[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
.com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in the test set up or
analysis.

Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.


But many will be impressed by the quality of writing, and overlook the rest.
;-)

Whatever.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
.com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in the
test set up or analysis.

Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.


But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
and overlook the rest. ;-)

Whatever.

That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the quality of the
writing.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
In article
.com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in the
test set up or analysis.

Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.


But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
and overlook the rest. ;-)

Whatever.

That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the quality of the
writing.

Good writing is good to find.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
In article
.com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in
the test set up or analysis.

Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.


But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
and overlook the rest. ;-)

Whatever.

That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the
quality of the writing.

Good writing is good to find.

Well-written lies are pretty easy to find.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
net
In article
.com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in
the test set up or analysis.

Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.


But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
and overlook the rest. ;-)

Whatever.

That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the
quality of the writing.

Good writing is good to find.

Well-written lies are pretty easy to find.

So read the piece when it becomes available to you and see if it is lies
or not.

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Sep, 19:07, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in




In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
In article
.com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in
the test set up or analysis.

Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.

But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
and overlook the rest. ;-)

Whatever.

That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the
quality of the writing.

Good writing is good to find.

Well-written lies are pretty easy to find.

for poorly written lies, Google Kruger