the
> pleasures it can provide.

The so-called *many* amounts to being a tiny fraction of all music lovers.
Harry is just playing with words.

Harry rants and raves about live music being his reference. Thing is, he
listens to a tiny fraction of the live music that I listen to.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>
> > On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing music
> >> in my home that pleases my ears/brain. Radical. And
> >> btw, most of the time the best medium for a give work is
> >> CD.
> >
> > So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
> > superior sounding?
> >>> I'm convinced that it is
> >>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
> >>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a pathological
> >>> desire to have everything sound like.
>
> >> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that many
> >> CD bigots choose to ignore?
>
> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots chose to ignore!

Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.

>
> > Which bad timbres might these be?
>
> Ah, you know the bad timbres that might exist on badly-played or
> badly-produced recordings.
>
> > There is nothing
> > inherent in the CD format that would change timbre,
>
> Agreed.
>
> > unlike with vinyl where harmonic distortions are a given.
>
> Agreed. The LP format is far more likely to change both pitch and timbre
> than CD.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:49:03 GMT, Jenn
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, Here in
> >>>>> Ohio > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people
> >>>>>>>>>> who have heard vinyl done properly" to a
> >>>>>>>>>> carefully-selected group.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl
> >>>>>>>>> proponent. Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just
> >>>>>>>>> hasn't heard vinyl
> >>>>>>>>> done properly.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do
> >>>>>>>> vinyl properly. Maybe JA tipped them off?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to
> >>>>>>>>> admit they're wrong.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Exactly.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to
> >>>>>>> even figure that perhaps expectation bias might be
> >>>>>>> at work....expectation that vinyl can't possibly
> >>>>>>> sound good?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of
> >>>>>> vinyl. Someone said Arny had never heard vinyl "done
> >>>>>> right" and Arny then observed that all the vendors at
> >>>>>> HE2005 must have thus not been doing vinyl properly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when
> >>>>>> defending sighted "tests" of equipment, you don't
> >>>>>> allow for things like expectation bias, yet you now
> >>>>>> you're pointing out that expectation bias may
> >>>>>> account for Arny's views on vinyl.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think that you may have missed the irony that Harry
> >>>>> was trying to point out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps. In that case, I do hope he won't quit his day
> >>>> job to become a comedian. :-)
> >>>
> >>> Hey, he's better at it than Kerry! ;-)
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong
> >>>>>> with vinyl in comparison with CD <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres
> >>>>> in the case of the best LPs. ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> And you can show that this is a consequence of them
> >>>> being on vinyl as opposed to CD?
> >>>
> >>> Well, since I've heard timbres closer to real on the
> >>> best LPs but on no CDs...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I also haven't noted any "wrong sounding timbres" on
> >>>> decent CDs.
> >>>
> >>> Good for you then.
> >>
> >> It's called not having paranoid fears about CDs trashing
> >> the timbres of acoustical intstruments.
> >
> > Yet another straw man argument.
>
> Dismissive attitude noted.

Not dismissive at all. You simply made a straw man argument, as I have
no paranoid fears about CDs.

[Jenn]

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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jenn is prone to do this sort of thing because like
> >>>>>>>> Harry, she thinks there is something inherently
> >>>>>>>> substandard about how CD-A reproduces things like
> >>>>>>>> violin sound.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My job is to please my ears, after all.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for admitting that you are currently
> >>>>>> unemployed, Jenn. ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh...har! har! har! THAT was a real leg slapper!
> >>>>> Actually I'm 110 percent of full time at the college
> >>>>> and I turn down more outside work than I cam take.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you adamant then that your work at the college
> >>>> involves pleasing nodoby's ears but your own, Jenn?
> >>>
> >>> Obviously I was referring to my "job" in home audio, not
> >>> my professional work.
> >>
> >> Not obvious at all.
> >
> > It is to people who have normal reading skill.
>
> Says what independent authority?

Arny, I don't want to waste my time explaining common English to you,
but I'll do the short version in hope that it will be enough:
Q - What were we discussing when I made the statement, "My job is to..."?
A - Home audio (i.e. not my professional duties)

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Here in Ohio > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:49:03 GMT, Jenn
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> In article >,
>> >>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
>> >>>> > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people
>> >>>>>>>> who have heard vinyl done properly" to a
>> >>>>>>>> carefully-selected group.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
>> >>>>>>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard
>> >>>>>>> vinyl
>> >>>>>>> done properly.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Yes.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl
>> >>>>>> properly. Maybe JA tipped them off?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to
>> >>>>>>> admit they're wrong.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Exactly.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to
>> >>>>> even figure that perhaps expectation bias might be at
>> >>>>> work....expectation that vinyl can't possibly sound
>> >>>>> good?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of
>> >>>> vinyl. Someone said Arny had never heard vinyl "done
>> >>>> right" and Arny then observed that all the vendors at
>> >>>> HE2005 must have thus not been doing vinyl properly.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when defending
>> >>>> sighted "tests" of equipment, you don't allow for
>> >>>> things like expectation bias, yet you now you're
>> >>>> pointing out that expectation bias may account for
>> >>>> Arny's views on vinyl.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that you may have missed the irony that Harry
>> >>> was trying to point out.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps. In that case, I do hope he won't quit his day
>> >> job to become a comedian. :-)
>> >
>> > Hey, he's better at it than Kerry! ;-)
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong
>> >>>> with vinyl in comparison with CD <snip>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres
>> >>> in the case of the best LPs. ;-)
>> >>
>> >> And you can show that this is a consequence of them
>> >> being on vinyl as opposed to CD?
>> >
>> > Well, since I've heard timbres closer to real on the best
>> > LPs but on no CDs...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I also haven't noted any "wrong sounding timbres" on
>> >> decent CDs.
>> >
>> > Good for you then.
>>
>> It's called not having paranoid fears about CDs trashing the timbres of
>> acoustical intstruments.
>
> Yet another straw man argument.

Yep, when Arny hears problems with LP's, it's his hearing and his opinions;
when you Jenn hear problems with CD's its "trashing".

LOL!

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> Arny, I don't want to waste my time explaining common English to you,
> but I'll do the short version in hope that it will be enough:

Dismissal of the "debating trade" noted. The entire point of the "debating
trade" is to quibble endlessly about anything that pops into Krooger's
sorry excuse for a mind. Clarity is anathema to the "debating trade".

> Q - What were we discussing when I made the statement, "My job is to..."?
> A - Home audio (i.e. not my professional duties)

Irrelevant. The rules of the "debating trade" state that the Krooborg is
entitled to argue anything at all as long as it contains at least one word
that was in your statement.




--

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

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with
>>>> vinyl in comparison with CD <snip>
>>>
>>> Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres
>>> in the case of the best LPs. ;-)
>>
>> Had an interesting experience the other day. I picked up
>> a pristine copy of Wynton Marsalis's debut
>> recording......The Haydn/Hummel/L. Mozart Turmpet
>> Concerto's with Leppard and the National Philharmonic
>> Orchestra. On CBS.
>
>> I put it on as background music, since it is light stuff,
>> while I finished some household work. I found myself
>> thinking...."that just doesn't sound right". Annoying
>> sound, yet without obvious mic'ng errors. So when I
>> finished I checked the jacket....found out that it was a
>> CBS 1983 digital recording done on JVC equipment using
>> Schoeps mics (which I'm very familiar with, and should
>> have sounded superb).
>
> At this point, Harry when presented with a recording that he doesn't like
> leaps to the following conclusions:
>
> (1) He doesn't like the recording because it is faulty.
> (2) There's not a chance that his dislike for the recording is just a
> matter of personal taste.
> (3) Harry has a perfect understanding of what I think the inherent flaws
> of the vinyl medium are.
> (4) The presumed flaws in the recording would be inaudible if vinyl was as
> flawed as I think it is.
>
> Any one of these logical leaps is easy to shoot massive holes into.
>
> And now we have Harry's master flight of fancy:
>
>> Apparently vinyl is transparent enough to transmit the
>> flaws of early digital recording despite its "so many
>> objective things wrong".

Okay, Arny, I'll be more explicit.

1) The trumpet had digitalitus, similar to many early CD's, particularly in
the upper register.
2) It didn't sound much like a real trumpet or other of my analog trumpet
recordings. And I;ve heard Wynton play live...it wasn't his playing.
3) Most of the rest of the orchestra sounded okay...eg. most of the rest of
the orchestra is not in CD's problematical range.
4) I had no idea it was a digital recording until I looked.
5) My "expectation bias" if I had one was for the vinyl sound to be very
good, as the record was very "clean".
6) My knowledge of Schoeps microphones which I used extensively for ten
years suggests they were not the cause.
7) The recording was done right near the start of the digital era, when
digital problems were not uncommon.
8) The recording, after I looked, was done on JVC gear, not the usual Sony
or Soundstream.

To me this is sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest that the digital
recording was the culprit. Sorry if I gored your ox.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people who
>>>>>>> have heard vinyl done properly" to a
>>>>>>> carefully-selected group.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
>>>>>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard
>>>>>> vinyl done properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl
>>>>> properly. Maybe JA tipped them off?
>>>>>
>>>>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to admit
>>>>>> they're wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>> Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to
>>>> even figure that perhaps expectation bias might be at
>>>> work....expectation that vinyl can't possibly sound
>>>> good?
>>>
>>> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of vinyl.
>>> Someone said Arny had never heard vinyl "done right" and
>>> Arny then observed that all the vendors at HE2005 must
>>> have thus not been doing vinyl properly.
>>
>> So what do you *think* Arny meant by this?
>
> Anybody who thinks I've never heard vinyl done right has a lot of flaws
> in their thinking.

So you are really "Here in Ohio" to whom the reply was addressed, Arny?

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>
>> > On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing music
>> >> in my home that pleases my ears/brain. Radical. And
>> >> btw, most of the time the best medium for a give work is
>> >> CD.
>> >
>> > So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
>> > superior sounding?
>> >>> I'm convinced that it is
>> >>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
>> >>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a pathological
>> >>> desire to have everything sound like.
>>
>> >> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that many
>> >> CD bigots choose to ignore?
>>
>> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots chose to ignore!
>
> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
>
<snip>

I find this also. But I also find them accurate on SACD's and most DVD-A's
as well. On CD's, it seems to be hit or miss...but most high register
instruments and particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones just
don't always sound right.

[Sander deWaal]

"Harry Lavo" > said:


>"Jenn" > wrote

>> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.


>I find this also. But I also find them accurate on SACD's and most DVD-A's
>as well. On CD's, it seems to be hit or miss...but most high register
>instruments and particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones just
>don't always sound right.


Whatever happened to Jenn's attempt to record some of her LPs to CD
and compare the 2?

Did you get around to do the comparison, Jenn?

My ears may get older and my gear may be crap, but I can't hear a
difference when I copy an LP to a CD and compare A/B.

No, not blind, but as levelmatched as possible with an oscilloscope
across the speaker terminals.

IOW, the *format* CD audio 44.1/16 is transparent enough for me.

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

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>>> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when defending
>>> sighted "tests" of equipment, you don't allow for things
>>> like expectation bias, yet you now you're pointing out
>>> that expectation bias may account for Arny's views on
>>> vinyl.
>
>> I've never said sighted tests don't have the possibility
>> of expectation bias. I have said that sometimes the risk
>> posed by same is small enough that it can be ignored
>> versus the difficulty of doing a good blind test in the
>> home.
>
> Thanks Harry for admitting that you think that an invalid test is better
> than no test at all.
>
>> I've also said that one must evaluate the whole
>> context to determine the liklihood that a severe
>> expectation bias seems likely.
>
> In the case of good SS and digital equipment, we have a built-in gauge of
> the degree of expectation bias that is common with vinyl and valve bigots.
> Posturing by regulars like Marc Phillips, Scott the legal eagle-makeup
> expert, and Jenn deliniates that pretty well.
>
>> In Arny's case, given his well known views on vinyl and
>> on the high-end, it is highly likely that if he did not
>> hear really good sound from vinyl it was because his
>> mindset was such that he didn't *want* to hear same.
>
> No, there is no controversy over the idea that the noise and distortion
> inherent in vinyl is generally audible. This isn't one of Harry's
> diatribes over the alleged serious audible flaws in the CD format.
>
>> I was at the same show, and had no problem hearing good
>> sound (and sometimes not-so-good sound) from both vinyl
>> and CD.
>
> Speaks to Harry's inability to hear sonic problems that are well-known to
> be endemic in the LP format. Given that he also hears problems with the CD
> format that aren't there we've got a pretty good picture of how
> bias-driven Harry actually is.
>
>>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with
>>> vinyl in comparison with CD that I don't think we need
>>> to even listen to vinyl to conclude it's severely flawed.
>
>> But in ways that many find not compelling compared to the
>> pleasures it can provide.
>
> The so-called *many* amounts to being a tiny fraction of all music lovers.
> Harry is just playing with words.
>
> Harry rants and raves about live music being his reference. Thing is, he
> listens to a tiny fraction of the live music that I listen to.

Quality, not quantity Arny. I live in a place where I can and do listen to
professional Jazz, Folk, Chamber, Choral and Symphonic music at any time of
the year. And you forget that for a decade I recorded professional chamber
music, and occasionally orchestral, jazz, and folk music. In the NYC area,
Arny. During that time I probably recorded 70 professional events a year,
and attended another two dozen. Moreover, my best friend is a professional
pianist and I have heard her play in Carnegie and in Merkin. Wynton
featured one of his new small groups at the Iron Horse Cafe in Northampton
two years ago, and played no more than eight feet from me.

Care to compare to the quality of your musical experience? 52 weeks of
church music, and what else, Arny?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >>> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when defending
> >>> sighted "tests" of equipment, you don't allow for things
> >>> like expectation bias, yet you now you're pointing out
> >>> that expectation bias may account for Arny's views on
> >>> vinyl.
> >
> >> I've never said sighted tests don't have the possibility
> >> of expectation bias. I have said that sometimes the risk
> >> posed by same is small enough that it can be ignored
> >> versus the difficulty of doing a good blind test in the
> >> home.
> >
> > Thanks Harry for admitting that you think that an invalid test is better
> > than no test at all.
> >
> >> I've also said that one must evaluate the whole
> >> context to determine the liklihood that a severe
> >> expectation bias seems likely.
> >
> > In the case of good SS and digital equipment, we have a built-in gauge of
> > the degree of expectation bias that is common with vinyl and valve bigots.
> > Posturing by regulars like Marc Phillips, Scott the legal eagle-makeup
> > expert, and Jenn deliniates that pretty well.
> >
> >> In Arny's case, given his well known views on vinyl and
> >> on the high-end, it is highly likely that if he did not
> >> hear really good sound from vinyl it was because his
> >> mindset was such that he didn't *want* to hear same.
> >
> > No, there is no controversy over the idea that the noise and distortion
> > inherent in vinyl is generally audible. This isn't one of Harry's
> > diatribes over the alleged serious audible flaws in the CD format.
> >
> >> I was at the same show, and had no problem hearing good
> >> sound (and sometimes not-so-good sound) from both vinyl
> >> and CD.
> >
> > Speaks to Harry's inability to hear sonic problems that are well-known to
> > be endemic in the LP format. Given that he also hears problems with the CD
> > format that aren't there we've got a pretty good picture of how
> > bias-driven Harry actually is.
> >
> >>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with
> >>> vinyl in comparison with CD that I don't think we need
> >>> to even listen to vinyl to conclude it's severely flawed.
> >
> >> But in ways that many find not compelling compared to the
> >> pleasures it can provide.
> >
> > The so-called *many* amounts to being a tiny fraction of all music lovers.
> > Harry is just playing with words.
> >
> > Harry rants and raves about live music being his reference. Thing is, he
> > listens to a tiny fraction of the live music that I listen to.
>
> Quality, not quantity Arny. I live in a place where I can and do listen to
> professional Jazz, Folk, Chamber, Choral and Symphonic music at any time of
> the year. And you forget that for a decade I recorded professional chamber
> music, and occasionally orchestral, jazz, and folk music. In the NYC area,
> Arny. During that time I probably recorded 70 professional events a year,
> and attended another two dozen. Moreover, my best friend is a professional
> pianist and I have heard her play in Carnegie and in Merkin. Wynton
> featured one of his new small groups at the Iron Horse Cafe in Northampton
> two years ago, and played no more than eight feet from me.
>
> Care to compare to the quality of your musical experience? 52 weeks of
> church music, and what else, Arny?

Whoa! Did I read that Arny is claiming authoritative knowledge of the
sound of things based on the amount of live music that he hears?

[Jenn]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing music in my home that
> >pleases my ears/brain. Radical. And btw, most of the time the best
> >medium for a give work is CD.
>
> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl superior sounding?

More or less. IMV, the best LPs sound better than any CD that I've
heard.

> >> I'm convinced that it is
> >> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of coloration that many vinyl
> >> bigots have a pathological desire to have everything sound like.
> >
> >As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that many CD bigots choose
> >to ignore?
>
> Which bad timbres might these be?

Upper frequency instruments (high strings, high WWs, soprano voice, most
percussion) that sound unlike any known acoustic examples of those
instruments.

> There is nothing inherent in the CD
> format that would change timbre, unlike with vinyl where harmonic
> distortions are a given.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> > On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing music
> >> >> in my home that pleases my ears/brain. Radical. And
> >> >> btw, most of the time the best medium for a give work is
> >> >> CD.
> >> >
> >> > So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
> >> > superior sounding?
> >> >>> I'm convinced that it is
> >> >>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
> >> >>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a pathological
> >> >>> desire to have everything sound like.
> >>
> >> >> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that many
> >> >> CD bigots choose to ignore?
> >>
> >> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots chose to ignore!
> >
> > Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
> >
> <snip>
>
> I find this also. But I also find them accurate on SACD's and most DVD-A's
> as well. On CD's, it seems to be hit or miss...but most high register
> instruments and particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones just
> don't always sound right.

Yep. I hope in the near future to start exploring SACD and DVD-A.

[paul packer]

On 6 Nov 2006 06:59:21 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>
>Clyde Slick wrote:
>> George M. Middius a scris:
>> > Jenn said:
>> >
>> > > many churches later literally ripped the song out of their hymnals when
>> > > the composer and lead singer, Marsha Stevens ... came out as being gay.
>> >
>> > The true spirit of christianity encapsulated -- tolerance above all.
>> >
>> except tolerance for Christians, of course.
>
>Most christians that I know of these days draw their inspiration from
>the Old Testament.

Really? Where do you live--the Twilight Zone?

[Jenn]

In article >,
Sander deWaal > wrote:

> "Harry Lavo" > said:
>
>
> >"Jenn" > wrote
>
> >> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
>
>
> >I find this also. But I also find them accurate on SACD's and most DVD-A's
> >as well. On CD's, it seems to be hit or miss...but most high register
> >instruments and particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones just
> >don't always sound right.
>
>
> Whatever happened to Jenn's attempt to record some of her LPs to CD
> and compare the 2?
>
> Did you get around to do the comparison, Jenn?

While I've digitized some LPs and cassettes in order to get them on my
iPod, I've yet to do a comparison. I lost some of the urgency to do it
after it became clear that if I found that I liked the sound of the LP
more, it wouldn't matter to those that I debate with here, as there
would be a variety of excuses. That said, I still want to do such a test
simply as a matter of curiosity. I would need help in setting it all
up. If I can find such help, I'd like to do it.

>
> My ears may get older and my gear may be crap, but I can't hear a
> difference when I copy an LP to a CD and compare A/B.
>
> No, not blind, but as levelmatched as possible with an oscilloscope
> across the speaker terminals.
>
> IOW, the *format* CD audio 44.1/16 is transparent enough for me.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >Most christians that I know of these days draw their inspiration from
> >the Old Testament.

> Really? Where do you live--the Twilight Zone?

All the homophobic proscriptions the fundies love seem to come from the
Old T.





--

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

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> >
>> >
>> >>> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when defending
>> >>> sighted "tests" of equipment, you don't allow for things
>> >>> like expectation bias, yet you now you're pointing out
>> >>> that expectation bias may account for Arny's views on
>> >>> vinyl.
>> >
>> >> I've never said sighted tests don't have the possibility
>> >> of expectation bias. I have said that sometimes the risk
>> >> posed by same is small enough that it can be ignored
>> >> versus the difficulty of doing a good blind test in the
>> >> home.
>> >
>> > Thanks Harry for admitting that you think that an invalid test is
>> > better
>> > than no test at all.
>> >
>> >> I've also said that one must evaluate the whole
>> >> context to determine the liklihood that a severe
>> >> expectation bias seems likely.
>> >
>> > In the case of good SS and digital equipment, we have a built-in gauge
>> > of
>> > the degree of expectation bias that is common with vinyl and valve
>> > bigots.
>> > Posturing by regulars like Marc Phillips, Scott the legal eagle-makeup
>> > expert, and Jenn deliniates that pretty well.
>> >
>> >> In Arny's case, given his well known views on vinyl and
>> >> on the high-end, it is highly likely that if he did not
>> >> hear really good sound from vinyl it was because his
>> >> mindset was such that he didn't *want* to hear same.
>> >
>> > No, there is no controversy over the idea that the noise and distortion
>> > inherent in vinyl is generally audible. This isn't one of Harry's
>> > diatribes over the alleged serious audible flaws in the CD format.
>> >
>> >> I was at the same show, and had no problem hearing good
>> >> sound (and sometimes not-so-good sound) from both vinyl
>> >> and CD.
>> >
>> > Speaks to Harry's inability to hear sonic problems that are well-known
>> > to
>> > be endemic in the LP format. Given that he also hears problems with the
>> > CD
>> > format that aren't there we've got a pretty good picture of how
>> > bias-driven Harry actually is.
>> >
>> >>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with
>> >>> vinyl in comparison with CD that I don't think we need
>> >>> to even listen to vinyl to conclude it's severely flawed.
>> >
>> >> But in ways that many find not compelling compared to the
>> >> pleasures it can provide.
>> >
>> > The so-called *many* amounts to being a tiny fraction of all music
>> > lovers.
>> > Harry is just playing with words.
>> >
>> > Harry rants and raves about live music being his reference. Thing is,
>> > he
>> > listens to a tiny fraction of the live music that I listen to.
>>
>> Quality, not quantity Arny. I live in a place where I can and do listen
>> to
>> professional Jazz, Folk, Chamber, Choral and Symphonic music at any time
>> of
>> the year. And you forget that for a decade I recorded professional
>> chamber
>> music, and occasionally orchestral, jazz, and folk music. In the NYC
>> area,
>> Arny. During that time I probably recorded 70 professional events a
>> year,
>> and attended another two dozen. Moreover, my best friend is a
>> professional
>> pianist and I have heard her play in Carnegie and in Merkin. Wynton
>> featured one of his new small groups at the Iron Horse Cafe in
>> Northampton
>> two years ago, and played no more than eight feet from me.
>>
>> Care to compare to the quality of your musical experience? 52 weeks of
>> church music, and what else, Arny?
>
> Whoa! Did I read that Arny is claiming authoritative knowledge of the
> sound of things based on the amount of live music that he hears?

Apparently so...see his paragraph above mine questioning my use of "live
music" as a reference. I simply don't have the '''quantity" sufficient to
do so, according to Arny. Quantity is measureable, after all. Quality....?
Not Arny's bag, I guess. Any synthesizer will do.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> It also seems a bit strange to me that, when defending
> >> >>> sighted "tests" of equipment, you don't allow for things
> >> >>> like expectation bias, yet you now you're pointing out
> >> >>> that expectation bias may account for Arny's views on
> >> >>> vinyl.
> >> >
> >> >> I've never said sighted tests don't have the possibility
> >> >> of expectation bias. I have said that sometimes the risk
> >> >> posed by same is small enough that it can be ignored
> >> >> versus the difficulty of doing a good blind test in the
> >> >> home.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks Harry for admitting that you think that an invalid test is
> >> > better
> >> > than no test at all.
> >> >
> >> >> I've also said that one must evaluate the whole
> >> >> context to determine the liklihood that a severe
> >> >> expectation bias seems likely.
> >> >
> >> > In the case of good SS and digital equipment, we have a built-in gauge
> >> > of
> >> > the degree of expectation bias that is common with vinyl and valve
> >> > bigots.
> >> > Posturing by regulars like Marc Phillips, Scott the legal eagle-makeup
> >> > expert, and Jenn deliniates that pretty well.
> >> >
> >> >> In Arny's case, given his well known views on vinyl and
> >> >> on the high-end, it is highly likely that if he did not
> >> >> hear really good sound from vinyl it was because his
> >> >> mindset was such that he didn't *want* to hear same.
> >> >
> >> > No, there is no controversy over the idea that the noise and distortion
> >> > inherent in vinyl is generally audible. This isn't one of Harry's
> >> > diatribes over the alleged serious audible flaws in the CD format.
> >> >
> >> >> I was at the same show, and had no problem hearing good
> >> >> sound (and sometimes not-so-good sound) from both vinyl
> >> >> and CD.
> >> >
> >> > Speaks to Harry's inability to hear sonic problems that are well-known
> >> > to
> >> > be endemic in the LP format. Given that he also hears problems with the
> >> > CD
> >> > format that aren't there we've got a pretty good picture of how
> >> > bias-driven Harry actually is.
> >> >
> >> >>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong with
> >> >>> vinyl in comparison with CD that I don't think we need
> >> >>> to even listen to vinyl to conclude it's severely flawed.
> >> >
> >> >> But in ways that many find not compelling compared to the
> >> >> pleasures it can provide.
> >> >
> >> > The so-called *many* amounts to being a tiny fraction of all music
> >> > lovers.
> >> > Harry is just playing with words.
> >> >
> >> > Harry rants and raves about live music being his reference. Thing is,
> >> > he
> >> > listens to a tiny fraction of the live music that I listen to.
> >>
> >> Quality, not quantity Arny. I live in a place where I can and do listen
> >> to
> >> professional Jazz, Folk, Chamber, Choral and Symphonic music at any time
> >> of
> >> the year. And you forget that for a decade I recorded professional
> >> chamber
> >> music, and occasionally orchestral, jazz, and folk music. In the NYC
> >> area,
> >> Arny. During that time I probably recorded 70 professional events a
> >> year,
> >> and attended another two dozen. Moreover, my best friend is a
> >> professional
> >> pianist and I have heard her play in Carnegie and in Merkin. Wynton
> >> featured one of his new small groups at the Iron Horse Cafe in
> >> Northampton
> >> two years ago, and played no more than eight feet from me.
> >>
> >> Care to compare to the quality of your musical experience? 52 weeks of
> >> church music, and what else, Arny?
> >
> > Whoa! Did I read that Arny is claiming authoritative knowledge of the
> > sound of things based on the amount of live music that he hears?
>
> Apparently so...see his paragraph above mine questioning my use of "live
> music" as a reference. I simply don't have the '''quantity" sufficient to
> do so, according to Arny. Quantity is measureable, after all. Quality....?
> Not Arny's bag, I guess. Any synthesizer will do.

Wow, well this is quite a development. IIRC, Arny "debated" with me
long and hard about the relevance of my daily exposure to live music.
Gosh I'd hate to think that he's being hypocritical about it all now.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:20:30 GMT, Jenn
> wrote:

>Yep. I hope in the near future to start exploring SACD and DVD-A.


Don't waste any time. I'd say you have about 23 minutes before the
demise of both.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:20:30 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >Yep. I hope in the near future to start exploring SACD and DVD-A.
>
>
> Don't waste any time. I'd say you have about 23 minutes before the
> demise of both.

Don't miss the recently released box sets of the Kinks on hybrid, one
box each for their RCA and Arista recordings.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"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" > wrote
>>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ig
>>>>>>>> y.
>>>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jenn is prone to do this sort of thing because
>>>>>>>>>> like Harry, she thinks there is something
>>>>>>>>>> inherently substandard about how CD-A reproduces
>>>>>>>>>> things like violin sound.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My job is to please my ears, after all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for admitting that you are currently
>>>>>>>> unemployed, Jenn. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh...har! har! har! THAT was a real leg slapper!
>>>>>>> Actually I'm 110 percent of full time at the college
>>>>>>> and I turn down more outside work than I cam take.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you adamant then that your work at the college
>>>>>> involves pleasing nodoby's ears but your own, Jenn?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously I was referring to my "job" in home audio,
>>>>> not my professional work.
>>>>
>>>> Not obvious at all.
>>>
>>> It is to people who have normal reading skill.
>>
>> Says what independent authority?
>
> Arny, I don't want to waste my time

Good, then that's that. End of discussion.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


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

>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing music
>>>> in my home that pleases my ears/brain. Radical. And
>>>> btw, most of the time the best medium for a give work
>>>> is CD.
>>>
>>> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
>>> superior sounding?
>>>>> I'm convinced that it is
>>>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
>>>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a pathological
>>>>> desire to have everything sound like.
>>
>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that many
>>>> CD bigots choose to ignore?
>>
>> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots chose
>> to ignore!

> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.

Given the probability of audible speed accuracy deviations and probable
frequency response distortions while playing LPs, that would not speak well
of your ability to judge such things.

Given the improbability of audible speed accuracy deviations and the
improbability of audible frequency response distortions while playing CDs,
that again would not speak well of your ability to judge such things.

More likely - you're a walking talking poster girl for the possibility of
prejudice and bias to overcome empirical experiences.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
> ...
>> In article
>> >, "Arny
>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing
>>>>> music in my home that pleases my ears/brain. Radical. And btw, most
>>>>> of the time the best medium
>>>>> for a give work is CD.
>>>>
>>>> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
>>>> superior sounding?
>>>>>> I'm convinced that it is
>>>>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
>>>>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a pathological
>>>>>> desire to have everything sound like.
>>>
>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
>>>
>>> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots chose
>>> to ignore!
>>
>> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
>>
> <snip>
>
> I find this also.

Speaks to your prejudices and biases Harry. As old as you are, its probable
that you really aren't capable of listening accurately and criticallly. So,
you report your beliefs, not your empirical experiences.

> But I also find them accurate on SACD's and most DVD-A's as well.

Harry, it would be fun to transcribe some of your favorite SACDs or DVD-As
and re-record them them as CDs and see if you could actually tell the
difference in a good blind test. Of course I already know the answer - you'd
be reduced to random guessing. I also know that once faced with empirical
results that differ from your religious beliefs, you'd start ranting and
raving about the inherent evils of PCM or some such.

> On CD's, it seems to be hit or miss...but most high register instruments
> and
> particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones just don't always
> sound right.

Fact of the matter is that its not necessarily easy to mic percussion
accurately, and the world is full of recordings of them that don't sound
right. Because of the fairly limited high frequency dynamic range of the LP
format, its more likely that a LP would reproduce percussion inaccurately
than LPs. The fact that you ascribe superiority to the the LP format in this
regard simply indicts your basic ability to hear reliably.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>> ...
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing
>>>>>> music in my home that pleases my ears/brain.
>>>>>> Radical. And btw, most of the time the best medium
>>>>>> for a give work is CD.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
>>>>> superior sounding?
>>>>>>> I'm convinced that it is
>>>>>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
>>>>>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a
>>>>>>> pathological desire to have everything sound like.
>>>>
>>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
>>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
>>>>
>>>> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots
>>>> chose to ignore!
>>>
>>> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I find this also. But I also find them accurate on
>> SACD's and most DVD-A's as well. On CD's, it seems to
>> be hit or miss...but most high register instruments and
>> particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones
>> just don't always sound right.
>
> Yep. I hope in the near future to start exploring SACD
> and DVD-A.

Yes Jenn, since SACD and DVD-A are now obsolete formats like LP, it is time
for you to develop a co-dependent relationship with DVD-A and SACD, just
like you developed one with LPs.

Once the struggle between Blu-Ray and DVD-HD settles out, there will no
doubt be an attempt to roll out the survivor as the next "High Definition"
audio format. However, its reasonble to ask whether or not there is any
commercial justification for doing this, given how badly SACD and DVD-A
failed, and quickly developed reputation as non-starters and as great
dangers to the carreer of any mainstream record company execuitive that
invested in them.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:20:30 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
>> Yep. I hope in the near future to start exploring SACD
>> and DVD-A.
>
>
> Don't waste any time. I'd say you have about 23 minutes
> before the demise of both.

Wrong, their demise was an accomplished fact at least a year ago.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:20:30 GMT, Jenn
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Yep. I hope in the near future to start exploring SACD
>>> and DVD-A.
>>
>>
>> Don't waste any time. I'd say you have about 23 minutes
>> before the demise of both.
>
> Don't miss the recently released box sets of the Kinks on
> hybrid, one box each for their RCA and Arista recordings.

Just goes to show the great difficulty that DVD-A and SACD are in - nobody
will release a new box with just those formats. Besides, a boxed set of
Kinks has to be a niche legacy product if there ever was one.

"This "Best Of Kinks" collection spans The Kinks' Arista years, in which the
band reached the pinnacle of their commercial success, this deluxe Digipack
edition features a lavish 16-page booklet and dramatically improved audio."

But if their original recordings were *that* badly mastered the first time,
at least the few remaining Kinks fans who still buy recordings in boxes may
receive some benefit.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people
>>>>>>>> who have heard vinyl done properly" to a
>>>>>>>> carefully-selected group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
>>>>>>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard
>>>>>>> vinyl done properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl
>>>>>> properly. Maybe JA tipped them off?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to
>>>>>>> admit they're wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to
>>>>> even figure that perhaps expectation bias might be at
>>>>> work....expectation that vinyl can't possibly sound
>>>>> good?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of vinyl.
>>>> Someone said Arny had never heard vinyl "done right"
>>>> and Arny then observed that all the vendors at HE2005
>>>> must have thus not been doing vinyl properly.
>>>
>>> So what do you *think* Arny meant by this?
>>
>> Anybody who thinks I've never heard vinyl done right
>> has a lot of flaws in their thinking.
>
> So you are really "Here in Ohio" to whom the reply was
> addressed, Arny?

No, I labor under the totally weird idea that I know better what I'm
thinking than some dude 100's of miles away who has probably never met me.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

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


>> Harry rants and raves about live music being his
>> reference. Thing is, he listens to a tiny fraction of
>> the live music that I listen to.
>
> Quality, not quantity Arny. I live in a place where I
> can and do listen to professional Jazz, Folk, Chamber,
> Choral and Symphonic music at any time of the year.

So you are saying none of that happens in the region I live in?

LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>> message
>>> ...
>>>> In article
>>>> >, Here in
>>>> Ohio > wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong
>>>>> with vinyl in comparison with CD <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres
>>>> in the case of the best LPs. ;-)
>>>
>>> Had an interesting experience the other day. I picked
>>> up a pristine copy of Wynton Marsalis's debut
>>> recording......The Haydn/Hummel/L. Mozart Turmpet
>>> Concerto's with Leppard and the National Philharmonic
>>> Orchestra. On CBS.
>>
>>> I put it on as background music, since it is light
>>> stuff, while I finished some household work. I found
>>> myself thinking...."that just doesn't sound right". Annoying sound, yet
>>> without obvious mic'ng errors. So
>>> when I finished I checked the jacket....found out that
>>> it was a CBS 1983 digital recording done on JVC
>>> equipment using Schoeps mics (which I'm very familiar
>>> with, and should have sounded superb).
>>
>> At this point, Harry when presented with a recording
>> that he doesn't like leaps to the following conclusions:
>>
>> (1) He doesn't like the recording because it is faulty.
>> (2) There's not a chance that his dislike for the
>> recording is just a matter of personal taste.
>> (3) Harry has a perfect understanding of what I think
>> the inherent flaws of the vinyl medium are.
>> (4) The presumed flaws in the recording would be
>> inaudible if vinyl was as flawed as I think it is.
>>
>> Any one of these logical leaps is easy to shoot massive
>> holes into. And now we have Harry's master flight of fancy:
>>
>>> Apparently vinyl is transparent enough to transmit the
>>> flaws of early digital recording despite its "so many
>>> objective things wrong".
>
> Okay, Arny, I'll be more explicit.

Note that Harry launches into an irrelevant diatribe rather than deal with
any of the issues I raised.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg basks in the stench of "victory".

> >>>>>>>>> My job is to please my ears, after all.

> >>>>>>>> Thanks for admitting that you are currently
> >>>>>>>> unemployed, Jenn. ;-)

> >>>>>> Are you adamant then that your work at the college
> >>>>>> involves pleasing nodoby's ears but your own, Jenn?

> >>>>> Obviously I was referring to my "job" in home audio,
> >>>>> not my professional work.

> >>>> Not obvious at all.

> >>> It is to people who have normal reading skill.

> >> Says what independent authority?

> > Arny, I don't want to waste my time

> Good, then that's that. End of discussion.

Congratulations, Turdy -- you "won" another "debate". How proud you must
feel!




--

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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >>
> >> ...
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing
> >>>>>> music in my home that pleases my ears/brain.
> >>>>>> Radical. And btw, most of the time the best medium
> >>>>>> for a give work is CD.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
> >>>>> superior sounding?
> >>>>>>> I'm convinced that it is
> >>>>>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
> >>>>>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a
> >>>>>>> pathological desire to have everything sound like.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
> >>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
> >>>>
> >>>> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots
> >>>> chose to ignore!
> >>>
> >>> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
> >>>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> I find this also. But I also find them accurate on
> >> SACD's and most DVD-A's as well. On CD's, it seems to
> >> be hit or miss...but most high register instruments and
> >> particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones
> >> just don't always sound right.
> >
> > Yep. I hope in the near future to start exploring SACD
> > and DVD-A.
>
> Yes Jenn, since SACD and DVD-A are now obsolete formats like LP, it is time
> for you to develop a co-dependent relationship with DVD-A and SACD, just
> like you developed one with LPs.

You really are a piece of ****.

You probably need to get laid. How many years has it been? (That was
rhetorical. Please don't answer.) It's obvious that stroking your
pecker while you type isn't doing it for you.

If your wife no longer is interested, you could always try a hooker.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Harry
>>> Lavo" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing
>>>>>>>> music in my home that pleases my ears/brain.
>>>>>>>> Radical. And btw, most of the time the best medium
>>>>>>>> for a give work is CD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
>>>>>>> superior sounding?
>>>>>>>>> I'm convinced that it is
>>>>>>>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
>>>>>>>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a
>>>>>>>>> pathological desire to have everything sound like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
>>>>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots
>>>>>> chose to ignore!
>>>>>
>>>>> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
>>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> I find this also. But I also find them accurate on
>>>> SACD's and most DVD-A's as well. On CD's, it seems to
>>>> be hit or miss...but most high register instruments and
>>>> particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones
>>>> just don't always sound right.
>>>
>>> Yep. I hope in the near future to start exploring SACD
>>> and DVD-A.
>>
>> Yes Jenn, since SACD and DVD-A are now obsolete formats
>> like LP, it is time for you to develop a co-dependent
>> relationship with DVD-A and SACD, just like you
>> developed one with LPs.
>
> You really are a piece of ****.

Fecal obsession noted.

> You probably need to get laid. How many years has it
> been? (That was rhetorical. Please don't answer.)

Thanks for admitting that you haven't been laid for years and wonder if
that's normal.

> It's obvious that stroking your pecker while you type isn't
> doing it for you.

You know ****R, there's such a thing as too much information about your
personal life.

> If your wife no longer is interested, you could always
> try a hooker.

How long has it been for you, ****R? As frustrated as you seem, it could
have been decades.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg explicates its problem with human language.

> > So you are really "Here in Ohio" to whom the reply was
> > addressed, Arny?

> No, I labor under the totally weird idea that I know better what I'm
> thinking than some dude 100's of miles away who has probably never met me.

Too bad you can't actually express what you're thinking using words. Just
another piece of the Krooger Krazy Puzzle, I guess.





--

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

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said to The Big ****:

> If your wife no longer is interested, you could always try a hooker.

<ahem>




--

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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Harry
> >>> Lavo" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
> >>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing
> >>>>>>>> music in my home that pleases my ears/brain.
> >>>>>>>> Radical. And btw, most of the time the best medium
> >>>>>>>> for a give work is CD.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
> >>>>>>> superior sounding?
> >>>>>>>>> I'm convinced that it is
> >>>>>>>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
> >>>>>>>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a
> >>>>>>>>> pathological desire to have everything sound like.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
> >>>>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots
> >>>>>> chose to ignore!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
> >>>>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>> I find this also. But I also find them accurate on
> >>>> SACD's and most DVD-A's as well. On CD's, it seems to
> >>>> be hit or miss...but most high register instruments and
> >>>> particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones
> >>>> just don't always sound right.
> >>>
> >>> Yep. I hope in the near future to start exploring SACD
> >>> and DVD-A.
> >>
> >> Yes Jenn, since SACD and DVD-A are now obsolete formats
> >> like LP, it is time for you to develop a co-dependent
> >> relationship with DVD-A and SACD, just like you
> >> developed one with LPs.
> >
> > You really are a piece of ****.
>
> Fecal obsession noted.

Um, look at the nickname you gave me, moron. LOL!

> > You probably need to get laid. How many years has it
> > been? (That was rhetorical. Please don't answer.)
>
> Thanks for admitting that you haven't been laid for years and wonder if
> that's normal.

More logic? LMAO!

> > It's obvious that stroking your pecker while you type isn't
> > doing it for you.
>
> You know ****R, there's such a thing as too much information about your
> personal life.

That's why I told you it was rhetorical.

Or was that a feeble attempt at an 'IKYABWAI'?

> > If your wife no longer is interested, you could always
> > try a hooker.
>
> How long has it been for you, ****R? As frustrated as you seem, it could
> have been decades.

My question was rhetorical. You seem truly interested.

You're not just an asshole. You're a creepy asshole.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing
> >>>>>> music in my home that pleases my ears/brain.
> >>>>>> Radical. And btw, most of the time the best medium
> >>>>>> for a give work is CD.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
> >>>>> superior sounding?
> >>>>>>> I'm convinced that it is
> >>>>>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
> >>>>>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a
> >>>>>>> pathological desire to have everything sound like.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
> >>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
> >>>>
> >>>> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots
> >>>> chose to ignore!
> >>>
> >>> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
> >>>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> I find this also. But I also find them accurate on
> >> SACD's and most DVD-A's as well. On CD's, it seems to
> >> be hit or miss...but most high register instruments and
> >> particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones
> >> just don't always sound right.
> >
> > Yep. I hope in the near future to start exploring SACD
> > and DVD-A.
>
> Yes Jenn, since SACD and DVD-A are now obsolete formats like LP, it is time
> for you to develop a co-dependent relationship with DVD-A and SACD, just
> like you developed one with LPs.

Forgive me for being curious. The SFS Mahler series alone makes it
worth a listen, IMO.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing music
> >>>> in my home that pleases my ears/brain. Radical. And
> >>>> btw, most of the time the best medium for a give work
> >>>> is CD.
> >>>
> >>> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
> >>> superior sounding?
> >>>>> I'm convinced that it is
> >>>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
> >>>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a pathological
> >>>>> desire to have everything sound like.
> >>
> >>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that many
> >>>> CD bigots choose to ignore?
> >>
> >> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots chose
> >> to ignore!
>
> > Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
>
> Given the probability of audible speed accuracy deviations and probable
> frequency response distortions while playing LPs, that would not speak well
> of your ability to judge such things.
>
> Given the improbability of audible speed accuracy deviations and the
> improbability of audible frequency response distortions while playing CDs,
> that again would not speak well of your ability to judge such things.
>
> More likely - you're a walking talking poster girl for the possibility of
> prejudice and bias to overcome empirical experiences.

Thanks for your opinion.

[Jenn]

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" > wrote
> >>>>>>>> in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> od
> >>>>>>>> ig
> >>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Jenn is prone to do this sort of thing because
> >>>>>>>>>> like Harry, she thinks there is something
> >>>>>>>>>> inherently substandard about how CD-A reproduces
> >>>>>>>>>> things like violin sound.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> My job is to please my ears, after all.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for admitting that you are currently
> >>>>>>>> unemployed, Jenn. ;-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh...har! har! har! THAT was a real leg slapper!
> >>>>>>> Actually I'm 110 percent of full time at the college
> >>>>>>> and I turn down more outside work than I cam take.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you adamant then that your work at the college
> >>>>>> involves pleasing nodoby's ears but your own, Jenn?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Obviously I was referring to my "job" in home audio,
> >>>>> not my professional work.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not obvious at all.
> >>>
> >>> It is to people who have normal reading skill.
> >>
> >> Says what independent authority?
> >
> > Arny, I don't want to waste my time
>
> Good, then that's that. End of discussion.

Thanks for admitting that discussions with you are a waste of time.
Surrender of the point accepted.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>> ...
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing
>>>>>> music in my home that pleases my ears/brain. Radical. And btw, most
>>>>>> of the time the best medium
>>>>>> for a give work is CD.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
>>>>> superior sounding?
>>>>>>> I'm convinced that it is
>>>>>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
>>>>>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a pathological
>>>>>>> desire to have everything sound like.
>>>>
>>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
>>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
>>>>
>>>> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots chose
>>>> to ignore!
>>>
>>> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I find this also.
>
> Speaks to your prejudices and biases Harry. As old as you are, its
> probable that you really aren't capable of listening accurately and
> criticallly. So, you report your beliefs, not your empirical experiences.

Gee Arny, how well you allow for other's preferences. Bigoted, I believe is
the proper term.


>
>> But I also find them accurate on SACD's and most DVD-A's as well.
>
> Harry, it would be fun to transcribe some of your favorite SACDs or DVD-As
> and re-record them them as CDs and see if you could actually tell the
> difference in a good blind test. Of course I already know the answer -
> you'd be reduced to random guessing. I also know that once faced with
> empirical results that differ from your religious beliefs, you'd start
> ranting and raving about the inherent evils of PCM or some such.

Let's see now:

* Take a recording on a medium that I (and others) feel is superior at
transmitting transient response.
* Re-record it to a medium that I (and others) feel screws up transient
response.
* Compare that re-recording to the original medium which we feel has screwed
up transient response.
* Find the difference between the re-recording and the original, both with
possibly screwed up transient response

Tell me Arny, since you pride yourself on logic, where is the problem with
the above excercise?


>> On CD's, it seems to be hit or miss...but most high register instruments
>> and
>> particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones just don't always
>> sound right.
>
> Fact of the matter is that its not necessarily easy to mic percussion
> accurately, and the world is full of recordings of them that don't sound
> right. Because of the fairly limited high frequency dynamic range of the
> LP format, its more likely that a LP would reproduce percussion
> inaccurately than LPs. The fact that you ascribe superiority to the the LP
> format in this regard simply indicts your basic ability to hear reliably.

Fact of the matter is I have recorded intensely for more years than you have
Arny. I don't need a lecture on the difficulty of recording transient
response. However, it is doable and a goodly number of professional
recording engineers are perfectly capable of doing it.

As to LP's, you're criticism of the medium is that high frequencies have to
be shelved in maximum volume to avoid overload. That says nothering about
transient performance below the shelved overload point. LP's have a more
extended frequency response than CD when required...and reproducing
transients well tends to be one of the things requiring it.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>> In article >,
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>> In article
>>>> >, "Arny
>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing
>>>>>>> music in my home that pleases my ears/brain.
>>>>>>> Radical. And btw, most of the time the best medium
>>>>>>> for a give work is CD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
>>>>>> superior sounding?
>>>>>>>> I'm convinced that it is
>>>>>>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
>>>>>>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a
>>>>>>>> pathological desire to have everything sound like.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
>>>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
>>>>>
>>>>> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots
>>>>> chose to ignore!
>>>>
>>>> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I find this also. But I also find them accurate on
>>> SACD's and most DVD-A's as well. On CD's, it seems to
>>> be hit or miss...but most high register instruments and
>>> particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones
>>> just don't always sound right.
>>
>> Yep. I hope in the near future to start exploring SACD
>> and DVD-A.
>
> Yes Jenn, since SACD and DVD-A are now obsolete formats like LP, it is
> time for you to develop a co-dependent relationship with DVD-A and SACD,
> just like you developed one with LPs.
>
> Once the struggle between Blu-Ray and DVD-HD settles out, there will no
> doubt be an attempt to roll out the survivor as the next "High Definition"
> audio format. However, its reasonble to ask whether or not there is any
> commercial justification for doing this, given how badly SACD and DVD-A
> failed, and quickly developed reputation as non-starters and as great
> dangers to the carreer of any mainstream record company execuitive that
> invested in them.

And hey Arny, wax cylinders are perfectly capable for capturing sermons.
Why aren't you using them?

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> .
>> >> com
>> >> ...
>> >>> In article
>> >>> >, "Arny
>> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in
>> >>>> message
>> >>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
>> >>>>> > wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing
>> >>>>>> music in my home that pleases my ears/brain.
>> >>>>>> Radical. And btw, most of the time the best medium
>> >>>>>> for a give work is CD.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
>> >>>>> superior sounding?
>> >>>>>>> I'm convinced that it is
>> >>>>>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
>> >>>>>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a
>> >>>>>>> pathological desire to have everything sound like.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
>> >>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots
>> >>>> chose to ignore!
>> >>>
>> >>> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
>> >>>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> I find this also. But I also find them accurate on
>> >> SACD's and most DVD-A's as well. On CD's, it seems to
>> >> be hit or miss...but most high register instruments and
>> >> particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones
>> >> just don't always sound right.
>> >
>> > Yep. I hope in the near future to start exploring SACD
>> > and DVD-A.
>>
>> Yes Jenn, since SACD and DVD-A are now obsolete formats like LP, it is
>> time
>> for you to develop a co-dependent relationship with DVD-A and SACD, just
>> like you developed one with LPs.
>
> Forgive me for being curious. The SFS Mahler series alone makes it
> worth a listen, IMO.

Add the Haitink Beethoven Cycle to that, and you have twice as much reason.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:06:42 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only true if you narrow the the number of "people
>>>>>>>>> who have heard vinyl done properly" to a
>>>>>>>>> carefully-selected group.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It actually works out well for the vinyl proponent.
>>>>>>>> Anyone who prefers CD over vinyl just hasn't heard
>>>>>>>> vinyl done properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Strange how *every* vendor at HE2005 didn't do vinyl
>>>>>>> properly. Maybe JA tipped them off?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That keeps the vinyl lover from ever having to
>>>>>>>> admit they're wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice little riff, Arny. Funny how you never seem to
>>>>>> even figure that perhaps expectation bias might be at
>>>>>> work....expectation that vinyl can't possibly sound
>>>>>> good?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think the issue was Arny's perception of vinyl.
>>>>> Someone said Arny had never heard vinyl "done right"
>>>>> and Arny then observed that all the vendors at HE2005
>>>>> must have thus not been doing vinyl properly.
>>>>
>>>> So what do you *think* Arny meant by this?
>>>
>>> Anybody who thinks I've never heard vinyl done right
>>> has a lot of flaws in their thinking.
>>
>> So you are really "Here in Ohio" to whom the reply was
>> addressed, Arny?
>
> No, I labor under the totally weird idea that I know better what I'm
> thinking than some dude 100's of miles away who has probably never met me.

Of course, by obfuscating you refused to answer the question. So what *did*
you mean by this? Straightforward question, Arny.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>
>
>>> Harry rants and raves about live music being his
>>> reference. Thing is, he listens to a tiny fraction of
>>> the live music that I listen to.
>>
>> Quality, not quantity Arny. I live in a place where I
>> can and do listen to professional Jazz, Folk, Chamber,
>> Choral and Symphonic music at any time of the year.
>
> So you are saying none of that happens in the region I live in?
>
> LOL!

I'm saying you give no indication of attending same, being so busy recording
your 250 church sessions a year.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, Here in
>>>>> Ohio > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, there are so many objective things wrong
>>>>>> with vinyl in comparison with CD <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, like that annoying lack of wrong sounding timbres
>>>>> in the case of the best LPs. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Had an interesting experience the other day. I picked
>>>> up a pristine copy of Wynton Marsalis's debut
>>>> recording......The Haydn/Hummel/L. Mozart Turmpet
>>>> Concerto's with Leppard and the National Philharmonic
>>>> Orchestra. On CBS.
>>>
>>>> I put it on as background music, since it is light
>>>> stuff, while I finished some household work. I found
>>>> myself thinking...."that just doesn't sound right". Annoying sound, yet
>>>> without obvious mic'ng errors. So
>>>> when I finished I checked the jacket....found out that
>>>> it was a CBS 1983 digital recording done on JVC
>>>> equipment using Schoeps mics (which I'm very familiar
>>>> with, and should have sounded superb).
>>>
>>> At this point, Harry when presented with a recording
>>> that he doesn't like leaps to the following conclusions:
>>>
>>> (1) He doesn't like the recording because it is faulty.
>>> (2) There's not a chance that his dislike for the
>>> recording is just a matter of personal taste.
>>> (3) Harry has a perfect understanding of what I think
>>> the inherent flaws of the vinyl medium are.
>>> (4) The presumed flaws in the recording would be
>>> inaudible if vinyl was as flawed as I think it is.
>>>
>>> Any one of these logical leaps is easy to shoot massive
>>> holes into. And now we have Harry's master flight of fancy:
>>>
>>>> Apparently vinyl is transparent enough to transmit the
>>>> flaws of early digital recording despite its "so many
>>>> objective things wrong".
>>
>> Okay, Arny, I'll be more explicit.
>
> Note that Harry launches into an irrelevant diatribe rather than deal with
> any of the issues I raised.

And note that Arny following his usual bad-mannered policy, snips my
remaining comments that he wants others not to see.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Harry
>>> Lavo" > wrote:
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing
>>>>>>>> music in my home that pleases my ears/brain.
>>>>>>>> Radical. And btw, most of the time the best medium
>>>>>>>> for a give work is CD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
>>>>>>> superior sounding?
>>>>>>>>> I'm convinced that it is
>>>>>>>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
>>>>>>>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a
>>>>>>>>> pathological desire to have everything sound like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
>>>>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots
>>>>>> chose to ignore!
>>>>>
>>>>> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
>>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> I find this also. But I also find them accurate on
>>>> SACD's and most DVD-A's as well. On CD's, it seems to
>>>> be hit or miss...but most high register instruments and
>>>> particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones
>>>> just don't always sound right.
>>>
>>> Yep. I hope in the near future to start exploring SACD
>>> and DVD-A.
>>
>> Yes Jenn, since SACD and DVD-A are now obsolete formats
>> like LP, it is time for you to develop a co-dependent
>> relationship with DVD-A and SACD, just like you
>> developed one with LPs. Once the struggle between Blu-Ray and DVD-HD
>> settles
>> out, there will no doubt be an attempt to roll out the
>> survivor as the next "High Definition" audio format.
>> However, its reasonble to ask whether or not there is
>> any commercial justification for doing this, given how
>> badly SACD and DVD-A failed, and quickly developed reputation as
>> non-starters and as great dangers to the
>> carreer of any mainstream record company execuitive that
>> invested in them.

> And hey Arny, wax cylinders are perfectly capable for
> capturing sermons. Why aren't you using them?

I see you're trying to increase the irrelevancy of your posts, Harry.
Congratulations!

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>> message
>>> ...
>>>> In article
>>>> >, "Arny
>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:23 GMT, Jenn
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not "religious beliefs" at all; it's playing
>>>>>>> music in my home that pleases my ears/brain.
>>>>>>> Radical. And btw, most of the time the best medium
>>>>>>> for a give work is CD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you are saying that only in a few cases is vinyl
>>>>>> superior sounding?
>>>>>>>> I'm convinced that it is
>>>>>>>> a sentimental attachment to a certain sort of
>>>>>>>> coloration that many vinyl bigots have a
>>>>>>>> pathological desire to have everything sound like.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
>>>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
>>>>>
>>>>> As opposed to the bad timbres that many LP bigots
>>>>> chose to ignore!
>>>>
>>>> Taken as a group, I find timbres to be better on LP.
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I find this also.
>>
>> Speaks to your prejudices and biases Harry. As old as
>> you are, its probable that you really aren't capable of
>> listening accurately and criticallly. So, you report
>> your beliefs, not your empirical experiences.

> Gee Arny, how well you allow for other's preferences.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

> Bigoted, I believe is the proper term.

Check your mirror Harry. Someone may have stuck a sign to that effect on
your back.

>>> But I also find them accurate on SACD's and most
>>> DVD-A's as well.

>> Harry, it would be fun to transcribe some of your
>> favorite SACDs or DVD-As and re-record them them as CDs
>> and see if you could actually tell the difference in a
>> good blind test. Of course I already know the answer -
>> you'd be reduced to random guessing. I also know that
>> once faced with empirical results that differ from your
>> religious beliefs, you'd start ranting and raving about
>> the inherent evils of PCM or some such.

> Let's see now:

> * Take a recording on a medium that I (and others) feel
> is superior at transmitting transient response.

BTW, I won't disagree with that. However since people listen to this media
why not address the more meaningful issue, which is audible transient
response.

> * Re-record it to a medium that I (and others) feel
> screws up transient response.

Yes. My basic thought is that the human ear is really a fairly poor judge of
transient response compared to say, a FFT or spectrum analyzer.

> * Compare that re-recording to the original medium which
> we feel has screwed up transient response.

Wrong. What I want to do is compare a recording that has problems that you
consider significant, to a recording that you think is vastly improved.
Let's see whether all the superior transient response is due to your
prejudices, or whether it really matters.

> * Find the difference between the re-recording and the
> original, both with possibly screwed up transient response

Wrong again.

> Tell me Arny, since you pride yourself on logic, where is
> the problem with the above excercise?

The obvious problem is that the above exercise was contrived by Harry Lavo.

>>> On CD's, it seems to be hit or miss...but most high
>>> register instruments and
>>> particularly percussion with high-frequency overtones just don't always
>>> sound right.

>> Fact of the matter is that its not necessarily easy to
>> mic percussion accurately, and the world is full of
>> recordings of them that don't sound right. Because of
>> the fairly limited high frequency dynamic range of the
>> LP format, its more likely that a LP would reproduce
>> percussion inaccurately than LPs. The fact that you
>> ascribe superiority to the the LP format in this regard
>> simply indicts your basic ability to hear reliably.

> Fact of the matter is I have recorded intensely for more
> years than you have Arny.

Harry, no amount of years of you recording is going to help the egregious
technical problems inherent with the LP format.

Furthermore Harry, even by your own admission, you've done negligable live
recording in the current millenium. I know that you think that analog tape
can't be beat, but in fact technology has moved on a few light years since
you were last doing a lot of recording.

> I don't need a lecture on the
> difficulty of recording transient response.

I see evidence to the contrary.

> However, it
> is doable and a goodly number of professional recording
> engineers are perfectly capable of doing it.

Finally Harry, you've said something that makes a little sense. My
whole-hearted congratuations. Why did you make us wait so long?

> As to LP's, you're criticism of the medium is that high
> frequencies have to be shelved in maximum volume to avoid
> overload.

I never said that.

> That says nothering about transient
> performance below the shelved overload point.

Ignorance of the consequences of reducing high frequency response noted.

> LP's have
> a more extended frequency response than CD when
> required.

No they don't. Neither does the most common forms of analog tape recording
including equipment you've admitted to using even now.

>..and reproducing transients well tends to be one of the things requiring
>it.

Nonsense. The LP format has inherent limitations with high frequency dynamic
range that have never been adequately addressed. Harry, I find it quite
ironic that you rant and rave about high frequency dynamics, and then push a
medium that has serious problems with high frequency dynamics.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>
>>
>>>> Harry rants and raves about live music being his
>>>> reference. Thing is, he listens to a tiny fraction of
>>>> the live music that I listen to.
>>>
>>> Quality, not quantity Arny. I live in a place where I
>>> can and do listen to professional Jazz, Folk, Chamber,
>>> Choral and Symphonic music at any time of the year.
>>
>> So you are saying none of that happens in the region I
>> live in? LOL!
>
> I'm saying you give no indication of attending same,
> being so busy recording your 250 church sessions a year.

Note that Harry can't get the number of church sessions I record correct,
even within a factor of 4.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:19:15 GMT, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that many CD bigots choose
> >> >to ignore?
> >>
> >> Which bad timbres might these be?
> >
> >Upper frequency instruments (high strings, high WWs, soprano voice, most
> >percussion) that sound unlike any known acoustic examples of those
> >instruments.
> >
>
> These are some of the areas where I find CD to be most superior. In
> particular, percussion instruments sound far more real on CD than on
> any LP I've ever heard.

Well, I appreciate your opinion. I strongly disagree.

>
> I also knew someone who used to do presentations on things like the
> string technique of the various orchestras. He had an extremely good
> ear and he just loved CDs and considered them to be far superior to
> vinyl.

My ear is pretty fair as well, and again I strongly disagree. I do
agree, however, that the best CDs are better overall than most LPs.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:19:15 GMT, Jenn
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
>>>>
>>>> Which bad timbres might these be?
>>>
>>> Upper frequency instruments (high strings, high WWs,
>>> soprano voice, most percussion) that sound unlike any
>>> known acoustic examples of those instruments.

It takes a fair amount of being mislead to actually believe such a strange
thing.

>> These are some of the areas where I find CD to be most
>> superior. In particular, percussion instruments sound
>> far more real on CD than on any LP I've ever heard.

> Well, I appreciate your opinion. I strongly disagree.

If Jenn didn't disagree, it would change her life. She's gone the whole
route with her affliction, including the pre-requsite ca. kilobuck
turntable, collection of LPs, etc.

>> I also knew someone who used to do presentations on
>> things like the string technique of the various
>> orchestras. He had an extremely good ear and he just
>> loved CDs and considered them to be far superior to
>> vinyl.

> My ear is pretty fair as well, and again I strongly
> disagree. I do agree, however, that the best CDs are
> better overall than most LPs.

Digititus - a disease affecting the humand perceptions wherein one so
afflicted strongly believes that digital coding at normal sample rates (e.g.
44.1 KHz) inherently changes the sound of upper frequency instruments (high
strings, high WWs, soprano voice, most percussion) in such a way that they
sound unlike any known acoustic examples of those instruments.

One possible cure is to demonstrate convincingly in a studio that this does
not happen, using a selection of such instruments, a microphone, mic preamp,
back-to-back digital converters, power amp, and speakers.

Of course this would require the person so afflicted to admit that they were
wrong. Don't hold your breath.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:19:15 GMT, Jenn
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
> >>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
> >>>>
> >>>> Which bad timbres might these be?
> >>>
> >>> Upper frequency instruments (high strings, high WWs,
> >>> soprano voice, most percussion) that sound unlike any
> >>> known acoustic examples of those instruments.
>
> It takes a fair amount of being mislead to actually believe such a strange
> thing.

No, it takes listening with my ears/brain. Why does that **** you off
so much?

>
> >> These are some of the areas where I find CD to be most
> >> superior. In particular, percussion instruments sound
> >> far more real on CD than on any LP I've ever heard.
>
> > Well, I appreciate your opinion. I strongly disagree.
>
> If Jenn didn't disagree, it would change her life.

True. It would make it much easier if I heard it the other way.

> She's gone the whole
> route with her affliction, including the pre-requsite ca. kilobuck
> turntable, collection of LPs, etc.

I've spend FAR less on my turntable/arm/cartridge than you have on, for
example, sound cards.

>
> >> I also knew someone who used to do presentations on
> >> things like the string technique of the various
> >> orchestras. He had an extremely good ear and he just
> >> loved CDs and considered them to be far superior to
> >> vinyl.
>
> > My ear is pretty fair as well, and again I strongly
> > disagree. I do agree, however, that the best CDs are
> > better overall than most LPs.
>
> Digititus - a disease affecting the humand perceptions wherein one so
> afflicted strongly believes that digital coding at normal sample rates (e.g.
> 44.1 KHz) inherently changes the sound of upper frequency instruments (high
> strings, high WWs, soprano voice, most percussion) in such a way that they
> sound unlike any known acoustic examples of those instruments.

Poopipoopitus - a disease affecting certain people who like to tell
others what they should be hearing.

>
> One possible cure is to demonstrate convincingly in a studio that this does
> not happen, using a selection of such instruments, a microphone, mic preamp,
> back-to-back digital converters, power amp, and speakers.
>
> Of course this would require the person so afflicted to admit that they were
> wrong. Don't hold your breath.

Set it up and I'll do it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:19:15 GMT, Jenn
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
>>>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which bad timbres might these be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Upper frequency instruments (high strings, high WWs,
>>>>> soprano voice, most percussion) that sound unlike any
>>>>> known acoustic examples of those instruments.
>>
>> It takes a fair amount of being mislead to actually
>> believe such a strange thing.
>
> No, it takes listening with my ears/brain. Why does that
> **** you off so much?
>
>>
>>>> These are some of the areas where I find CD to be most
>>>> superior. In particular, percussion instruments sound
>>>> far more real on CD than on any LP I've ever heard.
>>
>>> Well, I appreciate your opinion. I strongly disagree.
>>
>> If Jenn didn't disagree, it would change her life.
>
> True. It would make it much easier if I heard it the
> other way.

Agreed.

>> She's gone the whole
>> route with her affliction, including the pre-requsite
>> ca. kilobuck turntable, collection of LPs, etc.

> I've spend FAR less on my turntable/arm/cartridge than
> you have on, for example, sound cards.

Yeah, but I got something useful out of the deal.

>>>> I also knew someone who used to do presentations on
>>>> things like the string technique of the various
>>>> orchestras. He had an extremely good ear and he just
>>>> loved CDs and considered them to be far superior to
>>>> vinyl.
>>
>>> My ear is pretty fair as well, and again I strongly
>>> disagree. I do agree, however, that the best CDs are
>>> better overall than most LPs.
>>
>> Digititus - a disease affecting the humand perceptions
>> wherein one so afflicted strongly believes that digital
>> coding at normal sample rates (e.g.
>> 44.1 KHz) inherently changes the sound of upper
>> frequency instruments (high strings, high WWs, soprano
>> voice, most percussion) in such a way that they sound
>> unlike any known acoustic examples of those instruments.

> Poopipoopitus - a disease affecting certain people who
> like to tell others what they should be hearing.

You're it, Jenn. By implication you've said that if we listen well like you
do, we'd hear all that crap you obsess over in order to justify your
investement in vinyl.

>> One possible cure is to demonstrate convincingly in a
>> studio that this does not happen, using a selection of
>> such instruments, a microphone, mic preamp, back-to-back
>> digital converters, power amp, and speakers.
>>
>> Of course this would require the person so afflicted to
>> admit that they were wrong. Don't hold your breath.

> Set it up and I'll do it.

We did it over 25 years ago. Digital wasn't then what it is now, but it
passed our test:

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

This source does not document a number of sighted tests that were done on
the same day, BTW.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:19:15 GMT, Jenn
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
> >>>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which bad timbres might these be?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Upper frequency instruments (high strings, high WWs,
> >>>>> soprano voice, most percussion) that sound unlike any
> >>>>> known acoustic examples of those instruments.
> >>
> >> It takes a fair amount of being mislead to actually
> >> believe such a strange thing.
> >
> > No, it takes listening with my ears/brain. Why does that
> > **** you off so much?
> >
> >>
> >>>> These are some of the areas where I find CD to be most
> >>>> superior. In particular, percussion instruments sound
> >>>> far more real on CD than on any LP I've ever heard.
> >>
> >>> Well, I appreciate your opinion. I strongly disagree.
> >>
> >> If Jenn didn't disagree, it would change her life.
> >
> > True. It would make it much easier if I heard it the
> > other way.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >> She's gone the whole
> >> route with her affliction, including the pre-requsite
> >> ca. kilobuck turntable, collection of LPs, etc.
>
> > I've spend FAR less on my turntable/arm/cartridge than
> > you have on, for example, sound cards.
>
> Yeah, but I got something useful out of the deal.

A bunch of sound cards you don't listen to?

>
> >>>> I also knew someone who used to do presentations on
> >>>> things like the string technique of the various
> >>>> orchestras. He had an extremely good ear and he just
> >>>> loved CDs and considered them to be far superior to
> >>>> vinyl.
> >>
> >>> My ear is pretty fair as well, and again I strongly
> >>> disagree. I do agree, however, that the best CDs are
> >>> better overall than most LPs.
> >>
> >> Digititus - a disease affecting the humand perceptions
> >> wherein one so afflicted strongly believes that digital
> >> coding at normal sample rates (e.g.
> >> 44.1 KHz) inherently changes the sound of upper
> >> frequency instruments (high strings, high WWs, soprano
> >> voice, most percussion) in such a way that they sound
> >> unlike any known acoustic examples of those instruments.
>
> > Poopipoopitus - a disease affecting certain people who
> > like to tell others what they should be hearing.
>
> You're it, Jenn. By implication you've said that if we listen well like you
> do, we'd hear all that crap you obsess over in order to justify your
> investement in vinyl.

Nope, I've said that to MY ears the best LPs sound better than any CD.
Further, I've said that everyone should listen to what pleases them more.

>
> >> One possible cure is to demonstrate convincingly in a
> >> studio that this does not happen, using a selection of
> >> such instruments, a microphone, mic preamp, back-to-back
> >> digital converters, power amp, and speakers.
> >>
> >> Of course this would require the person so afflicted to
> >> admit that they were wrong. Don't hold your breath.
>
> > Set it up and I'll do it.
>
> We did it over 25 years ago.

Not with my ears you didn't.

> Digital wasn't then what it is now, but it
> passed our test:
>
> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

You were speaking of me submitting to such a test, were you not?
>
> This source does not document a number of sighted tests that were done on
> the same day, BTW.

[dizzy]

Harry Lavo wrote:

>LP's have a more
>extended frequency response than CD when required..

What's the color of the sky in your world?

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" > wrote in message

> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
>> LP's have a more
>> extended frequency response than CD when required..
>
> What's the color of the sky in your world?

Apparently, it's a world where smooth frequency response matters not. It is
a world where nonlinear distortion matters not. It is a world where good
dynamic range matters not.

[Arny Krueger]

"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
>>>>> >, Here in
>>>>> Ohio > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:19:15 GMT, Jenn
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
>>>>>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which bad timbres might these be?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Upper frequency instruments (high strings, high WWs,
>>>>>>> soprano voice, most percussion) that sound unlike
>>>>>>> any known acoustic examples of those instruments.
>>>>
>>>> It takes a fair amount of being mislead to actually
>>>> believe such a strange thing.
>>>
>>> No, it takes listening with my ears/brain. Why does
>>> that **** you off so much?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> These are some of the areas where I find CD to be
>>>>>> most superior. In particular, percussion instruments
>>>>>> sound far more real on CD than on any LP I've ever
>>>>>> heard.
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I appreciate your opinion. I strongly disagree.
>>>>
>>>> If Jenn didn't disagree, it would change her life.
>>>
>>> True. It would make it much easier if I heard it the
>>> other way.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>> She's gone the whole
>>>> route with her affliction, including the pre-requsite
>>>> ca. kilobuck turntable, collection of LPs, etc.
>>
>>> I've spend FAR less on my turntable/arm/cartridge than
>>> you have on, for example, sound cards.
>>
>> Yeah, but I got something useful out of the deal.

> A bunch of sound cards you don't listen to?

You've missed the point. I got www.pcavtech.com out of them. That let to
www.pcabx.com . It was a fun ride.

>>>>>> I also knew someone who used to do presentations on
>>>>>> things like the string technique of the various
>>>>>> orchestras. He had an extremely good ear and he just
>>>>>> loved CDs and considered them to be far superior to
>>>>>> vinyl.
>>>>
>>>>> My ear is pretty fair as well, and again I strongly
>>>>> disagree. I do agree, however, that the best CDs are
>>>>> better overall than most LPs.
>>>>
>>>> Digititus - a disease affecting the humand perceptions
>>>> wherein one so afflicted strongly believes that digital
>>>> coding at normal sample rates (e.g.
>>>> 44.1 KHz) inherently changes the sound of upper
>>>> frequency instruments (high strings, high WWs, soprano
>>>> voice, most percussion) in such a way that they sound
>>>> unlike any known acoustic examples of those
>>>> instruments.
>>
>>> Poopipoopitus - a disease affecting certain people who
>>> like to tell others what they should be hearing.
>>
>> You're it, Jenn. By implication you've said that if we
>> listen well like you do, we'd hear all that crap you
>> obsess over in order to justify your investement in
>> vinyl.

> Nope, I've said that to MY ears the best LPs sound better
> than any CD.

That makes your ears very substandard. Virtually the entire music-loving
community moved on after vinyl became totally obsolete.

> Further, I've said that everyone should listen to what pleases them more.

You're starving your ears.

>>>> One possible cure is to demonstrate convincingly in a
>>>> studio that this does not happen, using a selection of
>>>> such instruments, a microphone, mic preamp,
>>>> back-to-back digital converters, power amp, and
>>>> speakers.
>>>>
>>>> Of course this would require the person so afflicted to
>>>> admit that they were wrong. Don't hold your breath.
>>
>>> Set it up and I'll do it.
>>
>> We did it over 25 years ago.

> Not with my ears you didn't.

By your own admission your ears are so non-standard and starved for good SQ
that they are irrelevant.

>> Digital wasn't then what it is now, but it
>> passed our test:

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

> You were speaking of me submitting to such a test, were you not?

It's impractical, and as bone-headed as you are Jenn, it would probably do
no good.

[Jenn]

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
> >>>>> >, Here in
> >>>>> Ohio > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:19:15 GMT, Jenn
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As opposed to the certain sort of bad timbres that
> >>>>>>>>> many CD bigots choose to ignore?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Which bad timbres might these be?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Upper frequency instruments (high strings, high WWs,
> >>>>>>> soprano voice, most percussion) that sound unlike
> >>>>>>> any known acoustic examples of those instruments.
> >>>>
> >>>> It takes a fair amount of being mislead to actually
> >>>> believe such a strange thing.
> >>>
> >>> No, it takes listening with my ears/brain. Why does
> >>> that **** you off so much?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> These are some of the areas where I find CD to be
> >>>>>> most superior. In particular, percussion instruments
> >>>>>> sound far more real on CD than on any LP I've ever
> >>>>>> heard.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Well, I appreciate your opinion. I strongly disagree.
> >>>>
> >>>> If Jenn didn't disagree, it would change her life.
> >>>
> >>> True. It would make it much easier if I heard it the
> >>> other way.
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >>>> She's gone the whole
> >>>> route with her affliction, including the pre-requsite
> >>>> ca. kilobuck turntable, collection of LPs, etc.
> >>
> >>> I've spend FAR less on my turntable/arm/cartridge than
> >>> you have on, for example, sound cards.
> >>
> >> Yeah, but I got something useful out of the deal.
>
> > A bunch of sound cards you don't listen to?
>
> You've missed the point. I got www.pcavtech.com out of them. That let to
> www.pcabx.com . It was a fun ride.

And I have music that I enjoy listening to in my home.

>
> >>>>>> I also knew someone who used to do presentations on
> >>>>>> things like the string technique of the various
> >>>>>> orchestras. He had an extremely good ear and he just
> >>>>>> loved CDs and considered them to be far superior to
> >>>>>> vinyl.
> >>>>
> >>>>> My ear is pretty fair as well, and again I strongly
> >>>>> disagree. I do agree, however, that the best CDs are
> >>>>> better overall than most LPs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Digititus - a disease affecting the humand perceptions
> >>>> wherein one so afflicted strongly believes that digital
> >>>> coding at normal sample rates (e.g.
> >>>> 44.1 KHz) inherently changes the sound of upper
> >>>> frequency instruments (high strings, high WWs, soprano
> >>>> voice, most percussion) in such a way that they sound
> >>>> unlike any known acoustic examples of those
> >>>> instruments.
> >>
> >>> Poopipoopitus - a disease affecting certain people who
> >>> like to tell others what they should be hearing.
> >>
> >> You're it, Jenn. By implication you've said that if we
> >> listen well like you do, we'd hear all that crap you
> >> obsess over in order to justify your investement in
> >> vinyl.
>
> > Nope, I've said that to MY ears the best LPs sound better
> > than any CD.
>
> That makes your ears very substandard.

No it doesn't. It means that I hear music as I hear music. It means
that I have a preference. This bothers you for some reason.

> Virtually the entire music-loving
> community moved on

Sure. Convenience is obviously a factor. As is availability. The
record companies stood to gain a great deal, and they did. It was new
and different. I'm surprised it wasn't lemon-scented.

> after vinyl became totally obsolete.

Since many people still listen to LPs, they are obviously not "totally
obsolete".

>
> > Further, I've said that everyone should listen to what pleases them more.
>
> You're starving your ears.

How so? I listen to live music every day, I listen mostly to CDs both at
home and at work, and I listen to some LPs.

>
> >>>> One possible cure is to demonstrate convincingly in a
> >>>> studio that this does not happen, using a selection of
> >>>> such instruments, a microphone, mic preamp,
> >>>> back-to-back digital converters, power amp, and
> >>>> speakers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course this would require the person so afflicted to
> >>>> admit that they were wrong. Don't hold your breath.
> >>
> >>> Set it up and I'll do it.
> >>
> >> We did it over 25 years ago.
>
> > Not with my ears you didn't.
>
> By your own admission your ears are so non-standard and starved for good SQ
> that they are irrelevant.

lol Please don't tell my employers.

>
> >> Digital wasn't then what it is now, but it
> >> passed our test:
>
> >> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm
>
> > You were speaking of me submitting to such a test, were you not?
>
> It's impractical, and as bone-headed as you are Jenn, it would probably do
> no good.

I see. So in one sentence you are critical of me ("Don't hold your
breath") for not being willing to be the subject of such a test, then
when I offer myself up to such a test, you dismiss it ("it would
probably do no good"). Seems like we've danced this dance before.
Again: I'll be in your area in March, and I'm willing to do the test.
Do you have the courage of your convictions?

And why do you HAVE to include a meaningless gratuitous insult in each
post to me, Arny? Don't you understand that this is seen as petty and
evidence that your argument is inferior?

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> And why do you HAVE to include a meaningless gratuitous insult in each
> post to me, Arny? Don't you understand that this is seen as petty and
> evidence that your argument is inferior?

Understanding is irrelevant. The Krooborg's wetware is hard-coded.




--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

>> You're starving your ears.
>
> How so? I listen to live music every day, I listen mostly
> to CDs both at home and at work, and I listen to some LPs.

You obviously listen to CDs through a crap-colored filter.

>>>>>> One possible cure is to demonstrate convincingly in a
>>>>>> studio that this does not happen, using a selection
>>>>>> of such instruments, a microphone, mic preamp,
>>>>>> back-to-back digital converters, power amp, and
>>>>>> speakers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course this would require the person so afflicted
>>>>>> to admit that they were wrong. Don't hold your
>>>>>> breath.
>>>>
>>>>> Set it up and I'll do it.
>>>>
>>>> We did it over 25 years ago.
>>
>>> Not with my ears you didn't.
>>
>> By your own admission your ears are so non-standard and
>> starved for good SQ that they are irrelevant.
>
> lol Please don't tell my employers.

See former comments about your unusual prejudice against modern technology
for distributing and reproducing audio.

>>>> Digital wasn't then what it is now, but it
>>>> passed our test:
>>
>>>> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm
>>
>>> You were speaking of me submitting to such a test, were
>>> you not?
>>
>> It's impractical, and as bone-headed as you are Jenn, it
>> would probably do no good.
>
> I see. So in one sentence you are critical of me ("Don't
> hold your breath") for not being willing to be the
> subject of such a test, then when I offer myself up to
> such a test, you dismiss it ("it would probably do no
> good").

Sadly Jenn, both comments apply to you.

> Seems like we've danced this dance before.

Yes Jenn, you want the world to come to your feet.

> Again: I'll be in your area in March, and I'm willing to
> do the test. Do you have the courage of your convictions?

I have the courage of my convictions, but I don't have the time and money to
put on a free dog-and-pony act of this level of complexity.

> And why do you HAVE to include a meaningless gratuitous
> insult in each post to me, Arny?

I don't make meaningless insults.

>Don't you understand that this is seen as petty and evidence that your
> argument is inferior?

Jenn, what's unclear about "it would do no good"?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> >> You're starving your ears.
> >
> > How so? I listen to live music every day, I listen mostly
> > to CDs both at home and at work, and I listen to some LPs.
>
> You obviously listen to CDs through a crap-colored filter.

Incorrect. I listen to CDs with the hope that I'll find one that sounds
good.

>
> >>>>>> One possible cure is to demonstrate convincingly in a
> >>>>>> studio that this does not happen, using a selection
> >>>>>> of such instruments, a microphone, mic preamp,
> >>>>>> back-to-back digital converters, power amp, and
> >>>>>> speakers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course this would require the person so afflicted
> >>>>>> to admit that they were wrong. Don't hold your
> >>>>>> breath.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Set it up and I'll do it.
> >>>>
> >>>> We did it over 25 years ago.
> >>
> >>> Not with my ears you didn't.
> >>
> >> By your own admission your ears are so non-standard and
> >> starved for good SQ that they are irrelevant.
> >
> > lol Please don't tell my employers.
>
> See former comments about your unusual prejudice against modern technology
> for distributing and reproducing audio.

My only prejudice is that I **WANT** CDs to be better. It would be to
my benefit for them to be better. So my prejudice is in FAVOR of CDs.
Therefore your point is pointless.

>
> >>>> Digital wasn't then what it is now, but it
> >>>> passed our test:
> >>
> >>>> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm
> >>
> >>> You were speaking of me submitting to such a test, were
> >>> you not?
> >>
> >> It's impractical, and as bone-headed as you are Jenn, it
> >> would probably do no good.
> >
> > I see. So in one sentence you are critical of me ("Don't
> > hold your breath") for not being willing to be the
> > subject of such a test, then when I offer myself up to
> > such a test, you dismiss it ("it would probably do no
> > good").
>
> Sadly Jenn, both comments apply to you.

Obviously the first part is false, as I've repeatedly offered to be the
subject of such a test. The second part is unproven in regards to this
matter, as I've yet to find anyone who is willing to do such a test.

>
> > Seems like we've danced this dance before.
>
> Yes Jenn, you want the world to come to your feet.

Incorrect. Coming to MI is "wanting the world to come to my feet"? You
want a test, you say that I won't submit to a test, I'm willing to
submit to a test, and that's "wanting the world to come to my feet"?

>
> > Again: I'll be in your area in March, and I'm willing to
> > do the test. Do you have the courage of your convictions?
>
> I have the courage of my convictions, but I don't have the time and money to
> put on a free dog-and-pony act of this level of complexity.

Then don't complain about ME not submitting to a test.

>
> > And why do you HAVE to include a meaningless gratuitous
> > insult in each post to me, Arny?
>
> I don't make meaningless insults.

Of course you do.

>
> >Don't you understand that this is seen as petty and evidence that your
> > argument is inferior?
>
> Jenn, what's unclear about "it would do no good"?

Nothing is unclear about that false charge. But that isn't the issue.
THe issue is your need to throw insults around when none are needed.
Why do you do that?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>>> You're starving your ears.
>>>
>>> How so? I listen to live music every day, I listen
>>> mostly
>>> to CDs both at home and at work, and I listen to some
>>> LPs.
>>
>> You obviously listen to CDs through a crap-colored
>> filter.
>
> Incorrect. I listen to CDs with the hope that I'll find
> one that sounds good.

Wellm Jenn that just shows how your attitudes disfigure what you hear when
you listen to modern media. This "hope that I'll (finally) find one that
sounds good" is symptomatic of a person who has been brainwashed to think
that this would be any kind of a serious quest.

>>>>>>>> One possible cure is to demonstrate convincingly
>>>>>>>> in a studio that this does not happen, using a
>>>>>>>> selection of such instruments, a microphone, mic
>>>>>>>> preamp, back-to-back digital converters, power
>>>>>>>> amp, and speakers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course this would require the person so
>>>>>>>> afflicted to admit that they were wrong. Don't
>>>>>>>> hold your breath.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Set it up and I'll do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We did it over 25 years ago.
>>>>
>>>>> Not with my ears you didn't.
>>>>
>>>> By your own admission your ears are so non-standard and
>>>> starved for good SQ that they are irrelevant.
>>>
>>> lol Please don't tell my employers.
>>
>> See former comments about your unusual prejudice against
>> modern technology for distributing and reproducing audio.

> My only prejudice is that I **WANT** CDs to be better.

That's your problem Jenn - you think that CDs need to be better.

For you, *better* has been transformed by your biases to "LP-like".

> It would be to my benefit for them to be better.

It's just a matter of having the crap that you've been brainwashed with to
fall out of your ears.

>So my prejudice is in FAVOR of CDs.

Let me illustrate your viewpoint by replacing CD with "purple people" in
some of your recent statemtetns

No its not. The fact that you think you need to given CDs any favoratism at
all beyond simply appreciating their basic nature shows how biased you are
against them. Let's assume that the objective and generally agreed-upon
facts of the matter is that purple people are just as good as any other
people, and actually far better than most.

Jenn wrote:

"My only prejudice is that I **WANT** purple people to be better (than I
think they are)"

"So my prejudice is in FAVOR of purple people".

Obviously, Jenn has a prejudice against purple people.

> Therefore your point is pointless.

Not so, see above example.

>>>>>> Digital wasn't then what it is now, but it
>>>>>> passed our test:
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm
>>>>
>>>>> You were speaking of me submitting to such a test,
>>>>> were you not?
>>>>
>>>> It's impractical, and as bone-headed as you are Jenn,
>>>> it would probably do no good.
>>>
>>> I see. So in one sentence you are critical of me
>>> ("Don't
>>> hold your breath") for not being willing to be the
>>> subject of such a test, then when I offer myself up to
>>> such a test, you dismiss it ("it would probably do no
>>> good").
>>
>> Sadly Jenn, both comments apply to you.

> Obviously the first part is false, as I've repeatedly
> offered to be the subject of such a test.

I figure that for a few thousand dollars I could line up the room, the
musicians, and the equipment. On receipt of a cashier's check for $2,000
I'll get right on it.

> The second
> part is unproven in regards to this matter, as I've yet
> to find anyone who is willing to do such a test.

If you want to disbelieve all the people who have explicitly or implicitly
done this test before you Jenn, you've got to be prepared to pay the piper.

>>> Seems like we've danced this dance before.

>> Yes Jenn, you want the world to come to your feet.

> Incorrect. Coming to MI is "wanting the world to come to
> my feet"? You want a test, you say that I won't submit
> to a test, I'm willing to submit to a test, and that's
> "wanting the world to come to my feet"?

You seem to want me, my musicans, equipment, and my venue to work for free.

>>> Again: I'll be in your area in March, and I'm willing
>>> to
>>> do the test. Do you have the courage of your
>>> convictions?
>>
>> I have the courage of my convictions, but I don't have
>> the time and money to put on a free dog-and-pony act of
>> this level of complexity.

> Then don't complain about ME not submitting to a test.

Doesn't matter because you're still acting bone-headed with respect to just
about all of the civilized world.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>>> You're starving your ears.
> >>>
> >>> How so? I listen to live music every day, I listen
> >>> mostly
> >>> to CDs both at home and at work, and I listen to some
> >>> LPs.
> >>
> >> You obviously listen to CDs through a crap-colored
> >> filter.
> >
> > Incorrect. I listen to CDs with the hope that I'll find
> > one that sounds good.
>
> Wellm Jenn that just shows how your attitudes disfigure what you hear when
> you listen to modern media. This "hope that I'll (finally) find one that
> sounds good" is symptomatic of a person who has been brainwashed to think
> that this would be any kind of a serious quest.

I have a great deal at stake here. I have far more money invested in CDs
than I do in LPs, for example. I want CDs to sound better.

>
> >>>>>>>> One possible cure is to demonstrate convincingly
> >>>>>>>> in a studio that this does not happen, using a
> >>>>>>>> selection of such instruments, a microphone, mic
> >>>>>>>> preamp, back-to-back digital converters, power
> >>>>>>>> amp, and speakers.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Of course this would require the person so
> >>>>>>>> afflicted to admit that they were wrong. Don't
> >>>>>>>> hold your breath.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Set it up and I'll do it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We did it over 25 years ago.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Not with my ears you didn't.
> >>>>
> >>>> By your own admission your ears are so non-standard and
> >>>> starved for good SQ that they are irrelevant.
> >>>
> >>> lol Please don't tell my employers.
> >>
> >> See former comments about your unusual prejudice against
> >> modern technology for distributing and reproducing audio.
>
> > My only prejudice is that I **WANT** CDs to be better.
>
> That's your problem Jenn - you think that CDs need to be better.

Yes I do. You don't. So what? I don't need for you to change your
preference, but for some reason you can't extend the same to me.
Curious.

>
> For you, *better* has been transformed by your biases to "LP-like".

No, better = more like live acoustic instruments.

>
> > It would be to my benefit for them to be better.
>
> It's just a matter of having the crap that you've been brainwashed with to
> fall out of your ears.

lol I'm "brainwashed" by the sound of live music, arriving to my ears,
processed by my brain. That's all.

>
> >So my prejudice is in FAVOR of CDs.
>
> Let me illustrate your viewpoint by replacing CD with "purple people" in
> some of your recent statemtetns
>
> No its not. The fact that you think you need to given CDs any favoratism at
> all beyond simply appreciating their basic nature shows how biased you are
> against them. Let's assume that the objective and generally agreed-upon
> facts of the matter is that purple people are just as good as any other
> people, and actually far better than most.
>
> Jenn wrote:
>
> "My only prejudice is that I **WANT** purple people to be better (than I
> think they are)"
>
> "So my prejudice is in FAVOR of purple people".
>
> Obviously, Jenn has a prejudice against purple people.

lol Let's switch your example to, say, McDonalds burgers. I WANT those
burger to taste better to MY palate, as they are easier to find than my
favorite burger. That doesn't make me "prejudiced" against McDonalds.
It means that I wish that they tasted better to me.

>
> > Therefore your point is pointless.
>
> Not so, see above example.
>
> >>>>>> Digital wasn't then what it is now, but it
> >>>>>> passed our test:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm
> >>>>
> >>>>> You were speaking of me submitting to such a test,
> >>>>> were you not?
> >>>>
> >>>> It's impractical, and as bone-headed as you are Jenn,
> >>>> it would probably do no good.
> >>>
> >>> I see. So in one sentence you are critical of me
> >>> ("Don't
> >>> hold your breath") for not being willing to be the
> >>> subject of such a test, then when I offer myself up to
> >>> such a test, you dismiss it ("it would probably do no
> >>> good").
> >>
> >> Sadly Jenn, both comments apply to you.
>
> > Obviously the first part is false, as I've repeatedly
> > offered to be the subject of such a test.
>
> I figure that for a few thousand dollars I could line up the room, the
> musicians, and the equipment. On receipt of a cashier's check for $2,000
> I'll get right on it.

Why not use your room and your equipment? I'll supply a couple of
violinists. You have both digital and analogue recorders, right?

>
> > The second
> > part is unproven in regards to this matter, as I've yet
> > to find anyone who is willing to do such a test.
>
> If you want to disbelieve all the people who have explicitly or implicitly
> done this test before you Jenn, you've got to be prepared to pay the piper.

See above.

>
> >>> Seems like we've danced this dance before.
>
> >> Yes Jenn, you want the world to come to your feet.
>
> > Incorrect. Coming to MI is "wanting the world to come to
> > my feet"? You want a test, you say that I won't submit
> > to a test, I'm willing to submit to a test, and that's
> > "wanting the world to come to my feet"?
>
> You seem to want me, my musicans, equipment, and my venue to work for free.

See above.

>
> >>> Again: I'll be in your area in March, and I'm willing
> >>> to
> >>> do the test. Do you have the courage of your
> >>> convictions?
> >>
> >> I have the courage of my convictions, but I don't have
> >> the time and money to put on a free dog-and-pony act of
> >> this level of complexity.
>
> > Then don't complain about ME not submitting to a test.
>
> Doesn't matter because you're still acting bone-headed with respect to just
> about all of the civilized world.

Let's consider the alternative: I lie and say that digital sounds
better to me in order to please "just about all of the civilized world."
What has been gained? What has been lost is the best music that I can
get in my home for MY ears.

[Harry Lavo]

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


>snip<


>>>> Again: I'll be in your area in March, and I'm willing
>>>> to
>>>> do the test. Do you have the courage of your
>>>> convictions?
>>>
>>> I have the courage of my convictions, but I don't have
>>> the time and money to put on a free dog-and-pony act of
>>> this level of complexity.
>
>> Then don't complain about ME not submitting to a test.
>
> Doesn't matter because you're still acting bone-headed with respect to
> just about all of the civilized world.

You just don't get it Jenn. *Your* opinions are the bone-headed ones.
Arny's are so magnificent that they have been adopted throughout "all the
civilized world". LMAO.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>>> You're starving your ears.
>>>>>
>>>>> How so? I listen to live music every day, I listen
>>>>> mostly
>>>>> to CDs both at home and at work, and I listen to some
>>>>> LPs.
>>>>
>>>> You obviously listen to CDs through a crap-colored
>>>> filter.
>>>
>>> Incorrect. I listen to CDs with the hope that I'll find
>>> one that sounds good.
>>
>> Wellm Jenn that just shows how your attitudes disfigure
>> what you hear when you listen to modern media. This
>> "hope that I'll (finally) find one that sounds good" is
>> symptomatic of a person who has been brainwashed to
>> think that this would be any kind of a serious quest.
>
> I have a great deal at stake here. I have far more money
> invested in CDs than I do in LPs, for example. I want
> CDs to sound better.

That's your problem Jenn, your head is so full of the sound of music twisted
and turned by vinyl that you've lost sight of reality.

To you, "sounds good" = "sounds like vinyl". To just about everybody
"sounds good" = "sounds like live"

>>> My only prejudice is that I **WANT** CDs to be better.
>>
>> That's your problem Jenn - you think that CDs need to be
>> better.

> Yes I do. You don't.

Just me and just about every other music lover in the world.

> So what? I don't need for you to
> change your preference, but for some reason you can't
> extend the same to me. Curious.

Trouble is Jenn, your preference colors your perception of reality. My
preference is for reality.

>> For you, *better* has been transformed by your biases to
>> "LP-like".

> No, better = more like live acoustic instruments.

Can't be, because vinyl is a mixmaster, not a reliable pipe for sound.

>>> It would be to my benefit for them to be better.
>>
>> It's just a matter of having the crap that you've been
>> brainwashed with to fall out of your ears.

> lol I'm "brainwashed" by the sound of live music,
> arriving to my ears, processed by my brain. That's all.

Right, its the processing in your brain that confuses you.

>>> So my prejudice is in FAVOR of CDs.
>
>> Let me illustrate your viewpoint by replacing CD with
>> "purple people" in some of your recent statemtetns

>> No its not. The fact that you think you need to given
>> CDs any favoratism at all beyond simply appreciating
>> their basic nature shows how biased you are against
>> them. Let's assume that the objective and generally
>> agreed-upon facts of the matter is that purple people
>> are just as good as any other people, and actually far
>> better than most.
>>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>
>> "My only prejudice is that I **WANT** purple people to
>> be better (than I think they are)"
>>
>> "So my prejudice is in FAVOR of purple people".
>>
>> Obviously, Jenn has a prejudice against purple people.

> lol

Dismissive attitude noted.

> Let's switch your example to, say, McDonalds
> burgers. I WANT those burger to taste better to MY
> palate, as they are easier to find than my favorite
> burger. That doesn't make me "prejudiced" against
> McDonalds. It means that I wish that they tasted better
> to me.

The difference here is that there's no question that McDonald's burgers
taste different than a good gourmet burger.

Similarly it is easy to show that the LP format mangles sound, changes
timbres, adds sounds that weren't in the original, and can even shift
musical pitch.

It is somewhat harder to compare sound that has been translated to and from
the CD format with the pre-CD verison, but it is still possible to do so
with no tricks. The result is that the CD formatted version is
indistinguishable from the original.

> Why not use your room and your equipment? I'll supply a
> couple of violinists. You have both digital and analogue
> recorders, right?

Let's use your room and your violinists. It is easier to move the necessary
equipment than the people and the room. Just pick a place near where you're
staying - the Ann Arbor area, right?

I have no analog recorders of any kind, but I need none.

I'll bring a couple of mics, a set of back-to-back digital/analog converters
and a headphone amp and some pretty good headphones. We'll switch the
converters in and out of the signal chain with an ABX box while the
violinists are playing.

The comparison is CD format converters versus wire.

The violinists play as long as you need to do the ABX test. Your score is
posted on RAO within a few days of the test.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message



> You just don't get it Jenn. *Your* opinions are the
> bone-headed ones. Arny's are so magnificent that they
> have been adopted throughout "all the civilized world".

Harry, what is the predominate format for new sales of pre-recorded music,
world wide, for the past 15 years?


Is it LP?

Is it cassette?

Is it SACD?

Is it DVD-A?

Is it DVD-V?

Is it CD?

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> That's your problem Jenn, your head is so full of the sound of music twisted
> and turned by vinyl that you've lost sight of reality.

Reminds me of Nordau's entarte Kunst.

Stephen

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>> You just don't get it Jenn. *Your* opinions are the
>> bone-headed ones. Arny's are so magnificent that they
>> have been adopted throughout "all the civilized world".
>
> Harry, what is the predominate format for new sales of pre-recorded music,
> world wide, for the past 15 years?
>
>
> Is it LP?
>
> Is it cassette?
>
> Is it SACD?
>
> Is it DVD-A?
>
> Is it DVD-V?
>
> Is it CD?

And what is the best tasting hamburger, Arny? Is it McDonalds?

LOL! Same old AK crapola.

[Harry Lavo]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 13:46:53 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>
>>
>>>snip<
>>
>>
>>>>>> Again: I'll be in your area in March, and I'm willing
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> do the test. Do you have the courage of your
>>>>>> convictions?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the courage of my convictions, but I don't have
>>>>> the time and money to put on a free dog-and-pony act of
>>>>> this level of complexity.
>>>
>>>> Then don't complain about ME not submitting to a test.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter because you're still acting bone-headed with respect to
>>> just about all of the civilized world.
>>
>>You just don't get it Jenn. *Your* opinions are the bone-headed ones.
>>Arny's are so magnificent that they have been adopted throughout "all the
>>civilized world". LMAO.
>>
>
> Out of all the people in the world who listen to either CD or LP, I
> think that the largest portion prefers CD.
>
> We can observe that the sales of LPs are far smaller than the sales of
> CDs.
>
> I have also seen it mentioned that the sales of "high-end" CD players
> exceeds the sales of "high-end" turntables and cartridges. (Maybe JA
> has some figures on this?)
>
> So I really do think it's safe to say that most people prefer CD.


Yep, and for shame for Michelin, Zagat, and all those other Bozo's. Don't
they know that the consumer has spoken, and that McDonald's hamburgers are
the best? Just look at how many are consumed?


>
> It's also rather obvious from a technical science and engineering
> standpoint that CD is far superior to LP.

But not necessarily from an audio quality standpoint as a vehicle for
delivering music.


>
> It almost seems like this "goodness" of LPs is hidden so that only
> certain people can hear it. :-)

Just like the "goodness" of a fine cabernet is hidden to most people...who'd
just rather have the "house red".


> I wish that the audio mags would devote more attention to things like
> finding out why some people prefer vinyl or what's the attraction to
> $1000 power cords?

I agree with you here.

>
> They'd have to investigate this scientifically, and not just come up
> with superstitions (like vinyl has "infinite" resolution). But it
> could be done and I think the audio industry and consumers would
> benefit.

The only way to do it, IMO.

> (Some people might very well not like the answers though...)

Yes, and Arny doesn't behave very well when he is unhappy.......

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...

> Out of all the people in the world who listen to either CD or LP, I
> think that the largest portion prefers CD.

No doubt.

> We can observe that the sales of LPs are far smaller than the sales of
> CDs.

You should know that the vinyl bigots around here have all sorts of weird
conspiracy theories about what led to the demise of vinyl other than the
well-known facts that:

(1) Vinyl can't possibly be anywhere near as sonically accurate as the CD.

(2) Vinyl can't be anywhere near as producable and salable as the CD.

(3) Vinyl can't be anywhere as usable and durable as the CD.

> I have also seen it mentioned that the sales of "high-end" CD players
> exceeds the sales of "high-end" turntables and cartridges. (Maybe JA
> has some figures on this?)

More to the point, there's no sonic need for high end CD players. I've
challenged JA to do some proper listening tests comparing high end CD
players with good low end CD players. Given that zero, nada low end CD
player dealers or manufacturers advertise in SP or other high end ragazines,
you can guess where that is going.

> So I really do think it's safe to say that most people prefer CD.

It's obvious.

> It's also rather obvious from a technical science and engineering
> standpoint that CD is far superior to LP.

Agreed.

> It almost seems like this "goodness" of LPs is hidden so that only
> certain people can hear it. :-)

LPs are like the Emperor's new clothes.

> I wish that the audio mags would devote more attention to things like
> finding out why some people prefer vinyl or what's the attraction to
> $1000 power cords?

Actually its just sociology and psychology. Some of this is due to
ignorance, and some is due to people who are basically social climbers.

> They'd have to investigate this scientifically, and not just come up
> with superstitions (like vinyl has "infinite" resolution). But it
> could be done and I think the audio industry and consumers would
> benefit.

Based on equipment and media sales, the tiny noisy minority that have been
blinded by the hype surrounding vinyl and exotic cables should be ignored.

> (Some people might very well not like the answers though...)

I suspect that most of the people who whine around here about people's
rights to be deceived by snake oil vendors are smarter than to spend their
own money on it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> You just don't get it Jenn. *Your* opinions are the
>>> bone-headed ones. Arny's are so magnificent that they
>>> have been adopted throughout "all the civilized world".
>>
>> Harry, what is the predominate format for new sales of pre-recorded
>> music, world wide, for the past 15 years?
>>
>>
>> Is it LP?
>>
>> Is it cassette?
>>
>> Is it SACD?
>>
>> Is it DVD-A?
>>
>> Is it DVD-V?
>>
>> Is it CD?

Rather than answering a simple question, Harry shoots from the hip with a
trite, thoughtless answer:

> And what is the best tasting hamburger, Arny? Is it McDonalds?

The false premise is that McDonald's outsells other hamburgers in a manner
that is comparable to the massive way that CD outsells other formats.

AFAIK, McDonalds is not the best-selling hamburger. It's merely the
best-selling fast food hamburger in the US and Canada. I suspect that
"homemade" outsells McDonalds. I suspect that wolrdwide, McDonald's
competition in concert outsells McDonalds several times over.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> You just don't get it Jenn. *Your* opinions are the
> >>> bone-headed ones. Arny's are so magnificent that they
> >>> have been adopted throughout "all the civilized world".
> >>
> >> Harry, what is the predominate format for new sales of pre-recorded
> >> music, world wide, for the past 15 years?
> >>
> >>
> >> Is it LP?
> >>
> >> Is it cassette?
> >>
> >> Is it SACD?
> >>
> >> Is it DVD-A?
> >>
> >> Is it DVD-V?
> >>
> >> Is it CD?
>
> Rather than answering a simple question, Harry shoots from the hip with a
> trite, thoughtless answer:
>
> > And what is the best tasting hamburger, Arny? Is it McDonalds?
>
> The false premise is that McDonald's outsells other hamburgers in a manner
> that is comparable to the massive way that CD outsells other formats.
>
> AFAIK, McDonalds is not the best-selling hamburger. It's merely the
> best-selling fast food hamburger in the US and Canada. I suspect that
> "homemade" outsells McDonalds. I suspect that wolrdwide, McDonald's
> competition in concert outsells McDonalds several times over.

What if the McDonald's people had convinced all other restaurants to
stop selling their own burgers?

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > . ..
>> >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> You just don't get it Jenn. *Your* opinions are the
>> >>> bone-headed ones. Arny's are so magnificent that they
>> >>> have been adopted throughout "all the civilized world".
>> >>
>> >> Harry, what is the predominate format for new sales of pre-recorded
>> >> music, world wide, for the past 15 years?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Is it LP?
>> >>
>> >> Is it cassette?
>> >>
>> >> Is it SACD?
>> >>
>> >> Is it DVD-A?
>> >>
>> >> Is it DVD-V?
>> >>
>> >> Is it CD?
>>
>> Rather than answering a simple question, Harry shoots from the hip with a
>> trite, thoughtless answer:
>>
>> > And what is the best tasting hamburger, Arny? Is it McDonalds?
>>
>> The false premise is that McDonald's outsells other hamburgers in a
>> manner
>> that is comparable to the massive way that CD outsells other formats.
>>
>> AFAIK, McDonalds is not the best-selling hamburger. It's merely the
>> best-selling fast food hamburger in the US and Canada. I suspect that
>> "homemade" outsells McDonalds. I suspect that wolrdwide, McDonald's
>> competition in concert outsells McDonalds several times over.
>
> What if the McDonald's people had convinced all other restaurants to
> stop selling their own burgers?

There's only one way to do that in a free market, and that is to convince
consumers to stop buying them. In the case of the LP, it was the bad sound
and general impracticability of the LP that destroyed its market,

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> >
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> > . ..
> >> >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> You just don't get it Jenn. *Your* opinions are the
> >> >>> bone-headed ones. Arny's are so magnificent that they
> >> >>> have been adopted throughout "all the civilized world".
> >> >>
> >> >> Harry, what is the predominate format for new sales of pre-recorded
> >> >> music, world wide, for the past 15 years?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Is it LP?
> >> >>
> >> >> Is it cassette?
> >> >>
> >> >> Is it SACD?
> >> >>
> >> >> Is it DVD-A?
> >> >>
> >> >> Is it DVD-V?
> >> >>
> >> >> Is it CD?
> >>
> >> Rather than answering a simple question, Harry shoots from the hip with a
> >> trite, thoughtless answer:
> >>
> >> > And what is the best tasting hamburger, Arny? Is it McDonalds?
> >>
> >> The false premise is that McDonald's outsells other hamburgers in a
> >> manner
> >> that is comparable to the massive way that CD outsells other formats.
> >>
> >> AFAIK, McDonalds is not the best-selling hamburger. It's merely the
> >> best-selling fast food hamburger in the US and Canada. I suspect that
> >> "homemade" outsells McDonalds. I suspect that wolrdwide, McDonald's
> >> competition in concert outsells McDonalds several times over.
> >
> > What if the McDonald's people had convinced all other restaurants to
> > stop selling their own burgers?
>
> There's only one way to do that in a free market, and that is to convince
> consumers to stop buying them. In the case of the LP, it was the bad sound
> and general impracticability of the LP that destroyed its market,

And unavailability of the product.

Stephen

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Out of all the people in the world who listen to either CD or LP, I
> > think that the largest portion prefers CD.
>
> No doubt.
>
> > We can observe that the sales of LPs are far smaller than the sales of
> > CDs.
>
> You should know that the vinyl bigots around here <snip>

Ohio, you should know that anyone who disagrees with Arny on a matter of
preference is called a "bigot" by him. Just FYI...

[Harry Lavo]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:46:09 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> It almost seems like this "goodness" of LPs is hidden so that only
>>> certain people can hear it. :-)
>>
>>Just like the "goodness" of a fine cabernet is hidden to most
>>people...who'd
>>just rather have the "house red".
>
> The equivalent would be a recording of the Cleveland Orchestra vs. a
> recording of some kids in Elementary School playing the same piece of
> music.
>
> The LP is not part of the performance. We want our recording media to
> be like a copy machine, not a funhouse mirror. CD is far closer to the
> ideal than LP is.

Well, that's your opinion.

Those who prefer LP's think they are part of the performance, for the
positive. And they think that CD's are part of the performance, for the
negative. Not always, but often. I tend towards this view myself.

>>
>>
>>> I wish that the audio mags would devote more attention to things like
>>> finding out why some people prefer vinyl or what's the attraction to
>>> $1000 power cords?
>>
>>I agree with you here.
>>
>>>
>>> They'd have to investigate this scientifically, and not just come up
>>> with superstitions (like vinyl has "infinite" resolution). But it
>>> could be done and I think the audio industry and consumers would
>>> benefit.
>>
>>The only way to do it, IMO.
>>
>>> (Some people might very well not like the answers though...)
>>
>>Yes, and Arny doesn't behave very well when he is unhappy.......
>>
>
> I try to keep an open mind, although what I know about the technical
> aspects of things and what I hear myself makes me doubt a lot of
> things like LP, tubes, full-range speakers, fancy wire, Intelligent
> Chips and bottles full of rocks, green magic markers, etc. (Some of
> this stuff is just silly, and there are people who use the same
> arguments to support their selling "Brilliant Pebbles" as you use to
> support your preference for vinyl.)
>
> If I were to hear for myself that something were better, or were to
> see scientific proof, then I suppose I would just have to change my
> mind.

If you want scientific proof, then it would have to be a carefully done
blind test designed for open-ended evaluation of music (which decidedly is
*not* ABX). Your scepticism would doubtless give you a strong "it all
sounds the same" bias going in...an expectation bias that needs to be
neutralized. It's hard to do a blind test of CD vs LP, but not impossible
with the right source material.

On the other hand, if you can truly bank your skepticism, then a sighted
evaluation of the two is not difficult to set up. It might allay some of
your scepticism, but would not be accepted by Arny or others of your own
mindset as "proof".

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> You just don't get it Jenn. *Your* opinions are the
>>>> bone-headed ones. Arny's are so magnificent that they
>>>> have been adopted throughout "all the civilized world".
>>>
>>> Harry, what is the predominate format for new sales of pre-recorded
>>> music, world wide, for the past 15 years?
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it LP?
>>>
>>> Is it cassette?
>>>
>>> Is it SACD?
>>>
>>> Is it DVD-A?
>>>
>>> Is it DVD-V?
>>>
>>> Is it CD?
>
> Rather than answering a simple question, Harry shoots from the hip with a
> trite, thoughtless answer:
>
>> And what is the best tasting hamburger, Arny? Is it McDonalds?
>
> The false premise is that McDonald's outsells other hamburgers in a manner
> that is comparable to the massive way that CD outsells other formats.
>
> AFAIK, McDonalds is not the best-selling hamburger. It's merely the
> best-selling fast food hamburger in the US and Canada. I suspect that
> "homemade" outsells McDonalds. I suspect that wolrdwide, McDonald's
> competition in concert outsells McDonalds several times over.
>

Completely irrelevant and off the issue answer noted....straight out of the
"debating trade" manual....since the comparison is dead on.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>> >
>>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> > . ..
>>> >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> You just don't get it Jenn. *Your* opinions are the
>>> >>> bone-headed ones. Arny's are so magnificent that they
>>> >>> have been adopted throughout "all the civilized world".
>>> >>
>>> >> Harry, what is the predominate format for new sales of pre-recorded
>>> >> music, world wide, for the past 15 years?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Is it LP?
>>> >>
>>> >> Is it cassette?
>>> >>
>>> >> Is it SACD?
>>> >>
>>> >> Is it DVD-A?
>>> >>
>>> >> Is it DVD-V?
>>> >>
>>> >> Is it CD?
>>>
>>> Rather than answering a simple question, Harry shoots from the hip with
>>> a
>>> trite, thoughtless answer:
>>>
>>> > And what is the best tasting hamburger, Arny? Is it McDonalds?
>>>
>>> The false premise is that McDonald's outsells other hamburgers in a
>>> manner
>>> that is comparable to the massive way that CD outsells other formats.
>>>
>>> AFAIK, McDonalds is not the best-selling hamburger. It's merely the
>>> best-selling fast food hamburger in the US and Canada. I suspect that
>>> "homemade" outsells McDonalds. I suspect that wolrdwide, McDonald's
>>> competition in concert outsells McDonalds several times over.
>>
>> What if the McDonald's people had convinced all other restaurants to
>> stop selling their own burgers?
>
> There's only one way to do that in a free market, and that is to convince
> consumers to stop buying them. In the case of the LP, it was the bad
> sound and general impracticability of the LP that destroyed its market,

Arny completely ignores the "dual inventory" issue that was on the front
page of every trade publication in the first year that CD was on the market.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > You just don't get it Jenn. *Your* opinions are the
> > bone-headed ones. Arny's are so magnificent that they
> > have been adopted throughout "all the civilized world".
>
> Harry, what is the predominate format for new sales of pre-recorded music,
> world wide, for the past 15 years?
>
>
> Is it LP?
>
> Is it cassette?
>
> Is it SACD?
>
> Is it DVD-A?
>
> Is it DVD-V?
>
> Is it CD?

Who is the largest seller of cooked beef meals in the country for the
past 15 years?

Is it Ruth's Chris?
Is it Morton's?
Is it Dan Tana?