[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 4, 12:06=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very happy to bow out.

He probably means that you haven't done such a test with a good playback
system, optimally set-up and using =A0decently cared-for records.


You are correct. The test only has merit if the equipment and LPs are
not sub par. I know my equipment and LPs are up to the task. But I
don't think that I have any exclusive on that.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 18:34:51 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Aug 4, 12:06=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very happy to bow out.

He probably means that you haven't done such a test with a good playback
system, optimally set-up and using =A0decently cared-for records.


You are correct. The test only has merit if the equipment and LPs are
not sub par. I know my equipment and LPs are up to the task. But I
don't think that I have any exclusive on that.

That's pretty much what I figured you meant.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Aug 4, 12:06 pm, Audio Empire
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very
happy to bow out.

He probably means that you haven't done such a test with
a good playback system, optimally set-up and using
decently cared-for records.

You are correct. The test only has merit if the equipment
and LPs are not sub par. I know my equipment and LPs are
up to the task. But I don't think that I have any
exclusive on that.

I find it interesting that these two individuals, niether of whom I have
never met in person, pretend to have such full knowlege of my livelong
listening experiences.

The improbability of their claims supports their immediate dismissal.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:55:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

On Aug 4, 12:06 pm, Audio Empire
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very
happy to bow out.

He probably means that you haven't done such a test with
a good playback system, optimally set-up and using
decently cared-for records.

You are correct. The test only has merit if the equipment
and LPs are not sub par. I know my equipment and LPs are
up to the task. But I don't think that I have any
exclusive on that.

I find it interesting that these two individuals, niether of whom I have
never met in person, pretend to have such full knowlege of my livelong
listening experiences.

The improbability of their claims supports their immediate dismissal.

I know only what you have posted about about yourself, Arny and don't pretend
to know anything else about you. And my above comment was a clarification of
Scott's intent as I read it, and says nothing about you, one way or the
other. So, I'm not making any claims for you to dismiss.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Aug 4, 12:06 pm, Audio Empire
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very
happy to bow out.

He probably means that you haven't done such a test with
a good playback system, optimally set-up and using
decently cared-for records.

You are correct. The test only has merit if the equipment
and LPs are not sub par. I know my equipment and LPs are
up to the task. But I don't think that I have any
exclusive on that.

I find it interesting that these two individuals, niether of whom I have
never met in person, pretend to have such full knowlege of my livelong
listening experiences.

The improbability of their claims supports their immediate dismissal.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 5, 4:55=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Aug 4, 12:06 pm, Audio Empire
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very
happy to bow out.

He probably means that you haven't done such a test with
a good playback system, optimally set-up and using
decently cared-for records.
You are correct. The test only has merit if the equipment
and LPs are not sub par. I know my equipment and LPs are
up to the task. But I don't think that I have any
exclusive on that.

I find it interesting that these two individuals, niether of whom I have
never met in person, pretend to have such full knowlege of my livelong
listening experiences.

The improbability of their claims supports their immediate dismissal.

What is the improbablity of my claims? Show us the math that leads to
the assertion and the facts upon which you base the math. Again if the
distortions are as gross as you claim this one would be an easy test
to pass. Why not take the test and have life long bragging rights? You
would finally have that "slam dunk" you keep talking about and there
would be no argument. You'd have it documented to boot.

[---MIKE---]

Back in the mid '80s, Bob Carver introduced the "Digital Time Lens"
which was supposed to make CDs sound more like Vinal (I still have one
but I don't use it). It did soften the brightness of CDs but I didn't
care for the effect.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 18:20:54 -0700, MIKE--- wrote
(in article ):

Back in the mid '80s, Bob Carver introduced the "Digital Time Lens"
which was supposed to make CDs sound more like Vinal (I still have one
but I don't use it). It did soften the brightness of CDs but I didn't
care for the effect.
=20
---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=3DB0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Mostly, the problem with early CDs was misapplication of the technology a=
nd=20
not the underlying technology itself. On the recording end, it was the=20
ubiquitous (and awful-sounding)l Sony 1610, 1620, and 1630 A/D and format=
ting=20
processors which took analog in and outputted 16-bit, 44.1 KHz digital=20
formatted as a video signal (to send to a VCR =AD usually a U-Matic beca=
use=20
that was the mastering standard of the time, but it could have been a Be=
ta=20
or a VHS recorder).

On the playback end, it was D/A converters that were not able to do a ful=
l=20
16-bits linearly (early Philips players (Magnavox) didn't even try. They =
used=20
14-bit D/A converters and the little Magnavox FD-1000 sounded MUCH better=
=20
than the Japanese 16-bit units of the day). They also had really crude=20
multi-pole anti-alaising filters and produced, what would be considered=20
today, unacceptable levels of quantization error. The first generations o=
f=20
Sony CD players were just terrible and even with good, modern CDs, they s=
ound=20
simply wretched. I have an acquaintance who still uses a Sony CDP-101 (th=
e=20
first publicly available CD player, IIRC) and thinks it's just fine. Of=20
course, he's 84 and deaf as a post. Anyone would have to be to put-up wit=
h=20
that wretchedness!

Bob Carver's attempt to "fix" early CD with his "Digital Time Lens" was a=
=20
noble effort, but ultimately, no more than a band-aid. The first improvem=
ent=20
in CD sound was on the production end. When the industry moved away from =
the=20
aforementioned Sony 1600 series of processors, CD sound started to improv=
e=20
dramatically. The damned things were filled with literally a half-dozen o=
r=20
more (per channel) 741-style op-amps and cheap Japanese electrolytic coup=
ling=20
capacitors IN THE SIGNAL PATH! It didn't have a chance of producing dece=
nt=20
CDs. I have some of these early efforts, still. Even though modern playba=
ck=20
equipment makes them sound better than they did back in the day, the=20
strident, over-bright and somewhat distorted nature of early CD sound is=20
still very evident. One particularly nasty example, that still resides in=
my=20
collection is Richard Strauss' "Alpine Symphony" with Von Karajan and the=
=20
Berlin Philharmonic on DGG. One of the worst sounding orchestral recordin=
gs=20
ever released. I bring it up, because that's the CD I took to local stere=
o=20
store at the time to see what the Digital Time Lens could do for it. I re=
call=20
that it DID make the horrid thing sound "different" but I couldn't, in al=
l=20
honesty, say that it made it listenable!

I just played a bit of it on my Sony XA777ES SACD player, you know, as=20
"research" for this reply. The Sony renders it more listenable than I=20
remember, but it still has that ear-bleeding brightness that I remember s=
o=20
vividly. It's still a no thanks!=20

But thank you, Mike, anyway, for that trip down memory lane. We all need =
to=20
take that trip occasionally to show us how far we've come. It certainly=20
illustrates why so many audio hobbyists and music lovers hated CD when it=
=20
first hit the scene. Today, a modern recording hobbyist can make CDs that=
=20
sound better than this by a country mile with about $500 worth of cheap=20
Chinese condenser microphones, a small, cheap mixing console, and a digi=
tal=20
recorder like Zoom H2, as well as a cheap computer with a CD burner buil=
t-in=20
along with a free copy of a software program such as "Audacity"!=20

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


On the playback end, it was D/A converters that were not
able to do a full 16-bits linearly (early Philips players
(Magnavox) didn't even try. They used 14-bit D/A
converters and the little Magnavox FD-1000 sounded MUCH
better than the Japanese 16-bit units of the day).

The above account ignores the fact that oversampling was used to obtain 16
bit performance from 14 bit parts. For all practical purposes, the
converters were 16 bit.

The claim that there was a signficant and large audible difference has been
investigated with DBTs and found to be yet another audiophile myth.

They
also had really crude multi-pole anti-alaising filters
and produced, what would be considered today,
unacceptable levels of quantization error.

As a rule there are no anti-aliasing filters in playback devices. Aliasing
is only possible in ADCs and resamplers.

Quantization error and aliasing are orthogonal effects and exist
independently. Something that addresses one generally has no effect on the
other. The fix for aliasing is better filters, and the fix for quantization
error is not filtering but rather randomizing schemes such as dither.

Therefore the statement that crude multi-pole anti-alaising filters and
produced, what would be considered today,unacceptable levels of quantization
error" is a technical impossibility.

Thus the above claim must also be dismissed as an audiophile myth on the
grounds that it is a confused misuse of technical terminology.

The first
generations of Sony CD players were just terrible and
even with good, modern CDs, they sound simply wretched. I
have an acquaintance who still uses a Sony CDP-101 (the
first publicly available CD player, IIRC) and thinks it's
just fine. Of course, he's 84 and deaf as a post. Anyone
would have to be to put-up with that wretchedness!

I still have an operational CDP 101 and so does a friend. They both have are
well-maintained and sound good.

I once had a CDP101 that had problems with its servo chips, and it did
indeed sound bad - it didn't track most CDs.

In the late 1980s Stereo Review used several teams of audiophiles to
investigate the sound quality of CDP 101s via DVTs and found only tiny
barely audible differences and that only with very specific program kinds
material, or artificial test signals.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:05:12 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


On the playback end, it was D/A converters that were not
able to do a full 16-bits linearly (early Philips players
(Magnavox) didn't even try. They used 14-bit D/A
converters and the little Magnavox FD-1000 sounded MUCH
better than the Japanese 16-bit units of the day).

The above account ignores the fact that oversampling was used to obtain 16
bit performance from 14 bit parts. For all practical purposes, the
converters were 16 bit.

No, the D/A converters were 14-bit. They used 14-bit converters because
Philips believed (and rightly so) that the then current 16-bit DACs weren't
very linear. The fact that they used 4X oversampling to achieve 16-bit
resolution is irrelevant to my statement.

The claim that there was a signficant and large audible difference has been
investigated with DBTs and found to be yet another audiophile myth.

Sorry. I had both the Sony CDP-101 and The Philips-Maganvox FD-1000, and I
beg to differ. The Sony sounded awful (still does) and the little Maggie was
much more listenable (and still is). I ended-up giving the Sony to a friend -
he didn't like it either.

They
also had really crude multi-pole anti-alaising filters
and produced, what would be considered today,
unacceptable levels of quantization error.

As a rule there are no anti-aliasing filters in playback devices. Aliasing
is only possible in ADCs and resamplers.

Nyquist requires that the upper frequency response limit of the
reconstructed waveform (the Nyquist frequency) be half of the sampling rate
and the signal at the sampling rate must not have sufficient amplitude to be
quantifiable. This means that the reconstruction filter must be very steep to
avoid there being significant signal at 44.1 Khz. Meaning that above the
Nyquist frequency (in this case 22.05KHz) cutoff needs to be as absolute as
possible leading to designs of filters with as many as six poles (before the
advent of cheap digital filtering, that is).

Some players (like the aforementioned Philips) used oversampling to lessen
the burden of the reconstruction filter (which I've always heard generally
called an anti-ailasing filter, although you are right, technically.
Anti-ailasing is used to bandwidth limit an analog signal BEFORE quantization
in order to satisfy the Nyquist theorem) by allowing said filter to be less
steep.

Therefore the statement that crude multi-pole anti-alaising filters and
produced, what would be considered today,unacceptable levels of quantization
error" is a technical impossibility.

Thus the above claim must also be dismissed as an audiophile myth on the
grounds that it is a confused misuse of technical terminology.

I'm afraid the confusion is on your end, my friend. My statement: "They
also had really crude multi-pole anti-alaising filters AND produced, what
would be considered today, unacceptable levels of quantization error." are
actually two statements linked by "and" . If I had meant to say what you
characterize above, I would have said: "They also had really crude multi-pole
anti-alaising filters WHICH produced, what would be considered today,
unacceptable levels of quantization error." But I clearly didn't say (or
mean) that.

The first
generations of Sony CD players were just terrible and
even with good, modern CDs, they sound simply wretched. I
have an acquaintance who still uses a Sony CDP-101 (the
first publicly available CD player, IIRC) and thinks it's
just fine. Of course, he's 84 and deaf as a post. Anyone
would have to be to put-up with that wretchedness!

I still have an operational CDP 101 and so does a friend. They both have are
well-maintained and sound good.

Er, it's hard to account for a reaction like that...

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Aug 5, 4:55 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message


On Aug 4, 12:06 pm, Audio Empire
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very
happy to bow out.

He probably means that you haven't done such a test
with a good playback system, optimally set-up and using
decently cared-for records.
You are correct. The test only has merit if the
equipment and LPs are not sub par. I know my equipment
and LPs are up to the task. But I don't think that I
have any exclusive on that.

I find it interesting that these two individuals,
niether of whom I have never met in person, pretend to
have such full knowlege of my livelong listening
experiences.

The improbability of their claims supports their
immediate dismissal.

What is the improbablity of my claims? Show us the math
that leads to the assertion and the facts upon which you
base the math.

It's in the JAES amd IEEE papers I've been referencing here for years.

Apparently people have been ignoring them for years so there is no need for
me to reproduce them so that they can again be ignored.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:35:59 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

On Aug 5, 4:55 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message


On Aug 4, 12:06 pm, Audio Empire
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very
happy to bow out.

He probably means that you haven't done such a test
with a good playback system, optimally set-up and using
decently cared-for records.
You are correct. The test only has merit if the
equipment and LPs are not sub par. I know my equipment
and LPs are up to the task. But I don't think that I
have any exclusive on that.

I find it interesting that these two individuals,
niether of whom I have never met in person, pretend to
have such full knowlege of my livelong listening
experiences.

The improbability of their claims supports their
immediate dismissal.

What is the improbablity of my claims? Show us the math
that leads to the assertion and the facts upon which you
base the math.

It's in the JAES amd IEEE papers I've been referencing here for years.

Apparently people have been ignoring them for years so there is no need for
me to reproduce them so that they can again be ignored.


Nobody is ignoring them, Arny. They are not easily accessible or generally
available. They cost money to download from the AES site and therefore most
people will not bother to access them.

Unless you can come up with some readily available and accessible evidence,
people are going to ignore some of your claims. That's just how it is.
Nothing against you, but if you wish to debate these issues with hard
evidence, it should be evidence available to everybody.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 9, 4:35=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Aug 5, 4:55 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message


On Aug 4, 12:06 pm, Audio Empire
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:41:42 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

If that's the only valid criteria for you, I'm very
happy to bow out.

He probably means that you haven't done such a test
with a good playback system, optimally set-up and using
decently cared-for records.
You are correct. The test only has merit if the
equipment and LPs are not sub par. I know my equipment
and LPs are up to the task. But I don't think that I
have any exclusive on that.

I find it interesting that these two individuals,
niether of whom I have never met in person, pretend to
have such full knowlege of my livelong listening
experiences.

The improbability of their claims supports their
immediate dismissal.

What is the improbablity of my claims? Show us the math
that leads to the assertion and the facts upon which you
base the math.

It's in the JAES amd IEEE papers I've been referencing here for years.

Apparently people have been ignoring them for years so there is no need f=
or
me to reproduce them so that they can again be ignored

I have read them. I don't think they say what you are saying. I also
think they are a bit dated to say the least. So IMO they simply don't
support your position.