The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth

[Arny Krueger]

The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth

2007 September, Volume 55 Number 9

Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio
Playback
E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775

"Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic range of
SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD format. A
carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced listeners
showed no ability to hear any differences between formats. High-resolution
audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality because sound
engineers have more freedom to make them that way. There is no evidence that
perceived quality has anything to do with additional resolution or
bandwidth."

Because the AES likes to behave in public like gentlemen, they just didn't
come right out and call the high end audiophile press and many of the
audiophile suppliers, charlatans and liars. But there it is, right between
the lines!

John Atkinson, read it and weep! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth
>>
>> 2007 September, Volume 55 Number 9
>>
>> Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution
>> Audio
>> Playback
>> E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775
>>
>> "Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic range
>> of
>> SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD format. A
>> carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced listeners
>> showed no ability to hear any differences between formats.
>> High-resolution
>> audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality because sound
>> engineers have more freedom to make them that way. There is no evidence
>> that
>> perceived quality has anything to do with additional resolution or
>> bandwidth."
>
> One author:
> http://www.enjoythemusic.com/ebrad.htm
>
> In RAO-speak, a long-time "CD bigot" :-) :

Sue him for being normal instead of a member of a very tiny, very noisy
iconoclastic minority.

> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/articles/ces2001_ebradmeyer.htm
>
> "High-Bit Follies" makes some important points about the
> impracticalities of replacing cd as a two-channel format. (It would have
> been easier if the big record companies had abandoned CD just as the new
> format was introduced.)

It's a big article, can you be bothered to cite something from it that is
relevant to your claims?

>> Because the AES likes to behave in public like gentlemen, they just
>> didn't
>> come right out and call the high end audiophile press and many of the
>> audiophile suppliers, charlatans and liars. But there it is, right
>> between
>> the lines!

>> John Atkinson, read it and weep! ;-)

> Another way of reading between the lines is that high-rez releases are
> more likely to sound good.

...because of remastering. A lot of this material was last remastered in the
days when LP-quality sound was ringing in the marketplace's ears. The
mastering of the day was often tilted to please LP-centric ears. Since then
things have opened up a lot. People got used to a lot more accuracy.

> Get back to us when you have access to the entire article. A couple of
> obvious nits: an "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" isn't a CD; no mention of
> source material dynamic range and/or frequency response.

Interesting Stephen that you can search the BAS web site and not find it.

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

Stephen, is google lying to you? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth
>> >>
>> >> 2007 September, Volume 55 Number 9
>> >>
>> >> Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution
>> >> Audio
>> >> Playback
>> >> E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775
>> >>
>> >> "Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic
>> >> range
>> >> of
>> >> SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD format.
>> >> A
>> >> carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced listeners
>> >> showed no ability to hear any differences between formats.
>> >> High-resolution
>> >> audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality because sound
>> >> engineers have more freedom to make them that way. There is no
>> >> evidence
>> >> that
>> >> perceived quality has anything to do with additional resolution or
>> >> bandwidth."
>> >
>> > One author:
>> > http://www.enjoythemusic.com/ebrad.htm
>> >
>> > In RAO-speak, a long-time "CD bigot" :-) :
>>
>> Sue him for being normal instead of a member of a very tiny, very noisy
>> iconoclastic minority.

> Normal people don't get worked up over bit-rates.

Stephen, normal people don't get worked up over vinyl like you and Jenn. So
what is your point? ;-)

>> > http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/articles/ces2001_ebradmeyer.htm
>> >
>> > "High-Bit Follies" makes some important points about the
>> > impracticalities of replacing cd as a two-channel format. (It would
>> > have
>> > been easier if the big record companies had abandoned CD just as the
>> > new
>> > format was introduced.)
>>
>> It's a big article, can you be bothered to cite something from it that is
>> relevant to your claims?

> No bother, from the second paragraph: "it is an exercise in futility to
> try to introduce a new audio medium that can't be played on 800,000,000
> existing CD players worldwide."

That wouldn't be true, and wasn't true, if the baseline was something as
ugly-sounding and unusable as vinyl.

> Also the bits about multi-channel. Maybe the article too long for you to
> read at 2000+ words, but surely you could past the first paragraph.

Good thing you reminded me of how you butchered your quote, Stephen. What
you removed goes well over the lines of intellectual honesty. Here's the
whole sentence that you butchered to create a question where there was none:

" I've written before that since the compact disc is the most successful,
durable and universal audio carrier ever, it is an exercise in futility to
try to introduce a new audio medium that can't be played on 800,000,000
existing CD players worldwide."

Someplace within "the compact disc is the most successful, durable and
universal audio carrier ever" you should have gotten the message, Stephen.

> Or
> did you think my parenthetical comment was from the article? I'll try to
> be more clear.

Try a little intellectual honesty, Stephen. Maybe it will be habit-forming!
;-)

> I also enjoyed his article about ABX (linked on "Articles") in which BAS
> members snapped at each other taking a test.

Yes, discord would be something that you would love and adore, Stephen. Too
bad you've never been around BAS members - a little good-natured snapping is
not uncommon.

>> >> Because the AES likes to behave in public like gentlemen, they just
>> >> didn't
>> >> come right out and call the high end audiophile press and many of the
>> >> audiophile suppliers, charlatans and liars. But there it is, right
>> >> between
>> >> the lines!
>>
>> >> John Atkinson, read it and weep! ;-)
>>
>> > Another way of reading between the lines is that high-rez releases are
>> > more likely to sound good.

>> ..because of remastering. A lot of this material was last remastered in
>> the
>> days when LP-quality sound was ringing in the marketplace's ears. The
>> mastering of the day was often tilted to please LP-centric ears. Since
>> then
>> things have opened up a lot. People got used to a lot more accuracy.

> And that remastering is more likely to be better on a high-rez release,
> according to the article you just cited.

Point being that finally shucking the surly bonds of vnyl-infected thinking
during the mastering step is more important than adding a few inaudible
bits.

> The rest of your comment is quite creative, considering the long history
> of complaining about improper use of lp-eq master tapes for cd
> mastering. Of course, those tapes are good ways to make lps.

But making LPs is a waste of time in normal people's way of thinking.

>> > Get back to us when you have access to the entire article. A couple of
>> > obvious nits: an "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" isn't a CD; no mention of
>> > source material dynamic range and/or frequency response.
>>
>> Interesting Stephen that you can search the BAS web site and not find it.
>>
>> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
>>
>> Stephen, is google lying to you? ;-)

> I didn't search the BAS website.

Admit it Stephen, you didn't do a reasonable job of searching the topic you
purport to be writing about.

> For the benefit of RAO's world-wide
> readership, how is a "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" the same as a cd, and what
> were the details of the source materials in the comparison?

Actually, a "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" is very likely to be more degrading
than the resampling that I've used in my similar experiements. The point is
that we don't need to obsolete CDs or CD players because of the CD format.
There is no sonic justification for doing that at all. The CD format is not
the huge bugabear that the vinylistas have been whining about all these
years.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2007 September, Volume 55 Number 9
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into
>> >> >> High-Resolution
>> >> >> Audio
>> >> >> Playback
>> >> >> E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic
>> >> >> range
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD
>> >> >> format.
>> >> >> A
>> >> >> carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced
>> >> >> listeners
>> >> >> showed no ability to hear any differences between formats.
>> >> >> High-resolution
>> >> >> audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality because
>> >> >> sound
>> >> >> engineers have more freedom to make them that way. There is no
>> >> >> evidence
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> perceived quality has anything to do with additional resolution or
>> >> >> bandwidth."
>> >> >
>> >> > One author:
>> >> > http://www.enjoythemusic.com/ebrad.htm
>> >> >
>> >> > In RAO-speak, a long-time "CD bigot" :-) :

>> >> Sue him for being normal instead of a member of a very tiny, very
>> >> noisy
>> >> iconoclastic minority.

>> > Normal people don't get worked up over bit-rates.

>> Stephen, normal people don't get worked up over vinyl like you and Jenn.
>> So
>> what is your point? ;-)

> That he's not normal, either. ;-)

>> >> > http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/articles/ces2001_ebradmeyer.htm
>> >> >
>> >> > "High-Bit Follies" makes some important points about the
>> >> > impracticalities of replacing cd as a two-channel format. (It would
>> >> > have
>> >> > been easier if the big record companies had abandoned CD just as the
>> >> > new
>> >> > format was introduced.)
>> >>
>> >> It's a big article, can you be bothered to cite something from it that
>> >> is
>> >> relevant to your claims?
>>
>> > No bother, from the second paragraph: "it is an exercise in futility to
>> > try to introduce a new audio medium that can't be played on 800,000,000
>> > existing CD players worldwide."
>>
>> That wouldn't be true, and wasn't true, if the baseline was something as
>> ugly-sounding and unusable as vinyl.

> That game was over when the majors refused to accept returns of lps.

The game was over when most of us were freed of the surly shackles of
LP-quality sound.

> Ancient history.

Agreed.

>> > Also the bits about multi-channel. Maybe the article too long for you
>> > to
>> > read at 2000+ words, but surely you could past the first paragraph.

>> Good thing you reminded me of how you butchered your quote, Stephen. What
>> you removed goes well over the lines of intellectual honesty. Here's the
>> whole sentence that you butchered to create a question where there was
>> none:
>>
>> " I've written before that since the compact disc is the most successful,
>> durable and universal audio carrier ever, it is an exercise in futility
>> to
>> try to introduce a new audio medium that can't be played on 800,000,000
>> existing CD players worldwide."

>> Someplace within "the compact disc is the most successful, durable and
>> universal audio carrier ever" you should have gotten the message,
>> Stephen.

> That's just cheerleading, not relevant to the question of a new format,

Typical vinylista rhetoric - dismiss anything that disagrees with their
narrow and twisted thinking.

> whereas backwards compatibility is.

No problems there for the CD format.

>> > Or
>> > did you think my parenthetical comment was from the article? I'll try
>> > to
>> > be more clear.
>>
>> Try a little intellectual honesty, Stephen. Maybe it will be
>> habit-forming!
>> ;-)

> It's not a habit, it's my baseline.

Then where did all the deceptive editing come from?

>> > I also enjoyed his article about ABX (linked on "Articles") in which
>> > BAS
>> > members snapped at each other taking a test.

>> Yes, discord would be something that you would love and adore, Stephen.
>> Too
>> bad you've never been around BAS members - a little good-natured snapping
>> is
>> not uncommon.

> During stressful listening tests, I shouldn't be surprised.

The RAO preferred methods for reducing stress during listening tests are:

(1) The Middiot solution - simply don't do tests. Just say no to
rationality.

(2) Do sighted evaluations so that there is nothing but the vague appearance
of a test - basically (1) for hypocrites.

Which do you subscribe to, Stephen?

>> >> >> Because the AES likes to behave in public like gentlemen, they just
>> >> >> didn't
>> >> >> come right out and call the high end audiophile press and many of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> audiophile suppliers, charlatans and liars. But there it is, right
>> >> >> between
>> >> >> the lines!
>> >>
>> >> >> John Atkinson, read it and weep! ;-)
>> >>
>> >> > Another way of reading between the lines is that high-rez releases
>> >> > are
>> >> > more likely to sound good.
>>
>> >> ..because of remastering. A lot of this material was last remastered
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> days when LP-quality sound was ringing in the marketplace's ears. The
>> >> mastering of the day was often tilted to please LP-centric ears. Since
>> >> then
>> >> things have opened up a lot. People got used to a lot more accuracy.
>>
>> > And that remastering is more likely to be better on a high-rez release,
>> > according to the article you just cited.
>>
>> Point being that finally shucking the surly bonds of vnyl-infected
>> thinking
>> during the mastering step is more important than adding a few inaudible
>> bits.

> Odd that Telarc, MoFi, and Classic were able create both lps and
> high-rez.

Yes, but unfortunately the LPs still sound like LPs, and have the usual
audible faults of LPs.

>> > The rest of your comment is quite creative, considering the long
>> > history
>> > of complaining about improper use of lp-eq master tapes for cd
>> > mastering. Of course, those tapes are good ways to make lps.

>> But making LPs is a waste of time in normal people's way of thinking.

> That's why it's an irrelevant argument against high-rez.

Has there been a relevant argument for high-rez other than it provides an
economic motivation to remaster?

>> >> > Get back to us when you have access to the entire article. A couple
>> >> > of
>> >> > obvious nits: an "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" isn't a CD; no mention of
>> >> > source material dynamic range and/or frequency response.
>> >>
>> >> Interesting Stephen that you can search the BAS web site and not find
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
>> >>
>> >> Stephen, is google lying to you? ;-)
>
>> > I didn't search the BAS website.

>> Admit it Stephen, you didn't do a reasonable job of searching the topic
>> you
>> purport to be writing about.

> No. Why should an AES article have its details on a hobbyist website?

Because the AES article's author is well-known to author articles for that
web site?

>> > For the benefit of RAO's world-wide
>> > readership, how is a "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" the same as a cd, and
>> > what
>> > were the details of the source materials in the comparison?

>> Actually, a "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" is very likely to be more degrading
>> than the resampling that I've used in my similar experiements. The point
>> is
>> that we don't need to obsolete CDs or CD players because of the CD
>> format.
>> There is no sonic justification for doing that at all. The CD format is
>> not
>> the huge bugabear that the vinylistas have been whining about all these
>> years.

> So, it's not the same?

Still reading comprension challenged, Stephen? What's unclear about "likely
to be more degrading"?

[John Atkinson]

On Oct 29, 10:12 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth

Mr. Krueger appears to be confusing the Audio Engineering Society with
the
views of two authors of a specific paper.

> > 2007 September, Volume 55 Number 9
> > Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio
> > Playback: E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775

I read this when it was published last month.I was particularly
interested
as it contradicted the conclusions of a paper presented at the June
2007
AES Conference, to which I have referred before on r.a.o.

> > "Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic range of
> > SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD format. A
> > carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced listeners
> > showed no ability to hear any differences between formats. High-resolution
> > audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality because sound
> > engineers have more freedom to make them that way. There is no evidence that
> > perceived quality has anything to do with additional resolution or
> > bandwidth."
>
> One author:http://www.enjoythemusic.com/ebrad.htm
> In RAO-speak, a long-time "CD bigot" :-) :
> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/articles/ces2001_ebradmeyer.htm

:-) In years past EBM organized blind listening tests at an AES
convention that found that listeners could not distinguish a CD
from a copy of that CD made on TDK cassette tape. I gues
that makes him a "cassette bigot": :-)

> "High-Bit Follies" makes some important points about the
> impracticalities of replacing cd as a two-channel format.
> (It would have been easier if the big record companies had
> abandoned cd just as the new format was introduced.)

Yet CD is now under thrreat form LP, no less:
http://tinyurl.com/2b6fzl

> > Because the AES likes to behave in public like gentlemen, they just didn't
> > come right out and call the high end audiophile press and many of the
> > audiophile suppliers, charlatans and liars. But there it is, right between
> > the lines!
> > John Atkinson, read it and weep! ;-)
>
> Another way of reading between the lines is that high-rez releases are
> more likely to sound good.

The authors specifically state that to be the case.

> Get back to us when you have access to the entire article. A couple of
> obvious nits: an "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" isn't a cd; no mention of
> source material dynamic range and/or frequency response.

The article does indeed lack detail. Checking that detail on the BAS
site, I note that one of the hi-rez sources used, A Pioneer DVD
player,
has, according to my own measurements, no more dynamic range
that a CD player.

"[Arny Krueger] sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest,
tra la la..." eh.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
AES Member

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article >,
>> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio
>> >> >> >> myth
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 2007 September, Volume 55 Number 9
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into
>> >> >> >> High-Resolution
>> >> >> >> Audio
>> >> >> >> Playback
>> >> >> >> E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and
>> >> >> >> dynamic
>> >> >> >> range
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD
>> >> >> >> format.
>> >> >> >> A
>> >> >> >> carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced
>> >> >> >> listeners
>> >> >> >> showed no ability to hear any differences between formats.
>> >> >> >> High-resolution
>> >> >> >> audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality because
>> >> >> >> sound
>> >> >> >> engineers have more freedom to make them that way. There is no
>> >> >> >> evidence
>> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> perceived quality has anything to do with additional resolution
>> >> >> >> or
>> >> >> >> bandwidth."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > One author:
>> >> >> > http://www.enjoythemusic.com/ebrad.htm
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In RAO-speak, a long-time "CD bigot" :-) :
>>
>> >> >> Sue him for being normal instead of a member of a very tiny, very
>> >> >> noisy
>> >> >> iconoclastic minority.
>>
>> >> > Normal people don't get worked up over bit-rates.
>>
>> >> Stephen, normal people don't get worked up over vinyl like you and
>> >> Jenn.
>> >> So
>> >> what is your point? ;-)
>>
>> > That he's not normal, either. ;-)
>>
>> >> >> > http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/articles/ces2001_ebradmeyer.htm
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "High-Bit Follies" makes some important points about the
>> >> >> > impracticalities of replacing cd as a two-channel format. (It
>> >> >> > would
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > been easier if the big record companies had abandoned CD just as
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > new
>> >> >> > format was introduced.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's a big article, can you be bothered to cite something from it
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> relevant to your claims?
>> >>
>> >> > No bother, from the second paragraph: "it is an exercise in futility
>> >> > to
>> >> > try to introduce a new audio medium that can't be played on
>> >> > 800,000,000
>> >> > existing CD players worldwide."
>> >>
>> >> That wouldn't be true, and wasn't true, if the baseline was something
>> >> as
>> >> ugly-sounding and unusable as vinyl.
>>
>> > That game was over when the majors refused to accept returns of lps.
>>
>> The game was over when most of us were freed of the surly shackles of
>> LP-quality sound.
>>
>> > Ancient history.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> >> > Also the bits about multi-channel. Maybe the article too long for
>> >> > you
>> >> > to
>> >> > read at 2000+ words, but surely you could past the first paragraph.
>>
>> >> Good thing you reminded me of how you butchered your quote, Stephen.
>> >> What
>> >> you removed goes well over the lines of intellectual honesty. Here's
>> >> the
>> >> whole sentence that you butchered to create a question where there was
>> >> none:
>> >>
>> >> " I've written before that since the compact disc is the most
>> >> successful,
>> >> durable and universal audio carrier ever, it is an exercise in
>> >> futility
>> >> to
>> >> try to introduce a new audio medium that can't be played on
>> >> 800,000,000
>> >> existing CD players worldwide."
>>
>> >> Someplace within "the compact disc is the most successful, durable and
>> >> universal audio carrier ever" you should have gotten the message,
>> >> Stephen.
>>
>> > That's just cheerleading, not relevant to the question of a new format,
>>
>> Typical vinylista rhetoric - dismiss anything that disagrees with their
>> narrow and twisted thinking.
>
> Take it as you wish, it still has nothing to do with the point to which
> I referred.
>
>> > whereas backwards compatibility is.
>>
>> No problems there for the CD format.
>
> Especially when the competition is made unavailable. However, this is
> Meyer's point. Feel free to disagree with him.
>
>> >> > Or
>> >> > did you think my parenthetical comment was from the article? I'll
>> >> > try
>> >> > to
>> >> > be more clear.
>> >>
>> >> Try a little intellectual honesty, Stephen. Maybe it will be
>> >> habit-forming!
>> >> ;-)
>>
>> > It's not a habit, it's my baseline.
>>
>> Then where did all the deceptive editing come from?
>
> It's not deceptive, as the omitted words did not affect the point made.
>
>> >> > I also enjoyed his article about ABX (linked on "Articles") in which
>> >> > BAS
>> >> > members snapped at each other taking a test.
>>
>> >> Yes, discord would be something that you would love and adore,
>> >> Stephen.
>> >> Too
>> >> bad you've never been around BAS members - a little good-natured
>> >> snapping
>> >> is
>> >> not uncommon.
>>
>> > During stressful listening tests, I shouldn't be surprised.
>>
>> The RAO preferred methods for reducing stress during listening tests are:
>>
>> (1) The Middiot solution - simply don't do tests. Just say no to
>> rationality.
>>
>> (2) Do sighted evaluations so that there is nothing but the vague
>> appearance
>> of a test - basically (1) for hypocrites.
>>
>> Which do you subscribe to, Stephen?
>
> Well played! Offer impossible alternatives as if they're the only
> choices.
>
> Which method was used in Boston? In the AES
> paper/report/letter-to-the-editor?
>
>> >> >> >> Because the AES likes to behave in public like gentlemen, they
>> >> >> >> just
>> >> >> >> didn't
>> >> >> >> come right out and call the high end audiophile press and many
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> audiophile suppliers, charlatans and liars. But there it is,
>> >> >> >> right
>> >> >> >> between
>> >> >> >> the lines!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> John Atkinson, read it and weep! ;-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Another way of reading between the lines is that high-rez
>> >> >> > releases
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > more likely to sound good.
>> >>
>> >> >> ..because of remastering. A lot of this material was last
>> >> >> remastered
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> days when LP-quality sound was ringing in the marketplace's ears.
>> >> >> The
>> >> >> mastering of the day was often tilted to please LP-centric ears.
>> >> >> Since
>> >> >> then
>> >> >> things have opened up a lot. People got used to a lot more
>> >> >> accuracy.
>> >>
>> >> > And that remastering is more likely to be better on a high-rez
>> >> > release,
>> >> > according to the article you just cited.
>> >>
>> >> Point being that finally shucking the surly bonds of vnyl-infected
>> >> thinking
>> >> during the mastering step is more important than adding a few
>> >> inaudible
>> >> bits.
>>
>> > Odd that Telarc, MoFi, and Classic were able create both lps and
>> > high-rez.
>>
>> Yes, but unfortunately the LPs still sound like LPs, and have the usual
>> audible faults of LPs.
>
> Yet the cds, DADs, SACDs and DVD-As were untainted despite the close
> proximity to lp-ness.
>
>> >> > The rest of your comment is quite creative, considering the long
>> >> > history
>> >> > of complaining about improper use of lp-eq master tapes for cd
>> >> > mastering. Of course, those tapes are good ways to make lps.
>>
>> >> But making LPs is a waste of time in normal people's way of thinking.
>>
>> > That's why it's an irrelevant argument against high-rez.
>>
>> Has there been a relevant argument for high-rez other than it provides an
>> economic motivation to remaster?
>
> Higher rez, for one.
>
>> >> >> > Get back to us when you have access to the entire article. A
>> >> >> > couple
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > obvious nits: an "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" isn't a CD; no mention
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > source material dynamic range and/or frequency response.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Interesting Stephen that you can search the BAS web site and not
>> >> >> find
>> >> >> it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Stephen, is google lying to you? ;-)
>> >
>> >> > I didn't search the BAS website.
>>
>> >> Admit it Stephen, you didn't do a reasonable job of searching the
>> >> topic
>> >> you
>> >> purport to be writing about.
>>
>> > No. Why should an AES article have its details on a hobbyist website?
>>
>> Because the AES article's author is well-known to author articles for
>> that
>> web site?
>
> No. I expect that info to be in the AES article.
>
>> >> > For the benefit of RAO's world-wide
>> >> > readership, how is a "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" the same as a cd, and
>> >> > what
>> >> > were the details of the source materials in the comparison?
>>
>> >> Actually, a "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" is very likely to be more
>> >> degrading
>> >> than the resampling that I've used in my similar experiements. The
>> >> point
>> >> is
>> >> that we don't need to obsolete CDs or CD players because of the CD
>> >> format.
>> >> There is no sonic justification for doing that at all. The CD format
>> >> is
>> >> not
>> >> the huge bugabear that the vinylistas have been whining about all
>> >> these
>> >> years.
>>
>> > So, it's not the same?
>>
>> Still reading comprension challenged, Stephen? What's unclear about
>> "likely
>> to be more degrading"?
>
> If CD is perfect and the A/D/A loop is degraded, they're not the same.

Your mastery of obvious but irrelevant facts is a sight to behold, Stephen.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 29, 10:12 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> > The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth

> Mr. Krueger appears to be confusing the Audio Engineering Society with
> the views of two authors of a specific paper.

John, the paper passes editorial review. That means something.

>> > 2007 September, Volume 55 Number 9
>> > Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution
>> > Audio
>> > Playback: E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775

> I read this when it was published last month.I was particularly
> interested
> as it contradicted the conclusions of a paper presented at the June
> 2007 AES Conference, to which I have referred before on r.a.o.

Journal papers always trump conference papers, because the former are
formally reviewed, while just about any piece of crap can be presented as a
conference paper.

>> > "Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic range
>> > of
>> > SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD format.
>> > A
>> > carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced listeners
>> > showed no ability to hear any differences between formats.
>> > High-resolution
>> > audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality because sound
>> > engineers have more freedom to make them that way. There is no evidence
>> > that
>> > perceived quality has anything to do with additional resolution or
>> > bandwidth."

>> One author:http://www.enjoythemusic.com/ebrad.htm
>> In RAO-speak, a long-time "CD bigot" :-) :
>> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/articles/ces2001_ebradmeyer.htm

> :-) In years past EBM organized blind listening tests at an AES
> convention that found that listeners could not distinguish a CD
> from a copy of that CD made on TDK cassette tape. I gues
> that makes him a "cassette bigot": :-)

Irrelevant name-calling.

>> "High-Bit Follies" makes some important points about the
>> impracticalities of replacing cd as a two-channel format.
>> (It would have been easier if the big record companies had
>> abandoned cd just as the new format was introduced.)

> Yet CD is now under thrreat form LP, no less:
> http://tinyurl.com/2b6fzl

That's yet another nonsense piece of fluff.

the author is waxing poetic and ignoring the relevant facts. There really
aren't that many people who are still buying vinyl - its sales were
temporarily buoyed up by dance DJs who prized it for its ability to be
scratched. However, digital scratching device that work with CDs and MP3s
are becoming popular, and its not clear how long this particular genre of
dance music will remain popular.

Sales of vinyl dropped down from 100% to around the 1% level for several
years, and they have resumed dropping.

>> > Because the AES likes to behave in public like gentlemen, they just
>> > didn't
>> > come right out and call the high end audiophile press and many of the
>> > audiophile suppliers, charlatans and liars. But there it is, right
>> > between
>> > the lines!
>> > John Atkinson, read it and weep! ;-)

>> Another way of reading between the lines is that high-rez releases are
>> more likely to sound good.

> The authors specifically state that to be the case.

But the reason has nothing to do with increased resolution.

>> Get back to us when you have access to the entire article. A couple of
>> obvious nits: an "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" isn't a cd; no mention of
>> source material dynamic range and/or frequency response.

By the time you posted this John, I had posted a response with the details
that you are whining about:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

You even admit it:

> The article does indeed lack detail. Checking that detail on the BAS
> site, I note that one of the hi-rez sources used, A Pioneer DVD
> player, has, according to my own measurements, no more dynamic range
> that a CD player.

But, it was not the only hi-rez source that was used.

> "[Arny Krueger] sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest,
> tra la la..." eh.

John Atkinson does exactly the same... :-(

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > On Oct 29, 10:12 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
>> >> In article >,
>> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth
>>
>> > Mr. Krueger appears to be confusing the Audio Engineering Society with
>> > the views of two authors of a specific paper.

>> John, the paper passes editorial review. That means something.

> A lack of gross flaws.

Spoken like someone who has never submitted a technical paper to the JAES
for review.

>> >> > 2007 September, Volume 55 Number 9
>> >> > Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution
>> >> > Audio
>> >> > Playback: E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775
>>
>> > I read this when it was published last month.I was particularly
>> > interested
>> > as it contradicted the conclusions of a paper presented at the June
>> > 2007 AES Conference, to which I have referred before on r.a.o.
>>
>> Journal papers always trump conference papers, because the former are
>> formally reviewed, while just about any piece of crap can be presented as
>> a
>> conference paper.

> What a disappointment to all those conference paper authors.

???????????

>> >> > "Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic
>> >> > range
>> >> > of
>> >> > SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD
>> >> > format.
>> >> > A
>> >> > carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced
>> >> > listeners
>> >> > showed no ability to hear any differences between formats.
>> >> > High-resolution
>> >> > audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality because
>> >> > sound
>> >> > engineers have more freedom to make them that way. There is no
>> >> > evidence
>> >> > that
>> >> > perceived quality has anything to do with additional resolution or
>> >> > bandwidth."
>>
>> >> One author:http://www.enjoythemusic.com/ebrad.htm
>> >> In RAO-speak, a long-time "CD bigot" :-) :
>> >> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/articles/ces2001_ebradmeyer.htm
>>
>> > :-) In years past EBM organized blind listening tests at an AES
>> > convention that found that listeners could not distinguish a CD
>> > from a copy of that CD made on TDK cassette tape. I gues
>> > that makes him a "cassette bigot": :-)

>> Irrelevant name-calling.

> Interesting point about drawing conclusions from blind tests.

Shows your bigotry against blind tests, Stephen.

>> >> "High-Bit Follies" makes some important points about the
>> >> impracticalities of replacing cd as a two-channel format.
>> >> (It would have been easier if the big record companies had
>> >> abandoned cd just as the new format was introduced.)
>>
>> > Yet CD is now under thrreat form LP, no less:
>> > http://tinyurl.com/2b6fzl
>>
>> That's yet another nonsense piece of fluff.

>> the author is waxing poetic and ignoring the relevant facts. There really
>> aren't that many people who are still buying vinyl - its sales were
>> temporarily buoyed up by dance DJs who prized it for its ability to be
>> scratched. However, digital scratching device that work with CDs and MP3s
>> are becoming popular, and its not clear how long this particular genre of
>> dance music will remain popular.

> You missed the part about the increase including more genres than just
> dance music.

No, you missed the RIAA statistics showing that net sales of LPs dropped
precipitously in the last reporting period.

>> Sales of vinyl dropped down from 100% to around the 1% level for several
>> years, and they have resumed dropping.

> Except for where they are increasing.

Niche markets within niche markets need not apply.

>> >> > Because the AES likes to behave in public like gentlemen, they just
>> >> > didn't
>> >> > come right out and call the high end audiophile press and many of
>> >> > the
>> >> > audiophile suppliers, charlatans and liars. But there it is, right
>> >> > between
>> >> > the lines!
>> >> > John Atkinson, read it and weep! ;-)
>>
>> >> Another way of reading between the lines is that high-rez releases are
>> >> more likely to sound good.
>>
>> > The authors specifically state that to be the case.

>> But the reason has nothing to do with increased resolution.

> Irrelevant to the consumer looking for the best sound.

What would be relevant to the consumer looking for the best sould would be
the disadvantage of a format that nonsensically requires a new disc player.

>> >> Get back to us when you have access to the entire article. A couple of
>> >> obvious nits: an "CD-Standard A/D/A Loop" isn't a cd; no mention of
>> >> source material dynamic range and/or frequency response.
>>
>> By the time you posted this John, I had posted a response with the
>> details
>> that you are whining about:
>>
>> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

>> You even admit it:

> If he admitted it, why do you need to repost the link?

Stop whining about trivial items in my post, Stephen.

>> > The article does indeed lack detail. Checking that detail on the BAS
>> > site, I note that one of the hi-rez sources used, A Pioneer DVD
>> > player, has, according to my own measurements, no more dynamic range
>> > that a CD player.

>> But, it was not the only hi-rez source that was used.

> Good. Only one of the sources was fatally flawed for the purpose of
> comparison.

Wrong.

> Of course, it's the bargain Pioneer I have at home!

Stephen, if it is fatally flawed why do you have it?

>I hope the digital outputs were disabled.

I'm surprised that you admit to having such a POS in use, Stephen.

> System 3 is an auditorium PA! though probably a better one than usual.

Knee-jerk disrespect for a very high quality live sound system noted.

> System 4: I have to approve of Quad 989s in general, but some do
> criticize them for dynamic compression at high-ish levels and for lack
> of high frequency extension.

Whine on, dude!

>> > "[Arny Krueger] sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest,
>> > tra la la..." eh.

>> John Atkinson does exactly the same... :-(

> I've been considering putting my Pioneer in the Quad system to hear some
> DSD. If I do, I'll post my useless, informal, biased opinions.

Remind me again when you ever posted anything useful here, Stephen. I think
it did happen in the distant past, just not lately. :-(

> If you'd referred to the paper and the linked the "explanation" you
> might have sparked some real discussion! Too bad you led with
> "repudiation."

I'm not complaining about the response that I got.

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> > ???????????

> You have implicitly called all conference papers pieces of crap, and
> their authors will be sad someone of your reputation has belittled their
> efforts.

Yes, Arnii is known far and wide as the Master of Crap. Quite a
condemnation for Mr. **** to throw at his fellow travelers.

[John Atkinson]

On Oct 30, 11:40 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article om>,
> John Atkinson > wrote:
> > In years past EBM organized blind listening tests at an AES
> > convention that found that listeners could not distinguish a CD
> > from a copy of that CD made on TDK cassette tape. I guess
> > that makes him a "cassette bigot": :-)
>
> Blind testing: is there nothing it can't do?

In the hands of a master, it can produce any desired result.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Eeyore]

John Atkinson wrote:

> Yet CD is now under thrreat form LP, no less:
> http://tinyurl.com/2b6fzl

In the same way no doubt that the automobile is 'under threat' from the horse !

Graham

[Lionel]

Eeyore a écrit :
>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> Yet CD is now under thrreat form LP, no less:
>> http://tinyurl.com/2b6fzl
>
> In the same way no doubt that the automobile is 'under threat' from the horse !

This article is full of stupid generalization :

"Although CDs have a wider dynamic range, mastering houses are often
encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible:
It's the so-called loudness war. Since the audio on vinyl can't be
compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound."

Does the guy wrote for teenagers only ?

Nothing interesting in the childish (grotesque) prophecy "long-predicted
death of the CD".
Since CD is one of the media which has had the longuest economical life
it is laughable to read about its "long-predicted death".

Sounds to me more like a "voodoo incantation" than like a serious
article. Sorry.

[Lionel]

Eeyore a écrit :
>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> Yet CD is now under thrreat form LP, no less:
>> http://tinyurl.com/2b6fzl
>
> In the same way no doubt that the automobile is 'under threat' from the horse !

This article is full of stupid generalizations :

"Although CDs have a wider dynamic range, mastering houses are often
encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible:
It's the so-called loudness war. Since the audio on vinyl can't be
compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound."

Does the guy wrote for teenagers only ?

Nothing interesting in the childish (grotesque) prophecy "long-predicted
death of the CD".
Since CD is one of the media which has had the longuest economical life
it is laughable to read about its "long-predicted death".

Sounds like a "voodoo incantation" than like a serious article. Sorry.

More frightening ! This indigent stuff has been provided by on of the
"pope" of the audiophiles, Mr Atkinson himself...
....is it the first sign of the long "predicted-death" of high-end audio ?
;-)

[Lionel]

Eeyore a écrit :
>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> Yet CD is now under thrreat form LP, no less:
>> http://tinyurl.com/2b6fzl
>
> In the same way no doubt that the automobile is 'under threat' from the horse !

Agree.

This article is full of stupid generalizations :

"Although CDs have a wider dynamic range, mastering houses are often
encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible:
It's the so-called loudness war. Since the audio on vinyl can't be
compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound."

Does the guy wrote for teenagers only ?

Nothing interesting in the childish (grotesque) prophecy "long-predicted
death of the CD".
Since CD is one of the music media which has had the longuest economical
life it is laughable to read about its "long-predicted death".
Sounds more like a "voodoo incantation" than like a serious article.

More frightening ! This indigent stuff has been provided by one of the
Popes of the "audiophily"...
....the first sign of the "long-predicted death" of high-end audio ?
;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Oct 30, 11:40 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
>> In article om>,
>> John Atkinson > wrote:
>> > In years past EBM organized blind listening tests at an AES
>> > convention that found that listeners could not distinguish a CD
>> > from a copy of that CD made on TDK cassette tape. I guess
>> > that makes him a "cassette bigot": :-)
>>
>> Blind testing: is there nothing it can't do?
>
> In the hands of a master, it can produce any desired result.

Apparently that is one reason why John seems to favor blind tests and why I
favor double blind tests.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> > On Oct 29, 10:12 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
>> >> >> In article >,
>> >> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio
>> >> >> > myth
>> >>
>> >> > Mr. Krueger appears to be confusing the Audio Engineering Society
>> >> > with
>> >> > the views of two authors of a specific paper.
>>
>> >> John, the paper passes editorial review. That means something.
>>
>> > A lack of gross flaws.
>>
>> Spoken like someone who has never submitted a technical paper to the JAES
>> for review.

> It can contain gross flaws?

Actually, yes at least once. The paper in question was authored by a certain
Mr. Hamm.

>> >> >> > 2007 September, Volume 55 Number 9
>> >> >> > Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into
>> >> >> > High-Resolution
>> >> >> > Audio
>> >> >> > Playback: E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775
>> >>
>> >> > I read this when it was published last month.I was particularly
>> >> > interested
>> >> > as it contradicted the conclusions of a paper presented at the June
>> >> > 2007 AES Conference, to which I have referred before on r.a.o.
>> >>
>> >> Journal papers always trump conference papers, because the former are
>> >> formally reviewed, while just about any piece of crap can be presented
>> >> as
>> >> a
>> >> conference paper.
>>
>> > What a disappointment to all those conference paper authors.

>> ???????????

> You have implicitly called all conference papers pieces of crap,

Only in your excluded-middle dreams, Stephen.

> and their authors will be sad someone of your reputation has belittled
> their
> efforts.

Actually my statement "...just about any piece of crap can be presented as a
conference paper..." is a paraphrase from a number of AES session chairmen
of my acquaintance. Case in point would be a certain conference paper that
was presented by a Stereophile employee.

>> >> > :-) In years past EBM organized blind listening tests at an AES
>> >> > convention that found that listeners could not distinguish a CD
>> >> > from a copy of that CD made on TDK cassette tape. I gues
>> >> > that makes him a "cassette bigot": :-)

>> >> Irrelevant name-calling.

>> > Interesting point about drawing conclusions from blind tests.
>
>> Shows your bigotry against blind tests, Stephen.

> Bigotry, logic, take your pick.

Stephen, when Hi Fi is the topic, you and logic are sworn enemies.

>> >> the author is waxing poetic and ignoring the relevant facts. There
>> >> really
>> >> aren't that many people who are still buying vinyl - its sales were
>> >> temporarily buoyed up by dance DJs who prized it for its ability to be
>> >> scratched. However, digital scratching device that work with CDs and
>> >> MP3s
>> >> are becoming popular, and its not clear how long this particular genre
>> >> of
>> >> dance music will remain popular.
>>
>> > You missed the part about the increase including more genres than just
>> > dance music.
>>
>> No, you missed the RIAA statistics showing that net sales of LPs dropped
>> precipitously in the last reporting period.

> You missed the part about RIAA not reporting all lp sales.

You missed the part about having other than umpty-dumpth-hand stories to
back that claim up.

>> >> Sales of vinyl dropped down from 100% to around the 1% level for
>> >> several
>> >> years, and they have resumed dropping.
>>
>> > Except for where they are increasing.

>> Niche markets within niche markets need not apply.

> What was that about disregarding stuff you don't like?

Just the facts, ma'am.

>> >> >> Another way of reading between the lines is that high-rez releases
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> more likely to sound good.
>> >>
>> >> > The authors specifically state that to be the case.
>>
>> >> But the reason has nothing to do with increased resolution.
>>
>> > Irrelevant to the consumer looking for the best sound.
>>
>> What would be relevant to the consumer looking for the best sould would
>> be
>> the disadvantage of a format that nonsensically requires a new disc
>> player.
>
> Universal players go for under $200 these days.

You said that they are all egregiously-flaweed, didn't you?


>> >> > The article does indeed lack detail. Checking that detail on the BAS
>> >> > site, I note that one of the hi-rez sources used, A Pioneer DVD
>> >> > player, has, according to my own measurements, no more dynamic range
>> >> > that a CD player.
>>
>> >> But, it was not the only hi-rez source that was used.
>>
>> > Good. Only one of the sources was fatally flawed for the purpose of
>> > comparison.
>>
>> Wrong.

> They stopped using it.

So?

>> > Of course, it's the bargain Pioneer I have at home!
>>
>> Stephen, if it is fatally flawed why do you have it?

> Mine doesn't have the decoding error found in the test unit and it works
> fine as a consumer dvd player.


Please document.

>> >I hope the digital outputs were disabled.
>>
>> I'm surprised that you admit to having such a POS in use, Stephen.

> I like it for dvd and dvd-a. Not so good for cd, but I don't often play
> cds on the tv system.

So then it isn't fatally flawed, no matter what you just said?

> I do have some new multichannel SACDs to listen to. Maybe the fatal
> flaws will then present themselves.

Yup a true audiophile - always hoping to hear the flaws in the equipment,
forget about enjoying the music!

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>> >> >> message
>> >> >> ups.com...
>> >> >> > On Oct 29, 10:12 am, MiNe 109 >
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article >,
>> >> >> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio
>> >> >> >> > myth
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Mr. Krueger appears to be confusing the Audio Engineering Society
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > the views of two authors of a specific paper.
>> >>
>> >> >> John, the paper passes editorial review. That means something.
>> >>
>> >> > A lack of gross flaws.
>> >>
>> >> Spoken like someone who has never submitted a technical paper to the
>> >> JAES
>> >> for review.
>>
>> > It can contain gross flaws?
>>
>> Actually, yes at least once. The paper in question was authored by a
>> certain
>> Mr. Hamm.
>
> So much for the AES.

Yeah, just like you Stephen to trash such a large, well-respected
professional organization over one misstep. Puts you into Phildo's class -
right where you seem to belong! :-(

>> >> >> >> > 2007 September, Volume 55 Number 9
>> >> >> >> > Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into
>> >> >> >> > High-Resolution
>> >> >> >> > Audio
>> >> >> >> > Playback: E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I read this when it was published last month.I was particularly
>> >> >> > interested
>> >> >> > as it contradicted the conclusions of a paper presented at the
>> >> >> > June
>> >> >> > 2007 AES Conference, to which I have referred before on r.a.o.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Journal papers always trump conference papers, because the former
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> formally reviewed, while just about any piece of crap can be
>> >> >> presented
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> conference paper.
>> >>
>> >> > What a disappointment to all those conference paper authors.
>>
>> >> ???????????
>>
>> > You have implicitly called all conference papers pieces of crap,
>>
>> Only in your excluded-middle dreams, Stephen.

> It's really a compliment to conference papers.

????????

>> > and their authors will be sad someone of your reputation has belittled
>> > their efforts.

>> Actually my statement "...just about any piece of crap can be presented
>> as a
>> conference paper..." is a paraphrase from a number of AES session
>> chairmen
>> of my acquaintance. Case in point would be a certain conference paper
>> that
>> was presented by a Stereophile employee.

> The AES is looking less and less like an organization that can repudiate
> anything.

Only in your excluded-middle dreams, Stephen. You and Phildo make quite a
pair!


>> >> >> > :-) In years past EBM organized blind listening tests at an AES
>> >> >> > convention that found that listeners could not distinguish a CD
>> >> >> > from a copy of that CD made on TDK cassette tape. I gues
>> >> >> > that makes him a "cassette bigot": :-)
>>
>> >> >> Irrelevant name-calling.
>>
>> >> > Interesting point about drawing conclusions from blind tests.
>> >
>> >> Shows your bigotry against blind tests, Stephen.
>>
>> > Bigotry, logic, take your pick.
>>
>> Stephen, when Hi Fi is the topic, you and logic are sworn enemies.

> Whereas cassette tapes indistinguishable from cds is "name-calling."

?????????

Try to stay on topic, Stephen.

>> >> >> the author is waxing poetic and ignoring the relevant facts. There
>> >> >> really
>> >> >> aren't that many people who are still buying vinyl - its sales were
>> >> >> temporarily buoyed up by dance DJs who prized it for its ability to
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> scratched. However, digital scratching device that work with CDs
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> MP3s
>> >> >> are becoming popular, and its not clear how long this particular
>> >> >> genre
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> dance music will remain popular.
>> >>
>> >> > You missed the part about the increase including more genres than
>> >> > just
>> >> > dance music.
>> >>
>> >> No, you missed the RIAA statistics showing that net sales of LPs
>> >> dropped
>> >> precipitously in the last reporting period.
>>
>> > You missed the part about RIAA not reporting all lp sales.
>>
>> You missed the part about having other than umpty-dumpth-hand stories to
>> back that claim up.

> Make that "Soundscan."

Make that "still no reliable evidence to support Vinylista paranoia about
industry statistics".

>> >> >> Sales of vinyl dropped down from 100% to around the 1% level for
>> >> >> several
>> >> >> years, and they have resumed dropping.
>> >>
>> >> > Except for where they are increasing.
>>
>> >> Niche markets within niche markets need not apply.
>>
>> > What was that about disregarding stuff you don't like?
>>
>> Just the facts, ma'am.

> Thanks.

???????????//

>> >> >> >> Another way of reading between the lines is that high-rez
>> >> >> >> releases
>> >> >> >> are
>> >> >> >> more likely to sound good.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The authors specifically state that to be the case.
>> >>
>> >> >> But the reason has nothing to do with increased resolution.
>> >>
>> >> > Irrelevant to the consumer looking for the best sound.
>> >>
>> >> What would be relevant to the consumer looking for the best sould
>> >> would
>> >> be
>> >> the disadvantage of a format that nonsensically requires a new disc
>> >> player.
>> >
>> > Universal players go for under $200 these days.
>>
>> You said that they are all egregiously-flaweed, didn't you?

> No.

The point is Stephen is that the 90-ish dB dynamic range of the 563 isn't a
problem with just about *any* real world music recording, because they have
less than 75 dB dynamic range. While the DVD-A format has far better dynamic
range then SACD, it is all moot because as far as dynamic range goes, even
the CD format is overkill, and not by just a little. But, thanks for
demonstrating your ignorance of the practical limitations of real world
recording technology.

>> >> >> > The article does indeed lack detail. Checking that detail on the
>> >> >> > BAS
>> >> >> > site, I note that one of the hi-rez sources used, A Pioneer DVD
>> >> >> > player, has, according to my own measurements, no more dynamic
>> >> >> > range
>> >> >> > that a CD player.
>> >>
>> >> >> But, it was not the only hi-rez source that was used.
>> >>
>> >> > Good. Only one of the sources was fatally flawed for the purpose of
>> >> > comparison.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong.
>>
>> > They stopped using it.
>>
>> So?

> Because it was broken.

?????????

>> >> > Of course, it's the bargain Pioneer I have at home!
>> >>
>> >> Stephen, if it is fatally flawed why do you have it?
>>
>> > Mine doesn't have the decoding error found in the test unit and it
>> > works
>> > fine as a consumer dvd player.
>>
>>
>> Please document.

> What, my dvd watching habits?

Do try to stay on topic Stephen. We were talking about "decoding errors".

>The 'explanations' page has what you want,
> something about a left channel decoding error. I use mine with either
> the digital output or the multichannel analog outputs with the digital
> output disables so it's not certain I would encounter the problem.

What explanations page? Perchance you could wander on-topic long enough to
post a URL?

> The 563 was one of many players covered by a big Pioneer class-action
> suit. Perhaps the test unit wasn't updated.

Can you document that?

>> >> >I hope the digital outputs were disabled.
>> >>
>> >> I'm surprised that you admit to having such a POS in use, Stephen.
>>
>> > I like it for dvd and dvd-a. Not so good for cd, but I don't often play
>> > cds on the tv system.

>> So then it isn't fatally flawed, no matter what you just said?

> Fatally flawed for the purpose of demonstrating dynamic-range
> superiority to good cd.

Well Stephen, finally you have made a properly-qualified claim, even if is
totally irrelevant to real world recordings of music.

> As a bargain-priced consumer product, not so much.

It's still got the bandwidth that people like Harry and Trevor obsess over,
even if that is irrelevant to human beings listening to music.

>> > I do have some new multichannel SACDs to listen to. Maybe the fatal
>> > flaws will then present themselves.

>> Yup a true audiophile - always hoping to hear the flaws in the equipment,
>> forget about enjoying the music!

> Like over-reacting to vinyl?

Thanks Stephen for owning up to the problem you have with over-reacting to
vinyl, as well.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article >,
>> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> message
>> >> >> >> ups.com...
>> >> >> >> > On Oct 29, 10:12 am, MiNe 109 >
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> In article >,
>> >> >> >> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> >> >> >> Journal papers always trump conference papers, because the
>> >> >> >> former are
>> >> >> >> formally reviewed, while just about any piece of crap can be
>> >> >> >> presented
>> >> >> >> as a conference paper.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > What a disappointment to all those conference paper authors.
>> >>
>> >> >> ???????????
>> >>
>> >> > You have implicitly called all conference papers pieces of crap,
>> >>
>> >> Only in your excluded-middle dreams, Stephen.
>>
>> > It's really a compliment to conference papers.
>>
>> ????????

> You say "any piece of crap" but you really only meant one specific
> paper.

No, I provided one specific paper as an example. No way does that mean that
there was only one paper was a POS.

> Doesn't that weaken your case?

Only in your excluded-middle mind, Stephen.

>> >> > and their authors will be sad someone of your reputation has
>> >> > belittled
>> >> > their efforts.
>>
>> >> Actually my statement "...just about any piece of crap can be
>> >> presented as a
>> >> conference paper..." is a paraphrase from a number of AES session
>> >> chairmen
>> >> of my acquaintance. Case in point would be a certain conference paper
>> >> that
>> >> was presented by a Stereophile employee.

>> > The AES is looking less and less like an organization that can
>> > repudiate
>> > anything.

>> Only in your excluded-middle dreams, Stephen. You and ****** make quite a
>> pair!

> Troll on your own dime.

Wrong again Stephen. The both of you have amused many of us by criticizing
the AES on spurious grounds of your own minds making.

>> >> >> >> > :-) In years past EBM organized blind listening tests at an
>> >> >> >> > AES
>> >> >> >> > convention that found that listeners could not distinguish a
>> >> >> >> > CD
>> >> >> >> > from a copy of that CD made on TDK cassette tape. I gues
>> >> >> >> > that makes him a "cassette bigot": :-)
>> >>
>> >> >> >> Irrelevant name-calling.
>> >>
>> >> >> > Interesting point about drawing conclusions from blind tests.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Shows your bigotry against blind tests, Stephen.
>> >>
>> >> > Bigotry, logic, take your pick.
>> >>
>> >> Stephen, when Hi Fi is the topic, you and logic are sworn enemies.
>>
>> > Whereas cassette tapes indistinguishable from cds is "name-calling."
>>
>> ?????????

>> Try to stay on topic, Stephen.

> It's on-topic when you say it, but not when I say it?

Nice try. OK, evade as you will, Stephen.

>> >> >> >> the author is waxing poetic and ignoring the relevant facts.
>> >> >> >> There
>> >> >> >> really
>> >> >> >> aren't that many people who are still buying vinyl - its sales
>> >> >> >> were
>> >> >> >> temporarily buoyed up by dance DJs who prized it for its ability
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> be
>> >> >> >> scratched. However, digital scratching device that work with CDs
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> MP3s
>> >> >> >> are becoming popular, and its not clear how long this particular
>> >> >> >> genre
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> dance music will remain popular.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > You missed the part about the increase including more genres than
>> >> >> > just
>> >> >> > dance music.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, you missed the RIAA statistics showing that net sales of LPs
>> >> >> dropped
>> >> >> precipitously in the last reporting period.
>> >>
>> >> > You missed the part about RIAA not reporting all lp sales.
>> >>
>> >> You missed the part about having other than umpty-dumpth-hand stories
>> >> to
>> >> back that claim up.
>>
>> > Make that "Soundscan."
>>
>> Make that "still no reliable evidence to support Vinylista paranoia about
>> industry statistics".
>
> Soundscan doesn't report all sales. Reliable.

There's no need to report all sales, Stephen. There is a need to report all
significant sales. Establishing a significant error requires actually
quantifying it, which AFAIK nobody has actually done. As usual, golden ears
arguments fall apart when it comes to quantification.

>> >> >> >> Sales of vinyl dropped down from 100% to around the 1% level for
>> >> >> >> several
>> >> >> >> years, and they have resumed dropping.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Except for where they are increasing.
>> >>
>> >> >> Niche markets within niche markets need not apply.
>> >>
>> >> > What was that about disregarding stuff you don't like?
>> >>
>> >> Just the facts, ma'am.
>>
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> ???????????//
>
> Thanks for acknowledging the fact.

???????????

>> >> >> >> >> Another way of reading between the lines is that high-rez
>> >> >> >> >> releases
>> >> >> >> >> are
>> >> >> >> >> more likely to sound good.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > The authors specifically state that to be the case.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But the reason has nothing to do with increased resolution.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Irrelevant to the consumer looking for the best sound.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What would be relevant to the consumer looking for the best sould
>> >> >> would
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> the disadvantage of a format that nonsensically requires a new disc
>> >> >> player.
>> >> >
>> >> > Universal players go for under $200 these days.
>> >>
>> >> You said that they are all egregiously-flaweed, didn't you?
>>
>> > No.
>>
>> The point is Stephen is that the 90-ish dB dynamic range of the 563 isn't
>> a
>> problem with just about *any* real world music recording, because they
>> have
>> less than 75 dB dynamic range. While the DVD-A format has far better
>> dynamic
>> range then SACD, it is all moot because as far as dynamic range goes,
>> even
>> the CD format is overkill, and not by just a little. But, thanks for
>> demonstrating your ignorance of the practical limitations of real world
>> recording technology.

> That's why it's fine as a home player.

No, that's why its a player that is overkill for playing music in any
context.

> However, for testing the format's limits, it's not SOTA.

You've lost track of the purpose of the exercise, Stephen. The purpose of
the exercise is to test whether or not there is a real-world audible
difference. The purpose of the exercise is not testing either format's
limits.

Stephen, you seem to be having serious problems conceptualizing the
well-known fact that the CD format is an overkill format when it comes to
dynamic range for reproducing music.

>> >> >> >> > The article does indeed lack detail. Checking that detail on
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > BAS
>> >> >> >> > site, I note that one of the hi-rez sources used, A Pioneer
>> >> >> >> > DVD
>> >> >> >> > player, has, according to my own measurements, no more dynamic
>> >> >> >> > range
>> >> >> >> > that a CD player.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But, it was not the only hi-rez source that was used.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Good. Only one of the sources was fatally flawed for the purpose
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > comparison.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wrong.
>> >>
>> >> > They stopped using it.
>> >>
>> >> So?
>>
>> > Because it was broken.
>>
>> ?????????

> Keep reading

I di Stephen, and you managed to waste a lot of words saying nothing of
value.

>> >> >> > Of course, it's the bargain Pioneer I have at home!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Stephen, if it is fatally flawed why do you have it?
>> >>
>> >> > Mine doesn't have the decoding error found in the test unit and it
>> >> > works
>> >> > fine as a consumer dvd player.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please document.
>>
>> > What, my dvd watching habits?
>>
>> Do try to stay on topic Stephen. We were talking about "decoding errors".

> Try reading the entire paragraph.

What paragraph? Got a proper pointer to where these magical words are posted
on the web?

>> >The 'explanations' page has what you want,
>> > something about a left channel decoding error. I use mine with either
>> > the digital output or the multichannel analog outputs with the digital
>> > output disables so it's not certain I would encounter the problem.
>>
>> What explanations page? Perchance you could wander on-topic long enough
>> to
>> post a URL?

> It's the same one you posted...twice.

I've posted several URLs. Try focusing Stephen. URL and paragraph number,
please!

>> > The 563 was one of many players covered by a big Pioneer class-action
>> > suit. Perhaps the test unit wasn't updated.
>>
>> Can you document that?
>
> Whether or not they updated the unit? Up to them.

You raised the issue, Stephen. Now you don't want to stand behind it. What's
new? :-(

> As the rest, I imagine you could find something with a google search
> including: Pioneer, dvd, player, lawsuit, settlement.

Imagination? I want facts with URLs.

>> >> >> >I hope the digital outputs were disabled.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm surprised that you admit to having such a POS in use, Stephen.
>> >>
>> >> > I like it for dvd and dvd-a. Not so good for cd, but I don't often
>> >> > play
>> >> > cds on the tv system.
>>
>> >> So then it isn't fatally flawed, no matter what you just said?
>>
>> > Fatally flawed for the purpose of demonstrating dynamic-range
>> > superiority to good cd.
>>
>> Well Stephen, finally you have made a properly-qualified claim, even if
>> is
>> totally irrelevant to real world recordings of music.
>
> De nada.

Denial?

>> > As a bargain-priced consumer product, not so much.
>>
>> It's still got the bandwidth that people like ***** and ****** obsess
>> over,
>> even if that is irrelevant to human beings listening to music.
>
> Troll on your own dime.

I pay for my own postings, so that's not an issue.

[John Atkinson]

On Oct 31, 9:31 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > The point is Stephen is that the 90-ish dB dynamic range
> > of the 563 isn't a problem with just about *any* real world
> > music recording, because they have less than 75 dB
> > dynamic range. While the DVD-A format has far better
> > dynamic range then SACD, it is all moot because as
> > far as dynamic range goes, even the CD format is overkill,
> > and not by just a little. But, thanks for demonstrating your
> > ignorance of the practical limitations of real world
> > recording technology.
>
> That's why it's fine as a home player. However, for testing the
> format's limits, it's not SOTA.

That was my point: that if you want to test for the
dynamic-range restrictions of a "Red Book" CD window,
using a source that reduces the potential dynamic range
of the source to that of CD renders your experiment
meaningless.

I bought the Pioneer player, BTW, to have as a real-world
reference for my tests of digital equipment. It does
preserve the wider bandwidth of DVD-A and SACD
discs, BTW.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Oct 31, 9:31 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> > The point is Stephen is that the 90-ish dB dynamic range
>> > of the 563 isn't a problem with just about *any* real world
>> > music recording, because they have less than 75 dB
>> > dynamic range. While the DVD-A format has far better
>> > dynamic range then SACD, it is all moot because as
>> > far as dynamic range goes, even the CD format is overkill,
>> > and not by just a little. But, thanks for demonstrating your
>> > ignorance of the practical limitations of real world
>> > recording technology.

>> That's why it's fine as a home player. However, for testing the
>> format's limits, it's not SOTA.

> That was my point: that if you want to test for the
> dynamic-range restrictions of a "Red Book" CD window,
> using a source that reduces the potential dynamic range
> of the source to that of CD renders your experiment
> meaningless.

Too bad you don't understand experimental design any better than that, John.
Apparently the concept of the weakest link and its impact on experimental
design is lost on you.

Here's a quick, apparently much-needed update for you John. In an
experiment, associated components need only perform appreciably better than
the weakest link.

It is well-known by experienced recordists that it is very difficult to
produce a live or studio recording with even 75 dB dynamic range. This is
then a potential weakest link. The CD format's dynamic range at about 96 dB
is thus at least 10 times better than the weakest link in this experiment,
and simply not an issue.

During production there is a reasonable desire to not compromise signal
quality at any stage, with a variety of gains and possibly even EFX applied.
Therefore so-called higher resolution formats have some justification in a
production environment. However, in a consumer distribution format such as
is being discussed here, the resolution of the CD format already represents
considerable overkill.

John, I understand that in the obsessive perfectionist circles that your
ragazine seems to pander to, real world measurements and practical
constraints mean absolutely nothing. However, if you wish to have crediblity
with people who are doing practical work, you need to speak within the relms
of reality, and forget about your bread and butter which seems to be
perfectionism at any price in other people's money.

> I bought the Pioneer player, BTW, to have as a real-world
> reference for my tests of digital equipment. It does
> preserve the wider bandwidth of DVD-A and SACD
> discs, BTW.

Aside from the fact that most if not all audiophiles have human ears and the
well-known limitations that go with them, practical considerations like the
properties of real-world microphones, rooms and speakers again render moot
bandwidth extensions beyond that of the CD format.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:


> It is well-known by experienced recordists ...

I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced "recordist"?

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > It is well-known by experienced recordists ...

> I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced "recordist"?

Krooger is using the Krooglish meaning of "experienced". It denotes a full
set of metronic implants and servos that, among other benefits, allow
'borgs to keep making the same mistakes over and over with no ability to
learn and correct their procedures.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> It is well-known by experienced recordists ...

> I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced "recordist"?

One could hope that John was familiar with the dynamic range of at least his
own recordings...

[John Atkinson]

On Oct 31, 11:28 am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > It is well-known by experienced recordists ...
>
> I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced
> "recordist"?

I am certainly not in the same league.as Arny Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

> > > It is well-known by experienced recordists ...

> > I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced
> > "recordist"?

> I am certainly not in the same league.as Arny Krueger.

Count your blessings.

[Jenn]

In article m>,
John Atkinson > wrote:

> On Oct 31, 11:28 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > It is well-known by experienced recordists ...
> >
> > I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced
> > "recordist"?
>
> I am certainly not in the same league.as Arny Krueger.

A given...

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> It is well-known by experienced recordists ...
>
> > I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced "recordist"?
>
> One could hope that John was familiar with the dynamic range of at least his
> own recordings...

I bet that he is.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Oct 31, 11:28 am, Jenn > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> > It is well-known by experienced recordists ...
>>
>> I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced
>> "recordist"?
>
> I am certainly not in the same league.as Arny Krueger.

Never do gratis technical work for a worthy cause I take it?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>>
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> >> It is well-known by experienced recordists ...
>>
>> > I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced "recordist"?
>>
>> One could hope that John was familiar with the dynamic range of at least
>> his
>> own recordings...
>
> I bet that he is.

Then he has indicted himself as being a poor excuse for an experimentalist.

[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:
> >>
> >> >> It is well-known by experienced recordists ...
> >>
> >> > I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced "recordist"?
> >>
> >> One could hope that John was familiar with the dynamic range of at least
> >> his
> >> own recordings...
> >
> > I bet that he is.
>
> Then he has indicted himself as being a poor excuse for an experimentalist.

Then that's what you should accuse him of.

[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:
>> >>
>> >> >> It is well-known by experienced recordists ...
>> >>
>> >> > I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced
>> >> > "recordist"?
>> >>
>> >> One could hope that John was familiar with the dynamic range of at
>> >> least
>> >> his
>> >> own recordings...
>> >
>> > I bet that he is.
>>
>> Then he has indicted himself as being a poor excuse for an
>> experimentalist.
>
> Then that's what you should accuse him of.

Been there, done that!

[John Atkinson]

On Oct 31, 3:13 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > On Oct 31, 11:28 am, Jenn > wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> > It is well-known by experienced recordists ...
> >>
> >> I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced
> >> "recordist"?
> >
> > I am certainly not in the same league.as Arny Krueger.
>
> Never do gratis technical work for a worthy cause I take it?

I have no idea how you infer that from the 11 words I wrote,
Mr. Krueger. Perhaps you are hallucinating? I do my fair
share of pro bono recording work. Did so last weekend,
as a matter of fact.All I am saying is that when it comes
to prowess and experience as a recording engineer and
producer, I don't think it appropriate to compare your
accomplishments with my own.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Oct, 20:35, John Atkinson >
wrote:

> Mr. Krueger.
I don't think it appropriate to compare your
> accomplishments with my own.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

indeed!

you didn't build and market 4 abx boxes.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 31, 3:13 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>> > On Oct 31, 11:28 am, Jenn > wrote:
>> >> In article >,
>> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> > It is well-known by experienced recordists ...
>> >>
>> >> I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced
>> >> "recordist"?
>> >
>> > I am certainly not in the same league.as Arny Krueger.
>>
>> Never do gratis technical work for a worthy cause I take it?
>
> I have no idea how you infer that from the 11 words I wrote,
> Mr. Krueger.

John, you ever fail to amuse with your ignorance of question marks. With
this sort of command of the meaning of punctuation marks, how do you ever
manage to edit a magazine? Is it that you have legions of better-educated
minions actually doing the hands-on work for you?

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Noi, 06:12, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 3:13 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> >> Never do gratis technical work for a worthy cause I take it?
>
> > I have no idea how you infer that from the 11 words I wrote,
> > Mr. Krueger.
>
> John, you ever fail to amuse with your ignorance of question marks. With
> this sort of command of the meaning of punctuation marks, how do you ever
> manage to edit a magazine? Is it that you have legions of better-educated
> minions actually doing the hands-on work for you?


Never falsely accuse people of sending you kiddie porn?

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > >> Never do gratis technical work for a worthy cause I take it?

> > > I have no idea how you infer that from the 11 words I wrote,
> > > Mr. Krueger.

> > John, you ever fail to amuse with your ignorance of question marks.

> Never falsely accuse people of sending you kiddie porn?

That's different. Krooger's personal standard for making random
accusations is only that he knows with certainty that his victim didn't do
it. Lacking such certain knowledge, Krooger's accusations are permissible
under "debating trade" rules.

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> On Oct 31, 3:13 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>>> ps.com...
>>> > On Oct 31, 11:28 am, Jenn > wrote:
>>> >> In article >,
>>> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>> >> > It is well-known by experienced recordists ...
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced
>>> >> "recordist"?
>>> >
>>> > I am certainly not in the same league.as Arny Krueger.
>>>
>>> Never do gratis technical work for a worthy cause I take it?
>>
>> I have no idea how you infer that from the 11 words I wrote,
>> Mr. Krueger.
>
>John, you ever fail to amuse with your ignorance of question marks. With
>this sort of command of the meaning of punctuation marks, how do you ever
>manage to edit a magazine? Is it that you have legions of better-educated
>minions actually doing the hands-on work for you?

Your snotty "I take it" implication is not forgiven, just because you
place a question mark behind it, Arny.

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>> On Oct 31, 3:13 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>>>> ps.com...
>>>> > On Oct 31, 11:28 am, Jenn > wrote:
>>>> >> In article >,
>>>> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>> >> > It is well-known by experienced recordists ...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'm sorry... are you saying that John isn't an experienced
>>>> >> "recordist"?
>>>> >
>>>> > I am certainly not in the same league.as Arny Krueger.
>>>>
>>>> Never do gratis technical work for a worthy cause I take it?
>>>
>>> I have no idea how you infer that from the 11 words I wrote,
>>> Mr. Krueger.

>>John, you ever fail to amuse with your ignorance of question marks. With
>>this sort of command of the meaning of punctuation marks, how do you ever
>>manage to edit a magazine? Is it that you have legions of better-educated
>>minions actually doing the hands-on work for you?

> Your snotty "I take it" implication is not forgiven, just because you
> place a question mark behind it, Arny.

No matter how Atkinson tries to twist it, it was a question, not a statement
of fact. But feel free to call it what it was, snot. ;-)

John and I have been down this particular road before. I'm used to taking
crap from so-called professionals because most of my work is for the benefit
of charitable and educational organizations.

Ironically, some of them look down their noses for that reason, and then
brag loud and long about some jazz or bluegrass festival that they did for
only a token fee, or for nothing at all. The whole issue is that they
disrespect the people I work for and hate their message.

So, its really all about politics, not technology. I say that recording is
recording, and as long as you aren't supporting some group like the White
Christians, the American Nazi party or the Klan, let's live and let live.

Note that Atkinson really has nothing of substance to say about the OP, or
the issue of the real-world dynamic range of recordings. That's probably
because he knows I'm right.

[George M. Middius]

Signal said to La Salope:

> Third time lucky!

Lionel is the proud owner of one of the first sets of Eurotrash® speakers.