"Joe Sensor" wrote in message

Les Cargill wrote:

Yes, that is what I mean. I believe hey do have stats and
info
on it, but it is written off here as marketing hype.
Sadly.

Sadly Joe, you seem to see no value to any more bandwidth or
dynamic range than that of vinyl. How you get off ranting
and raving about how good DSD is, I just don't know.

Arny Krueger wrote:

So how come you know so little about audio?

**** off.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Except it has. Oh I forgot Joe, you don't know about
plug-ins and other forms of digital implementation.

I most certainly do. And most people seem to agree that they don't sound
as good as the 30 year old gear they are attempting ot emulate.


And a medium for mixing, the whole concept of nonlinear
editing, and a medium for EFX. There's more, but that is
what quickly comes to mind right now.

And as I have pointed out, none of this seems to have improved music
production in a positive way. In fact just the opposite in many cases.

Oh, but as long as it sounds good on paper. The hell with how it sounds
to someone's ears. (meaning someone, unlike you, that actually can hear)

Geoff Wood wrote:


The "loss of depth" is probably euphonic physical excitation of the replay
system via air-and-equipment-bourne vibration.

But why wouldn't the digital transfer capture that as well? If it is
there in the playback, it should be there in the transfer, right?

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:24:43 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:



I know you dragged that in. I ignored it as it was just a red herring
in the tube discussion. I'm sure there are solid state amps that
perform poorly in dynamics, just as tubes do.



A weak way to dismiss controvening evidence. It so happens that I have
solid state Audionics preamps that mimic the SP6 much more closely than
the
other solid-state preamp. How many "exceptions" do I have to introduce to
convince you.

I am not talking about tubes vs. solid-state here. I've heard good solid
state that shares the same characteristics essentially as tubed gear. And
I've heard horribly "unmusical" tube gear.


You are begging the question here. The reality is that really good
tube gear shares the uncoloured, flat characteristics of most solid
state gear.


Uncolored, yes. Flat? No way.




Actually I clipped badly, what you said was more dimension
specificity. Again, the poor dynamic performance of valve amps will
affect the image. Instruments will appear - as you say - fatter than
they really are on account of this, because the effects of amplitude
compression depend on the ratio of the levels in the two channels.
This effect is of course an artifact, and nothing to do with better
reproduction of the original.


You have a published proof of this you can refer me to? Moeover, as I
stated above, one of the examples was a solid state amp. Or are you
just
speculating and presenting it as fact?

I have no published references, and yes, I was speculating on a reason
why a tube amplifier could artificially fatten an image.


I thought so. Thanks for admitting it.


Admitting it - are you suggesting that I am owning up to some sort of
fault? You identified a problem with tube amplifiers - fattening up an
image - and I speculated on known failings of tube amps, and how one
of them could contribute to the problem.


Except that you presented it as fact, not speculation. That's why I had to
ask the question.

Of course the fact that you enjoy the effect does not stop it being an
artifact - an error, if you like.

It's not just amplifiers, it's preamps as well. And it seems to be a
characteristic of tubes whether the equipment is extremely neutral or
highly
colored.

I've heard lots of tubed preamps and amps...I've never heard one that
sounds
"flat".

I've heard lots of s-s preamps and amps...occassionally I will hear ones
that also create a sense of body and dimensionality, but they are
relatively
rare. Among the current ones I am aware of are the Krell KAV-300, the DK
integrated, and my older Audionics gear. This is one area where I do
sense
improvement in recent S-S gear, however (many more S-S gear are at least
half-way there; used to be virtually none were).


Of course, not all amplifiers and pre-amplifiers are designed well.
Some of them may well affect all sorts of aspects of sound
reproduction.


Many do, IME.



You did - you said that some equipment didn't suffer the
Fletcher-Munson effect to the same degree as others. Since F-M is
simply a function of loudness, then compensation on the part of the
"better" amplifier must be inferred.


Sorry if I was unclear. Compensation was a control built in to offer
Fletcher-Munson compensation; I was referring to their research work. And
I
was referring to the apparent ability of the equipment at low volume
levels
on its own, which does seem to vary.

Sorry, but I simply don't believe this. There is no mechanism for it
in an amplifier.



You don't think there are any areas of audio yet to be explored? Might
you
offer an explanation as to why many high-end audio manufacturers, who
spend
substantial time and care "listening in" their final design, end up with
what to all appearances are "overbuilt" power supplies? Just for
appearances? Just to add cost and boost the selling price? Or is it
possible they feel it sounds better?

You have this wrong. So-called high-end manufacturers are the ones who
spend almost no money or time on their products. They can't afford to
because they will sell so little product. The result is that the stuff
they release for sale would have been considered no better than a "B"
model by a mainstream manufacturer.


More speculation, perhaps? Or do you know it for a fact? If they are
engineers like my friend Chung over on RAHE, they basically rely on modeling
and theory in the big companies..and for whatever reason feel that most
component selection is best left to the purchasing department once spec'd.


Question, Don. Have you ever listened critically to modern ARC or VTL
tube
equipment? If so, you should before you continue opining.


I have listened to many tube amps, and they are probably among them.
What I have found is the better ones sound like SS amps, in that they
don't exhibit any "qualities" that can be audibly identified. Bear in
mind that anything you can identify audibly is likely to be a defect.
Hi Fi is self-effacing.

Sorry, then you weren't listening for dimensionality. I have *never*
heard
a tube amp or preamp, including the latest, that didn't exhibit this
quality.


Back to meaningless terms again. "Dimensionality" is a made-up word,
completely devoid of significance. It is a marketing word that is used
in the certain knowledge that nobody can ever call you on it and say
you are wrong.


The instruments and voices have "body". Does that help. I explained the
term for you earlier.

Of course I could interpret it my way and say that my amplifier
exhibits dimensionality - and prove it with a tape measure.


:Good one! :-)

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message



You don't think there are any areas of audio yet to be explored? Might
you
offer an explanation as to why many high-end audio manufacturers, who
spend
substantial time and care "listening in" their final design, end up with
what to all appearances are "overbuilt" power supplies? Just for
appearances? Just to add cost and boost the selling price? Or is it
possible they feel it sounds better?

You have this wrong. So-called high-end manufacturers are the ones who
spend almost no money or time on their products. They can't afford to
because they will sell so little product. The result is that the stuff
they release for sale would have been considered no better than a "B"
model by a mainstream manufacturer.


More speculation, perhaps? Or do you know it for a fact? If they are
engineers like my friend Chung over on RAHE, they basically rely on modeling
and theory in the big companies..and for whatever reason feel that most
component selection is best left to the purchasing department once spec'd.


As usual, Harry, you totally misunderstood what the more technically
inclined were trying to tell you.

Real EE's do their jobs by having a good understanding of theory and
principles. They learn from what has been done. They use simulation
tools. They verify their designs, with measurements and listening tests.
They try hard to understand why things perform the way they do, so that
they get repeatable, consistent performance out of a design, so that
they do not have to resort to countless hours "listening in" as you are
so inclined to postulate.

Component selection is of course done by the engineers who design the
circuits, helped by engineers in QA. Once the parts are specified, of
course the purchase departments get involved in sourcing them. And QA
departments make sure that the parts are in spec. No, these QA
departments do not verify the components are correct by "listening in".

After the countless rebuttals you have received, one would have hoped
that you would not have distorted others' statements to fit your agenda.

Chung (from rahe who just happened to drop in).

Chung wrote:


Chung (from rahe who just happened to drop in).

WHEW! Thanks, and apparently just in the nick of time.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:05:25 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

The adequacy/inadeqacy of PCM is extremely well
characterized and understood and is no industry secret.

Since we're pretty far abroad already, maybe you'd
entertain a question. Is DSD any different mathematically
than a one-bit PCM?

And, if so, can a transparent conversion be made in
either or both directions?

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief" -F&S

"Joe Sensor" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

So how come you know so little about audio?

**** off.

Inability to answer a simple question noted.

"Joe Sensor" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


Except it has. Oh I forgot Joe, you don't know about
plug-ins and other forms of digital implementation.

I most certainly do. And most people seem to agree that
they
don't sound as good as the 30 year old gear they are
attempting to emulate.

Thats why they are so popular, they sound so bad.


And a medium for mixing, the whole concept of nonlinear
editing, and a medium for EFX. There's more, but that is
what quickly comes to mind right now.

And as I have pointed out, none of this seems to have
improved
music production in a positive way.

That would be a personel problem.

In fact just the opposite in many cases.

Giving monkeys Craftsman tools doesn't make them mechanics.

Oh, but as long as it sounds good on paper. The hell with
how
it sounds to someone's ears. (meaning someone, unlike you,
that actually can hear)

Whose ears should we consider more important - the tiny
minority that say they prefer vinyl or the vast majority who
consider vinyl to be irrelevant?

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:05:25 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

The adequacy/inadeqacy of PCM is extremely well
characterized and understood and is no industry secret.

Since we're pretty far abroad already, maybe you'd
entertain a question. Is DSD any different mathematically
than a one-bit PCM?

Yes, DSD and PCM are different. The data streams don't
interchange directly.

And, if so, can a transparent conversion be made in
either or both directions?

Yes. a transparent conversion in either direction is at
least theoretically possible.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:12:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

And, if so, can a transparent conversion be made in
either or both directions?

Yes. a transparent conversion in either direction is at
least theoretically possible.

By this, do you mean that bit-accurate A/B/A conversions
are possible?

Thanks for any thoughts or insights,

Chris Hornbeck
"Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief" -F&S

"Chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message


You don't think there are any areas of audio yet to be explored? Might
you
offer an explanation as to why many high-end audio manufacturers, who
spend
substantial time and care "listening in" their final design, end up with
what to all appearances are "overbuilt" power supplies? Just for
appearances? Just to add cost and boost the selling price? Or is it
possible they feel it sounds better?

You have this wrong. So-called high-end manufacturers are the ones who
spend almost no money or time on their products. They can't afford to
because they will sell so little product. The result is that the stuff
they release for sale would have been considered no better than a "B"
model by a mainstream manufacturer.


More speculation, perhaps? Or do you know it for a fact? If they are
engineers like my friend Chung over on RAHE, they basically rely on
modeling and theory in the big companies..and for whatever reason feel
that most component selection is best left to the purchasing department
once spec'd.


As usual, Harry, you totally misunderstood what the more technically
inclined were trying to tell you.


Didn't misunderstand at all....just trying to summarize it in a simple,
short sentence. (Geez, I get accused of being long winded, and when I
summarize, of being misleading.

Well, let me summarize our discussions on RAHE in more detail then:

The discussion started when I said that I thought their had been a large
increase in transparency over the last 25 years in high-end gear, and even
in mid-fi gear. I said I thought this was due to better selection of
passive components....more recognition of this phenomenon by the design
fraternity as the result of the early '80's work of a handful of
designer/engineers which had spread.

Chung seized on this to inform me that in his experience/opinion their was
no difference in the sound of passive components...a cheap capacitor sounded
identical to the most esoteric and expensive...same for resistors...they
needed to be judged on their appropriateness for the circuit, not on sound
qualities.. He further opined that all the engineer had to do in selection
was to choose the right component for its intended use and the desired
reliability level, and that was that. The one exception he might see was in
opamps, where some measured bad for audio purposes. He said he listened to
his designs, but baically to judge his design decisions and not to listen to
anything as esoteric as passive components, which he simply didn't believe
sounded different one from the other across categories.

Now compare this to the above and tell me how much difference there is.from
"they basically rely on modeling
and theory in the big companies..and for whatever reason feel that most
component selection is best left to the purchasing department once spec'd".
I don't see much, if any.


Real EE's do their jobs by having a good understanding of theory and
principles. They learn from what has been done. They use simulation
tools. They verify their designs, with measurements and listening tests.
They try hard to understand why things perform the way they do, so that
they get repeatable, consistent performance out of a design, so that
they do not have to resort to countless hours "listening in" as you are
so inclined to postulate.

Component selection is of course done by the engineers who design the
circuits, helped by engineers in QA. Once the parts are specified, of
course the purchase departments get involved in sourcing them. And QA
departments make sure that the parts are in spec. No, these QA
departments do not verify the components are correct by "listening in".

After the countless rebuttals you have received, one would have hoped
that you would not have distorted others' statements to fit your agenda.


Nothing you have said above contradicts the essence of what I have said,
Chung. As I told you on RAHE, I worked briefly at HK, and my dad was an EE,
so I have a good idea of the design process.. You have just elaborated upon
it. You seem to feel the need to defend your design efforts. But you have
basically confirmed that listening to passive components is not a prime
consideration, which is the point I made here originally..

Chung (from rahe who just happened to drop in).

Yeah, as if your old RAHE friends here didn't shoot off a memo to you to let
you know.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message


You don't think there are any areas of audio yet to be explored? Might
you
offer an explanation as to why many high-end audio manufacturers, who
spend
substantial time and care "listening in" their final design, end up with
what to all appearances are "overbuilt" power supplies? Just for
appearances? Just to add cost and boost the selling price? Or is it
possible they feel it sounds better?

You have this wrong. So-called high-end manufacturers are the ones who
spend almost no money or time on their products. They can't afford to
because they will sell so little product. The result is that the stuff
they release for sale would have been considered no better than a "B"
model by a mainstream manufacturer.


More speculation, perhaps? Or do you know it for a fact? If they are
engineers like my friend Chung over on RAHE, they basically rely on
modeling and theory in the big companies..and for whatever reason feel
that most component selection is best left to the purchasing department
once spec'd.


As usual, Harry, you totally misunderstood what the more technically
inclined were trying to tell you.


Didn't misunderstand at all....just trying to summarize it in a simple,
short sentence. (Geez, I get accused of being long winded, and when I
summarize, of being misleading.

Because you were not summarizing what I said, but simply what you think
you heard, or what you wanted to hear.


Well, let me summarize our discussions on RAHE in more detail then:

The discussion started when I said that I thought their had been a large
increase in transparency over the last 25 years in high-end gear, and even
in mid-fi gear. I said I thought this was due to better selection of
passive components....more recognition of this phenomenon by the design
fraternity as the result of the early '80's work of a handful of
designer/engineers which had spread.

Chung seized on this to inform me that in his experience/opinion their was
no difference in the sound of passive components...a cheap capacitor sounded
identical to the most esoteric and expensive...same for resistors...they
needed to be judged on their appropriateness for the circuit, not on sound
qualities..

You were wrong again...even with your long-winded version.

He further opined that all the engineer had to do in selection
was to choose the right component for its intended use and the desired
reliability level, and that was that. The one exception he might see was in
opamps, where some measured bad for audio purposes. He said he listened to
his designs, but baically to judge his design decisions and not to listen to
anything as esoteric as passive components, which he simply didn't believe
sounded different one from the other across categories.

Now compare this to the above and tell me how much difference there is.from
"they basically rely on modeling
and theory in the big companies..and for whatever reason feel that most
component selection is best left to the purchasing department once spec'd".
I don't see much, if any.

Instead of doing such a poor job of summarizing, why don't you simply
point any interested reader to the actual posts?

Simply do a google search on rahe and you will get the original versions.



Real EE's do their jobs by having a good understanding of theory and
principles. They learn from what has been done. They use simulation
tools. They verify their designs, with measurements and listening tests.
They try hard to understand why things perform the way they do, so that
they get repeatable, consistent performance out of a design, so that
they do not have to resort to countless hours "listening in" as you are
so inclined to postulate.

Component selection is of course done by the engineers who design the
circuits, helped by engineers in QA. Once the parts are specified, of
course the purchase departments get involved in sourcing them. And QA
departments make sure that the parts are in spec. No, these QA
departments do not verify the components are correct by "listening in".

After the countless rebuttals you have received, one would have hoped
that you would not have distorted others' statements to fit your agenda.


Nothing you have said above contradicts the essence of what I have said,
Chung.

Where do we start? You said that EE's leave the job of choosing most
components to purchase departments. Did I say that?

Do you even bother to read what I said?

As I told you on RAHE, I worked briefly at HK, and my dad was an EE,
so I have a good idea of the design process.. You have just elaborated upon
it. You seem to feel the need to defend your design efforts. But you have
basically confirmed that listening to passive components is not a prime
consideration, which is the point I made here originally..

Chung (from rahe who just happened to drop in).

Yeah, as if your old RAHE friends here didn't shoot off a memo to you to let
you know.

Well, once again, you are wrong.

Harry Lavo wrote:

You are begging the question here. The reality is that really good
tube gear shares the uncoloured, flat characteristics of most solid
state gear.



Uncolored, yes. Flat? No way.

If you don't know that those terms are synonymous perhaps
you shouldn't be having this discussion.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:05:25 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:


The adequacy/inadeqacy of PCM is extremely well
characterized and understood and is no industry secret.


Since we're pretty far abroad already, maybe you'd
entertain a question. Is DSD any different mathematically
than a one-bit PCM?

Yeah. One bit PCM would only give you information about the
signal with respect to a single threshold. It's either more
or less than some reference (usually zero) and that's all
you know.

DSD (simplified) is just sigma/delta conversion (which means
a continuous sum of differences, the basis of modern PCM A/D
converters) where the results of binary comparisons with the
signal are streamed out rather than accumulated in a word
for less frequent output. They still have to be accumulated
in DSD and passed through a D/A to effect the comparison
with the analog signal. Something that has puzzled me about
the whole question of DSD vs PCM is that this actually
comprises a hidden PCM A/D converter implicit in the DSD A/D
converter.

When I say simplified, there is a way, unique to DSD, of
shaping the quantization noise (that I haven't taken time to
understand yet.)


And, if so, can a transparent conversion be made in
either or both directions?

I think so. In the case of DSD to PCM, it should be a
simple matter of accumulating the bitstream (+1,-1) in an
accumulator (counter) and sampling it at a sub rate.

In the case of PCM to DSD, it's too late and I'm too tired
to think about it right now. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


The discussion started when I said that I thought their
had
been a large increase in transparency over the last 25
years
in high-end gear, and even in mid-fi gear.

25 years ago was 1980, or about 3 years before the
introduction of the CD. Well, there you have it - the
perceived improvement can be largely *blamed* on the
replacement of outdated, known-to-be sonically corrupted
analog playback with digital.

I said I thought
this was due to better selection of passive
components....more
recognition of this phenomenon by the design fraternity as
the
result of the early '80's work of a handful of
designer/engineers which had spread.

Nothing of the kind ever happened. The whole electronics
industry has changed considerably for reasons that had very
little to do with audio. The early 80's work of the
designers that Harry wants to lionize like Marsh an Jung was
techno-trash and science fiction, which has been thoroughly
debunked by real engineers like Robert Pease of National
Semiconductor.

Chung seized on this to inform me that in his
experience/opinion their was no difference in the sound of
passive components...a cheap capacitor sounded identical
to
the most esoteric and expensive...same for
resistors...they
needed to be judged on their appropriateness for the
circuit,
not on sound qualities..

Chung is correct. One of the toughest thing there is to do
is to actually change the sound of a piece of audio grear
where parts choices are based on appropriateness for the
circuit,. This is because to a very large degree, so-called
audio grade passive components are just hype. It's been
shown conclusively that if chosen using long-established
engineering guidelenes, and made in accordance with industry
standards, a part like a mylar capacitor is pretty much the
same whether it is sold for a dime or a dollar.

One of the humorous things in my stash of old components is
a CD player from a wwll-known manufacturer with capacitors
that are stamped with phrases indicating that they are
audiophile quality. Ironically, the caps dried out, lost
most of their nameplate capacitance, and started audibly
hurting bass response within 32 months of purchase. The only
good news was that I was using only its digital output all
along.

He further opined that all the
engineer had to do in selection was to choose the right
component for its intended use and the desired reliability
level, and that was that. The one exception he might see
was
in opamps, where some measured bad for audio purposes. He
said he listened to his designs, but baically to judge his
design decisions and not to listen to anything as esoteric
as
passive components, which he simply didn't believe sounded
different one from the other across categories.

DBTs support Chung's philosoply, but Harry ducks that issue
by making bogus attacks on DBTs.

I've been a party to listening tests based on oft-dissed
parts like electrolytic caps and TL074 op amps cascaded
actually dozens of times. On the one had people on RAP brag
about major sound quality benefits by recapping and
rechipping gear where the signal passes through maybe 3
stages of electrolytics and TL074s.

One would think that bypassing say 30 stages of the same
parts would be like comparing a AM transistor radio to a
great digital master. In fact, its not possible to reliably
detect any difference in a blind test provided that the
usual frequency response, noise and distortion specs
continue to hold up. Admittedly it takes a little adjustment
to maintain +/- 0.1 dB level matching over 30 cascaded
stages! ;-)

Now compare this to the above and tell me how much
difference
there is.from "they basically rely on modeling
and theory in the big companies..and for whatever reason
feel
that most component selection is best left to the
purchasing
department once spec'd". I don't see much, if any.

There is a difference Harry, but at your level of remoteness
from hands-on audio, I'm not surprised that you can't see
it.

Remember, you're the guy who claims that your experiences
with audio production in the 60's are definitive today. IOW,
there's nothing that you need to learn. You already know it
all.

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:12:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

And, if so, can a transparent conversion be made in
either or both directions?

Yes. a transparent conversion in either direction is at
least theoretically possible.

By this, do you mean that bit-accurate A/B/A conversions
are possible?

I think so.

Thanks for any thoughts or insights.

Every digital audio signal, whether DSD or PCM is a
representation of an idealized audio signal. Sony admits
this tacitly by producing charts and graphs detailing the
bandpass and dynamic range of some of their implementations
of DSD processing.

AFAIK Sony's DSD implmentations are a subset, both in terms
of dynamic range and frequency response, of 24/192. While
24/192 will take a lot more bits to convey an signal with
equal quality to Sony's implementations of DSD, 24/192 has
real-world superset performance in terms of both frequency
response and dynamic range.

"Bob Cain" wrote in message


When I say simplified, there is a way, unique to DSD, of
shaping the quantization noise (that I haven't taken time
to
understand yet.)

Actually, DSD noise shaping is not unique in terms of
performance. Similar or identical noise shaping could be
applied to PCM, and the results and data bandwidth would be
about the same. In fact exotic noise shaping has been
applied during the production of some CDs, with the expected
capabilities and results.

Trouble is, real world recordings and listening environments
are so noisy compared to even unshaped 16/44, that the extra
effort has no audible benefits.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Chung is correct. One of the toughest thing there is to do
is to actually change the sound of a piece of audio grear
where parts choices are based on appropriateness for the
circuit,. This is because to a very large degree, so-called
audio grade passive components are just hype. It's been
shown conclusively that if chosen using long-established
engineering guidelenes, and made in accordance with industry
standards, a part like a mylar capacitor is pretty much the
same whether it is sold for a dime or a dollar.

In some cases, they may even have been made on the same line and with the
same materials, and simply sorted for tolerance.

Stuart

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Giving monkeys Craftsman tools doesn't make them mechanics.

The same applies to audio, of course, although some people seem to believe
that recording equipment can replace recording talent.


Oh, but as long as it sounds good on paper. The hell with
how
it sounds to someone's ears. (meaning someone, unlike you,
that actually can hear)

Whose ears should we consider more important - the tiny
minority that say they prefer vinyl or the vast majority who
consider vinyl to be irrelevant?

It could even be said that the vast majority of people don't consider new
vinyl recordings to exist at all.

Stuart

"Karl Winkler" wrote in message
oups.com...


Geoff Wood wrote:


The "loss of depth" is probably euphonic physical excitation of the
replay
system via air-and-equipment-bourne vibration.

But why wouldn't the digital transfer capture that as well? If it is
there in the playback, it should be there in the transfer, right?

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com


Not if the speakers are muted during the transfer.

Predrag