What is a good turntable wow/flutter spec?

[wayne]

I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens TD170. It's
rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch instability.
At this point I'm trying to sort out if the problem is simply a defect
and warranty issue -or par' for this thing.

Wayne Smith

[Trevor Wilson]

"wayne" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens TD170. It's
> rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch instability.
> At this point I'm trying to sort out if the problem is simply a defect
> and warranty issue -or par' for this thing.

**If you can hear it, you have a problem. Make certain it is not one LP, by
checking with several (piano is always good). Take it back and get it
serviced under warranty.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Trevor Wilson" > wrote:

> "wayne" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens TD170. It's
> > rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch instability.
> > At this point I'm trying to sort out if the problem is simply a defect
> > and warranty issue -or par' for this thing.
>
> **If you can hear it, you have a problem. Make certain it is not one LP, by
> checking with several (piano is always good). Take it back and get it
> serviced under warranty.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au

Exactly. Sounds like a bad motor.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote:
>
>> "wayne" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens TD170. It's
>> > rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch instability.
>> > At this point I'm trying to sort out if the problem is simply a defect
>> > and warranty issue -or par' for this thing.
>>
>> **If you can hear it, you have a problem. Make certain it is not one LP,
>> by
>> checking with several (piano is always good). Take it back and get it
>> serviced under warranty.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilson
>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>
> Exactly. Sounds like a bad motor.

**Indeed. I've serviced quite a number of the late model Thorens units. They
don't yet have reliability down to the low levels of the old company. The
higher end models have some particularly nasty motor drive problems.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Eeyore]

wayne wrote:

> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens TD170. It's
> rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch instability.

No surprise really.

Graham

[Jenn]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> wayne wrote:
>
> > I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens TD170. It's
> > rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch instability.
>
> No surprise really.
>
> Graham

Why?

[wayne]

On May 27, 6:31 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> Eeyore > wrote:
> > wayne wrote:
>
> > > I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens TD170. It's
> > > rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch instability.
>
> > No surprise really.
>
> > Graham
>
> Why?

I hear it on every album. Fast song are almost passable- untill
someone holds the slightest chord-- So it's up in the air as to wether
this within the realm of .12%?
Wayne

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
wayne > wrote:

> On May 27, 6:31 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > wayne wrote:
> >
> > > > I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens TD170. It's
> > > > rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch instability.
> >
> > > No surprise really.
> >
> > > Graham
> >
> > Why?
>
> I hear it on every album. Fast song are almost passable- untill
> someone holds the slightest chord-- So it's up in the air as to wether
> this within the realm of .12%?
> Wayne

I believe you; it does sound like a bad motor. What I'm questioning is
Graham's statement.

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > wayne wrote:
> >
> > > I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens TD170. It's
> > > rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch instability.
> >
> > No surprise really.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Why?

0.12% is quite a lot.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

> wayne > wrote:
> > Jenn > wrote:
> > > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > > wayne wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens TD170. It's
> > > > > rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch instability.
> > >
> > > > No surprise really.
> > >
> > > > Graham
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > I hear it on every album. Fast song are almost passable- untill
> > someone holds the slightest chord-- So it's up in the air as to wether
> > this within the realm of .12%?
>
> I believe you; it does sound like a bad motor. What I'm questioning is
> Graham's statement.

Can you hear a pitch variation of 4 cents ?

Graham

[Jenn]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > wayne wrote:
> > >
> > > > I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens TD170. It's
> > > > rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch instability.
> > >
> > > No surprise really.
> > >
> > > Graham
> >
> > Why?
>
> 0.12% is quite a lot.
>
> Graham

Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry, I thought that you meant you weren't
surprised that you could hear pitch instability just because it's a
turntable. My mistake.

[Arny Krueger]

"wayne" > wrote in message
ups.com

> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens
> TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch
> instability.

Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with the vinyl format unless you
take heroic steps. Even then, there are both visible and invisble defects in
a LP disc that make it sound watery like vinyl often does.

The DIN spec for flutter and wow is more demanding than other specs.

Before you indict your player, make sure that your test LP isn't part of the
problem. For example, it needs to be absolutely flat and free of warps and
ripples.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> Eeyore > wrote:
>
>> wayne wrote:
>>
>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens
>>> TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch
>>> instability.
>>
>> No surprise really.
>>
>> Graham
>
> Why?

It's vinyl! It's analog! If you want reliable speed accuracy - try good
digital.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article
> . com>,
> wayne > wrote:
>
>> On May 27, 6:31 pm, Jenn
>> > wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>>
>>> Eeyore > wrote:
>>>> wayne wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this
>>>>> Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear
>>>>> the pitch instability.
>>>
>>>> No surprise really.
>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> I hear it on every album. Fast song are almost passable-
>> untill someone holds the slightest chord-- So it's up in
>> the air as to wether this within the realm of .12%?
>> Wayne
>
> I believe you; it does sound like a bad motor.

Probably the least like cause. After all, one of the major purposes of
classic turntable refinements like belt drive is to isolate the motor's
speed inconsistency from the LP.

> What I'm questioning is Graham's statement.

Analog's inherent problems with speed consistency on a fairly gross level is
one of the major reasons that digital became popular. I happen to like slow
piano music, and never had any guarantee of lifelike reproduction in that
regard until digital became readily available.

It is well known that some people are far more sensitive to FM distortion
than others. And, there's no correlation between this ability or curse, and
perfect pitch.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article
> > . com>,
> > wayne > wrote:
> >
> >> On May 27, 6:31 pm, Jenn
> >> > wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>>
> >>> Eeyore > wrote:
> >>>> wayne wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this
> >>>>> Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear
> >>>>> the pitch instability.
> >>>
> >>>> No surprise really.
> >>>
> >>>> Graham
> >>>
> >>> Why?
> >>
> >> I hear it on every album. Fast song are almost passable-
> >> untill someone holds the slightest chord-- So it's up in
> >> the air as to wether this within the realm of .12%?
> >> Wayne
> >
> > I believe you; it does sound like a bad motor.
>
> Probably the least like cause. After all, one of the major purposes of
> classic turntable refinements like belt drive is to isolate the motor's
> speed inconsistency from the LP.
>
> > What I'm questioning is Graham's statement.
>
> Analog's inherent problems with speed consistency on a fairly gross level is
> one of the major reasons that digital became popular. I happen to like slow
> piano music, and never had any guarantee of lifelike reproduction in that
> regard until digital became readily available.
>
> It is well known that some people are far more sensitive to FM distortion
> than others. And, there's no correlation between this ability or curse, and
> perfect pitch.

How does one perceive FM distortion other than in the realm of
frequency?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "wayne" > wrote in message
> ups.com
>
> > I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens
> > TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch
> > instability.
>
> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with the vinyl format unless you
> take heroic steps.

If one can detect speed variations with a modern TT, either the TT or
the source is defective.

[ScottW]

"wayne" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens TD170. It's
> rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch instability.
> At this point I'm trying to sort out if the problem is simply a defect
> and warranty issue -or par' for this thing.
>
> Wayne Smith
>

Where did you come up with this spec.

Thorens site says, "The measured values for wow and flutter, rumble and
signal-to-noise ratio are actually so low and insignificant that we decided not
to publish them."

http://www.thorens.com/en/thorens.index.php?id=en_220_0_1_1

My troll detector has a slight buzz.

Anyway, first thing I'd do is check the belt, make sure there isn't a twist in
it.
Then check the auto stop mechanism. Make sure it isn't hanging up and
dragging.

ScottW

[wayne]

On May 28, 9:54 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> Where did you come up with this spec.
>
> Thorens site says, "The measured values for wow and flutter, rumble and
> signal-to-noise ratio are actually so low and insignificant that we decided not
> to publish them."
>
> http://www.thorens.com/en/thorens.index.php?id=en_220_0_1_1
>
> My troll detector has a slight buzz.
Fear not.
I don't know why they would put that statement on that page. That same
verbage for spec' is used on their top line models though.
This is the spec/manual;
http://www.thorens.com/pdf/UM170_en_web.pdf
I noticed the next step up (TD190?) is rated +/- .07% or so.

> Anyway, first thing I'd do is check the belt, make sure there isn't a twist in
> it.
> Then check the auto stop mechanism. Make sure it isn't hanging up and
> dragging.
I did that again.
Now, .12% equals 4 cents(?), can I hear it? I didn't know so I had to
try it. If my Lex pitch shift is what it says it is, yes. -not too
hard to hear up around 1k. That's a bad sign in both ways as on one
hand I suspect this thing is doing worse than that (a defect), and if
they got it down to spec would it even cut it then.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,

>> It is well known that some people are far more sensitive
>> to FM distortion than others. And, there's no
>> correlation between this ability or curse, and perfect
>> pitch.

> How does one perceive FM distortion other than in the
> realm of frequency?

Your obvious error Jenn is that you think that human perception in the
frequency domain works only one way. If that were true, nobody could ever
tell the difference between a tone being on-pitch and a tone with vibrato.
Perhaps, your insensitivity to vibrato allows you to think that LPs sound
good.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "wayne" > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>
>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens
>>> TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch
>>> instability.
>>
>> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with the vinyl
>> format unless you take heroic steps.

> If one can detect speed variations with a modern TT,
> either the TT or the source is defective.

In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to the usual digital
equivalents. Pity that there are those who think they are audiophiles and
music lovers, but remain insensitive to this well-established fact.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> "wayne" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens
>> TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch
>> instability. At this point I'm trying to sort out if the problem is
>> simply a defect and warranty issue -or par' for this
>> thing. Wayne Smith
>>
>
> Where did you come up with this spec.
>
> Thorens site says, "The measured values for wow and
> flutter, rumble and signal-to-noise ratio are actually so
> low and insignificant that we decided not to publish
> them."
> http://www.thorens.com/en/thorens.index.php?id=en_220_0_1_1
>
> My troll detector has a slight buzz.
>
> Anyway, first thing I'd do is check the belt, make sure
> there isn't a twist in it.

Actually, there is no such thing as a regular turntable belt with a twist in
it. It would have to have two twists.

> Then check the auto stop mechanism. Make sure it isn't
> hanging up and dragging.

The actual auto-stop mechanism is effectively disconnected from the tone arm
until the tone arm is near the center of its travel. I've never ever seen a
auto-stop mechanism cause flutter or wow while playing the outer grooves of
a LP.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "wayne" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com
> >>
> >>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this Thorens
> >>> TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear the pitch
> >>> instability.
> >>
> >> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with the vinyl
> >> format unless you take heroic steps.
>
> > If one can detect speed variations with a modern TT,
> > either the TT or the source is defective.
>
> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to the usual digital
> equivalents.

I know that that is true in a variety of ways. Too bad that in the area
of instrumental and vocal timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than
does digital.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
>
> >> It is well known that some people are far more sensitive
> >> to FM distortion than others. And, there's no
> >> correlation between this ability or curse, and perfect
> >> pitch.
>
> > How does one perceive FM distortion other than in the
> > realm of frequency?
>
> Your obvious error Jenn is that you think that human perception in the
> frequency domain works only one way. If that were true, nobody could ever
> tell the difference between a tone being on-pitch and a tone with vibrato.

You didn't answer the question: how does one perceive FM distortion
other than in the realm of frequency?

> Perhaps, your insensitivity to vibrato allows you to think that LPs sound
> good.

Yep, that's it! But please don't tell anyone that I'm insensitive to
vibrato! I'd instantly be fired and would never be hired for a
professional job again. Please Arny, my career is in your hands!

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>
>>>> It is well known that some people are far more
>>>> sensitive to FM distortion than others. And, there's no
>>>> correlation between this ability or curse, and perfect
>>>> pitch.
>>
>>> How does one perceive FM distortion other than in the
>>> realm of frequency?
>>
>> Your obvious error Jenn is that you think that human
>> perception in the frequency domain works only one way.
>> If that were true, nobody could ever tell the difference
>> between a tone being on-pitch and a tone with vibrato.
>
> You didn't answer the question: how does one perceive FM
> distortion other than in the realm of frequency?

Your question would be a rhetorical question if you knew what the F in FM
means, Jenn. Since you seem to be demanding an actual answer, your gross
ignorance of even common topics in audio is further revealed.

>> Perhaps, your insensitivity to vibrato allows you to
>> think that LPs sound good.

> Yep, that's it! But please don't tell anyone that I'm
> insensitive to vibrato! I'd instantly be fired and would
> never be hired for a professional job again. Please
> Arny, my career is in your hands!

Like most of your posts Jenn, a lame joke. Go play with the Middiot - he
works down at your level.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "wayne" > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com
>>>>
>>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this
>>>>> Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear
>>>>> the pitch instability.
>>>>
>>>> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with the
>>>> vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.
>>
>>> If one can detect speed variations with a modern TT,
>>> either the TT or the source is defective.
>>
>> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to the
>> usual digital equivalents.
>
> I know that that is true in a variety of ways. Too bad
> that in the area of instrumental and vocal timbre, LP
> sometimes gets it more right than does digital.

That's technically imposible if the recordings are properly made. Perhaps
you can't detect CDs that were improperly made.

[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:
> >>>
> >>>> "wayne" > wrote in message
> >>>> ups.com
> >>>>
> >>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this
> >>>>> Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can hear
> >>>>> the pitch instability.
> >>>>
> >>>> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with the
> >>>> vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.
> >>
> >>> If one can detect speed variations with a modern TT,
> >>> either the TT or the source is defective.
> >>
> >> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to the
> >> usual digital equivalents.
> >
> > I know that that is true in a variety of ways. Too bad
> > that in the area of instrumental and vocal timbre, LP
> > sometimes gets it more right than does digital.
>
> That's technically imposible if the recordings are properly made. Perhaps
> you can't detect CDs that were improperly made.

What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more right than any CD
that I've heard.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >,
> >>
> >>>> It is well known that some people are far more
> >>>> sensitive to FM distortion than others. And, there's no
> >>>> correlation between this ability or curse, and perfect
> >>>> pitch.
> >>
> >>> How does one perceive FM distortion other than in the
> >>> realm of frequency?
> >>
> >> Your obvious error Jenn is that you think that human
> >> perception in the frequency domain works only one way.
> >> If that were true, nobody could ever tell the difference
> >> between a tone being on-pitch and a tone with vibrato.
> >
> > You didn't answer the question: how does one perceive FM
> > distortion other than in the realm of frequency?
>
> Your question would be a rhetorical question if you knew what the F in FM
> means, Jenn.

Of course I know what it means, Arny.

> Since you seem to be demanding an actual answer,

Wow, shocking!

> your gross
> ignorance of even common topics in audio is further revealed.

You stated that sensitivity to FM distortion bears no correlation to
"perfect pitch". I asked a simple question: How does one perceive FM
distortion other than in the realm of frequency? Obviously, this is yet
another question that you will continue to dodge, because it shows that
you don't know what you're talking about.

>
> >> Perhaps, your insensitivity to vibrato allows you to
> >> think that LPs sound good.
>
> > Yep, that's it! But please don't tell anyone that I'm
> > insensitive to vibrato! I'd instantly be fired and would
> > never be hired for a professional job again. Please
> > Arny, my career is in your hands!
>
> Like most of your posts Jenn, a lame joke. Go play with the Middiot - he
> works down at your level.

You hate it when someone reveals that you're ignorant on a topic in
which you hold yourself up as an expert, don't you?

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg blusters and bloviates.

> your gross ignorance of even common topics in audio is further revealed.
> Like most of your posts Jenn, a lame joke.

The Resistance has retrieved another artifact from the Krooborg's
ongoing therapy. This one is a representation (source unknown) of an
answer Mr. **** recently gave to the question "What are your greatest
fears?"

http://www.vaginalady.com/images/2003%20Events/Halloween2003_2.jpg





--

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
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >,
>>>>
>>>>>> It is well known that some people are far more
>>>>>> sensitive to FM distortion than others. And, there's
>>>>>> no correlation between this ability or curse, and
>>>>>> perfect pitch.
>>>>
>>>>> How does one perceive FM distortion other than in the
>>>>> realm of frequency?
>>>>
>>>> Your obvious error Jenn is that you think that human
>>>> perception in the frequency domain works only one way.
>>>> If that were true, nobody could ever tell the
>>>> difference between a tone being on-pitch and a tone
>>>> with vibrato.

>>> You didn't answer the question: how does one perceive
>>> FM distortion other than in the realm of frequency?

>> Your question would be a rhetorical question if you knew
>> what the F in FM means, Jenn.
>
> Of course I know what it means, Arny.

Of course not, Jenn. You showed that you don't know what FM means when you
asked for an answer to a rhetorical question involving it.

>> Since you seem to be demanding an actual answer,

> Wow, shocking!

No, proof that you didn't know that it was a rhetorical question, Jenn.

>> your gross
>> ignorance of even common topics in audio is further
>> revealed.

> You stated that sensitivity to FM distortion bears no
> correlation to "perfect pitch".

True.

Perfect pitch involves a determination of absolute frequency.

Sensitivity to FM distortion, for example the vibrato that is inherent in LP
playback, involves determination of relative and changing frequencies.

Two different things.

> I asked a simple
> question: How does one perceive FM distortion other than
> in the realm of frequency?

Obviously a rhetorical question to just about anybody but you, Jenn.

> Obviously, this is yet
> another question that you will continue to dodge, because
> it shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

No Jenn, your confusion about knowlegable people know to be a rhetorical
question proves that you didn't know that it was a rhetorical question, and
therefore need not be answered.

>>>> Perhaps, your insensitivity to vibrato allows you to
>>>> think that LPs sound good.

>>> Yep, that's it! But please don't tell anyone that I'm
>>> insensitive to vibrato! I'd instantly be fired and
>>> would never be hired for a professional job again.
>>> Please Arny, my career is in your hands!

>> Like most of your posts Jenn, a lame joke. Go play with
>> the Middiot - he works down at your level.

> You hate it when someone reveals that you're ignorant on
> a topic in which you hold yourself up as an expert, don't
> you?

What's to hate Jenn - other than the rantings of a poorly-informed person
named Jenning to cover up her ignorance of the meaning of FM, and her
preference for music with audible amounts of AM and FM distortion added?

Gotcha Jenn - again!

[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:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "wayne" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>> ups.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this
>>>>>>> Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can
>>>>>>> hear the pitch instability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with the
>>>>>> vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.
>>>>
>>>>> If one can detect speed variations with a modern TT,
>>>>> either the TT or the source is defective.
>>>>
>>>> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to the
>>>> usual digital equivalents.
>>>
>>> I know that that is true in a variety of ways. Too bad
>>> that in the area of instrumental and vocal timbre, LP
>>> sometimes gets it more right than does digital.
>>
>> That's technically imposible if the recordings are
>> properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that were
>> improperly made.
>
> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more right
> than any CD that I've heard.

That must be due to the added audible vibrato distortion in the LP.

That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do have.

[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:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "wayne" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>> ups.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this
> >>>>>>> Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can
> >>>>>>> hear the pitch instability.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with the
> >>>>>> vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.
> >>>>
> >>>>> If one can detect speed variations with a modern TT,
> >>>>> either the TT or the source is defective.
> >>>>
> >>>> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to the
> >>>> usual digital equivalents.
> >>>
> >>> I know that that is true in a variety of ways. Too bad
> >>> that in the area of instrumental and vocal timbre, LP
> >>> sometimes gets it more right than does digital.
> >>
> >> That's technically imposible if the recordings are
> >> properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that were
> >> improperly made.
> >
> > What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more right
> > than any CD that I've heard.
>
> That must be due to the added audible vibrato distortion in the LP.
>
> That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do have.

I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that it's true for my ears.

[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
> >>>>> >,
> >>>>
> >>>>>> It is well known that some people are far more
> >>>>>> sensitive to FM distortion than others. And, there's
> >>>>>> no correlation between this ability or curse, and
> >>>>>> perfect pitch.
> >>>>
> >>>>> How does one perceive FM distortion other than in the
> >>>>> realm of frequency?
> >>>>
> >>>> Your obvious error Jenn is that you think that human
> >>>> perception in the frequency domain works only one way.
> >>>> If that were true, nobody could ever tell the
> >>>> difference between a tone being on-pitch and a tone
> >>>> with vibrato.
>
> >>> You didn't answer the question: how does one perceive
> >>> FM distortion other than in the realm of frequency?
>
> >> Your question would be a rhetorical question if you knew
> >> what the F in FM means, Jenn.
> >
> > Of course I know what it means, Arny.
>
> Of course not, Jenn. You showed that you don't know what FM means when you
> asked for an answer to a rhetorical question involving it.

I didn't ask a rhetorical question.

>
> >> Since you seem to be demanding an actual answer,
>
> > Wow, shocking!
>
> No, proof that you didn't know that it was a rhetorical question, Jenn.
>
> >> your gross
> >> ignorance of even common topics in audio is further
> >> revealed.
>
> > You stated that sensitivity to FM distortion bears no
> > correlation to "perfect pitch".
>
> True.
>
> Perfect pitch involves a determination of absolute frequency.
>
> Sensitivity to FM distortion, for example the vibrato that is inherent in LP
> playback, involves determination of relative and changing frequencies.
>
> Two different things.

Thanks for admitting that you have no idea of what "perfect pitch" means.

>
> > I asked a simple
> > question: How does one perceive FM distortion other than
> > in the realm of frequency?
>
> Obviously a rhetorical question to just about anybody but you, Jenn.
>
> > Obviously, this is yet
> > another question that you will continue to dodge, because
> > it shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> No Jenn, your confusion about knowlegable people know to be a rhetorical
> question proves that you didn't know that it was a rhetorical question, and
> therefore need not be answered.
>
> >>>> Perhaps, your insensitivity to vibrato allows you to
> >>>> think that LPs sound good.
>
> >>> Yep, that's it! But please don't tell anyone that I'm
> >>> insensitive to vibrato! I'd instantly be fired and
> >>> would never be hired for a professional job again.
> >>> Please Arny, my career is in your hands!
>
> >> Like most of your posts Jenn, a lame joke. Go play with
> >> the Middiot - he works down at your level.
>
> > You hate it when someone reveals that you're ignorant on
> > a topic in which you hold yourself up as an expert, don't
> > you?
>
> What's to hate Jenn - other than the rantings of a poorly-informed person
> named Jenning

lol, Arning.

> to cover up her ignorance of the meaning of FM, and her
> preference for music with audible amounts of AM and FM distortion added?
>
> Gotcha Jenn - again!

You keep on believing that if it helps you, Arning.

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more right than any CD
> that I've heard.

Jenn,

I've always been intruiged by this.

I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it digitally at various sampling
rates (and even bit depths) and then compare the files you created ?

Just an idea.

Graham

[wayne]

Nudging back to topic though...
It was stated that .12% is about 4 cents. True?
How low is generally good enough?
Is performance at half of that amount (their next model up or an
equal) adequate or as they say "The measured values for wow and
flutter, rumble and signal-to-noise ratio are actually so low and
insignificant that we decided not to publish them."

[ScottW]

On May 29, 12:23 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in
> > message
>
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > >> message
> > .
> > >> com
> > >>> In article
> > >>> >, "Arny
> > >>> Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > >>>> message
> >
> > >>>> y.
> > >>>> com
> > >>>>> In article
> > >>>>> >,
>
> > >>>>>> It is well known that some people are far more
> > >>>>>> sensitive to FM distortion than others. And, there's
> > >>>>>> no correlation between this ability or curse, and
> > >>>>>> perfect pitch.
>
> > >>>>> How does one perceive FM distortion other than in the
> > >>>>> realm of frequency?
>
> > >>>> Your obvious error Jenn is that you think that human
> > >>>> perception in the frequency domain works only one way.
> > >>>> If that were true, nobody could ever tell the
> > >>>> difference between a tone being on-pitch and a tone
> > >>>> with vibrato.
>
> > >>> You didn't answer the question: how does one perceive
> > >>> FM distortion other than in the realm of frequency?
>
> > >> Your question would be a rhetorical question if you knew
> > >> what the F in FM means, Jenn.
>
> > > Of course I know what it means, Arny.
>
> > Of course not, Jenn. You showed that you don't know what FM means when you
> > asked for an answer to a rhetorical question involving it.
>
> I didn't ask a rhetorical question.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> Since you seem to be demanding an actual answer,
>
> > > Wow, shocking!
>
> > No, proof that you didn't know that it was a rhetorical question, Jenn.
>
> > >> your gross
> > >> ignorance of even common topics in audio is further
> > >> revealed.
>
> > > You stated that sensitivity to FM distortion bears no
> > > correlation to "perfect pitch".
>
> > True.
>
> > Perfect pitch involves a determination of absolute frequency.
>
> > Sensitivity to FM distortion, for example the vibrato that is inherent in LP
> > playback, involves determination of relative and changing frequencies.
>
> > Two different things.
>
> Thanks for admitting that you have no idea of what "perfect pitch" means.

So what does perfect pitch mean?
Does this guy have it or not?
http://www.dfan.org/pitch.html

I know perfect pitch is not necessary to be sensitive to
wow & flutter.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:

>
> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to the usual digital
> equivalents. Pity that there are those who think they are audiophiles and
> music lovers, but remain insensitive to this well-established fact.

It's at least as much of a fact as your porn show.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On May 29, 12:23 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > message
> > .
> > >com
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > >> message
> > >
> > > >>gy.
> > > >> com
> > > >>> In article
> > > >>> >, "Arny
> > > >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > >>>> message
> > >
> > > >>>>dig
> > > >>>> y.
> > > >>>> com
> > > >>>>> In article
> > > >>>>> >,
> >
> > > >>>>>> It is well known that some people are far more
> > > >>>>>> sensitive to FM distortion than others. And, there's
> > > >>>>>> no correlation between this ability or curse, and
> > > >>>>>> perfect pitch.
> >
> > > >>>>> How does one perceive FM distortion other than in the
> > > >>>>> realm of frequency?
> >
> > > >>>> Your obvious error Jenn is that you think that human
> > > >>>> perception in the frequency domain works only one way.
> > > >>>> If that were true, nobody could ever tell the
> > > >>>> difference between a tone being on-pitch and a tone
> > > >>>> with vibrato.
> >
> > > >>> You didn't answer the question: how does one perceive
> > > >>> FM distortion other than in the realm of frequency?
> >
> > > >> Your question would be a rhetorical question if you knew
> > > >> what the F in FM means, Jenn.
> >
> > > > Of course I know what it means, Arny.
> >
> > > Of course not, Jenn. You showed that you don't know what FM means when
> > > you
> > > asked for an answer to a rhetorical question involving it.
> >
> > I didn't ask a rhetorical question.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >> Since you seem to be demanding an actual answer,
> >
> > > > Wow, shocking!
> >
> > > No, proof that you didn't know that it was a rhetorical question, Jenn.
> >
> > > >> your gross
> > > >> ignorance of even common topics in audio is further
> > > >> revealed.
> >
> > > > You stated that sensitivity to FM distortion bears no
> > > > correlation to "perfect pitch".
> >
> > > True.
> >
> > > Perfect pitch involves a determination of absolute frequency.
> >
> > > Sensitivity to FM distortion, for example the vibrato that is inherent in
> > > LP
> > > playback, involves determination of relative and changing frequencies.
> >
> > > Two different things.
> >
> > Thanks for admitting that you have no idea of what "perfect pitch" means.
>
> So what does perfect pitch mean?

It basically means that a person has extremely good pitch memory, and is
highly sensitive to pitch differences. These two things present to
varying degrees. You'll notice that I put "perfect pitch" in quotation
marks.

> Does this guy have it or not?
> http://www.dfan.org/pitch.html

Sounds like.

>
> I know perfect pitch is not necessary to be sensitive to
> wow & flutter.

I would agree.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more right than any CD
> > that I've heard.
>
> Jenn,
>
> I've always been intruiged by this.
>
> I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it digitally at various
> sampling
> rates (and even bit depths) and then compare the files you created ?
>
> Just an idea.
>
> Graham

Sure. Perhaps this summer I can get around to that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

>>
>> I know perfect pitch is not necessary to be sensitive to
>> wow & flutter.

> I would agree.

Trouble is, Jenn can't hear flutter and wow for what it is, when it is added
to her favorite LPs. To her, it is more realism than real.

[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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "wayne" > wrote in
>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>> ups.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this
>>>>>>>>> Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can
>>>>>>>>> hear the pitch instability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with the
>>>>>>>> vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If one can detect speed variations with a modern TT,
>>>>>>> either the TT or the source is defective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to
>>>>>> the usual digital equivalents.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that that is true in a variety of ways. Too
>>>>> bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
>>>>> timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
>>>>> digital.
>>>>
>>>> That's technically imposible if the recordings are
>>>> properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that were
>>>> improperly made.
>>>
>>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more right
>>> than any CD that I've heard.
>>
>> That must be due to the added audible vibrato distortion
>> in the LP.
>>
>> That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do have.
>
> I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that it's
> true for my ears.

Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when her TT adds it to her
LPs. To her, it is more real than real.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Jenn wrote:
>
>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more right
>> than any CD that I've heard.
>
> Jenn,
>
> I've always been intruiged by this.
>
> I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
> digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit depths)
> and then compare the files you created ?
>
> Just an idea.

It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really believes that there is a
snowball's chance in San Diego that a LP could provide a more realistic
sound than than any CD.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message
> > Jenn wrote:
> >
> >> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more right
> >> than any CD that I've heard.
> >
> > Jenn,
> >
> > I've always been intruiged by this.
> >
> > I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
> > digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit depths)
> > and then compare the files you created ?
> >
> > Just an idea.
>
> It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really believes that there is a
> snowball's chance in San Diego that a LP could provide a more realistic
> sound than than any CD.

No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to what sounds better to
her for any given performance of a piece of music.

[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:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "wayne" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>> ups.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this
> >>>>>>>>> Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can
> >>>>>>>>> hear the pitch instability.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with the
> >>>>>>>> vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If one can detect speed variations with a modern TT,
> >>>>>>> either the TT or the source is defective.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to
> >>>>>> the usual digital equivalents.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I know that that is true in a variety of ways. Too
> >>>>> bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
> >>>>> timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
> >>>>> digital.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's technically imposible if the recordings are
> >>>> properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that were
> >>>> improperly made.
> >>>
> >>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more right
> >>> than any CD that I've heard.
> >>
> >> That must be due to the added audible vibrato distortion
> >> in the LP.
> >>
> >> That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do have.
> >
> > I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that it's
> > true for my ears.
>
> Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when her TT adds it to her
> LPs.

1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and flutter? Why do you
make things up?
2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't realize this.

> To her, it is more real than real.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

[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:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "wayne" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>> ups.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this
>>>>>>>>>>> Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can
>>>>>>>>>>> hear the pitch instability.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with
>>>>>>>>>> the vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If one can detect speed variations with a modern
>>>>>>>>> TT, either the TT or the source is defective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to
>>>>>>>> the usual digital equivalents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that that is true in a variety of ways. Too
>>>>>>> bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
>>>>>>> timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
>>>>>>> digital.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's technically imposible if the recordings are
>>>>>> properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that
>>>>>> were improperly made.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
>>>>> right than any CD that I've heard.
>>>>
>>>> That must be due to the added audible vibrato
>>>> distortion in the LP.
>>>>
>>>> That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do have.
>>>
>>> I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that it's
>>> true for my ears.
>>
>> Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when
>> her TT adds it to her LPs.
>
> 1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and
> flutter?

Your comments about perceptions of realistic reproduction in the face of
audible quantities of it.

> Why do you make things up?

No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so clearly, Jenn. Take
the recent case where you confused a rhetorical question with one that
deserves an answer. You obviously did not think it was a rhetorical
question, no doubt due to your lack of understanding of a common
abbreviation contained therein.

> 2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't
> realize this.


Why do you make things up, Jenn?

>> To her, it is more real than real.

> I have no idea what you mean by this.

Simple Jenn - you find a sonically perfect medium to be less-realistic
sounding than a medium with rather obvious audible imperfections. You must
not hear the imperfections. Arguably, the most audible imperfection of the
LP format is the flutter and wow.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> in
>> message
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
>>>> right than any CD that I've heard.
>>>
>>> Jenn,
>>>
>>> I've always been intruiged by this.
>>>
>>> I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
>>> digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit
>>> depths) and then compare the files you created ?
>>>
>>> Just an idea.
>>
>> It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really
>> believes that there is a snowball's chance in San Diego
>> that a LP could provide a more realistic sound than than
>> any CD.
>
> No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to what
> sounds better to her for any given performance of a piece
> of music.

In Jenn's case, better must mean loaded with audible noise and distortion.
That's a pretty strange situation, but she indicts herself with it at every
turn.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Eeyore" > wrote
> >> in
> >> message
> >>> Jenn wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
> >>>> right than any CD that I've heard.
> >>>
> >>> Jenn,
> >>>
> >>> I've always been intruiged by this.
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
> >>> digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit
> >>> depths) and then compare the files you created ?
> >>>
> >>> Just an idea.
> >>
> >> It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really
> >> believes that there is a snowball's chance in San Diego
> >> that a LP could provide a more realistic sound than than
> >> any CD.
> >
> > No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to what
> > sounds better to her for any given performance of a piece
> > of music.
>
> In Jenn's case, better must mean loaded with audible noise and distortion.
> That's a pretty strange situation, but she indicts herself with it at every
> turn.

No, better means just what I said. CD is often the best available.
Sometimes it's not. Arny thinks that people should listen to something
that they hear as less than the best. It's a pretty strange situation.

[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:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "wayne" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>> ups.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing this
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN but I can
> >>>>>>>>>>> hear the pitch instability.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with
> >>>>>>>>>> the vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If one can detect speed variations with a modern
> >>>>>>>>> TT, either the TT or the source is defective.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared to
> >>>>>>>> the usual digital equivalents.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I know that that is true in a variety of ways. Too
> >>>>>>> bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
> >>>>>>> timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
> >>>>>>> digital.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's technically imposible if the recordings are
> >>>>>> properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that
> >>>>>> were improperly made.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
> >>>>> right than any CD that I've heard.
> >>>>
> >>>> That must be due to the added audible vibrato
> >>>> distortion in the LP.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do have.
> >>>
> >>> I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that it's
> >>> true for my ears.
> >>
> >> Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when
> >> her TT adds it to her LPs.
> >
> > 1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and
> > flutter?
>
> Your comments about perceptions of realistic reproduction in the face of
> audible quantities of it.

I repeat: If you are getting audible quantities of wow and flutter on
good recordings, you're using an old, worn out, or defective turntable.

>
> > Why do you make things up?
>
> No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so clearly, Jenn. Take
> the recent case where you confused a rhetorical question with one that
> deserves an answer. You obviously did not think it was a rhetorical
> question, no doubt due to your lack of understanding of a common
> abbreviation contained therein.

That you didn't see the correlation between hearing FM distortion and
good pitch discrimination shows that it wasn't a rhetorical question. At
any rate, you're trying to distract away from the question yet again.
Why do you make things up? Who said that I can't hear W&F?

>
> > 2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't
> > realize this.
>
>
> Why do you make things up, Jenn?

You certainly haven't shown that you realize it. Let's say that I hear
W&F on the LPs that I listen to. Perhaps this is less important to me
than the negative things that I hear on CDs. Everything is a trade off.

>
> >> To her, it is more real than real.
>
> > I have no idea what you mean by this.
>
> Simple Jenn - you find a sonically perfect medium to be less-realistic
> sounding than a medium with rather obvious audible imperfections. You must
> not hear the imperfections. Arguably, the most audible imperfection of the
> LP format is the flutter and wow.

You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically perfect medium. Bully
for you. Enjoy them.

[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:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "wayne" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ups.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I can hear the pitch instability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If one can detect speed variations with a modern
>>>>>>>>>>> TT, either the TT or the source is defective.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared
>>>>>>>>>> to the usual digital equivalents.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know that that is true in a variety of ways.
>>>>>>>>> Too bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
>>>>>>>>> timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
>>>>>>>>> digital.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's technically imposible if the recordings are
>>>>>>>> properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that
>>>>>>>> were improperly made.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
>>>>>>> right than any CD that I've heard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That must be due to the added audible vibrato
>>>>>> distortion in the LP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do
>>>>>> have.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that
>>>>> it's true for my ears.
>>>>
>>>> Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when
>>>> her TT adds it to her LPs.
>>>
>>> 1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and
>>> flutter?
>>
>> Your comments about perceptions of realistic
>> reproduction in the face of audible quantities of it.
>
> I repeat: If you are getting audible quantities of wow
> and flutter on good recordings, you're using an old, worn
> out, or defective turntable.
>
>>
>>> Why do you make things up?
>>
>> No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so
>> clearly, Jenn. Take the recent case where you confused a
>> rhetorical question with one that deserves an answer.
>> You obviously did not think it was a rhetorical
>> question, no doubt due to your lack of understanding of
>> a common abbreviation contained therein.

> That you didn't see the correlation between hearing FM
> distortion and good pitch discrimination shows that it
> wasn't a rhetorical question.

There was no such absence of seeing. Have fun in your little personal
universe, Jenn.

> At any rate, you're trying
> to distract away from the question yet again.

No, the issue is settled.

> Why do you make things up?

Asked and answered.

> Who said that I can't hear W&F?

You did, Jenn.


>>> 2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't
>>> realize this.
>
>> Why do you make things up, Jenn?

> You certainly haven't shown that you realize it.

There was no such absence of realizing. Have fun in your little personal
universe, Jenn.

> Let's say that I hear W&F on the LPs that I listen to.

I see no evidence to support that claim. I see evidence that denies it.

>Perhaps
> this is less important to me than the negative things
> that I hear on CDs.

There is nothing negative to hear. The music coming off a CD is sonically
indistinguishable from the music that went onto it.

> Everything is a trade off.

In general yes, but in this case no. Sure the CD format involved trade-offs,
but not any in terms of sonic accuracy. In contrast the LP format is chock
full of sonic trade-offs. Anybody who can't hear that has to be lost in
wishfulness and illusion.

>>>> To her, it is more real than real.

>>> I have no idea what you mean by this.

>> Simple Jenn - you find a sonically perfect medium to be
>> less-realistic sounding than a medium with rather
>> obvious audible imperfections. You must not hear the
>> imperfections. Arguably, the most audible imperfection
>> of the LP format is the flutter and wow.

> You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically perfect
> medium.

It's a scientifically demonstrable fact.

> Bully for you.

Me, and anybody who is interested in reliable truth.

> Enjoy them.

Me and several billion other music lovers...

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>>> in
>>>> message
>>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
>>>>>> right than any CD that I've heard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jenn,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've always been intruiged by this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
>>>>> digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit
>>>>> depths) and then compare the files you created ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just an idea.
>>>>
>>>> It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really
>>>> believes that there is a snowball's chance in San Diego
>>>> that a LP could provide a more realistic sound than
>>>> than any CD.
>>>
>>> No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to what
>>> sounds better to her for any given performance of a
>>> piece of music.

>> In Jenn's case, better must mean loaded with audible
>> noise and distortion. That's a pretty strange situation,
>> but she indicts herself with it at every turn.

> No, better means just what I said.

Then enjoy life in your little private universe, Jenn.


> CD is often the best available.

As formats go, it is always a more sonically transparent format than the LP,
and that isn't saying much for the CD format because the LP format is full
of audible failings.

> Sometimes it's not.

Confusion with recording formats and odd pathological recordings noted.
It's safe to say that any LP that sounds better than the corresponding CD is
due to some specific pathological situation.

> Arny thinks that people
> should listen to something that they hear as less than
> the best.

Why do you make things like this up, Jenn?

> It's a pretty strange situation.

No, its pretty strange to not be grossed out with the audible flaws that are
inherent in the LP format. Billions of music lovers have made their choice
of formats, and it is not the LP.

[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:
> >>>
> >>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
> >>>> in
> >>>> message
> >>>>> Jenn wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
> >>>>>> right than any CD that I've heard.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jenn,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've always been intruiged by this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
> >>>>> digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit
> >>>>> depths) and then compare the files you created ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just an idea.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really
> >>>> believes that there is a snowball's chance in San Diego
> >>>> that a LP could provide a more realistic sound than
> >>>> than any CD.
> >>>
> >>> No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to what
> >>> sounds better to her for any given performance of a
> >>> piece of music.
>
> >> In Jenn's case, better must mean loaded with audible
> >> noise and distortion. That's a pretty strange situation,
> >> but she indicts herself with it at every turn.
>
> > No, better means just what I said.
>
> Then enjoy life in your little private universe, Jenn.
>
>
> > CD is often the best available.
>
> As formats go, it is always a more sonically transparent format than the LP,
> and that isn't saying much for the CD format because the LP format is full
> of audible failings.
>
> > Sometimes it's not.
>
> Confusion with recording formats and odd pathological recordings noted.
> It's safe to say that any LP that sounds better than the corresponding CD is
> due to some specific pathological situation.
>
> > Arny thinks that people
> > should listen to something that they hear as less than
> > the best.
>
> Why do you make things like this up, Jenn?

You seem to be trying to convince me that CDs sound better. I think
that this is sometimes not the case. Therefore you are trying to
convince me to listen to something that my ears find inferior.

>
> > It's a pretty strange situation.
>
> No, its pretty strange to not be grossed out with the audible flaws that are
> inherent in the LP format.

I think that it's pretty strange not to be put off by the odd timbres
present on many CDs. But if you like it, fine.

> Billions of music lovers have made their choice
> of formats, and it is not the LP.

Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs over LPs, and
billions of music lovers aren't as picky as I am about timbre.

[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:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "wayne" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ups.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but I can hear the pitch instability.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If one can detect speed variations with a modern
> >>>>>>>>>>> TT, either the TT or the source is defective.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared
> >>>>>>>>>> to the usual digital equivalents.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I know that that is true in a variety of ways.
> >>>>>>>>> Too bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
> >>>>>>>>> timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
> >>>>>>>>> digital.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's technically imposible if the recordings are
> >>>>>>>> properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that
> >>>>>>>> were improperly made.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
> >>>>>>> right than any CD that I've heard.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That must be due to the added audible vibrato
> >>>>>> distortion in the LP.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do
> >>>>>> have.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that
> >>>>> it's true for my ears.
> >>>>
> >>>> Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when
> >>>> her TT adds it to her LPs.
> >>>
> >>> 1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and
> >>> flutter?
> >>
> >> Your comments about perceptions of realistic
> >> reproduction in the face of audible quantities of it.
> >
> > I repeat: If you are getting audible quantities of wow
> > and flutter on good recordings, you're using an old, worn
> > out, or defective turntable.
> >
> >>
> >>> Why do you make things up?
> >>
> >> No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so
> >> clearly, Jenn. Take the recent case where you confused a
> >> rhetorical question with one that deserves an answer.
> >> You obviously did not think it was a rhetorical
> >> question, no doubt due to your lack of understanding of
> >> a common abbreviation contained therein.
>
> > That you didn't see the correlation between hearing FM
> > distortion and good pitch discrimination shows that it
> > wasn't a rhetorical question.
>
> There was no such absence of seeing. Have fun in your little personal
> universe, Jenn.
>
> > At any rate, you're trying
> > to distract away from the question yet again.
>
> No, the issue is settled.
>
> > Why do you make things up?
>
> Asked and answered.
>
> > Who said that I can't hear W&F?
>
> You did, Jenn.

No I didn't. Provide a quote or stop revealing yourself to be a liar.

>
>
> >>> 2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't
> >>> realize this.
> >
> >> Why do you make things up, Jenn?
>
> > You certainly haven't shown that you realize it.
>
> There was no such absence of realizing. Have fun in your little personal
> universe, Jenn.
>
> > Let's say that I hear W&F on the LPs that I listen to.
>
> I see no evidence to support that claim. I see evidence that denies it.
>
> >Perhaps
> > this is less important to me than the negative things
> > that I hear on CDs.
>
> There is nothing negative to hear. The music coming off a CD is sonically
> indistinguishable from the music that went onto it.
>
> > Everything is a trade off.
>
> In general yes, but in this case no. Sure the CD format involved trade-offs,
> but not any in terms of sonic accuracy. In contrast the LP format is chock
> full of sonic trade-offs. Anybody who can't hear that has to be lost in
> wishfulness and illusion.
>
> >>>> To her, it is more real than real.
>
> >>> I have no idea what you mean by this.
>
> >> Simple Jenn - you find a sonically perfect medium to be
> >> less-realistic sounding than a medium with rather
> >> obvious audible imperfections. You must not hear the
> >> imperfections. Arguably, the most audible imperfection
> >> of the LP format is the flutter and wow.
>
> > You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically perfect
> > medium.
>
> It's a scientifically demonstrable fact.
>
> > Bully for you.
>
> Me, and anybody who is interested in reliable truth.
>
> > Enjoy them.
>
> Me and several billion other music lovers...

Great. I'm happy for you.

[[email protected]]

On May 30, 10:40 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "wayne" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> message
> ups.com
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but I can hear the pitch instability.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If one can detect speed variations with a modern
> >>>>>>>>>>> TT, either the TT or the source is defective.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared
> >>>>>>>>>> to the usual digital equivalents.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I know that that is true in a variety of ways.
> >>>>>>>>> Too bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
> >>>>>>>>> timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
> >>>>>>>>> digital.
>
> >>>>>>>> That's technically imposible if the recordings are
> >>>>>>>> properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that
> >>>>>>>> were improperly made.
>
> >>>>>>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
> >>>>>>> right than any CD that I've heard.
>
> >>>>>> That must be due to the added audible vibrato
> >>>>>> distortion in the LP.
>
> >>>>>> That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do
> >>>>>> have.
>
> >>>>> I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that
> >>>>> it's true for my ears.
>
> >>>> Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when
> >>>> her TT adds it to her LPs.
>
> >>> 1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and
> >>> flutter?
>
> >> Your comments about perceptions of realistic
> >> reproduction in the face of audible quantities of it.
>
> > I repeat: If you are getting audible quantities of wow
> > and flutter on good recordings, you're using an old, worn
> > out, or defective turntable.
>
> >>> Why do you make things up?
>
> >> No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so
> >> clearly, Jenn. Take the recent case where you confused a
> >> rhetorical question with one that deserves an answer.
> >> You obviously did not think it was a rhetorical
> >> question, no doubt due to your lack of understanding of
> >> a common abbreviation contained therein.
> > That you didn't see the correlation between hearing FM
> > distortion and good pitch discrimination shows that it
> > wasn't a rhetorical question.
>
> There was no such absence of seeing. Have fun in your little personal
> universe, Jenn.
>
> > At any rate, you're trying
> > to distract away from the question yet again.
>
> No, the issue is settled.
>
> > Why do you make things up?
>
> Asked and answered.
>
> > Who said that I can't hear W&F?
>
> You did, Jenn.
>
> >>> 2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't
> >>> realize this.
>
> >> Why do you make things up, Jenn?
> > You certainly haven't shown that you realize it.
>
> There was no such absence of realizing. Have fun in your little personal
> universe, Jenn.
>
> > Let's say that I hear W&F on the LPs that I listen to.
>
> I see no evidence to support that claim. I see evidence that denies it.
>
> >Perhaps
> > this is less important to me than the negative things
> > that I hear on CDs.
>
> There is nothing negative to hear. The music coming off a CD is sonically
> indistinguishable from the music that went onto it.
>
> > Everything is a trade off.
>
> In general yes, but in this case no. Sure the CD format involved trade-offs,
> but not any in terms of sonic accuracy. In contrast the LP format is chock
> full of sonic trade-offs. Anybody who can't hear that has to be lost in
> wishfulness and illusion.
>
> >>>> To her, it is more real than real.
> >>> I have no idea what you mean by this.
> >> Simple Jenn - you find a sonically perfect medium to be
> >> less-realistic sounding than a medium with rather
> >> obvious audible imperfections. You must not hear the
> >> imperfections. Arguably, the most audible imperfection
> >> of the LP format is the flutter and wow.
> > You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically perfect
> > medium.
>
> It's a scientifically demonstrable fact.
>
> > Bully for you.

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

Krueger answers Jenn:
"You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically
perfect medium".

"It's a scientifically demonstrable fact"

If he proclaimed it once he said it a hundred times
before-(Whatever "sonically transparent" means.)

He insists on reconfirming that the
experience of hearing to real life musicians playing
a real-life quartet or a symphony on real-life
music instruments is meaningless to him.

One wonders why anyone should talk oranges to an
apple man who knows only loudspeakers, amps. and
cd. players.

Leave him to it I say. Having nothing to ignorantly
spout about will be punishment enough.
Ludovic Mirabel

>
> Me, and anybody who is interested in reliable truth.
>
> > Enjoy them.
>
> Me and several billion other music lovers...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > Jenn really believes that there is a
> > snowball's chance in San Diego that a LP could provide a more realistic
> > sound than than any CD.

> No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to what sounds better to
> her for any given performance of a piece of music.

So you're refusing to sign up for Krooger's religion? It's your own soul
at risk.





--

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

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com

> "You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically
> perfect medium".
>
> "It's a scientifically demonstrable fact"
>
> If he proclaimed it once he said it a hundred times
> before-(Whatever "sonically transparent" means.)


Produce your evidence that contradicts.

> He insists on reconfirming that the
> experience of hearing to real life musicians playing
> a real-life quartet or a symphony on real-life
> music instruments is meaningless to him.

A grotesque lie.

> One wonders why anyone should talk oranges to an
> apple man who knows only loudspeakers, amps. and
> cd. players.

Mirabel, in your rush to spew, you forgot about a vast array of live voices
and acoustic instruments.

I recorded over 200 live choral performances in the past 8 weeks. What did
you do?

[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:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Eeyore" >
>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
>>>>>>>> right than any CD that I've heard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jenn,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've always been intruiged by this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
>>>>>>> digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit
>>>>>>> depths) and then compare the files you created ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just an idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really
>>>>>> believes that there is a snowball's chance in San
>>>>>> Diego that a LP could provide a more realistic sound
>>>>>> than than any CD.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to
>>>>> what sounds better to her for any given performance
>>>>> of a piece of music.
>>
>>>> In Jenn's case, better must mean loaded with audible
>>>> noise and distortion. That's a pretty strange
>>>> situation, but she indicts herself with it at every
>>>> turn.
>>
>>> No, better means just what I said.
>>
>> Then enjoy life in your little private universe, Jenn.
>>
>>
>>> CD is often the best available.
>>
>> As formats go, it is always a more sonically transparent
>> format than the LP, and that isn't saying much for the
>> CD format because the LP format is full of audible
>> failings.
>>
>>> Sometimes it's not.
>>
>> Confusion with recording formats and odd pathological
>> recordings noted. It's safe to say that any LP that
>> sounds better than the corresponding CD is due to some
>> specific pathological situation.
>>
>>> Arny thinks that people
>>> should listen to something that they hear as less than
>>> the best.
>>
>> Why do you make things like this up, Jenn?

> You seem to be trying to convince me that CDs sound
> better.

Wrong.

I can only use logical arguments with people who appreciate rational
thought. That's clearly not you, Jenn.

> I think that this is sometimes not the case.


Jenn, your inability to read and comprehend and think rationally is
demonstrated by your confusion of individial CDs (which are what they are
made to be) and the CD format (which is what I am talking about).

> Therefore you are trying to convince me to listen to
> something that my ears find inferior.

Therefore Jenn you are too reading skills and logical thinking - challenged
to be worth discussing audio topics with.

End of discussion.

[Bill Riel]

In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-6EB1FB.11500630052007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
says...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

[...]

> > Billions of music lovers have made their choice
> > of formats, and it is not the LP.
>
> Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs over LPs, and
> billions of music lovers aren't as picky as I am about timbre.

For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of music lovers
have chosen lossy compressed formats over CD. As you note, convenience
seems to be the overall driver of popularity, not sound quality or
realistic timbre.

--
Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Riel" > wrote in message
t
> In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-6EB1FB.11500630052007
> @newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> says...
>> In article
>> >, "Arny
>> Krueger" > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Billions of music lovers have made their choice
>>> of formats, and it is not the LP.
>>
>> Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs
>> over LPs, and billions of music lovers aren't as picky
>> as I am about timbre.

> For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
> music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
> CD.

Which supports my claim that the CD format is an "overkill" format, and
so-called hi-rez formats were effectively stacking overkill on top of
overkill.

> As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
> driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic timbre.

I notice the implicit blanked condemnation of every lossy-compressed format
that currently exists, or will ever exist. Perhaps you want to be a bit more
specific?

[Jenn]

In article >,
Bill Riel > wrote:

> In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-6EB1FB.11500630052007
> @newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> says...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Billions of music lovers have made their choice
> > > of formats, and it is not the LP.
> >
> > Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs over LPs, and
> > billions of music lovers aren't as picky as I am about timbre.
>
> For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of music lovers
> have chosen lossy compressed formats over CD. As you note, convenience
> seems to be the overall driver of popularity, not sound quality or
> realistic timbre.
>
> --
> Bill

Exactly.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article
> >, Bill
> Riel > wrote:
>
>> In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-6EB1FB.11500630052007
>> @newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>> says...
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> Billions of music lovers have made their choice
>>>> of formats, and it is not the LP.
>>>
>>> Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs
>>> over LPs, and billions of music lovers aren't as picky
>>> as I am about timbre.
>>
>> For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
>> music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
>> CD. As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
>> driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic
>> timbre.

The myth is that lossy compressed formats necessarily diminish sound quality
or realistic timbre.

> Exactly.

Exactly fitting Jenn's prejudices and beliefs in common audio myths.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article
> > >, Bill
> > Riel > wrote:
> >
> >> In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-6EB1FB.11500630052007
> >> @newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> >> says...
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>> Billions of music lovers have made their choice
> >>>> of formats, and it is not the LP.
> >>>
> >>> Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs
> >>> over LPs, and billions of music lovers aren't as picky
> >>> as I am about timbre.
> >>
> >> For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
> >> music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
> >> CD. As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
> >> driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic
> >> timbre.
>
> The myth is that lossy compressed formats necessarily diminish sound quality
> or realistic timbre.

He didn't say that they all do. Some, however, clearly do.

>
> > Exactly.
>
> Exactly fitting Jenn's prejudices and beliefs in common audio myths.

Are you denying that some loosy formats sound bad? Or are you just
picking a fight?

[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:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Eeyore" >
> >>>>>> wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>> Jenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
> >>>>>>>> right than any CD that I've heard.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jenn,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've always been intruiged by this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I wonder if you could play such an LP and record it
> >>>>>>> digitally at various sampling rates (and even bit
> >>>>>>> depths) and then compare the files you created ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just an idea.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's all about mental preconditioning. Jenn really
> >>>>>> believes that there is a snowball's chance in San
> >>>>>> Diego that a LP could provide a more realistic sound
> >>>>>> than than any CD.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, Jenn really believes that she should listen to
> >>>>> what sounds better to her for any given performance
> >>>>> of a piece of music.
> >>
> >>>> In Jenn's case, better must mean loaded with audible
> >>>> noise and distortion. That's a pretty strange
> >>>> situation, but she indicts herself with it at every
> >>>> turn.
> >>
> >>> No, better means just what I said.
> >>
> >> Then enjoy life in your little private universe, Jenn.
> >>
> >>
> >>> CD is often the best available.
> >>
> >> As formats go, it is always a more sonically transparent
> >> format than the LP, and that isn't saying much for the
> >> CD format because the LP format is full of audible
> >> failings.
> >>
> >>> Sometimes it's not.
> >>
> >> Confusion with recording formats and odd pathological
> >> recordings noted. It's safe to say that any LP that
> >> sounds better than the corresponding CD is due to some
> >> specific pathological situation.
> >>
> >>> Arny thinks that people
> >>> should listen to something that they hear as less than
> >>> the best.
> >>
> >> Why do you make things like this up, Jenn?
>
> > You seem to be trying to convince me that CDs sound
> > better.
>
> Wrong.
>
> I can only use logical arguments with people who appreciate rational
> thought. That's clearly not you, Jenn.

It's not rational or logical to argue with a person about how she hears
things. You don't hear with my ears/brain.

>
> > I think that this is sometimes not the case.
>
>
> Jenn, your inability to read and comprehend and think rationally is
> demonstrated by your confusion of individial CDs (which are what they are
> made to be) and the CD format (which is what I am talking about).

Incorrect yet again. I've praised several CDs for their sonic quality.

>
> > Therefore you are trying to convince me to listen to
> > something that my ears find inferior.
>
> Therefore Jenn you are too reading skills and logical thinking - challenged
> to be worth discussing audio topics with.

LOL Great sentence there, Arny.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> On May 30, 10:40 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > "Jenn" > wrote in
> >
> > odigy.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > >> message
> >
> > >>.com
> > >>> In article
> > >>> >, "Arny
> > >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > >>>> message
> >
> > >>>>gy.
> > >>>> com
> > >>>>> In article
> > >>>>> >, "Arny
> > >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > >>>>>> message
> >
> > >>>>>>dig
> > >>>>>> y.
> > >>>>>> com
> > >>>>>>> In article
> > >>>>>>> >,
> > >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
> > >>>>>>>> in message
> >
> > >>>>>>>>rod
> > >>>>>>>> ig
> > >>>>>>>> y.
> > >>>>>>>> com
> > >>>>>>>>> In article
> > >>>>>>>>> >,
> > >>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
> > >>>>>>>>>> in message
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>.pr
> > >>>>>>>>>> od
> > >>>>>>>>>> ig
> > >>>>>>>>>> y.
> > >>>>>>>>>> com
> > >>>>>>>>>>> In article
> > >>>>>>>>>>> >,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "wayne" > wrote in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> message
> > ups.com
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope I have not screwed up on purchasing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this Thorens TD170. It's rated =/- .12% DIN
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but I can hear the pitch instability.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Audible flutter and wow is to be expected with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the vinyl format unless you take heroic steps.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>> If one can detect speed variations with a modern
> > >>>>>>>>>>> TT, either the TT or the source is defective.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>> In fact all LPs are highly defective as compared
> > >>>>>>>>>> to the usual digital equivalents.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>> I know that that is true in a variety of ways.
> > >>>>>>>>> Too bad that in the area of instrumental and vocal
> > >>>>>>>>> timbre, LP sometimes gets it more right than does
> > >>>>>>>>> digital.
> >
> > >>>>>>>> That's technically imposible if the recordings are
> > >>>>>>>> properly made. Perhaps you can't detect CDs that
> > >>>>>>>> were improperly made.
> >
> > >>>>>>> What I can detect is that some LP get timbres more
> > >>>>>>> right than any CD that I've heard.
> >
> > >>>>>> That must be due to the added audible vibrato
> > >>>>>> distortion in the LP.
> >
> > >>>>>> That's one thing that CDs don't have that LPs do
> > >>>>>> have.
> >
> > >>>>> I don't care what it's due to. I simply know that
> > >>>>> it's true for my ears.
> >
> > >>>> Proof again that Jenn can't hear wow and flutter when
> > >>>> her TT adds it to her LPs.
> >
> > >>> 1. What makes you think that I can't hear wow and
> > >>> flutter?
> >
> > >> Your comments about perceptions of realistic
> > >> reproduction in the face of audible quantities of it.
> >
> > > I repeat: If you are getting audible quantities of wow
> > > and flutter on good recordings, you're using an old, worn
> > > out, or defective turntable.
> >
> > >>> Why do you make things up?
> >
> > >> No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so
> > >> clearly, Jenn. Take the recent case where you confused a
> > >> rhetorical question with one that deserves an answer.
> > >> You obviously did not think it was a rhetorical
> > >> question, no doubt due to your lack of understanding of
> > >> a common abbreviation contained therein.
> > > That you didn't see the correlation between hearing FM
> > > distortion and good pitch discrimination shows that it
> > > wasn't a rhetorical question.
> >
> > There was no such absence of seeing. Have fun in your little personal
> > universe, Jenn.
> >
> > > At any rate, you're trying
> > > to distract away from the question yet again.
> >
> > No, the issue is settled.
> >
> > > Why do you make things up?
> >
> > Asked and answered.
> >
> > > Who said that I can't hear W&F?
> >
> > You did, Jenn.
> >
> > >>> 2. Everything is a trade off. I guess that you don't
> > >>> realize this.
> >
> > >> Why do you make things up, Jenn?
> > > You certainly haven't shown that you realize it.
> >
> > There was no such absence of realizing. Have fun in your little personal
> > universe, Jenn.
> >
> > > Let's say that I hear W&F on the LPs that I listen to.
> >
> > I see no evidence to support that claim. I see evidence that denies it.
> >
> > >Perhaps
> > > this is less important to me than the negative things
> > > that I hear on CDs.
> >
> > There is nothing negative to hear. The music coming off a CD is sonically
> > indistinguishable from the music that went onto it.
> >
> > > Everything is a trade off.
> >
> > In general yes, but in this case no. Sure the CD format involved
> > trade-offs,
> > but not any in terms of sonic accuracy. In contrast the LP format is chock
> > full of sonic trade-offs. Anybody who can't hear that has to be lost in
> > wishfulness and illusion.
> >
> > >>>> To her, it is more real than real.
> > >>> I have no idea what you mean by this.
> > >> Simple Jenn - you find a sonically perfect medium to be
> > >> less-realistic sounding than a medium with rather
> > >> obvious audible imperfections. You must not hear the
> > >> imperfections. Arguably, the most audible imperfection
> > >> of the LP format is the flutter and wow.
> > > You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically perfect
> > > medium.
> >
> > It's a scientifically demonstrable fact.
> >
> > > Bully for you.
>
> ================================
>
> Krueger answers Jenn:
> "You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically
> perfect medium".
>
> "It's a scientifically demonstrable fact"
>
> If he proclaimed it once he said it a hundred times
> before-(Whatever "sonically transparent" means.)
>
> He insists on reconfirming that the
> experience of hearing to real life musicians playing
> a real-life quartet or a symphony on real-life
> music instruments is meaningless to him.
>
> One wonders why anyone should talk oranges to an
> apple man who knows only loudspeakers, amps. and
> cd. players.
>
> Leave him to it I say. Having nothing to ignorantly
> spout about will be punishment enough.
> Ludovic Mirabel

I know. I don't challenge him on his statements as much as I used to.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ups.com
>
> > "You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically
> > perfect medium".
> >
> > "It's a scientifically demonstrable fact"
> >
> > If he proclaimed it once he said it a hundred times
> > before-(Whatever "sonically transparent" means.)
>
>
> Produce your evidence that contradicts.
>
> > He insists on reconfirming that the
> > experience of hearing to real life musicians playing
> > a real-life quartet or a symphony on real-life
> > music instruments is meaningless to him.
>
> A grotesque lie.
>
> > One wonders why anyone should talk oranges to an
> > apple man who knows only loudspeakers, amps. and
> > cd. players.
>
> Mirabel, in your rush to spew, you forgot about a vast array of live voices
> and acoustic instruments.
>
> I recorded over 200 live choral performances in the past 8 weeks. What did
> you do?

Just a point: you don't mean 200 concert-length performances, right?
You mean mostly 1/2 hour festival-type performances, correct? Just in
the interest of clarity...

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
says...
> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> t

[...]

> > For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
> > music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
> > CD.
>
> Which supports my claim that the CD format is an "overkill" format, and
> so-called hi-rez formats were effectively stacking overkill on top of
> overkill.
>
> > As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
> > driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic timbre.
>
> I notice the implicit blanked condemnation of every lossy-compressed format
> that currently exists, or will ever exist. Perhaps you want to be a bit more
> specific?

I don't know how you can see a "blanked condemnation of every lossy-
compressed format that currently exists, or will ever exist" in my
statement.

I said *nothing* to that effect, and in fact, believe that there are
some very good compression algorithms that can produce excellent
results.

However, my point is that much of what is purchased on line IS inferior
in sound quality to CD, yet people are buying anyway. IOW, sound quality
is not what drives the popularity of a format, convenience is. Hell, in
their day, cassettes sold well!

--
Bill

[Bill Riel]

In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-F50F52.13110330052007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
says...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in
> > message
> >
> > > In article
> > > >, Bill
> > > Riel > wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-6EB1FB.11500630052007
> > >> @newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >> says...
> > >>> In article
> > >>> >, "Arny
> > >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [...]
> > >>
> > >>>> Billions of music lovers have made their choice
> > >>>> of formats, and it is not the LP.
> > >>>
> > >>> Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs
> > >>> over LPs, and billions of music lovers aren't as picky
> > >>> as I am about timbre.
> > >>
> > >> For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
> > >> music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
> > >> CD. As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
> > >> driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic
> > >> timbre.
> >
> > The myth is that lossy compressed formats necessarily diminish sound quality
> > or realistic timbre.
>
> He didn't say that they all do. Some, however, clearly do.

Thank-you!

I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to everyone...

--
Bill

[Jenn]

In article >,
Bill Riel > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> > t
>
> [...]
>
> > > For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
> > > music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
> > > CD.
> >
> > Which supports my claim that the CD format is an "overkill" format, and
> > so-called hi-rez formats were effectively stacking overkill on top of
> > overkill.
> >
> > > As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
> > > driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic timbre.
> >
> > I notice the implicit blanked condemnation of every lossy-compressed format
> > that currently exists, or will ever exist. Perhaps you want to be a bit
> > more
> > specific?
>
> I don't know how you can see a "blanked condemnation of every lossy-
> compressed format that currently exists, or will ever exist" in my
> statement.

Welcome to the "debating trade" as practiced by AK.

>
> I said *nothing* to that effect, and in fact, believe that there are
> some very good compression algorithms that can produce excellent
> results.
>
> However, my point is that much of what is purchased on line IS inferior
> in sound quality to CD, yet people are buying anyway. IOW, sound quality
> is not what drives the popularity of a format, convenience is. Hell, in
> their day, cassettes sold well!
>
> --
> Bill

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 30, 11:47 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> No need to make anything up when you indict yourself so clearly, Jenn.

What is the charge, Arns? Heresy? Treason? Making terroristic threats?

Off to Gitmo with her!

[George M. Middius]

Bill Riel said:

> > Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs over LPs, and
> > billions of music lovers aren't as picky as I am about timbre.
>
> For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of music lovers
> have chosen lossy compressed formats over CD. As you note, convenience
> seems to be the overall driver of popularity, not sound quality or
> realistic timbre.

Nice attempt to flout "debating trade" rules. Drawing unacceptable
conclusions from available evidence is likely to ignite the Krooborg's
snotware.



--

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

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to Snottyborg:

> > Exactly fitting Jenn's prejudices and beliefs in common audio myths.

> Are you denying that some loosy formats sound bad? Or are you just
> picking a fight?

Krooger is now under the control of his "debating trade" module. Truth
and falsity are irrelevant. All that matters to the Beast is continuing
to argue for the sake of arguing.




--

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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 30, 2:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
>> "Jenn" > wrote

> >> Billions of music lovers like the convenience of CDs
> >> over LPs, and billions of music lovers aren't as picky
> >> as I am about timbre.
> > For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
> > music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
> > CD.
>
> Which supports my claim that the CD format is an "overkill" format, and
> so-called hi-rez formats were effectively stacking overkill on top of
> overkill.

Or it supports a claim that the vast majority of people to not care
about sound quality and make their decisions based on transportability
and convenience.

That would be as opposed to people who make their decisions based on
measurements. You know, people like you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 30, 11:49 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> That's a pretty strange situation, but she indicts herself with it at every
> turn.

Stranger still: A disappointed-by-life, not-very-well-liked, insane
elderly man in Detroit who can't seem to come to grips with the fact
that some people's preferences are different than his and obsesses
about it.

Isn't that almost stranger than fiction?

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Riel" > wrote in message
t

> I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
> everyone...

Your back-pedaling was clear.

[[email protected]]

On May 30, 12:36 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com
>
> > "You obviously believe that CDs are a sonically
> > perfect medium".
>
> > "It's a scientifically demonstrable fact"
>
> > If he proclaimed it once he said it a hundred times
> > before-(Whatever "sonically transparent" means.)
>
> Produce your evidence that contradicts.
>
> > He insists on reconfirming that the
> > experience of hearing to real life musicians playing
> > a real-life quartet or a symphony on real-life
> > music instruments is meaningless to him.
>
> A grotesque lie.
>
> > One wonders why anyone should talk oranges to an
> > apple man who knows only loudspeakers, amps. and
> > cd. players.
>
> Mirabel, in your rush to spew, you forgot about a vast array of live voices
> and acoustic instruments.
>
> I recorded over 200 live choral performances in the past 8 weeks. What did
> you do?

------------------------------------------------
Krueger asks:
"I recorded over 200 live choral performances in the past 8 weeks.
What did you do?"
I recorded on cassette tapes what 200 patients had to say to me about
their pains and aches. But I have to humbly confess: Not much
commercial success so far.
But you explained how to measure artistic success. As you said:
"Billions of music lovers have made their choice of formats, and it is
not the LP"
That proves something, no? Billions bought your recordings of your
church choir singing their favourite hymns. You're greater than
Mozart. Tphoo- who cares about silly old Mozart? You're greater than
the Beatles.
Regards Ludovic Mirabel

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
says...
> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> t
>
> > I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
> > everyone...
>
> Your back-pedaling was clear.

Absolutely - provided you define 'back-pedaling' as correcting the
erroneous statement you attributed to me.

--
Bill

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 30, 7:12 pm, Bill Riel > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
> > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> t
>
> > > I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
> > > everyone...
>
> > Your back-pedaling was clear.
>
> Absolutely - provided you define 'back-pedaling' as correcting the
> erroneous statement you attributed to me.

i don't know how to break this to you, but the person you're talking
to is insane.

Just an FYI...

[John Atkinson]

On May 30, 8:14 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> wrote:
> On May 30, 7:12 pm, Bill Riel > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> > t
> > > > I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
> > > > everyone...
>
> > > Your back-pedaling was clear.
>
> > Absolutely - provided you define 'back-pedaling' as correcting the
> > erroneous statement you attributed to me.
>
> i don't know how to break this to you, but the person you're talking
> to is insane.

More on the Arny Kruegers of the on-line world, from a reformed troll:
http://www.drewspeak.com/?p=53

Money quote: "the Internet troll exists by the grace of those who give
him a voice; without that, he is nothing."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> On May 30, 8:14 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> > wrote:
>> On May 30, 7:12 pm, Bill Riel > wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> says...
>>>> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
>>>> t
>>>>> I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
>>>>> everyone...
>>
>>>> Your back-pedaling was clear.
>>
>>> Absolutely - provided you define 'back-pedaling' as
>>> correcting the erroneous statement you attributed to me.
>>
>> i don't know how to break this to you, but the person
>> you're talking to is insane.
>
> More on the Arny Kruegers of the on-line world, from a
> reformed troll: http://www.drewspeak.com/?p=53

As usual, the cited article says nothing about me or people like me. It does
however describe a number of other RAO regulars, past and present.

> Money quote: "the Internet troll exists by the grace of
> those who give him a voice; without that, he is nothing."

Not bad as it stands, but it does not include the fact that one gives a
troll an added voice by responding to him. IME, this is a critical piece of
wisdom.

The article itself shows quite a bit of wisdom, some of which John would do
well to put into practice. Maybe in his next life... ;-)

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

> More on the Arny Kruegers of the on-line world, from a reformed troll:
> http://www.drewspeak.com/?p=53

An edifying essay, to be sure, but nary a mention of feces. The Krooborg
is thus certain to klaim the author is not referring to him.

> Money quote: "the Internet troll exists by the grace of those who give
> him a voice; without that, he is nothing."

Agreed.™ I hope Jenn will take note.




--

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

[Bill Riel]

In article om>,
says...
> On May 30, 7:12 pm, Bill Riel > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >
> > > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> > t
> >
> > > > I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
> > > > everyone...
> >
> > > Your back-pedaling was clear.
> >
> > Absolutely - provided you define 'back-pedaling' as correcting the
> > erroneous statement you attributed to me.
>
> i don't know how to break this to you, but the person you're talking
> to is insane.
>
> Just an FYI...

Heh, thanks. I can see that I am in error attempting any sort of
rational conversation with said person, so I'll refrain from doing so.

--
Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Riel" > wrote in message
t
> In article >,
> says...
>> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
>> t
>
> [...]
>
>>> For that matter, one could also state that "billions" of
>>> music lovers have chosen lossy compressed formats over
>>> CD.
>>
>> Which supports my claim that the CD format is an
>> "overkill" format, and so-called hi-rez formats were
>> effectively stacking overkill on top of overkill.
>>
>>> As you note, convenience seems to be the overall
>>> driver of popularity, not sound quality or realistic
>>> timbre.
>>
>> I notice the implicit blanked condemnation of every
>> lossy-compressed format that currently exists, or will
>> ever exist. Perhaps you want to be a bit more specific?
>
> I don't know how you can see a "blanked condemnation of
> every lossy- compressed format that currently exists, or
> will ever exist" in my statement.

Something about the absence of any qualifiers at all. For example, if you
would have said "low bitrate lossy compressed formats", then you wouldn't
have made a blanket condemnation.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 31, 7:02 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in ooglegroups.com

> > On May 30, 8:14 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

> >> i don't know how to break this to you, but the person
> >> you're talking to is insane.
>
> > More on the Arny Kruegers of the on-line world, from a
> > reformed troll:http://www.drewspeak.com/?p=53
>
> As usual, the cited article says nothing about me or people like me. It does
> however describe a number of other RAO regulars, past and present.

Why, Arns, you're right!

Nowhere in that article does it mention people who are friendly,
thrifty, brave, reverent, kind, cheerful...

If you read between the lines, though, there is an inkling towards
those who are insane. So the shoe fits.

> > Money quote: "the Internet troll exists by the grace of
> > those who give him a voice; without that, he is nothing."
>
> Not bad as it stands, but it does not include the fact that one gives a
> troll an added voice by responding to him. IME, this is a critical piece of
> wisdom.
>
> The article itself shows quite a bit of wisdom, some of which John would do
> well to put into practice. Maybe in his next life... ;-)

You lose again.

[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

John Atkinson > wrote:
: On May 30, 8:14 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
: > wrote:
:> On May 30, 7:12 pm, Bill Riel > wrote:
:> > In article >,
:> > says...
:> > > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
:> > t
:> > > > I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
:> > > > everyone...
:>
:> > > Your back-pedaling was clear.
:>
:> > Absolutely - provided you define 'back-pedaling' as correcting the
:> > erroneous statement you attributed to me.
:>
:> i don't know how to break this to you, but the person you're talking
:> to is insane.

: More on the Arny Kruegers of the on-line world, from a reformed troll:
: http://www.drewspeak.com/?p=53

That article describes malicious trolls. There's a bunch of them
here, but you're way off base characterizing Arny Krueger as one.

(For a magazine editor to say something like that is, well,
interesting, though not in the good way).

I've been lurking on this group (and other rec.audio.* groups), and
I have to say I've learned more from Mr. Krueger's posts than from
everyone else's combined. Yours included.

: Money quote: "the Internet troll exists by the grace of those who give
: him a voice; without that, he is nothing."

: John Atkinson
: Editor, Stereophile


-- Andy Barss

[Jenn]

In article >,
Andrew Barss > wrote:

> John Atkinson > wrote:
> : On May 30, 8:14 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> : > wrote:
> :> On May 30, 7:12 pm, Bill Riel > wrote:
> :> > In article >,
> :> > says...
> :> > > "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> :> > t
> :> > > > I thought my point was clear, but obviously not to
> :> > > > everyone...
> :>
> :> > > Your back-pedaling was clear.
> :>
> :> > Absolutely - provided you define 'back-pedaling' as correcting the
> :> > erroneous statement you attributed to me.
> :>
> :> i don't know how to break this to you, but the person you're talking
> :> to is insane.
>
> : More on the Arny Kruegers of the on-line world, from a reformed troll:
> : http://www.drewspeak.com/?p=53
>
> That article describes malicious trolls. There's a bunch of them
> here, but you're way off base characterizing Arny Krueger as one.
>
> (For a magazine editor to say something like that is, well,
> interesting, though not in the good way).
>
> I've been lurking on this group (and other rec.audio.* groups), and
> I have to say I've learned more from Mr. Krueger's posts than from
> everyone else's combined. Yours included.
>
> : Money quote: "the Internet troll exists by the grace of those who give
> : him a voice; without that, he is nothing."
>
> : John Atkinson
> : Editor, Stereophile
>
>
> -- Andy Barss

One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am glad that you
have. Just be careful not to tell him that you hold a different opinion
than he does on subjective matters. As to how John, myself, and others
react to Arny, perhaps a look at the Google record would help you gain
context.

Best wishes to you.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to a certain nonmalicious troll:

> > I've been lurking on this group (and other rec.audio.* groups), and
> > I have to say I've learned more from Mr. Krueger's posts than from
> > everyone else's combined. Yours included.

> One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am glad that you
> have. Just be careful not to tell him that you hold a different opinion
> than he does on subjective matters. As to how John, myself, and others
> react to Arny, perhaps a look at the Google record would help you gain
> context.

Your reaction to this transparently insincere troll is much more
indulgent than mine. When someone says he "learns" from the Krooborg, I
roll my eyes and wonder if he's a hopeless nerd, or hopelessly stupid,
or both.




--

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

[Joe Duffy]

In article >,
George M. Middius <do not reply> wrote:
>
>
>Jenn said to a certain nonmalicious troll:
>
>> > I've been lurking on this group (and other rec.audio.* groups), and
>> > I have to say I've learned more from Mr. Krueger's posts than from
>> > everyone else's combined. Yours included.
>
>> One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am glad that you
>> have. Just be careful not to tell him that you hold a different opinion
>> than he does on subjective matters. As to how John, myself, and others
>> react to Arny, perhaps a look at the Google record would help you gain
>> context.
>
>Your reaction to this transparently insincere troll is much more
>indulgent than mine. When someone says he "learns" from the Krooborg, I
>roll my eyes and wonder if he's a hopeless nerd, or hopelessly stupid,
>or both.


Indeed.
It would be akin to someone stating that they
learned something of audio from say, you.



Joe

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew Barss" > wrote in message


> I've been lurking on this group (and other rec.audio.*
> groups), and I have to say I've learned more from Mr.
> Krueger's posts than from everyone else's combined.

I'm humbled.

There's some huge trolls on RAO, but due to his ongoing vendetta against me,
no doubt heightened by his lackluster performance at the HE2005 debate,
Atkinson doesn't seem to be able to see who they are.

> Yours included.

John just doesn't post much here. I wonder if half or more of his last
year's posts here were about me. I'm just plain not worth that much of his
attention. He'd do better if he would focus on audio. Of course given his
day job, maybe he gets burned out writing about audio.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg dances an Irony Jig.

> I'm humbled.

Thanks Mr. Krooger for, admitting Mr. Krooger that you still eat ****
with the best of them Mr. Krooborg.




--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


> One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am
> glad that you have.

Your inability to learn what you don't want to learn is a big part of your
problem here, Jen.

> Just be careful not to tell him that
> you hold a different opinion than he does on subjective
> matters.

A false claim that is a big part of your problem, Jenn. I don't care that
you have fantasies about vinyl. I just have fun showing that they are based
on your incurable ignorance about audio.

> As to how John, myself, and others react to
> Arny, perhaps a look at the Google record would help you
> gain context.

Google shows that Jenn trolls me from time to time with her fantasies about
vinyl, and I have fun showing that they are ast least partially due to her
incurable (shall we say bone-headed) ignorance about audio technology.

[George M. Middius]

The Doofster disses his erstwhile heroborg.

> >Your reaction to this transparently insincere troll is much more
> >indulgent than mine. When someone says he "learns" from the Krooborg, I
> >roll my eyes and wonder if he's a hopeless nerd, or hopelessly stupid,
> >or both.

> Indeed.
> It would be akin to someone stating that they
> learned something of audio from say, you.

Are you awake again, Doof? I'm sure we all hope this remission lasts a
while. It's a crime if a fish can't drink and a chimney can't smoke.





--

See the history of Joe Doofy's family here:
http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RAO_Toons/Doofstory/Lineage.htm

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am
> > glad that you have.
>
> Your inability to learn what you don't want to learn is a big part of your
> problem here, Jen.

1. And there you have it, Andy. Once you are the "enemy", you can't
even give Arny a compliment.
2. Arny, just like anyone, I learn what I want to learn. What haven't
I "learned" that you believe I should learn?

>
> > Just be careful not to tell him that
> > you hold a different opinion than he does on subjective
> > matters.
>
> A false claim that is a big part of your problem, Jenn. I don't care that
> you have fantasies about vinyl. I just have fun showing that they are based
> on your incurable ignorance about audio.

And I have fun letting you know that what is important in audio is what
an individual hears.

>
> > As to how John, myself, and others react to
> > Arny, perhaps a look at the Google record would help you
> > gain context.
>
> Google shows that Jenn trolls me from time to time with her fantasies about
> vinyl,

1. I react to what YOU say about vinyl; I don't troll you.
2. I don't have "fantasies" about vinyl. I simply like what I hear on
some of them. This ****es you off for some reason.

> and I have fun showing that they are ast least partially due to her
> incurable (shall we say bone-headed) ignorance about audio technology.

You evidently think that if I knew more about audio technology, things
would sound different to me. Odd, that.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > and I have fun[sic] showing that they are ast least partially due to her
> > incurable (shall we say bone-headed) ignorance about audio technology.

Here's a picture of Arnii "having fun":
http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RAO_Toons/Fun_Fun_Fun.jpg

> You evidently think that if I knew more about audio technology, things
> would sound different to me. Odd, that.

You wouldn't find it odd if you got that secularism out of your brain
and adopted a religious outlook. If Arnii Krooger had been in Jonestown,
"Father" Jones would have committed suicide a lot earlier, and the death
toll would have topped out at 1.




--

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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 1, 8:55 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Andrew Barss" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > I've been lurking on this group (and other rec.audio.*
> > groups), and I have to say I've learned more from Mr.
> > Krueger's posts than from everyone else's combined.
>
> I'm humbled.

Liar.

> There's some huge trolls on RAO, but due to his ongoing vendetta against me,
> no doubt heightened by his lackluster performance at the HE2005 debate,
> Atkinson doesn't seem to be able to see who they are.

Just keep repeating that, Arns, and maybe somebody else will believe
you.

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>> > One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am
>> > glad that you have.
>>
>> Your inability to learn what you don't want to learn is a big part of your
>> problem here, Jen.
>
> 1. And there you have it, Andy. Once you are the "enemy", you can't
> even give Arny a compliment.
> 2. Arny, just like anyone, I learn what I want to learn.

I find that kind of an odd statement. I learn what is true whether
I want it to be or not.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 1, 3:14 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
>
>
> >> > One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am
> >> > glad that you have.
>
> >> Your inability to learn what you don't want to learn is a big part of your
> >> problem here, Jen.
>
> > 1. And there you have it, Andy. Once you are the "enemy", you can't
> > even give Arny a compliment.
> > 2. Arny, just like anyone, I learn what I want to learn.
>
> I find that kind of an odd statement. I learn what is true whether
> I want it to be or not.

Um, 2pid, your 'brain' is showing again.

If your statement is true, you do not listen to LPs. That is because,
according to Arns, it is "true" that LPs cannot sound good.

Perhaps Jenn is not interested in learning what types of distortion in
what quantities are measured on LPs, and instead chooses to go with
what her ears tell her sounds good to her, regardless of whether it is
"true" or not in good old insane Arns' opinion.

BTW, can you tell me the true mating ritual of the Rhino? Hopefully
you won't use the "I don't care, and I don't want to learn about it"
excuse...

LoL!

[George M. Middius]

Yapper makes a confession.

> > 2. Arny, just like anyone, I learn what I want to learn.

> I find that kind of an odd statement. I learn what is true whether
> I want it to be or not.

You're still the King of the Idiots, Scooter. Yappity-yappity-boo!




--

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

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>
> >> > One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am
> >> > glad that you have.
> >>
> >> Your inability to learn what you don't want to learn is a big part of your
> >> problem here, Jen.
> >
> > 1. And there you have it, Andy. Once you are the "enemy", you can't
> > even give Arny a compliment.
> > 2. Arny, just like anyone, I learn what I want to learn.
>
> I find that kind of an odd statement. I learn what is true whether
> I want it to be or not.
>
> ScottW

You learn what you don't want to learn? Come on up and I'll go over
with you the millions of possible tone rows based on 12 pitch classes.

[vlad]

On Jun 1, 2:45 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
> "ScottW" > wrote:
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > >> message
> > .
> > >> com
>
> > >> > One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am
> > >> > glad that you have.
>
> > >> Your inability to learn what you don't want to learn is a big part of your
> > >> problem here, Jen.
>
> > > 1. And there you have it, Andy. Once you are the "enemy", you can't
> > > even give Arny a compliment.
> > > 2. Arny, just like anyone, I learn what I want to learn.
>
> > I find that kind of an odd statement. I learn what is true whether
> > I want it to be or not.
>
> > ScottW
>
> You learn what you don't want to learn? Come on up and I'll go over
> with you the millions of possible tone rows based on 12 pitch classes.


No, Jenn, you got it all wrong. For eaxample, I am not interested in
learning "millions of possible tone rows based on 12 pitch classes".
And I believe that you are an expert in these kinds of things. So if I
will have a question about tones, I will ask you as an expert.

The problem arises when you are telling knowlegeable people that LP is
a superior (in comparison with CD) sound transfer medium. Your ears
are insufficient to make a point. That's it.

And cool down. Whatever you hear from LP is your own business. Just
stay in boundaries of your expertise and do not argue with experts
about things that you have no clue about.

vova

[John Atkinson]

On Jun 1, 7:28 pm, vlad > wrote:
> Whatever you hear from LP is your own business. Just
> stay in boundaries of your expertise and do not argue with
> experts about things that you have no clue about.

With respect, Vlad, Jen hasn't been arguing with experts. And
with respect to LP, it was no less a digital luminary than
Meridian's Bob Stuart who pointed out that the LP sound
surprisingly good because its error vs frequency signature maps
human hearing sensitivity. Thus, while it is demonstrably worse
than 16-bit LPCM in the bass and the top octave, it is actually
still good enough. And is it is actually better than 16-bit LPCM
in the presence region, where the ear is most sensitive.

By contrast 16-bit LPCM is way better than it need be in the bass
and top octave but not quite good enough in the presence region.

So, given good mastering (and yes, that is a can of worms) and
a good LP player (another can of worms), it is entirely possible
that someone will prefer the presentation of LP.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

vladborg nattered:

> The problem arises when you are telling knowlegeable people that LP is
> a superior (in comparison with CD) sound transfer medium. Your ears
> are insufficient to make a point. That's it.

Did something happen in the Hive? A new anti-nanite spray that sent all
you lesser 'borgs scurrying out into the daylight, maybe?




--

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

[Jenn]

In article om>,
vlad > wrote:

> On Jun 1, 2:45 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> >
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > .
> > >com
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > >> message
> > >
> > > >>gy.
> > > >> com
> >
> > > >> > One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am
> > > >> > glad that you have.
> >
> > > >> Your inability to learn what you don't want to learn is a big part of
> > > >> your
> > > >> problem here, Jen.
> >
> > > > 1. And there you have it, Andy. Once you are the "enemy", you can't
> > > > even give Arny a compliment.
> > > > 2. Arny, just like anyone, I learn what I want to learn.
> >
> > > I find that kind of an odd statement. I learn what is true whether
> > > I want it to be or not.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > You learn what you don't want to learn? Come on up and I'll go over
> > with you the millions of possible tone rows based on 12 pitch classes.
>
>
> No, Jenn, you got it all wrong. For eaxample, I am not interested in
> learning "millions of possible tone rows based on 12 pitch classes".
> And I believe that you are an expert in these kinds of things. So if I
> will have a question about tones, I will ask you as an expert.
>
> The problem arises when you are telling knowlegeable people that LP is
> a superior (in comparison with CD) sound transfer medium. Your ears
> are insufficient to make a point. That's it.

No Vlad, the problem arises when you raise yet another straw man
argument. I've NEVER claimed that LP is a superior sound transfer
medium. Once AGAIN for the record: There are several fine sounding CDs
that I've heard and own. Most CDs sound better than most LPs that I've
heard. But the best sound that I've heard has come from LPs. And OF
COURSE my ears are the final arbitrator! I only have my ears to listen
with; not yours, not Arny's.

>
> And cool down. Whatever you hear from LP is your own business. Just
> stay in boundaries of your expertise and do not argue with experts
> about things that you have no clue about.

I'm an expert on the issue of what sounds best to me. That's all, and
that's all I've claimed. No amount of expert testimony concerning the
technical superiority will change what my ears hear. You and Arny
should stop saying that I claim what I do not claim.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 1, 6:59 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


> Google shows that Jenn trolls me from time to time with her fantasies about
> vinyl, and I have fun showing that they are ast least partially due to her
> incurable (shall we say bone-headed) ignorance about audio technology.

Google shows that you trolled the rest of us with your fantasies of
having received kiddie pron.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 1, 9:09 am, Jenn > wrote:


>
> You evidently think that if I knew more about audio technology, things
> would sound different to me. Odd, that.

Not really, its just another type of bias.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 1, 9:33 am, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Jenn said:
>
> > > and I have fun[sic] showing that they are ast least partially due to her
> > > incurable (shall we say bone-headed) ignorance about audio technology.
>
> Here's a picture of Arnii "having fun":http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RAO_Toons/Fun_Fun_Fun.jpg
>
> > You evidently think that if I knew more about audio technology, things
> > would sound different to me. Odd, that.
>
> You wouldn't find it odd if you got that secularism out of your brain
> and adopted a religious outlook. If Arnii Krooger had been in Jonestown,
> "Father" Jones would have committed suicide a lot earlier, and the death
> toll would have topped out at 1.
>
Odd that. I didn't know they had city buses down there.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On Jun 1, 9:09 am, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
> >
> > You evidently think that if I knew more about audio technology, things
> > would sound different to me. Odd, that.
>
> Not really, its just another type of bias.

True

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 5:22 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
>
>
>
>
> vlad > wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 2:45 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article >,
>
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > .
> > > >com
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > > >> message
> > > >
> > > > >>gy.
> > > > >> com
>
> > > > >> > One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am
> > > > >> > glad that you have.
>
> > > > >> Your inability to learn what you don't want to learn is a big part of
> > > > >> your
> > > > >> problem here, Jen.
>
> > > > > 1. And there you have it, Andy. Once you are the "enemy", you can't
> > > > > even give Arny a compliment.
> > > > > 2. Arny, just like anyone, I learn what I want to learn.
>
> > > > I find that kind of an odd statement. I learn what is true whether
> > > > I want it to be or not.
>
> > > > ScottW
>
> > > You learn what you don't want to learn? Come on up and I'll go over
> > > with you the millions of possible tone rows based on 12 pitch classes.
>
> > No, Jenn, you got it all wrong. For eaxample, I am not interested in
> > learning "millions of possible tone rows based on 12 pitch classes".
> > And I believe that you are an expert in these kinds of things. So if I
> > will have a question about tones, I will ask you as an expert.
>
> > The problem arises when you are telling knowlegeable people that LP is
> > a superior (in comparison with CD) sound transfer medium. Your ears
> > are insufficient to make a point. That's it.
>
> No Vlad, the problem arises when you raise yet another straw man
> argument. I've NEVER claimed that LP is a superior sound transfer
> medium. Once AGAIN for the record: There are several fine sounding CDs
> that I've heard and own. Most CDs sound better than most LPs that I've
> heard. But the best sound that I've heard has come from LPs. And OF
> COURSE my ears are the final arbitrator! I only have my ears to listen
> with; not yours, not Arny's.
>
>
>
> > And cool down. Whatever you hear from LP is your own business. Just
> > stay in boundaries of your expertise and do not argue with experts
> > about things that you have no clue about.
>
> I'm an expert on the issue of what sounds best to me. That's all, and
> that's all I've claimed. No amount of expert testimony concerning the
> technical superiority will change what my ears hear. You and Arny
> should stop saying that I claim what I do not claim.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There should be no reason to add to what you so lucidly stated.
But you should be under no illusion that got through to the Vlads ,
Vovas and Kruegers techno boys who can not get into their skulls that
one does not care a damn about what their school textbooks have to
say.about music reproduction ( amended in the next edition they did
not yet got to read).

They KNOW that any CD sounds "better" than any LP. Leave them
to it.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>> One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am
>>> glad that you have.
>>
>> Your inability to learn what you don't want to learn is
>> a big part of your problem here, Jen.
>
> 1. And there you have it, Andy. Once you are the
> "enemy", you can't even give Arny a compliment.

The comment was addressed to you Jen, not Andy.

> 2. Arny, just like anyone, I learn what I want to learn.

That's what you say, but your behavior tells a different story.

> What haven't I "learned" that you believe I should learn?

(1) Effective critical thinking.

(2) Enough about audio to not be dangerous to yourself and others.

>> You must be careful not to tell him that
>>> you hold a different opinion than he does on subjective
>>> matters.
>>
>> A false claim that is a big part of your problem, Jenn.
>> I don't care that you have fantasies about vinyl. I just
>> have fun showing that they are based on your incurable
>> ignorance about audio.

> And I have fun letting you know that what is important in
> audio is what an individual hears.

What's important to you is only important to you unless it has general
application.

>>> As to how John, myself, and others react to
>>> Arny, perhaps a look at the Google record would help you
>>> gain context.

>> Google shows that Jenn trolls me from time to time with
>> her fantasies about vinyl,

> 1. I react to what YOU say about vinyl; I don't troll
> you.

Not generally true.

> 2. I don't have "fantasies" about vinyl. I simply like
> what I hear on some of them. This ****es you off for
> some reason.

Not true at all.

>> and I have fun showing that they are ast least partially
>> due to her incurable (shall we say bone-headed)
>> ignorance about audio technology.

> You evidently think that if I knew more about audio
> technology, things would sound different to me.

You might learn not to brag about figuratively wetting your pants in public,
Jenn.

> Odd, that.

Yes Jenn, that it is so important to you to discredit your ears is very odd.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com

> On Jun 1, 7:28 pm, vlad > wrote:

>> Whatever you hear from LP is your own business. Just
>> stay in boundaries of your expertise and do not argue
>> with experts about things that you have no clue about.

> With respect, Vlad, Jen hasn't been arguing with experts.
> And with respect to LP, it was no less a digital luminary
> than Meridian's Bob Stuart who pointed out that the LP
> sound surprisingly good because its error vs frequency
> signature maps human hearing sensitivity.

That's like saying that a 1954 Cadillac handles surprisingly well given its
primitive suspension design.

>Thus, while it
> is demonstrably worse than 16-bit LPCM in the bass and
> the top octave, it is actually still good enough.

Not in general.

> And is it is actually better than 16-bit LPCM in the presence
> region, where the ear is most sensitive.

Not if the 16 bit LPCM is properly quantized.

> By contrast 16-bit LPCM is way better than it need be in
> the bass and top octave but not quite good enough in the
> presence region.

Not if the 16 bit LPCM is properly quantized.

John, I see that you never really understood what all of those A, B, C, &
etc curves were for on that fancy Meridian digital processor you bragged
about using. Hint: they were put there for me to have fun with you, today.
;-)

> It is entirely possible that someone will prefer the presentation of LP.

It is entirely possible that someone will prefer the handling of a 1954
Cadillac.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> On Jun 1, 7:28 pm, vlad > wrote:
>> Whatever you hear from LP is your own business. Just
>> stay in boundaries of your expertise and do not argue
>> with experts about things that you have no clue about.
>
> With respect, Vlad, Jen hasn't been arguing with experts.

Well compared to you John, there are a wealth of areas of audio where I'm an
expert and you're not. This post seems to contain one that is detailed in
my other response. Something about spectral shaping of quantization
noise...

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg is incensed and enraged.

> > What haven't I "learned" that you believe I should learn?

> (2) Enough about audio to not be dangerous to yourself and others.

Just imagine Turdy "having fun" as he throws a towering drama-queen
hissy fit.....




--

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

[John Atkinson]

On Jun 2, 6:45 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in oglegroups.com
> > On Jun 1, 7:28 pm, vlad > wrote:
> >> Whatever you hear from LP is your own business. Just
> >> stay in boundaries of your expertise and do not argue
> >> with experts about things that you have no clue about.
>
> > With respect, Vlad, Jen hasn't been arguing with experts.
>
> Well compared to you John, there are a wealth of areas of audio
> where I'm an expert and you're not.

:-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>
> >>> One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am
> >>> glad that you have.
> >>
> >> Your inability to learn what you don't want to learn is
> >> a big part of your problem here, Jen.
> >
> > 1. And there you have it, Andy. Once you are the
> > "enemy", you can't even give Arny a compliment.
>
> The comment was addressed to you Jen, not Andy.

Obviously. I'm pointing out to Andy what a sweetheart you are.

>
> > 2. Arny, just like anyone, I learn what I want to learn.
>
> That's what you say, but your behavior tells a different story.

lol Examples?

>
> > What haven't I "learned" that you believe I should learn?
>
> (1) Effective critical thinking.

lol Examples?

>
> (2) Enough about audio to not be dangerous to yourself and others.

I'm learning exactly what I wish to learn; no more and no less.

>
> >> You must be careful not to tell him that
> >>> you hold a different opinion than he does on subjective
> >>> matters.
> >>
> >> A false claim that is a big part of your problem, Jenn.
> >> I don't care that you have fantasies about vinyl. I just
> >> have fun showing that they are based on your incurable
> >> ignorance about audio.
>
> > And I have fun letting you know that what is important in
> > audio is what an individual hears.
>
> What's important to you is only important to you unless it has general
> application.

Issues of reliability and cost aside, what is as important as how your
rig sounds to you?

>
> >>> As to how John, myself, and others react to
> >>> Arny, perhaps a look at the Google record would help you
> >>> gain context.
>
> >> Google shows that Jenn trolls me from time to time with
> >> her fantasies about vinyl,
>
> > 1. I react to what YOU say about vinyl; I don't troll
> > you.
>
> Not generally true.

Absolutely true. Please give a recent example of me mentioning
("trolling you") vinyl other than in reaction to you, save the
occasional mention of a good LP that I have found.

>
> > 2. I don't have "fantasies" about vinyl. I simply like
> > what I hear on some of them. This ****es you off for
> > some reason.
>
> Not true at all.

The evidence indicates otherwise.

>
> >> and I have fun showing that they are ast least partially
> >> due to her incurable (shall we say bone-headed)
> >> ignorance about audio technology.
>
> > You evidently think that if I knew more about audio
> > technology, things would sound different to me.
>
> You might learn not to brag about figuratively wetting your pants in public,
> Jenn.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

>
> > Odd, that.
>
> Yes Jenn, that it is so important to you to discredit your ears is very odd.

My ears are quite good, thanks.

[vlad]

On Jun 1, 4:41 pm, John Atkinson >
wrote:
> On Jun 1, 7:28 pm, vlad > wrote:
>
> > Whatever you hear from LP is your own business. Just
> > stay in boundaries of your expertise and do not argue with
> > experts about things that you have no clue about.
>
> With respect, Vlad, Jen hasn't been arguing with experts. And
> with respect to LP, it was no less a digital luminary than
> Meridian's Bob Stuart who pointed out that the LP sound
> surprisingly good because its error vs frequency signature maps
> human hearing sensitivity.

Can you, please, provide direct quote and reference to the source of
the quote? Otherwise there is always possibility that you are
reinterpreting him to support your agenda.

>Thus, while it is demonstrably worse
> than 16-bit LPCM in the bass and the top octave,

So there are areas where LP is worse then CD technically?

>it is actually
> still good enough. And is it is actually better than 16-bit LPCM
> in the presence region, where the ear is most sensitive.

I love this vague language. Can you tell us in more details where
this 'presence' region is? Frequency range would be a good start. Also
reference to the work establishing ear sensitivity in this 'presence'
region would help.

Actually, I am not surprised with your vague language. You livelihood
depends on it. The purpose of you your magazine is to peddle
overpriced, high-markup gear to your audience. And analog equipment
(tubes, TT's, LP's) is a very lucrative area for snake oil salesmen
buying ads in your rag.

>
> By contrast 16-bit LPCM is way better than it need be in the bass
> and top octave but not quite good enough in the presence region.
>
> So, given good mastering (and yes, that is a can of worms) and
> a good LP player (another can of worms), it is entirely possible
> that someone will prefer the presentation of LP.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Cannot argue with this. The personal preference is the personal
preference. Everybody is entitled to his own.

Jane stated openly in this group at least twice that she does not
care about distortion (even gross one) in a sound if it pleases her
ear.

My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
original did not sound pretty.

vova

[vlad]

On Jun 1, 5:22 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
>
>
> vlad > wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 2:45 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article >,
>
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > .
> > > >com
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > > >> message
> > > >
> > > > >>gy.
> > > > >> com
>
> > > > >> > One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am
> > > > >> > glad that you have.
>
> > > > >> Your inability to learn what you don't want to learn is a big part of
> > > > >> your
> > > > >> problem here, Jen.
>
> > > > > 1. And there you have it, Andy. Once you are the "enemy", you can't
> > > > > even give Arny a compliment.
> > > > > 2. Arny, just like anyone, I learn what I want to learn.
>
> > > > I find that kind of an odd statement. I learn what is true whether
> > > > I want it to be or not.
>
> > > > ScottW
>
> > > You learn what you don't want to learn? Come on up and I'll go over
> > > with you the millions of possible tone rows based on 12 pitch classes.
>
> > No, Jenn, you got it all wrong. For eaxample, I am not interested in
> > learning "millions of possible tone rows based on 12 pitch classes".
> > And I believe that you are an expert in these kinds of things. So if I
> > will have a question about tones, I will ask you as an expert.
>
> > The problem arises when you are telling knowlegeable people that LP is
> > a superior (in comparison with CD) sound transfer medium. Your ears
> > are insufficient to make a point. That's it.
>
> No Vlad, the problem arises when you raise yet another straw man
> argument. I've NEVER claimed that LP is a superior sound transfer
> medium.

Very good, we are making progress. This statement is a drastic
departure from your earlier statements.

>Once AGAIN for the record: There are several fine sounding CDs
> that I've heard and own. Most CDs sound better than most LPs that I've
> heard.

Jenn, I almost fell down form my chair in astonishment.

>But the best sound that I've heard has come from LPs.

No, not "the best sound". The sound that you liked most came from LP.
See the difference?

>And OF COURSE my ears are the final arbitrator! I only have my ears to listen
> with; not yours, not Arny's.
>
>

Jennifer, I totally support your right to use your ears as a final
arbiter. And I will defend it to the last drop of blood (yours).

>
> > And cool down. Whatever you hear from LP is your own business. Just
> > stay in boundaries of your expertise and do not argue with experts
> > about things that you have no clue about.
>
> I'm an expert on the issue of what sounds best to me. That's all, and
> that's all I've claimed. No amount of expert testimony concerning the
> technical superiority will change what my ears hear. You and Arny
> should stop saying that I claim what I do not claim.

This statement is trivial. Nobody argues with it. You have a right to
stick with outdated obsolete technology, whatever it is. I support
this right of yours

Just, for the record - next time when you will make a technical claim
about superiority of LP I will quote this post to you

vova

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
vlad > wrote:

> On Jun 1, 5:22 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> >
> >
> >
> > vlad > wrote:
> > > On Jun 1, 2:45 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > >igy.
> > > > >com
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > > > >> message
> > > > >
> > > > > >>rodi
> > > > > >>gy.
> > > > > >> com
> >
> > > > > >> > One CAN learn a great deal from Arny, and I, for one, am
> > > > > >> > glad that you have.
> >
> > > > > >> Your inability to learn what you don't want to learn is a big part
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> your
> > > > > >> problem here, Jen.
> >
> > > > > > 1. And there you have it, Andy. Once you are the "enemy", you
> > > > > > can't
> > > > > > even give Arny a compliment.
> > > > > > 2. Arny, just like anyone, I learn what I want to learn.
> >
> > > > > I find that kind of an odd statement. I learn what is true whether
> > > > > I want it to be or not.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > You learn what you don't want to learn? Come on up and I'll go over
> > > > with you the millions of possible tone rows based on 12 pitch classes.
> >
> > > No, Jenn, you got it all wrong. For eaxample, I am not interested in
> > > learning "millions of possible tone rows based on 12 pitch classes".
> > > And I believe that you are an expert in these kinds of things. So if I
> > > will have a question about tones, I will ask you as an expert.
> >
> > > The problem arises when you are telling knowlegeable people that LP is
> > > a superior (in comparison with CD) sound transfer medium. Your ears
> > > are insufficient to make a point. That's it.
> >
> > No Vlad, the problem arises when you raise yet another straw man
> > argument. I've NEVER claimed that LP is a superior sound transfer
> > medium.
>
> Very good, we are making progress. This statement is a drastic
> departure from your earlier statements.

No, it absolutely is NOT. Please feel free to provide a quote where I
have claimed that LP is a superior sound transfer medium.

>
> >Once AGAIN for the record: There are several fine sounding CDs
> > that I've heard and own. Most CDs sound better than most LPs that I've
> > heard.
>
> Jenn, I almost fell down form my chair in astonishment.

You shouldn't. I've been quite consistant.

>
> >But the best sound that I've heard has come from LPs.
>
> No, not "the best sound". The sound that you liked most came from LP.
> See the difference?

Nope. The best sound that I've heard is by definition the sound that I
like.

>
> >And OF COURSE my ears are the final arbitrator! I only have my ears to
> >listen
> > with; not yours, not Arny's.
> >
> >
>
> Jennifer, I totally support your right to use your ears as a final
> arbiter. And I will defend it to the last drop of blood (yours).
>
> >
> > > And cool down. Whatever you hear from LP is your own business. Just
> > > stay in boundaries of your expertise and do not argue with experts
> > > about things that you have no clue about.
> >
> > I'm an expert on the issue of what sounds best to me. That's all, and
> > that's all I've claimed. No amount of expert testimony concerning the
> > technical superiority will change what my ears hear. You and Arny
> > should stop saying that I claim what I do not claim.
>
> This statement is trivial. Nobody argues with it. You have a right to
> stick with outdated obsolete technology, whatever it is. I support
> this right of yours

Then what are you arguing about?

>
> Just, for the record - next time when you will make a technical claim
> about superiority of LP I will quote this post to you

Don't hold your breath, as it has never happened and it will never
happen.

[John Atkinson]

On Jun 2, 12:18 pm, vlad > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:41 pm, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
> > with respect to LP, it was no less a digital luminary than
> > Meridian's Bob Stuart who pointed out that the LP sound
> > surprisingly good because its error vs frequency signature maps
> > human hearing sensitivity.
>
> Can you, please, provide direct quote and reference to the source of
> the quote? Otherwise there is always possibility that you are
> reinterpreting him to support your agenda.

Putting aside the implied insult, Vlad, this was in an article
published
in the mid-1990s in Audio magazine. Bob has also mentioned this
matter in personal conversations I have had with him.

> >Thus, while it is demonstrably worse
> > than 16-bit LPCM in the bass and the top octave,
>
> So there are areas where LP is worse then CD technically?

Of course. What other meanaing could you glean from my words?
And when have I ever said otherwise?

> > And is [LP] is actually better than 16-bit LPCM
> > in the presence region, where the ear is most sensitive.
>
> I love this vague language. Can you tell us in more details where
> this 'presence' region is?

This is hardly vague or obscure. The presence region is between
2kHz and 5kHz, ie, the approximate region where the ear has its
maximum sensitivity.

> reference to the work establishing ear sensitivity in this 'presence'
> region would help.

See the existing lirterature: Robinson-Dadson, Fletcher-Munson, etc.
I am surprised you don't seem aware of this work.

> Actually, I am not surprised with your vague language. You livelihood
> depends on it. The purpose of you your magazine is to peddle
> overpriced, high-markup gear to your audience. And analog equipment
> (tubes, TT's, LP's) is a very lucrative area for snake oil salesmen
> buying ads in your rag.

And, as always with the hard of thinking, here comes the unprovoked
insult.
But I find your usage interesting, "Vlad": the description of
Stereophile as
"your rag" is eerily reminiscent of Arny Krueger.

> > given good mastering (and yes, that is a can of worms) and
> > a good LP player (another can of worms), it is entirely possible
> > that someone will prefer the presentation of LP.
>
> Cannot argue with this. The personal preference is the personal
> preference. Everybody is entitled to his own.

Good. As Jenn has been very clear that she is stating her
preference and the reasons for that preference, I fail to see
why you are so bothered by her public statements. This
is rec.audio._opinion_, after all.

> Jane stated openly in this group at least twice that she does not
> care about distortion (even gross one) in a sound if it pleases her
> ear.

Who's "Jane"? Jenn didn't say she liked gross distortion, BTW;
that was Arny Krueger's falsehood.

> My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
> original did not sound pretty.

You beat that chest, Vlad. We are all very impressed.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > What's important to you is only important to you unless it has general
> > application.

> Issues of reliability and cost aside, what is as important as how your
> rig sounds to you?

I can't believe you let that one go without even a tinge of ridicule.




--

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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 11:18 am, vlad > wrote:

> Jane stated openly in this group at least twice that she does not
> care about distortion (even gross one) in a sound if it pleases her
> ear.
>
> My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
> original did not sound pretty.

And so here we are: arguing about preference.

I prefer the color blue. Can there be a technical reason I am wrong?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 11:39 am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article . com>,

> vlad > wrote:

> > Just, for the record - next time when you will make a technical claim
> > about superiority of LP I will quote this post to you
>
> Don't hold your breath, as it has never happened and it will never
> happen.

You already have, Jenn.

To guys like these, when you say, "I like something better" it
constitutes a technical claim.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 5:41 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote

> > It is entirely possible that someone will prefer the presentation of LP.
>
> It is entirely possible that someone will prefer the handling of a 1954
> Cadillac.

Good old insane Arns is making progress!

Yes, good old insane Arns, someone may indeed *prefer* the handling of
a 1954 Cadillac.

And do you know what? They're right.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
> > original did not sound pretty.

> And so here we are: arguing about preference.
> I prefer the color blue. Can there be a technical reason I am wrong?

It's remarkable that Scottie Witlessmongrel, who is universally accepted
as the sine qua non of dumbness on RAO, understands the primacy of
personal preference. What can you say about someone who does not
understand it, even if he's apparently less brain-damaged than Scottie?




--

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

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 2, 11:18 am, vlad > wrote:
>
>> Jane stated openly in this group at least twice that she does not
>> care about distortion (even gross one) in a sound if it pleases her
>> ear.
>>
>> My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
>> original did not sound pretty.
>
> And so here we are: arguing about preference.
>
> I prefer the color blue. Can there be a technical reason I am wrong?

Yes, having your head in your arse all the time means that you
seeing blue is a sure sign of oxygen deprivation.
But it does explain your attitude and fits of delusion.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Shhhh! said:
>
>> > My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
>> > original did not sound pretty.
>
>> And so here we are: arguing about preference.
>> I prefer the color blue. Can there be a technical reason I am wrong?
>
> It's remarkable that Scottie Witlessmongrel, who is universally accepted
> as the sine qua non of dumbness on RAO, understands the primacy of
> personal preference. What can you say about someone who does not
> understand it, even if he's apparently less brain-damaged than Scottie?

George's panties always get in a wad when he realizes that his
preferences are shared by Arny.

ScottW

[vlad]

On Jun 2, 8:59 am, John Atkinson >
wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:18 pm, vlad > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 4:41 pm, John Atkinson >
> > wrote:
> > > with respect to LP, it was no less a digital luminary than
> > > Meridian's Bob Stuart who pointed out that the LP sound
> > > surprisingly good because its error vs frequency signature maps
> > > human hearing sensitivity.
>
> > Can you, please, provide direct quote and reference to the source of
> > the quote? Otherwise there is always possibility that you are
> > reinterpreting him to support your agenda.
>
> Putting aside the implied insult, Vlad, this was in an article
> published
> in the mid-1990s in Audio magazine. Bob has also mentioned this
> matter in personal conversations I have had with him.
>

You can claim anything you wish about 'personal conversation', it
cannot be verified. Reference to the article 'published in the
mid-1990' is vague enough to make impossible to find. I wonder why you
cannot back up your statement. Or is it how business is done in
'Stereophile'?

> > >Thus, while it is demonstrably worse
> > > than 16-bit LPCM in the bass and the top octave,
>
> > So there are areas where LP is worse then CD technically?
>
> Of course. What other meaning could you glean from my words?
> And when have I ever said otherwise?
>
> > > And is [LP] is actually better than 16-bit LPCM
> > > in the presence region, where the ear is most sensitive.
>
> > I love this vague language. Can you tell us in more details where
> > this 'presence' region is?
>
> This is hardly vague or obscure. The presence region is between
> 2kHz and 5kHz, ie, the approximate region where the ear has its
> maximum sensitivity.
>

To my knowledge digital technology of CD has no difficulty capturing
and reproducing signal in this range. Even for most discriminating
ears. So what advantage LP has in this range? And, please, no
references to 'private conversation'?

> > reference to the work establishing ear sensitivity in this 'presence'
> > region would help.
>
> See the existing lirterature: Robinson-Dadson, Fletcher-Munson, etc.
> I am surprised you don't seem aware of this work.
>
> > Actually, I am not surprised with your vague language. You livelihood
> > depends on it. The purpose of you your magazine is to peddle
> > overpriced, high-markup gear to your audience. And analog equipment
> > (tubes, TT's, LP's) is a very lucrative area for snake oil salesmen
> > buying ads in your rag.
>
> And, as always with the hard of thinking, here comes the unprovoked
> insult.
> But I find your usage interesting, "Vlad": the description of
> Stereophile as
> "your rag" is eerily reminiscent of Arny Krueger.
>

This is the only thing that caught your attention in my paragraph? It
is not an insult, it is my opinion. How you take it is your business

> > > given good mastering (and yes, that is a can of worms) and
> > > a good LP player (another can of worms), it is entirely possible
> > > that someone will prefer the presentation of LP.
>
> > Cannot argue with this. The personal preference is the personal
> > preference. Everybody is entitled to his own.
>
> Good. As Jenn has been very clear that she is stating her
> preference and the reasons for that preference, I fail to see
> why you are so bothered by her public statements. This
> is rec.audio._opinion_, after all.
>

I am not bothered by her preference. She can listen music from wax
cylinders if she thinks it gives her more pleasure.

Also there were 78 RPM's before LP's, do you remember? When I started
reading usenet in 1990 there were people who argued that stereo and
slow speed of LP's completely destroyed music. According to them mono
78 RPM's was the only HI-FI media available.

I wonder if Jennifer listens to 78 RPM records.

> > Jane stated openly in this group at least twice that she does not
> > care about distortion (even gross one) in a sound if it pleases her
> > ear.
>
> Who's "Jane"? Jenn didn't say she liked gross distortion, BTW;
> that was Arny Krueger's falsehood.
>

She stated several times that as long as distorted sound pleases her,
she does not care about distortion. Not exactly that she 'likes'
distorted sound, is not it? Please, argue against what I said.

> > My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
> > original did not sound pretty.
>
> You beat that chest, Vlad. We are all very impressed.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Thank you. I am impressed with how your magazine (not 'rag' ) is
fooling unsuspecting public making you rich in a process.

vova

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 4:02 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
> > > original did not sound pretty.
> > And so here we are: arguing about preference.
> > I prefer the color blue. Can there be a technical reason I am wrong?
>
> It's remarkable that Scottie Witlessmongrel, who is universally accepted
> as the sine qua non of dumbness on RAO, understands the primacy of
> personal preference. What can you say about someone who does not
> understand it, even if he's apparently less brain-damaged than Scottie?

There is a difference between stupidity, no matter how extreme, and
insanity.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 4:57 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 2, 11:18 am, vlad > wrote:
>
> >> Jane stated openly in this group at least twice that she does not
> >> care about distortion (even gross one) in a sound if it pleases her
> >> ear.
>
> >> My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
> >> original did not sound pretty.
>
> > And so here we are: arguing about preference.
>
> > I prefer the color blue. Can there be a technical reason I am wrong?
>
> Yes, having your head in your arse all the time means that you
> seeing blue is a sure sign of oxygen deprivation.
> But it does explain your attitude and fits of delusion.

Glad to see you've dropped your hypocritical stance of pretending that
you are not adding to the general demeanor of posts on RAO.

I'd imagine that you'll stop whining about George now, too.

LoL!

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 2, 4:02 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
> wrote:
>> Shhhh! said:
>>
>> > > My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
>> > > original did not sound pretty.
>> > And so here we are: arguing about preference.
>> > I prefer the color blue. Can there be a technical reason I am wrong?
>>
>> It's remarkable that Scottie Witlessmongrel, who is universally accepted
>> as the sine qua non of dumbness on RAO, understands the primacy of
>> personal preference. What can you say about someone who does not
>> understand it, even if he's apparently less brain-damaged than Scottie?
>
> There is a difference between stupidity, no matter how extreme, and
> insanity.

I'll defer to your personal experience in both areas.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 5:11 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 4:02 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
> > wrote:
> >> Shhhh! said:
>
> >> > > My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
> >> > > original did not sound pretty.
> >> > And so here we are: arguing about preference.
> >> > I prefer the color blue. Can there be a technical reason I am wrong?
>
> >> It's remarkable that Scottie Witlessmongrel, who is universally accepted
> >> as the sine qua non of dumbness on RAO, understands the primacy of
> >> personal preference. What can you say about someone who does not
> >> understand it, even if he's apparently less brain-damaged than Scottie?
>
> > There is a difference between stupidity, no matter how extreme, and
> > insanity.
>
> I'll defer to your personal experience in both areas.

What an insightful "IKYABWAI."

Imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 5:00 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> George's panties always get in a wad when he realizes that his
> preferences are shared by Arny.

You seem to worry a lot about other men's underwear.

Is there a reason for this infatuation?

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Jun 2, 4:57 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> ooglegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 2, 11:18 am, vlad > wrote:
>>
>> >> Jane stated openly in this group at least twice that she does not
>> >> care about distortion (even gross one) in a sound if it pleases her
>> >> ear.
>>
>> >> My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
>> >> original did not sound pretty.
>>
>> > And so here we are: arguing about preference.
>>
>> > I prefer the color blue. Can there be a technical reason I am wrong?
>>
>> Yes, having your head in your arse all the time means that you
>> seeing blue is a sure sign of oxygen deprivation.
>> But it does explain your attitude and fits of delusion.
>
> Glad to see you've dropped your hypocritical stance of pretending that
> you are not adding to the general demeanor of posts on RAO.

Another strange and deluded comment from ssshhhead.

>
> I'd imagine that you'll stop whining about George now, too.

Nah, his demeanor sucks as bad as yours.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 2, 5:00 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> George's panties always get in a wad when he realizes that his
>> preferences are shared by Arny.
>
> You seem to worry a lot about other men's underwear.
>
> Is there a reason for this infatuation?

Yes, it's your confusion over the difference
between observations and concern.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

vladborg said:

> Bob has also mentioned this
> > matter in personal conversations I have had with him.

> You can claim anything you wish about 'personal conversation', it
> cannot be verified.

Maybe John was right. You're sounding more and more like the Krooborg.




--

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

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > > > My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
> > > > original did not sound pretty.

> > > And so here we are: arguing about preference.
> > > I prefer the color blue. Can there be a technical reason I am wrong?

> > It's remarkable that Scottie Witlessmongrel, who is universally accepted
> > as the sine qua non of dumbness on RAO, understands the primacy of
> > personal preference. What can you say about someone who does not
> > understand it, even if he's apparently less brain-damaged than Scottie?

> There is a difference between stupidity, no matter how extreme, and
> insanity.

Do you believe vladborg is insane? It doesn't seem that far gone to me.




--

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

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said to Witless:

> > > There is a difference between stupidity, no matter how extreme, and
> > > insanity.

> > I'll defer to your personal experience in both areas.

> What an insightful "IKYABWAI."

That's what I was thinking.

> Imbecile.

And now an artistic rendering of the archetypal "conservative" imbecile:
http://www.animalmascots.com/images/mascots/foam/01f0106.jpg




--

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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 5:25 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 2, 5:00 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> George's panties always get in a wad when he realizes that his
> >> preferences are shared by Arny.
>
> > You seem to worry a lot about other men's underwear.
>
> > Is there a reason for this infatuation?
>
> Yes, it's your confusion over the difference
> between observations and concern.

So you frequently 'observe' men's underwear.

It's OK, 2pid. It's just an observation...

LoL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 5:24 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in glegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 4:57 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> ooglegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 2, 11:18 am, vlad > wrote:
>
> >> >> Jane stated openly in this group at least twice that she does not
> >> >> care about distortion (even gross one) in a sound if it pleases her
> >> >> ear.
>
> >> >> My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
> >> >> original did not sound pretty.
>
> >> > And so here we are: arguing about preference.
>
> >> > I prefer the color blue. Can there be a technical reason I am wrong?
>
> >> Yes, having your head in your arse all the time means that you
> >> seeing blue is a sure sign of oxygen deprivation.
> >> But it does explain your attitude and fits of delusion.
>
> > Glad to see you've dropped your hypocritical stance of pretending that
> > you are not adding to the general demeanor of posts on RAO.
>
> Another strange and deluded comment from ssshhhead.

You're right, of course. It was "strange and deluded" of me to think
you were trying to be different from me or George.

And I see that you're back off audio topics and on to more OT jihad
posts.

> > I'd imagine that you'll stop whining about George now, too.
>
> Nah, his demeanor sucks as bad as yours.

LoL!

While yours is somehow different?

Again, LoL!

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 2, 5:25 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> ooglegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 2, 5:00 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >> George's panties always get in a wad when he realizes that his
>> >> preferences are shared by Arny.
>>
>> > You seem to worry a lot about other men's underwear.
>>
>> > Is there a reason for this infatuation?
>>
>> Yes, it's your confusion over the difference
>> between observations and concern.
>
> So you frequently 'observe' men's underwear.

Usenet seems to have you rather confused.
Oh well, how do you know George is a man?

>
> It's OK, 2pid. It's just an observation...

on usenet. Do you get it now? I didn't think so.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 2, 5:24 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> glegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 2, 4:57 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> >> ooglegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jun 2, 11:18 am, vlad > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Jane stated openly in this group at least twice that she does
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> care about distortion (even gross one) in a sound if it pleases her
>> >> >> ear.
>>
>> >> >> My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
>> >> >> original did not sound pretty.
>>
>> >> > And so here we are: arguing about preference.
>>
>> >> > I prefer the color blue. Can there be a technical reason I am wrong?
>>
>> >> Yes, having your head in your arse all the time means that you
>> >> seeing blue is a sure sign of oxygen deprivation.
>> >> But it does explain your attitude and fits of delusion.
>>
>> > Glad to see you've dropped your hypocritical stance of pretending that
>> > you are not adding to the general demeanor of posts on RAO.
>>
>> Another strange and deluded comment from ssshhhead.
>
> You're right, of course. It was "strange and deluded" of me to think
> you were trying to be different from me or George.

I am. I'm capable of more than insults.

>
> And I see that you're back off audio topics and on to more OT jihad
> posts.

Just trying to give you something to respond to.

>
>> > I'd imagine that you'll stop whining about George now, too.
>>
>> Nah, his demeanor sucks as bad as yours.
>
> LoL!
>
> While yours is somehow different?

and better.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"vlad" > wrote in message
oups.com
> On Jun 1, 4:41 pm, John Atkinson
> > wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 7:28 pm, vlad > wrote:
>>
>> With respect, Vlad, Jen hasn't been arguing with
>> experts.

Atkinson Fallacy #1 - just because one expert says something that is at
variance with another, does not invalidate either expert's statement.

>> And with respect to LP, it was no less a
>> digital luminary than Meridian's Bob Stuart who pointed
>> out that the LP sound surprisingly good because its
>> error vs frequency signature maps human hearing
>> sensitivity.

Really?

A text quote of this may be elusive. What does exist is the following,
which is also an AES paper and an article on the topic by Stuart that
appeared in Audio magazine:

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF

Figure 16 on page 29 shows Stuart's comparison between LP groove noise and
human hearing. Note that this figure does show a CD noise floor, but it is
not the best that the CD format can do by a long shot. For one thing, the CD
line represents undithered operation, which everybody who is knowlegable
about digital audio knows is a practical no-no.


> Can you, please, provide direct quote and reference to
> the source of the quote? Otherwise there is always
> possibility that you are reinterpreting him to support
> your agenda.

>> Thus, while it is demonstrably worse
>> than 16-bit LPCM in the bass and the top octave,

Yup, the LP tends to be hissy.

> So there are areas where LP is worse then CD technically?

Of course - the LP is worse in just about any criteria that you might want
to think of. Noise, distortion, jitter, frequency response, I can't think
of any way that it is technically superior as a medium for music.

>> it is actually
>> still good enough. And is it is actually better than
>> 16-bit LPCM in the presence region, where the ear is
>> most sensitive.

The other problem with Stuart's paper is that it assumes that there was no
noise shaping during quantization of the CD. These days noise shapers are a
dime a dozen - there's no excuse to not use them. One of the benefits of
noise shaping is reducing noise in the presence region, where the ear is
most sensitive.

So Atkinson's claim is based on ignoring existing technology that benefits
the CD.

> I love this vague language. Can you tell us in more
> details where this 'presence' region is?

If you look at Stuart's paper, the only region where the LP has lower noise
than the (artificially hobbled) CD is above 10KHz, where in fact the ear is
fairly insensitive. That and a vanishingly narrow band around 1 KHz. The
difference is just a few dB, and it wouldn't be there except for Stuart's
unfortuanate momentary ignorance of the benefits of noise shaping.


> Frequency range
> would be a good start. Also reference to the work
> establishing ear sensitivity in this 'presence' region
> would help.
>
> Actually, I am not surprised with your vague language.
> You livelihood depends on it.

Exactly.

>The purpose of you your
> magazine is to peddle overpriced, high-markup gear to
> your audience.

Exactly.

> And analog equipment (tubes, TT's, LP's)
> is a very lucrative area for snake oil salesmen buying
> ads in your rag.

Atkinson is well-practiced at exploiting people's ignorance, including his
own.

>> By contrast 16-bit LPCM is way better than it need be in
>> the bass and top octave but not quite good enough in the
>> presence region.

Only if one ignores the well-known benefits of noise shaping. Ironically,
Atkinson has trumpeted the benefits of noise shaping at other times, but
look what he does when he has an opportunity to use people's ignorance to
blacken the eye of the CD.



>> So, given good mastering (and yes, that is a can of
>> worms) and
>> a good LP player (another can of worms), it is entirely
>> possible that someone will prefer the presentation of LP.

Yes, if they can get past all the added audible noise and distortion that is
inherent in the LP format.

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger > wrote in message
>:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> ups.com
>> With respect to LP, it was no less a digital luminary
>> than Meridian's Bob Stuart who pointed out that the LP
>> sound surprisingly good because its error vs frequency
>> signature maps human hearing sensitivity.
>
> That's like saying that a 1954 Cadillac handles surprisingly
> well given its primitive suspension design.

Not really.

>> Thus, while it is demonstrably worse than 16-bit LPCM in
>> the bass and the top octave, it is actually still good
>> enough.
>
> Not in general.

Well yes. In general. That's the point. That if you plot the
error ratio of the LP medium (error in dB against the threshold
of human hearing) vs frequency it remains relatively constant,
ie, it is good enough.

>> And is it is actually better than 16-bit LPCM in the
>> presence region, where the ear is most sensitive.
>
> Not if the 16 bit LPCM is properly quantized.

That was Bob Stuart's point: that the error ratio in a
perfect 16-bit LPCM system is way better than it need
be at the frequency extremes but becomes negative in the
presence region, ie, the quantizing error becomes audible.

>> By contrast 16-bit LPCM is way better than it need be in
>> the bass and top octave but not quite good enough in the
>> presence region.
>
> Not if the 16 bit LPCM is properly quantized.

Again, you are incorrect, Mr. Krueger. If you read the
techical literature, Stuart, Fielder, et al, have all
shown that a perfect LPCM system needs to be at least
20-bit to be audibly transparent to all listeners at
all times.

> John, I see that you never really understood what all
> of those A, B, C, & etc curves were for on that fancy
> Meridian digital processor you bragged about using.

And now you change the subject, Mr. Krueger. Yes,
psychoacoustic noiseshaping algorithms allow you to
preserve some of the resolution of a hi-rez original
when you master a 16-bit CD. But the sad fact is that
the proportion of CD releases that are mastered with
such processors is relatively small overall (though
ubiquitous in modern classical recording) and, of
course, is zero when you consider CDs mastered before
1993 or so.

Just because some of the more careful classical mastering
engineers in the 21st century uses the appropriate
redithering does not mean that _all_ CDs have been
mastered correctly.

> Hint: they were put there for me to have fun with you,
> today. ;-)

Given that in the past, you have argued that use of
such noiseshaping algorithms is unnecessary, I believe
that I am the one having "fun" today, Mr. Krueger.

>> It is entirely possible that someone will prefer
>> the presentation of LP.
>
> It is entirely possible that someone will prefer
> the handling of a 1954 Cadillac.

Of course. And contrary to what you and "Vlad"
proclaim, there is nothing wrong in someone
expressing such a preference. The reality, Mr.
Krueger, is that the Google record clearly shows
that you interpret anyone expressing an opinion
different from your own as a personal attack.
Every post you make is this more revealing of your
character than perhaps you might wish :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson]

vlad wrote:
> On Jun 2, 8:59 am, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 12:18 pm, vlad > wrote:
> > > On Jun 1, 4:41 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > wrote:
> > > > with respect to LP, it was no less a digital luminary than
> > > > Meridian's Bob Stuart who pointed out that the LP sound
> > > > surprisingly good because its error vs frequency signature maps
> > > > human hearing sensitivity.
> >
> > > Can you, please, provide direct quote and reference to the source of
> > > the quote? Otherwise there is always possibility that you are
> > > reinterpreting him to support your agenda.
> >
> > Putting aside the implied insult, Vlad, this was in an article
> > published in the mid-1990s in Audio magazine. Bob has also
> > mentioned this matter in personal conversations I have had with him.
>
> You can claim anything you wish about 'personal conversation', it
> cannot be verified. Reference to the article 'published in the
> mid-1990' is vague enough to make impossible to find.

I note that even Arny Krueger had no problem finding what appears
to be an on-line reprint of the Stuart article. Your point is, with
respect,
moot.

> > This is hardly vague or obscure. The presence region is between
> > 2kHz and 5kHz, ie, the approximate region where the ear has its
> > maximum sensitivity.
>
> To my knowledge digital technology of CD has no difficulty capturing
> and reproducing signal in this range. Even for most discriminating
> ears.

Sigh. Arguing with someone who does not read the academic
literature is an exercise in frustration. Read Stuart's, Fielder's
published papers on why 20-bit word lengths are necessary
for LPCM to to be audibly transparent to all listeners at all times.
16-bit LPCM idoes not meet that requirement in the region where
human hearing is most sensitive.

> > > reference to the work establishing ear sensitivity in this 'presence'
> > > region would help.
> >
> > See the existing lirterature: Robinson-Dadson, Fletcher-Munson, etc.
> > I am surprised you don't seem aware of this work.

No response. Perhaps Vlad is unware of these people's
published work also?

> I am impressed with how your magazine (not 'rag' ) is
> fooling unsuspecting public making you rich in a process.

And of course, your underlying agenda becomes clear. In the words
of long-departed r.a.o. denizen "Trotsky," it's "all about the
Benjamins" with you preference bashers, isn't it.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

> > I am impressed with how your magazine (not 'rag' ) is
> > fooling unsuspecting public making you rich in a process.

> And of course, your underlying agenda becomes clear. In the words
> of long-departed r.a.o. denizen "Trotsky," it's "all about the
> Benjamins" with you preference bashers, isn't it.

Spiffs for Stereophile!




--

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

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:

>
> You might learn not to brag about figuratively wetting your pants in public,
> Jenn.
>
Turds trump ****, anyay of the week.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:

>
> That's like saying that a 1954 Cadillac handles surprisingly well given its
> primitive suspension design.
>

"At least" it has nicer ashtrrays than the ones
you designed for the Omni.

[Clyde Slick]

vlad a scris:

> My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
> original did not sound pretty.
>


You have NO IDEA what any particular original 'sounded like'.
You are simply natering on about signal accuracy.

[Clyde Slick]

vlad a scris:

>
> Thank you. I am impressed with how your magazine (not 'rag' ) is
> fooling unsuspecting public making you rich in a process.
>
>

the only thing worse than someone else having
a contrary opinion is someone else having a contrary
opinion and making money off of it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 5:50 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...

> > On Jun 2, 5:25 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> ooglegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 2, 5:00 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> >> George's panties always get in a wad when he realizes that his
> >> >> preferences are shared by Arny.
>
> >> > You seem to worry a lot about other men's underwear.
>
> >> > Is there a reason for this infatuation?
>
> >> Yes, it's your confusion over the difference
> >> between observations and concern.
>
> > So you frequently 'observe' men's underwear.
>
> Usenet seems to have you rather confused.

Not at all. My, how you project!

> Oh well, how do you know George is a man?

I asked him.

> > It's OK, 2pid. It's just an observation...
>
> on usenet. Do you get it now? I didn't think so.

Lot's of people cruise the Usenet to 'observe' their particular
fetishes.

Really, 2pid, it's OK. 'Observing' men's underwear is a natural
progression for someone who likes to have their ass licked. I just
wouldn't expect a good conservative like you to be so open about it.

Here, I searched Google groups for you. This looks right up your alley
(perhaps you already lurk there...):

Underwear Party
Calling all gay males! Get into your favorite skimpy briefs, bikinis,
thongs, g-strings, speedos and jockstraps - cause we're gonna make an
underwear bulge orgy happen right here!
Category: Adult > Sex, Language: English

You may already belong here, too:

Ass Porn Club
Ruthless arsemen plug and double plug tight back holes, ass licking
movies and pictures, as well as anal fingering and sex.
Category: Adult > Sex, Language: English

You do have some surprisingly kinky fetishes, though, 2pid. I'm not
being judgmental, but perhaps you should take them to a fetish
newsgroup, like those I found for you. I think even you, the OT King
of RAO, woud have to agree: 'Observing' men's underwear and having
your ass licked really don't have much to do with audio.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 8:21 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> vlad a scris:
>
>
>
> > Thank you. I am impressed with how your magazine (not 'rag' ) is
> > fooling unsuspecting public making you rich in a process.
>
> the only thing worse than someone else having
> a contrary opinion is someone else having a contrary
> opinion and making money off of it.

Oh, you just gave 2pid some ammunition.

I can't wait to be called a "profiteer" on top of all the other names
he calls me.

I won't take the bait, though. I'll still just call him "stupid."
After all, there's no speculation involved in that...

LoL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 5:54 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 5:24 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> glegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 2, 4:57 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> >> ooglegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Jun 2, 11:18 am, vlad > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Jane stated openly in this group at least twice that she does
> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> care about distortion (even gross one) in a sound if it pleases her
> >> >> >> ear.
>
> >> >> >> My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
> >> >> >> original did not sound pretty.
>
> >> >> > And so here we are: arguing about preference.
>
> >> >> > I prefer the color blue. Can there be a technical reason I am wrong?
>
> >> >> Yes, having your head in your arse all the time means that you
> >> >> seeing blue is a sure sign of oxygen deprivation.
> >> >> But it does explain your attitude and fits of delusion.
>
> >> > Glad to see you've dropped your hypocritical stance of pretending that
> >> > you are not adding to the general demeanor of posts on RAO.
>
> >> Another strange and deluded comment from ssshhhead.
>
> > You're right, of course. It was "strange and deluded" of me to think
> > you were trying to be different from me or George.
>
> I am. I'm capable of more than insults.

See? I told you you couldn't understand what was said to you.

Now perhaps you can see why actually discussing anything with you is
an utter waste of time.

> > And I see that you're back off audio topics and on to more OT jihad
> > posts.
>
> Just trying to give you something to respond to.

Ah, I see. So it's *my* faut you incessantly post OT here.

This is perhaps the dumbest thing you've ever said.

LoL!

> >> > I'd imagine that you'll stop whining about George now, too.
>
> >> Nah, his demeanor sucks as bad as yours.
>
> > LoL!
>
> > While yours is somehow different?
>
> and better.

Thank you for 'saving' RAO...

LoL!

Imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 5:57 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > On Jun 1, 4:41 pm, John Atkinson
> > > wrote:
> >> So, given good mastering (and yes, that is a can of
> >> worms) and
> >> a good LP player (another can of worms), it is entirely
> >> possible that someone will prefer the presentation of LP.
>
> Yes, if they can get past all the added audible noise and distortion that is
> inherent in the LP format.

Apparently, some people can.

We can't have that, can we, Arns? Attack!

Insanity rules the roost at Arns' house.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 8:11 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> Arny Krueger a scris:

> > You might learn not to brag about figuratively wetting your pants in public,
> > Jenn.
>
> Turds trump ****, anyay of the week.

Wouldn't that depend on whether good old insane Arns was hungry or
thirsty at that given moment?

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Now perhaps you can see why actually discussing anything with you is
> an utter waste of time.

How would you know? You don't discuss. You're too insecure
in your beliefs. You must have agreement or you break down
into your selfserving rants and tirades. That is obviously
not discussion.
Only thing that is even more perplexing, is that you
obviously think your
lunatic rants are a better use of your time.


Meanwhile Iranian propaganda makes it to the top
of Google news on the subject.
I think thats a bit odd.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=52030&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 3, 11:26 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Now perhaps you can see why actually discussing anything with you is
> > an utter waste of time.
>
> How would you know? You don't discuss. You're too insecure
> in your beliefs.

Here's an example of why you are a waste: you project. You can't seem
to help yourself.

LoL!

> You must have agreement or you break down
> into your selfserving rants and tirades. That is obviously
> not discussion.

Um, 2pid, most of us have brains large enough to remember previous
discussions.

You know, like your 'expertise' at military planning, for example. At
one time, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, even though several RAO
veterans (all of whom are smarter than you are) were warning me about
your immense stupidity.

They were right, I was wrong: you are not smart enough to discuss
anything.

And agreement ahs nothing to do with it. That's just yet another
projection on your part.

> Only thing that is even more perplexing, is that you
> obviously think your
> lunatic rants are a better use of your time.

So it goes. Can you make it through a whole post without veering into
your OT jihad?

> Meanwhile Iranian propaganda makes it to the top
> of Google news on the subject.
> I think thats a bit odd.

Nope.

Imbecile.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 3, 11:26 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> oglegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Now perhaps you can see why actually discussing anything with you is
>> > an utter waste of time.
>>
>> How would you know? You don't discuss. You're too insecure
>> in your beliefs.
>
> Here's an example of why you are a waste: you project. You can't seem
> to help yourself.

Above an example of pathetic reasons to break down into childish
rants and insults. But you can't seem to help yourself.

>
> LoL!
>
>> You must have agreement or you break down
>> into your selfserving rants and tirades. That is obviously
>> not discussion.
>
> Um, 2pid, most of us have brains large enough to remember previous
> discussions.
>
> You know, like your 'expertise' at military planning, for example. At
> one time, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, even though several RAO
> veterans (all of whom are smarter than you are) were warning me about
> your immense stupidity.
>
> They were right, I was wrong: you are not smart enough to discuss
> anything.

Lol. Reality. I'm too smart to get beat into submission to your way
of thinking. You can't handle it. A bunch of birds of a feather
with their group think mentality demanding compliance or
suffer the ridicule. I say screw you to that fascist mentality.

Meanwhile the Taliban exhibit hypocrisy like yours.
Warning to civilians to stay away from our forces or risk being
injured while using civilians as shields for their own operations.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KLR278823.htm

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 3, 11:40 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 3, 11:26 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> oglegroups.com...
>
> >> > Now perhaps you can see why actually discussing anything with you is
> >> > an utter waste of time.
>
> >> How would you know? You don't discuss. You're too insecure
> >> in your beliefs.
>
> > Here's an example of why you are a waste: you project. You can't seem
> > to help yourself.
>
> Above an example of pathetic reasons to break down into childish
> rants and insults. But you can't seem to help yourself.

> > LoL!
>
> >> You must have agreement or you break down
> >> into your selfserving rants and tirades. That is obviously
> >> not discussion.
>
> > Um, 2pid, most of us have brains large enough to remember previous
> > discussions.
>
> > You know, like your 'expertise' at military planning, for example. At
> > one time, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, even though several RAO
> > veterans (all of whom are smarter than you are) were warning me about
> > your immense stupidity.
>
> > They were right, I was wrong: you are not smart enough to discuss
> > anything.
>
> Lol. Reality.

I know. That's what I said.

>I'm too smart to get beat into submission to your way
> of thinking. You can't handle it.

LoL. I have never tried to "beat you into submission" on anything. And
I can handle you, 2pid. I've worked with mentally-retarded people
before, as well as elderly people with dementia and children.

Or is this your 'brave' way of saying that you can't stand it when
someone obviously knows a lot more than you do on a subject?

> A bunch of birds of a feather
> with their group think mentality demanding compliance or
> suffer the ridicule. I say screw you to that fascist mentality.

LoL!

Nobody had "groupthink" regarding our military 'discussions,' 2pid.
Anyway, what you are really saying is...

"We don't need no education..."

LoL!

> Meanwhile...

You're still an imbecile.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 3, 11:40 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> LoL!
>
>> Meanwhile...
>
> You're still an imbecile.

Because I disagree with you. I can live with that.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 3, 12:08 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 3, 11:40 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > LoL!
>
> >> Meanwhile...
>
> > You're still an imbecile.
>
> Because I disagree with you. I can live with that.

Um, no.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said to Witless:

> > > You're still an imbecile.

> > Because I disagree with you. I can live with that.

> Um, no.

This is remarkably similar to the Krooborg's "explanation" for why he's
widely reviled on Usenet. Krooger klaims it's because he "tells the
truth about audio" and not because he's a monstrous ****. No matter how
many times Normals tell him he's full of it, or in how many different
ways, Turdborg still insists that he's the oracle and the rest of the
world is terrified.




--

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

[[email protected]]

On Jun 2, 9:18 am, vlad > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:41 pm, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 7:28 pm, vlad > wrote:
>
> > > Whatever you hear from LP is your own business. Just
> > > stay in boundaries of your expertise and do not argue with
> > > experts about things that you have no clue about.
>
> > With respect, Vlad, Jen hasn't been arguing with experts. And
> > with respect to LP, it was no less a digital luminary than
> > Meridian's Bob Stuart who pointed out that the LP sound
> > surprisingly good because its error vs frequency signature maps
> > human hearing sensitivity.
>
> Can you, please, provide direct quote and reference to the source of
> the quote? Otherwise there is always possibility that you are
> reinterpreting him to support your agenda.
>
> >Thus, while it is demonstrably worse
> > than 16-bit LPCM in the bass and the top octave,
>
> So there are areas where LP is worse then CD technically?
>
> >it is actually
> > still good enough. And is it is actually better than 16-bit LPCM
> > in the presence region, where the ear is most sensitive.
>
> I love this vague language. Can you tell us in more details where
> this 'presence' region is? Frequency range would be a good start. Also
> reference to the work establishing ear sensitivity in this 'presence'
> region would help.
>
> Actually, I am not surprised with your vague language. You livelihood
> depends on it. The purpose of you your magazine is to peddle
> overpriced, high-markup gear to your audience. And analog equipment
> (tubes, TT's, LP's) is a very lucrative area for snake oil salesmen
> buying ads in your rag.
>
>
>
> > By contrast 16-bit LPCM is way better than it need be in the bass
> > and top octave but not quite good enough in the presence region.
>
> > So, given good mastering (and yes, that is a can of worms) and
> > a good LP player (another can of worms), it is entirely possible
> > that someone will prefer the presentation of LP.
>
> > John Atkinson
> > Editor, Stereophile
>
> Cannot argue with this. The personal preference is the personal
> preference. Everybody is entitled to his own.
>
> Jane stated openly in this group at least twice that she does not
> care about distortion (even gross one) in a sound if it pleases her
> ear.
>
> My preference is for faithful reproduction of the sound even if
> original did not sound pretty.
>
> vova

Vova says to John Atkinson (The Editor of "The Stewreophile" mag.)
"Actually, I am not surprised with your vague language. You livelihood
> depends on it. The purpose of you your magazine is to peddle
> overpriced, high-markup gear to your audience. And analog equipment
> (tubes, TT's, LP's) is a very lucrative area for snake oil salesmen
> buying ads in your rag.

I have no special brief for John Atkinson. If anything the reverse: he
once kept an article of mine "under review" for months till I withdrew
it losing patience and anxious not to lose face. I skim the
"Stereophille" in the Public library always keeping in mind that if it
does not try to appeal to its public it will go under fast.
Vovas and Sullivans will not keep it afloat.

All our Vlad-Vova does is to contribute to the conversion of
the RAO from a medium for discussion of a hobby into a sewer

Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
most base motives you can think of, suggesting that he is not in the
business of relating what he believes but promoting what "makes him
rich" may have been good politics at the Comintern Congresses but it
should not replace discussion in an audio forum.

. As far as I can follow them Atkinson's own tests of
components are scrupulous and informative. Sure there is some hype in
the "Stereophile". Unless one is a moron one should know when to shrug
one's shoulders and turn the page.

Finally: where does a mere amateur turn for hi-Fi
information?

It is not to the various RAO Vovas and his ilk.
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Shhhh! said to Witless:
>
>> > > You're still an imbecile.
>
>> > Because I disagree with you. I can live with that.
>
>> Um, no.
>
> This is remarkably similar to the Krooborg's "explanation" for why he's
> widely reviled on Usenet. Krooger klaims it's because he "tells the
> truth about audio" and not because he's a monstrous ****. No matter how
> many times Normals

Nothing normal about existing on usenet to ridicule for your own
pathetic amusement. But that's why you claim to be normal,
isn't it George.
Lie enough and some fool somewhere will believe you and before
we know it, the claims of "most" rain down.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 3, 3:20 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in messagenews:nn66631m4cb6rcp3cenihf3kiq6tfjf51e@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > Shhhh! said to Witless:
>
> >> > > You're still an imbecile.
>
> >> > Because I disagree with you. I can live with that.
>
> >> Um, no.
>
> > This is remarkably similar to the Krooborg's "explanation" for why he's
> > widely reviled on Usenet. Krooger klaims it's because he "tells the
> > truth about audio" and not because he's a monstrous ****. No matter how
> > many times Normals
>
> Nothing normal about existing on usenet to ridicule for your own
> pathetic amusement. But that's why you claim to be normal,
> isn't it George.
> Lie enough and some fool somewhere will believe you and before
> we know it, the claims of "most" rain down.

But, 2pid, most people *do* think that you're an imbecile.

AFAICT, Clyde is the only one that doesn't. That might be because you
feed him occasionally.

[MiNe 109]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
> most base motives you can think of, suggesting that he is not in the
> business of relating what he believes but promoting what "makes him
> rich" may have been good politics at the Comintern Congresses but it
> should not replace discussion in an audio forum.

Amen!

Stephen

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 3, 3:20 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in
>> messagenews:nn66631m4cb6rcp3cenihf3kiq6tfjf51e@4ax .com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Shhhh! said to Witless:
>>
>> >> > > You're still an imbecile.
>>
>> >> > Because I disagree with you. I can live with that.
>>
>> >> Um, no.
>>
>> > This is remarkably similar to the Krooborg's "explanation" for why he's
>> > widely reviled on Usenet. Krooger klaims it's because he "tells the
>> > truth about audio" and not because he's a monstrous ****. No matter how
>> > many times Normals
>>
>> Nothing normal about existing on usenet to ridicule for your own
>> pathetic amusement. But that's why you claim to be normal,
>> isn't it George.
>> Lie enough and some fool somewhere will believe you and before
>> we know it, the claims of "most" rain down.
>
> But, 2pid, most people *do* think that you're an imbecile.

Nah, just a couple of insignificant arrogant assholes on RAO.
But without their usenet vendettas, they're nothing.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
>
>> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
>> most base motives you can think of, suggesting that he is not in the
>> business of relating what he believes but promoting what "makes him
>> rich" may have been good politics at the Comintern Congresses but it
>> should not replace discussion in an audio forum.
>
> Amen!

Stephen does a drive by on a crack house and says Amen to
a Nancy Reagan just say no add. Are you fullfilled?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 3, 4:28 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 3:20 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in
> >> messagenews:nn66631m4cb6rcp3cenihf3kiq6tfjf51e@4ax .com...
>
> >> > Shhhh! said to Witless:
>
> >> >> > > You're still an imbecile.
>
> >> >> > Because I disagree with you. I can live with that.
>
> >> >> Um, no.
>
> >> > This is remarkably similar to the Krooborg's "explanation" for why he's
> >> > widely reviled on Usenet. Krooger klaims it's because he "tells the
> >> > truth about audio" and not because he's a monstrous ****. No matter how
> >> > many times Normals
>
> >> Nothing normal about existing on usenet to ridicule for your own
> >> pathetic amusement. But that's why you claim to be normal,
> >> isn't it George.
> >> Lie enough and some fool somewhere will believe you and before
> >> we know it, the claims of "most" rain down.
>
> > But, 2pid, most people *do* think that you're an imbecile.
>
> Nah, just a couple of insignificant arrogant assholes on RAO.
> But without their usenet vendettas, they're nothing.

So you not only have issues with English, but with arithmatic as well.

LoL!

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article om>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> >> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
> >> most base motives you can think of, suggesting that he is not in the
> >> business of relating what he believes but promoting what "makes him
> >> rich" may have been good politics at the Comintern Congresses but it
> >> should not replace discussion in an audio forum.
> >
> > Amen!
>
> Stephen does a drive by on a crack house and says Amen to
> a Nancy Reagan just say no add. Are you fullfilled?

My readership grows!

Maybe you'll be more sympathetic to an edited version (the original has
a distracting irony):

> >> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
> >> most base motives you can think of... should not replace discussion
> >> in an audio forum.

I agree whole-heartedly with this statement.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 3, 4:28 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> ooglegroups.com...
>
> So you not only have issues with English, but with arithmatic as well.

Classic. You assholes always manage to shove your foot ankle
deep sooner or later.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article om>,
>> > " > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
>> >> most base motives you can think of, suggesting that he is not in the
>> >> business of relating what he believes but promoting what "makes him
>> >> rich" may have been good politics at the Comintern Congresses but it
>> >> should not replace discussion in an audio forum.
>> >
>> > Amen!
>>
>> Stephen does a drive by on a crack house and says Amen to
>> a Nancy Reagan just say no add. Are you fullfilled?
>
> My readership grows!
>
> Maybe you'll be more sympathetic to an edited version (the original has
> a distracting irony):
>
>> >> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
>> >> most base motives you can think of... should not replace discussion
>> >> in an audio forum.
>
> I agree whole-heartedly with this statement.

Another good man doing nothing.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 3, 2:50 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Shhhh! said to Witless:
>
> > > > You're still an imbecile.
> > > Because I disagree with you. I can live with that.
> > Um, no.
>
> This is remarkably similar to the Krooborg's "explanation" for why he's
> widely reviled on Usenet. Krooger klaims it's because he "tells the
> truth about audio" and not because he's a monstrous ****. No matter how
> many times Normals tell him he's full of it, or in how many different
> ways, Turdborg still insists that he's the oracle and the rest of the
> world is terrified.

I think the similarity goes deeper than the mere words, or even the
actions.

Good old insane Arns is great at projecting, just like our dear little
2pid is. Arns might say that someone disagrees with him someone's
hearing is suspect, they don't understand 'science,' that they are
fools with too much money, that they are afraid of the "truth," or
whatever. To good old insane Arns, the "real" reason cannot be that
someone simply prefers something anathema to good old insane Arns'
religion.

Likewise, somebody who sees that 2pid is not-very-well-endowed in the
brains department simply *has* to be a "coward," or a "child abuser,"
or an "Islamist," and so on. 2pid cannot accept that the people who
see him as a buffoon and an imbecile mean just what they say.

Perhaps it has something to do with 2pid's extreme difficulty with the
English language. Or perhaps 2pid teeters on the brink of the same
level of insanity that good old insane Arns suffers from.

Or it could just be that both are substandard humans.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 3, 4:54 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 3, 4:28 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> ooglegroups.com...
>
> > So you not only have issues with English, but with arithmatic as well.
>
> Classic. You assholes always manage to shove your foot ankle
> deep sooner or later.

But not on a daily basis, 2pid, like 'others' here.;-)

OK, if it makes you happy: "arithmetic." I think I do pretty well for
not using a spell-checker.

Regarding the challenge, I predict that you will say, "I'm not
interested in the challenge," 2pid.

Then we will all know how full of **** you are, 2pid.

It's time to put some substance behind your whining. Are you up for
it, 2pid?

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article om>,
> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
> >> >> most base motives you can think of, suggesting that he is not in the
> >> >> business of relating what he believes but promoting what "makes him
> >> >> rich" may have been good politics at the Comintern Congresses but it
> >> >> should not replace discussion in an audio forum.
> >> >
> >> > Amen!
> >>
> >> Stephen does a drive by on a crack house and says Amen to
> >> a Nancy Reagan just say no add. Are you fullfilled?
> >
> > My readership grows!
> >
> > Maybe you'll be more sympathetic to an edited version (the original has
> > a distracting irony):
> >
> >> >> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
> >> >> most base motives you can think of... should not replace discussion
> >> >> in an audio forum.
> >
> > I agree whole-heartedly with this statement.
>
> Another good man doing nothing.

You disagree?

Stephen

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 3, 4:54 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> oglegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 3, 4:28 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> >> ooglegroups.com...
>>
>> > So you not only have issues with English, but with arithmatic as well.
>>
>> Classic. You assholes always manage to shove your foot ankle
>> deep sooner or later.
>
> But not on a daily basis, 2pid, like 'others' here.;-)
>
> OK, if it makes you happy: "arithmetic." I think I do pretty well for
> not using a spell-checker.
>
> Regarding the challenge, I predict that you will say, "I'm not
> interested in the challenge," 2pid.
>
> Then we will all know how full of **** you are, 2pid.
>
> It's time to put some substance behind your whining. Are you up for
> it, 2pid?

I'm waiting for you to begin.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article om>,
>> >> > " > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
>> >> >> most base motives you can think of, suggesting that he is not in the
>> >> >> business of relating what he believes but promoting what "makes him
>> >> >> rich" may have been good politics at the Comintern Congresses but it
>> >> >> should not replace discussion in an audio forum.
>> >> >
>> >> > Amen!
>> >>
>> >> Stephen does a drive by on a crack house and says Amen to
>> >> a Nancy Reagan just say no add. Are you fullfilled?
>> >
>> > My readership grows!
>> >
>> > Maybe you'll be more sympathetic to an edited version (the original has
>> > a distracting irony):
>> >
>> >> >> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
>> >> >> most base motives you can think of... should not replace discussion
>> >> >> in an audio forum.
>> >
>> > I agree whole-heartedly with this statement.
>>
>> Another good man doing nothing.
>
> You disagree?

Not at all, I simply find the whole of your heart
pretty insignificant.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article om>,
> >> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
> >> >> >> most base motives you can think of, suggesting that he is not in the
> >> >> >> business of relating what he believes but promoting what "makes him
> >> >> >> rich" may have been good politics at the Comintern Congresses but it
> >> >> >> should not replace discussion in an audio forum.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Amen!
> >> >>
> >> >> Stephen does a drive by on a crack house and says Amen to
> >> >> a Nancy Reagan just say no add. Are you fullfilled?
> >> >
> >> > My readership grows!
> >> >
> >> > Maybe you'll be more sympathetic to an edited version (the original has
> >> > a distracting irony):
> >> >
> >> >> >> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
> >> >> >> most base motives you can think of... should not replace discussion
> >> >> >> in an audio forum.
> >> >
> >> > I agree whole-heartedly with this statement.
> >>
> >> Another good man doing nothing.
> >
> > You disagree?
>
> Not at all, I simply find the whole of your heart
> pretty insignificant.

Cue: "Galaxy Song" Monty Python.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 3:35 pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> "ScottW" > wrote:
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> > In article om>,
> > >> > " > wrote:
>
> > >> >> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
> > >> >> most base motives you can think of, suggesting that he is not in the
> > >> >> business of relating what he believes but promoting what "makes him
> > >> >> rich" may have been good politics at the Comintern Congresses but it
> > >> >> should not replace discussion in an audio forum.
>
> > >> > Amen!
>
> > >> Stephen does a drive by on a crack house and says Amen to
> > >> a Nancy Reagan just say no add. Are you fullfilled?
>
> > > My readership grows!
>
> > > Maybe you'll be more sympathetic to an edited version (the original has
> > > a distracting irony):
>
> > >> >> Attributing to someone holding different views from yours the
> > >> >> most base motives you can think of... should not replace discussion
> > >> >> in an audio forum.
>
> > > I agree whole-heartedly with this statement.
>
> > Another good man doing nothing.
>
> You disagree?
>
> Stephen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ScottW spoke twice to you yesterday:;
His first message said::" Another good man doing nothing"
The second one was even more cryptic:
"Stephen does a drive by on a crack house and says Amen to
a Nancy Reagan just say no add. Are you fullfilled? "

Lastly MiNe had said that he agreed with me "wholeheartedly". .
Scott bit into it and ran with it.:to hammer the last nail into
MiNe's coffin
" Not at all, I simply find the whole of your heart
pretty insignificant". :


Accept my congratulations Stephen.. You write as though you were able
to follow Mr. ScottW sense. I can't. ..
I guess ScottW intended irony expressed with light-as-the- puff
pastry touch. But I miss it or it misses me. Anyone can make head or
tail of it all? .
.. If ScottW does not oblige then perhaps the RAO's own stylist Mr. A.
Krueger will. He once pointed out in his unique courtly fashion my
handicaps as an immigrant .. According to him I, not being a native
English speaker,.could not possibly follow his (Mr. Krueger's) rich
prose. Perhaps he will now take pity on me and others similarly
disadvantaged and produce a translation, interpretation and
elucidation of the audio relevance of Mr. Scottw's mysterious
texts. ..
:
Anyway Scott's last satirical thrust (the subtle pun on
"wholeheartedness) deserves RAO immortality. An example to future
genrations.
Ludovic Mirabel

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

> Anyway Scott's last satirical thrust (the subtle pun on
> "wholeheartedness) deserves RAO immortality. An example to future
> genrations.

Luckily for him, Scottie's puny level of insightfulness never deters him
from expressing his "thoughts". Many of us, saddled with such an
appallingly awful disability at reasoning and logic, would simply shut
up and cower in the darkness. Not Scottie, though. Bellicose to the end,
he will always bay at the moon, reminding us that simple stupidity is
never reason enough to be taciturn.




--

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

[Sander deWaal]

vlad > said:


>> > The problem arises when you are telling knowlegeable people that LP is
>> > a superior (in comparison with CD) sound transfer medium. Your ears
>> > are insufficient to make a point. That's it.


She doesn't.
She just says that she *prefers* the sound of LPs in general over the
sound of CDs.


Jenn:
>>But the best sound that I've heard has come from LPs.


> No, not "the best sound". The sound that you liked most came from LP.
>See the difference?


No, not "the best sound".
"The best sound that I've heard".

Subtle difference.


> Jennifer, I totally support your right to use your ears as a final
>arbiter. And I will defend it to the last drop of blood (yours).


Oh come on.


> Just, for the record - next time when you will make a technical claim
>about superiority of LP I will quote this post to you


Jenn doesn't make technical claims.

Unclench your keister and be productive for a change.
Even Arny provides more audio substance than you, you're only whining
about preferences and alleged claims.

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[Clyde Slick]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:

> I won't take the bait, though. I'll still just call him "stupid."


No sense in straining your limited capabilities.

[Clyde Slick]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:

>
> AFAICT, Clyde is the only one that doesn't. That might be because you
> feed him occasionally.

Not that I'm not a general mooch, but I bought the steaks Friday.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> Not that I'm not a general mooch, but I bought the steaks Friday.

Bone-in, presumably.




--

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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 4, 2:12 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> No sense in straining your limited capabilities.

Clyde, would you like to join in on the OT/insult challenge?

I don't mind if you do. I doubt Scott would mind either.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger > wrote in message
> >:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message
>> ups.com
>>> With respect to LP, it was no less a digital luminary
>>> than Meridian's Bob Stuart who pointed out that the LP
>>> sound surprisingly good because its error vs frequency
>>> signature maps human hearing sensitivity.
>>
>> That's like saying that a 1954 Cadillac handles
>> surprisingly well given its primitive suspension design.
>
> Not really.
>
>>> Thus, while it is demonstrably worse than 16-bit LPCM in
>>> the bass and the top octave, it is actually still good
>>> enough.
>>
>> Not in general.
>
> Well yes. In general. That's the point. That if you plot
> the error ratio of the LP medium (error in dB against the
> threshold of human hearing) vs frequency it remains
> relatively constant, ie, it is good enough.
>
>>> And is it is actually better than 16-bit LPCM in the
>>> presence region, where the ear is most sensitive.
>>
>> Not if the 16 bit LPCM is properly quantized.
>
> That was Bob Stuart's point: that the error ratio in a
> perfect 16-bit LPCM system is way better than it need
> be at the frequency extremes but becomes negative in the
> presence region, ie, the quantizing error becomes audible.
>
>>> By contrast 16-bit LPCM is way better than it need be in
>>> the bass and top octave but not quite good enough in the
>>> presence region.

>> Not if the 16 bit LPCM is properly quantized.

> Again, you are incorrect, Mr. Krueger.

Nope, just being practical. I counted up the number of commercial recordings
that were recorded and are played back in an anechoic chamber and somehow
decided that it was irrelevant to how recordings are actually made and
listened to.

> If you read the
> techical literature, Stuart, Fielder, et al, have all
> shown that a perfect LPCM system needs to be at least
> 20-bit to be audibly transparent to all listeners at
> all times.

Stuart, Feilder, et al use an irrelevant criteria. An audio channel need
only have somewhat less noise than is in the source material, and that is
added at the playback site.

>> John, I see that you never really understood what all
>> of those A, B, C, & etc curves were for on that fancy
>> Meridian digital processor you bragged about using.

> And now you change the subject, Mr. Krueger.

No, I'm sticking to the topic of PCM recordings made using established and
readily-available technology.

> Yes,
> psychoacoustic noiseshaping algorithms allow you to
> preserve some of the resolution of a hi-rez original
> when you master a 16-bit CD.

Out-of-pocket cost = pretty close to zero.

> But the sad fact is that
> the proportion of CD releases that are mastered with
> such processors is relatively small overall (though
> ubiquitous in modern classical recording) and, of
> course, is zero when you consider CDs mastered before
> 1993 or so.

I thought we were talking about modern PCM recording technology, not legacy
technology and particular implementations.

> Just because some of the more careful classical mastering
> engineers in the 21st century uses the appropriate
> redithering does not mean that _all_ CDs have been
> mastered correctly.

Since when were we talking about a rule that had to apply to every CD that
was ever made, no matter its content or how expediently it was made?

Do try to stay on-topic, John.

>> Hint: they were put there for me to have fun with you,
>> today. ;-)

> Given that in the past, you have argued that use of
> such noiseshaping algorithms is unnecessary, I believe
> that I am the one having "fun" today, Mr. Krueger.


See my former comments about practical applications. Note that the
challenges I posed way back then have never been addressed.

>>> It is entirely possible that someone will prefer
>>> the presentation of LP.

>> It is entirely possible that someone will prefer
>> the handling of a 1954 Cadillac.

> Of course. And contrary to what you and "Vlad"
> proclaim, there is nothing wrong in someone
> expressing such a preference.

You're projecting again, John. I've never said that it is impossible that
somebody somewhere should not be allowed to express their preference for LPs
or the handling of 1954 Cadillacs, which embody approximately
contemporaneous technology. Some people prefer horses and others prefer to
walk. Actually, as a enthusiastic backwoods camper, hiker and canoist, I at
times prefer the use of *really* ancient technology for transportation. I
still prefer a ca. 2006 car for most trips.

>The reality, Mr.
> Krueger, is that the Google record clearly shows
> that you interpret anyone expressing an opinion
> different from your own as a personal attack.

Have fun in your alternative universe, John.

> Every post you make is this more revealing of your
> character than perhaps you might wish :-)

Right smiley means you were joking.

Post again when you have something serious to say about audio on your mind,
John.