[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
My Bach Cantata project took several steps forward
yesterday when I received in the mail 8 LPs,
covering 16 cantatas, including 13 that I didn't
have. I now only have about 18 to go to have a
full set. I sure love these works. The present
LPs are from the Harnoncourt/Concentus Musicus
complete edition on Telefunken. Telefunken LPs
have never appeared much on the "Super Recordings"
lists, but I find their sound (in general) to be
very, very, natural. Highly recommended.

It's almost 80 degrees here today, but I think that
I might stay inside and listen to these fabulous
recordings while doing my taxes ;-)

Maybe if you think real hard Jennifer, you could
find a newsgroup where this sort of post is on-topic.

Discussing a record label in terms of recorded sound
quality? RAO?

Is the SQ of recordings a technical or an musical
artistic/administrative question?

Yes.

Wrong. It's completely a musical artistic/administrative
question given that we have so many forms of digital
media that are sonically transparent.

Just remember that not all media is as badly audibly flawed as the vinyl
LP.

Once again, Arny "assumes" the answer, despite a large
number of professional sound people who disagree with
him.

Harry, since when have you been a technically superior authority as
compared to the JAES?

When challenged, he will cite a) "science is on my side",

Harry can't directly refute the scientific explanations that I've
presented.

You have provided "accepted" knowledge, for example the "limits" of hearing
in dynamic range and frequency response..and even here when challenged you
simply fall back on orthodoxy. But you refuse to consider other factors
that seem operational, such as the superior transient response that should
be (according to science) and is (according to listening) audible on these
high-rez systems. Perhaps because the former are part of ee orthodoxy,
while the latter is of interest only from an audio standpoint and hasn't
been thoroughly explored by the scientifc community.


b) his college ee textbooks citing that "96 db is enough",

I've never seen any such thing in a college texdtbook, but if Harry wants
to clear his name, he could cite one just to prove that he hasn't been
caught in yet another like.

I was being retorical. You've certainly cited the 96db dynamic range as
"more than adequate" often enough, and presented it as settled "science"
despite others who claim that audibility extends to -120db in the critical
ear-sensitive area that may be / probably is applicable to listening to
music. If you grant the -120, which will you will do on narrow frequency,
then you can't say that 96db is "more than adequate" to hear differences in
musical reproduction without direct proof.


c) his pcm-only abx website.

Given that SACD has failed so thoroughly in the marketplace, why should I
invest more good money in SACD hardware,or ask others to make the same
mistake that I did?

In other words, Arny, you are happy with inadequate testing measures because
your personal biases don't demand scientific proof. Despite many people
pointing out the inadquacy of your proposed "testing" for discerning the
effects of hi-rez reproduction. And this has happened here on this forum,
on RAHE, on RAP, on RAT.


But he won't provide any hard evidence,

Harry's lying again. I've provided plenty evidence. He's never directly
refuted it.

No "evidence", Arny. None. Zip. Zilch. "Evidence" is the result of a
carefully done, fully vetted and peer-reviewed piece of research. Not your
vague antecdotes that you and others have done it hundreds if not thousands
of times.


because he has never done a
bonafide listening test of audio components comparing CD
to any hi-rez system,

Yet another lie. In fact I was listening to a 9.2 hi-rez system on
Saturday night, and that was hardly the first. I have done extensive
controlled listening tests on a system that runs cleanly up to 24/192.

Well, then you were listening to a system at the cutting edge. Was it DSD
(4x SACD DSD)? And if so, why were you listening since you already know you
can't here a difference? Can you describe the conditions of the listening,
and what you were comparing it to, and with whom, under what condistions,
using what protocols, listening to what music. Etc. I and others have done
all that even when relating anecdotal but careful listening comparisons.
You don't deign to share with us??

And so long as I have participated in the same newsgroups with you on usenet
(about ten years now) I have never *once* heard you give the details of a
"scientific" controlled listening test at 192/24. Why not? What is so
secretive that you can't "publish" your test protocols, equipment, music,
and results? Perhaps then you'd have more credibility for you "claims".

and based on scarcity of comment,
it is doubtful that he has done even any informal but
careful listening testing using native DSD (although
while not the best his Sony C775 and his system should be
adequate to reveal it).

See my comments above about listening tests.

As for the C775, perhaps it came from this exchange on April 27, 2006 where
you didn't deny my assertion:

**************************
AK: "how many SACD players you've had and what your total investment in
them
was"
HL: And one bedroom machine I
bought used for $50 (the one I believe you own...a Sony C775). Bought
both Sony ES machines new for a total of $600 (about $1000 MSLP). I
bought the second only because the first began to develop the dread Sony
"skip"...and it is currently packed ready for shipment to the factory
repair shop.

AK: Harry I didn't ask you how many SACD players broke on you, I asked:

"how many SACD players you've had and what your total investment in them
was"
*******************************

Where did I say I had a Sony C775?

Well, it wasn't before May 3, 2003 on this forum where you had the following
exchange with John Atkinson:

*********************************

JA: And I have to ask, Mr. Krueger, given the scorn you have expressed on
my opinions, the belligerent nature of your post, and your apparently
unthinking dismissal of my comments, what such comparisons have _you_
performed between DSD data and LPCM? Suitable A/D converters, SACD
players, and D/A converters are readily available.

AK: SACD equipment is available but it isn't free, at least to me.



JA:Not to me either, Mr. Krueger. While in the past I have done some
experiments with SACD players that passed through my test lab while
preparing magazine reviews, I purchased the SACD player I have been
using for these more recent experiments.


AK: I don't see any point to *evaluating* SACD using some of the
budget-priced equipment that has barely more dynamic range than a good CD
player. I can't see buying a SOTA SACD player on my own nickle [sic].

JA:In which case, Mr. Krueger, I think it logical to point out that you
can't legitimately express an opinion on the sound of SACD players and
DSD encoding until you _have_ acquired a player.

************************


Oh, so...perhaps it came from this exchange on which my April 25 2006 memory
was based:




This has to be another one of Harry's delusions.