[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:08:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

I see a misidentification of a problem that we all agree
exists. Digital recordings on occasion fail to sound
good simply because they are accurate reproducers of
mediocre technical work.

I wish that were true.

It's truth is proven fact.

The fact is that most CD releases
do not represent, accurately, the information that is on
the master tape.

It takes considerable naivate about the normal production process to
consider that to be a technical flaw.

Who said it was a "technical flaw"?

Master tapes very frequently are not commerically acceptable when they are
accurate representations of the master tape. That's why mastering engineers
are still a valuable resource.

Whatever the reason, the reality is that commercial CD rarely, if ever, lives
up to its potential in terms of sound quality.

Commerical recordings must satisfy a large number of listeners to be good
commercial products. Musical recordings often have excess dynamics and
often contain excess power at the low end of the audible spectrum to sound
acceptable in the limited environments that most consumers listen to them
in.

That's true. But what it means is that the CD buyer is not getting what CD is
capable of. I'm glad we agree on this point.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Aug 3, 12:10 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



It would be interesting to put your ability to the test
under blind conditions to hear all those nasty
distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP.

It's already been done, and it is a slam dunk.

Please excuse my skepticism but you haven't done it with
my rig and my records.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Aug 2, 6:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And
yes it is audible depending on the severity.

Yes. However another irreducable problem - the
non-flatness of the vinyl causes FM distortion with high
enough frequency content to qualify as flutter.

There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass
modulation and tone arms that are not linear tracking.

But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only
be noticable to those who, for whatever reason, are
very very
sensitive to that sepcific problem.

We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time.

This suggests to me
that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing
disorder that causes people to have substandard levels
of sensitivity to FM distoriton.

It would be interesting to put your ability to the test
under blind conditions to hear all those nasty
distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP.

At this point you have admitted that you will only accept experiences
obtained on your personal audio system with recordings from your personal
collection.

For very obvious reasons, I have no interest in proceeding any further.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:08:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

I see a misidentification of a problem that we all
agree exists. Digital recordings on occasion fail to
sound good simply because they are accurate
reproducers of mediocre technical work.

I wish that were true.

It's truth is proven fact.

The fact is that most CD releases
do not represent, accurately, the information that is on
the master tape.

It takes considerable naivate about the normal
production process to consider that to be a technical
flaw.

Who said it was a "technical flaw"?

Master tapes very frequently are not commerically
acceptable when they are accurate representations of the
master tape. That's why mastering engineers are still a
valuable resource.

Whatever the reason, the reality is that commercial CD
rarely, if ever, lives up to its potential in terms of
sound quality.

It's true. Due to the sfar more audibly significant audible failings in the
rest of the audio chain, particularly rooms and transducers, CD playback
never lives up to its potential for excellent sound quality.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:20:43 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:08:45 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

I see a misidentification of a problem that we all
agree exists. Digital recordings on occasion fail to
sound good simply because they are accurate
reproducers of mediocre technical work.

I wish that were true.

It's truth is proven fact.

The fact is that most CD releases
do not represent, accurately, the information that is on
the master tape.

It takes considerable naivate about the normal
production process to consider that to be a technical
flaw.

Who said it was a "technical flaw"?

Master tapes very frequently are not commerically
acceptable when they are accurate representations of the
master tape. That's why mastering engineers are still a
valuable resource.

Whatever the reason, the reality is that commercial CD
rarely, if ever, lives up to its potential in terms of
sound quality.

It's true. Due to the sfar more audibly significant audible failings in the
rest of the audio chain, particularly rooms and transducers, CD playback
never lives up to its potential for excellent sound quality.



Sorry, Arny, you're putting words in my mouth (or should I say keyboard). I
said that commercial CDs do not have the information on them that would make
them sound as good as what the medium itself is capable. I said nothing about
limitations "downstream" of the CD playback itself.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:20:27 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

On Aug 2, 6:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And
yes it is audible depending on the severity.

Yes. However another irreducable problem - the
non-flatness of the vinyl causes FM distortion with high
enough frequency content to qualify as flutter.

There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass
modulation and tone arms that are not linear tracking.

But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only
be noticable to those who, for whatever reason, are
very very
sensitive to that sepcific problem.

We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time.

This suggests to me
that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing
disorder that causes people to have substandard levels
of sensitivity to FM distoriton.

It would be interesting to put your ability to the test
under blind conditions to hear all those nasty
distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP.

At this point you have admitted that you will only accept experiences
obtained on your personal audio system with recordings from your personal
collection.

For very obvious reasons, I have no interest in proceeding any further.



I believe that if you read his words more carefully, you will see that he was
merely using his playback system as an example because he knows it well. I
can say the same. Listen to MY records on MY playback system and you won't
find these artifacts that you insist are endemic to all LP playback either.
I'm afraid that your prejudice in this matter has poisoned the whole well.

If all vinyl playback were as you characterize it, no one would ever listen
to records. Obviously, the picture is not as bad as you paint it. It couldn't
be and still be considered a viable market, even for a niche one.

[Audio Empire]

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

"Scott" wrote in message

On Aug 3, 12:10 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



It would be interesting to put your ability to the test
under blind conditions to hear all those nasty
distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP.

It's already been done, and it is a slam dunk.

Please excuse my skepticism but you haven't done it with
my rig and my records.

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.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 4, 6:41=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Aug 3, 12:10 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



It would be interesting to put your ability to the test
under blind conditions to hear all those nasty
distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP.

It's already been done, and it is a slam dunk.

Please excuse my skepticism but you haven't done it with
my rig and my records.

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

It's not the only valid criteria but it was the most convenient. I
would accept anything in the same ball park. but I expect you to bow
out no matter what.

[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 Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:09:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:10:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message


Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And
yes it is audible depending on the severity.

Yes. However another irreducable problem - the
non-flatness of the vinyl causes FM distortion with high
enough frequency content to qualify as flutter.

There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass
modulation and tone arms that are not linear tracking.

Actually, the distortions caused by properly designed and
set-up radial tracking arms turns out to be negligible,
and the advantages of linear tracking turn out to be a
tertiary effect.

Actually, the distortions produced by LP playback systems incorporating the
best designed
tone arms that utilize any technology turns out to be readily audible.

Whether a given person perceives these potentially audible distoritons is up
to them, but if they fail to perceive them then they are somehow missing
spurious responses that are well above the normal human thesholds for
reliable perception of linear and nonlinear distortion.

But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only
be noticable
to those who, for whatever reason, are very very
sensitive to that sepcific problem.

We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time.
This suggests to me that there must be some kind of
highly selective hearing disorder that causes people to
have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distortion.

It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of
concert goers to listen "around" sneezes and coughs and
program rattling that occurs constantly during most
concerts.

Coughs and sneezes at concerts are relatively infrequent, while the
potentially audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl is
unending. It starts when the needle is dropped and it continues until it is
lifted up. To enjoy vinyl you have to listen past the ongoing racket of
potentially readily audible noise and distortion.

I don't know of
anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound
of
their playback though.

From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive
to FM distortion
that we avoid LPs playback wherever possible, we tend
to see those who listen to LPs that have been reissued
as good CDs as being in the category of people who wish
to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback.

Then you'd be wrong. Most vinyl listeners don't listen to
records that are warped, eccentric, of full of FM
distortion. I know that I don't.

Whether you perceive this ongoing racket or not is up to you, but it is very
easy to measure this noise and distortion using legacy measurement equipment
that finds modern media to be free of distortion.



Then if it's not perceived, It's not important is it? Unless of course the
knowledge that it MIGHT be there ruins your ability to sit back and enjoy the
music. I don't have that prejudice. Perhaps if you had taken better care of
your records, you wouldn't be complaining about "...audible noise and
distortion" starting..." "...when the needle is dropped and it continues
until it is lifted up.To enjoy vinyl you have to listen past the ongoing
racket of potentially readily audible noise and distortion." My records are
quiet, (aside from the VERY OCCASIONAL tick or pop and tape hiss on the older
recordings) as well as flat and concentric. There is no more noise than the
occasional cough or sneeze at a concert. It just is neither important nor
does it compromise my enjoyment of the music one iota.

[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]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:09:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

Then you'd be wrong. Most vinyl listeners don't listen
to records that are warped, eccentric, of full of FM
distortion. I know that I don't.

You have no choice.

Whether you perceive this ongoing racket or not is up to
you, but it is very easy to measure this noise and
distortion using legacy measurement equipment that finds
modern media to be free of distortion.

Then if it's not perceived, It's not important is it?

This would appear to be an adjunct of the McDonalds argument - if you can't
perceive the benefits of a better-made product, then it must not be better
made?

Unless of course the knowledge that it MIGHT be there
ruins your ability to sit back and enjoy the music. I
don't have that prejudice. Perhaps if you had taken
better care of your records, you wouldn't be complaining
about "...audible noise and distortion" starting..."

The distortion and noise was there on the first playing.

My records are quiet, (aside from the VERY
OCCASIONAL tick or pop and tape hiss on the older
recordings) as well as flat and concentric.

You must be purchasing LPs on a different planet than I do.

There is no
more noise than the occasional cough or sneeze at a
concert.

Except that the cough or sneeze is a rare event, and the snap, crackle, and
pop as well as harshness and grit that is inherent in the LP format are
there all of the time.

Some of us appear to want to listen to music presented with less audible
noise and distortion than others.

[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.

[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:

You must be purchasing LPs on a different planet than I do.

What LPs have you purchased in the last 10 years?


Except that the cough or sneeze is a rare event, and the snap, crackle, a=
nd
pop as well as harshness and grit that is inherent in the LP format are
there all of the time.

And yet you walk away when challenged to identify these and other
claimed distortions under blind conditions when real high end
equipment and high qualilty LPs are in play.


Some of us appear to want to listen to music presented with less audible
noise and distortion than others.

What music are you listening to that sounds better on the commercial
CD than any LP of the same title?

[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.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:55:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:09:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

Then you'd be wrong. Most vinyl listeners don't listen
to records that are warped, eccentric, of full of FM
distortion. I know that I don't.

You have no choice.

Whether you perceive this ongoing racket or not is up to
you, but it is very easy to measure this noise and
distortion using legacy measurement equipment that finds
modern media to be free of distortion.

Then if it's not perceived, It's not important is it?

This would appear to be an adjunct of the McDonalds argument - if you can't
perceive the benefits of a better-made product, then it must not be better
made?

Not at all, but if you can't hear, say, the 15, 750 Hz raster on a TV, then
you wouldn't particularly care that brand "A" had a quieter horizontal
oscillator than brand "B" would you? IOW, a difference that makes no
difference is no difference at all. Or, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Take your pick from the above aphorisms.

Unless of course the knowledge that it MIGHT be there
ruins your ability to sit back and enjoy the music. I
don't have that prejudice. Perhaps if you had taken
better care of your records, you wouldn't be complaining
about "...audible noise and distortion" starting..."

The distortion and noise was there on the first playing.

Sez you. Many do not agree that this is in any way off-putting. In fact many
believe that often, the "distortions" of which you speak so eloquently, are
euphonic in nature and actually make the performance sound MORE like real
music, not less.

My records are quiet, (aside from the VERY
OCCASIONAL tick or pop and tape hiss on the older
recordings) as well as flat and concentric.

You must be purchasing LPs on a different planet than I do.

I just take better care of the ones I have, perhaps. I don't think I've
bought a new LP in at least a decade.

There is no
more noise than the occasional cough or sneeze at a
concert.

Except that the cough or sneeze is a rare event, and the snap, crackle, and
pop as well as harshness and grit that is inherent in the LP format are
there all of the time.

Speak for your own record collection, not mine.

Some of us appear to want to listen to music presented with less audible
noise and distortion than others.

And some of us appear to be so prejudiced against vinyl, that we can't listen
to and enjoy the music unless the media carrying it meets some self-imposed
level of technical perfection.

That's everyone's prerogative, of course. Just don't make the mistake of
denigrating others for not sharing that view of the subject.

[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]

"Scott" wrote in message

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

You must be purchasing LPs on a different planet than I
do.

What LPs have you purchased in the last 10 years?


Except that the cough or sneeze is a rare event, and the
snap, crackle, and pop as well as harshness and grit
that is inherent in the LP format are there all of the
time.

And yet you walk away when challenged to identify these
and other claimed distortions under blind conditions when
real high end equipment and high qualilty LPs are in play.

The key word here is "real". I say that the evaluations I've done involved
real equipment, and the easy way out is to alleged that there is some
magical equipment kicking around that circumvents the laws of physics,

Some of us appear to want to listen to music presented
with less audible noise and distortion than others.

What music are you listening to that sounds better on the
commercial CD than any LP of the same title?

For openers, any music that was produced in the past 25 years, Only a
miniscule fraction of it ever made it onto LP.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 8, 3:29=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message


On Aug 5, 4:55 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
What LPs have you purchased in the last 10 years?

Why no answer to this question Arny?

And yet you walk away when challenged to identify these
and other claimed distortions under blind conditions when
real high end equipment and high qualilty LPs are in play.

The key word here is "real".

Not really. It is just an adjective and has no meaning out of context.
The key "phrase is "real high end equipment" and let's not forget the
"high quality LPs."

I say that the evaluations I've done involved
real equipment,

Sayin it doesn't make it so. Maybe I would be less skeptical if you
were to offer something specific and varifiable. You have yet to ID
any of the equipment you have used for these undisclosed blind tests
of audible distortion you seem to be alluding to.

and the easy way out is to alleged that there is some
magical equipment kicking around that circumvents the laws of physics,

Strawman. I offered my own equipment as a possible source. There is
nothing "magical" about it. It is "real." It works within the laws of
physics. I also extended the parameters to any other comparable gear
which would be "real" gear. I am also saying we should use "real" LPs
only that they be top quality. I have many that meet that standard.
I'm not lookin for a way out of this challenge Arny. I think you are
though. Claiming actual real equipment that I would certainly deem
acceptable as "magical" is a pretty weak excuse to dodge the
challenge. Either the "inherent" distortions are as severe as you
claim and you can hear them and identify them under blind conditions
or they are not. If they are as severe as you assert then you should
win no matter what equipment I want to use. Like you say, there is no
magical equipment out there. It's on me to find equipment and gear
that will prove your assertions wrong. But hey, I already have it. Not
sure why you would exclude it. Are you that impressed with my gear and
LPs that you don't want to include them in such a test? We are talking
about digital rips. It's not like you would have to come to my new
house or anything like that. Heck you can pick the town and the system
for playback. the only condition I would put on that is that you do
the test by ear only and to confirm this it should be done with a
witness of my approval present.


Some of us appear to want to listen to music presented
with less audible noise and distortion than others.
What music are you listening to that sounds better on the
commercial CD than any LP of the same title?

For openers, any music that was produced in the past 25 years, Only a
miniscule fraction of it ever made it onto LP.

That is not an answer Arny. Of course any music that is available only
on one format or the other is not in consideration. The choice of
format is already made. But there are thousands of great and popular
titles that have been issued on both formats. In many cases multiple
times. So why no answer to the question? To have such a strong opinion
on the subject certainly you must have some personal examples you can
cite out of your personal collection where the commercial CD simply
sounds better than the LP.

You won't tell us what LPs you have purchased in the past 10 years and
you wont tell us what personal experience you have with comparing your
own LPs and CDs of the same title. How can I not question your
experience at this point?

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:55:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

Unless of course the knowledge that it MIGHT be there
ruins your ability to sit back and enjoy the music. I
don't have that prejudice. Perhaps if you had taken
better care of your records, you wouldn't be complaining
about "...audible noise and distortion" starting..."

The distortion and noise was there on the first playing.

Sez you.

Also so say the many JAES and IEEE technical papers about the problems
associated with vinyl playback.

It's all been known for decades.

I've posted formal references to them here on numerous occasions.

[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.

[John Nunes]

On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen
"around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
during most concerts.

I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
basic needs of music. It's called pitch stability. Sneezes and coughs
aren't obviously a part of the music. Screwing up the pitch stability is.

[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.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
John Nunes wrote:

On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen
"around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
during most concerts.

I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
basic needs of music. It's called pitch stability. Sneezes and coughs
aren't obviously a part of the music. Screwing up the pitch stability is.

If you can detect pitch instability while using any modern turntable,
you have a malfunctioning unit.

[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...

[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.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:34:55 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:55:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

Unless of course the knowledge that it MIGHT be there
ruins your ability to sit back and enjoy the music. I
don't have that prejudice. Perhaps if you had taken
better care of your records, you wouldn't be complaining
about "...audible noise and distortion" starting..."

The distortion and noise was there on the first playing.

Sez you.

Also so say the many JAES and IEEE technical papers about the problems
associated with vinyl playback.

It's all been known for decades.

I've posted formal references to them here on numerous occasions.


And they cost not an inconsiderable amount of money to access.

Also, you seem think that the fact that these artifacts exist (and can be
measured, and have been written about authoritatively) creates a prima fascia
case for the out-of-hand dismissal of any claims that many people find vinyl
records not just listenable, but actually, extremely enjoyable. As I said in
an earlier posts, it's not your facts that I dispute, it's the "universal"
conclusions that you draw from them that expose your prejudicial stand on the
subject.

[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.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Aug 9, 4:44=A0pm, John Nunes wrote:
On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to li=
sten
"around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
during most concerts.

I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
basic needs of music. =A0It's called pitch stability. =A0Sneezes and coug=
hs
aren't obviously a part of the music. =A0Screwing up the pitch stability =
is.

If you would like to take the challenge I issued to Arny and test your
ability to hear such instability of pitch with my LPs played back on
my gear we can try to make some arrangements.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:44:12 -0700, John Nunes wrote
(in article ):

On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen
"around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
during most concerts.

I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
basic needs of music. It's called pitch stability. Sneezes and coughs
aren't obviously a part of the music. Screwing up the pitch stability is.

Yessssss, and...??????? Modern turntables in good working order don't have
pitch instability and while eccentric and warped records don't, they're
pretty rare and one simply doesn't play them.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:40:51 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
John Nunes wrote:

On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen
"around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
during most concerts.

I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
basic needs of music. It's called pitch stability. Sneezes and coughs
aren't obviously a part of the music. Screwing up the pitch stability is.

If you can detect pitch instability while using any modern turntable,
you have a malfunctioning unit.

That's sort of my reaction as well.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

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 were in an oversapling configuration. This is well known. The objective
of the oversampling was a trade off of speed which was in abundance, for
linearity which was costly.

They used 14-bit
converters because Philips believed (and rightly so) that
the then current 16-bit DACs weren't very linear.

In 1972 (ten years earlier) I worked with 16 bit, 200 KHz DACs that had 1/2
bit linearity and monotonicity. The only problem with 16 bit DACs was their
price before the CD player market ramped up production.

The
fact that they used 4X oversampling to achieve 16-bit
resolution is irrelevant to my statement.

Your statement was false because of the false claims that it included
including "..the little Magnavox FD-1000 sounded MUCH better than the
Japanese 16-bit units of the day). In fact they both were sonically
transparent or very nearly so to the extent that they absolutely blew away
the analog equipment of the day, given proper source material to play which
was readily available from the onset.

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.

I don't believe that we have ever been treated to your technical
measurements or the results of proper statistically-analyzed, time-synched
level, matched comparisons of them. The extant well-controlled listennig
tests involving them tell a different story - both units were eminantely
listenable given that they were in good working order.

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.

Now you've had a chance to review the relevant technical material and change
your story. The filters are now properly identified as "reconstruction
filters". Yet you present this all like its a correction to my statement
which was correct all along.

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).

If you think that the origional CD players had 6 pole filters, then you are
again not telling it like it was. If memory serves there were about 15
inductors and 15 capacitors per channel in the reconstruction filters of the
CDP 101. This was pretty typical. Any second year engineering student knows
that filters like these have about 30 poles (in pairs).

[John Nunes]

On 8/10/2010 5:22 PM, Scott wrote:
On Aug 9, 4:44 pm, John wrote:
On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen
"around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
during most concerts.

I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
basic needs of music. It's called pitch stability. Sneezes and coughs
aren't obviously a part of the music. Screwing up the pitch stability is.

If you would like to take the challenge I issued to Arny and test your
ability to hear such instability of pitch with my LPs played back on
my gear we can try to make some arrangements.

No thanks, I want to listen to my records.

http://www.regonaudio.com/NakamichiTX1000.html

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:01:57 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

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 were in an oversapling configuration. This is well known. The objective
of the oversampling was a trade off of speed which was in abundance, for
linearity which was costly.

They used 14-bit
converters because Philips believed (and rightly so) that
the then current 16-bit DACs weren't very linear.

In 1972 (ten years earlier) I worked with 16 bit, 200 KHz DACs that had 1/2
bit linearity and monotonicity. The only problem with 16 bit DACs was their
price before the CD player market ramped up production.

Yes, so the ones used by many CD manufacturers weren't very linear, and those
which were were more expensive than mass-market manufacturers wanted to
spend. In the early days, numerous things were tried to get around this
problem, lower bit D/As, over sampling, single bit D/As that used the same
bit for everything (insuring the steps were absolutely the same, and
therefore linear) etc. Eventually, the D/As got better (laser trimming,
etc.) and the sound of CD players improved. Today, they're pretty close to
"perfect".

The
fact that they used 4X oversampling to achieve 16-bit
resolution is irrelevant to my statement.

Your statement was false because of the false claims that it included
including "..the little Magnavox FD-1000 sounded MUCH better than the
Japanese 16-bit units of the day). In fact they both were sonically
transparent or very nearly so to the extent that they absolutely blew away
the analog equipment of the day, given proper source material to play which
was readily available from the onset.

My experience tells me otherwise. Sorry about that.

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.

I don't believe that we have ever been treated to your technical
measurements or the results of proper statistically-analyzed, time-synched
level, matched comparisons of them. The extant well-controlled listennig
tests involving them tell a different story - both units were eminantely
listenable given that they were in good working order.

Nor have we been treated to your test results and technical measurements or
the results of proper statistically-analyzed, time-synched level, matched
comparisons of them, 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.

Now you've had a chance to review the relevant technical material and change
your story. The filters are now properly identified as "reconstruction
filters". Yet you present this all like its a correction to my statement
which was correct all along.

I was just using the standard parlance as I explained above (and you
"conveniently" snipped the part where I SAID THAT YOU WERE RIGHT, but that
these reconstruction filters are commonly called anti-alaising filters, even
though that term is not strictly correct. I'm not just addressing you in this
thread, you know? And if you're going to debate with me, I'd appreciate it if
you would try to be a little more honest in your snippage, OK?).

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).

If you think that the origional CD players had 6 pole filters, then you are
again not telling it like it was. If memory serves there were about 15
inductors and 15 capacitors per channel in the reconstruction filters of the
CDP 101. This was pretty typical. Any second year engineering student knows
that filters like these have about 30 poles (in pairs).

Even worse. I had forgotten and memory "didn't serve". It's been a long time,
so what?

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:38:38 -0700, John Nunes wrote
(in article ):

On 8/10/2010 5:22 PM, Scott wrote:
On Aug 9, 4:44 pm, John wrote:
On 8/2/2010 5:18 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to
listen
"around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly
during most concerts.

I have a lot of trouble "listening around" to a lack of one of the most
basic needs of music. It's called pitch stability. Sneezes and coughs
aren't obviously a part of the music. Screwing up the pitch stability is.

If you would like to take the challenge I issued to Arny and test your
ability to hear such instability of pitch with my LPs played back on
my gear we can try to make some arrangements.

No thanks, I want to listen to my records.

http://www.regonaudio.com/NakamichiTX1000.html

You actually HAVE one of these? I read that other than it's ability to
somewhat correct eccentric records, it's not a very good turntable. Since it
doesn't correct for warp wow (as far as I remember), it only does half the
job in my opinion. Do you have any comment on the perception that it's not a
very good 'table or the fact that it doesn't correct for warps (with some
kind of vacuum hod-down)? I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of someone
who actually has one.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In 1972 (ten years earlier) I worked with 16 bit, 200 KHz DACs that had 1/2
bit linearity and monotonicity.

I'm curious about this experience. In what way were you using this gear?

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


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.

I don't believe that we have ever been treated to your
technical measurements or the results of proper
statistically-analyzed, time-synched level, matched
comparisons of them. The extant well-controlled
listennig tests involving them tell a different story -
both units were eminantely listenable given that they
were in good working order.

Nor have we been treated to your test results and
technical measurements or the results of proper
statistically-analyzed, time-synched level, matched
comparisons of them, either.

How quickly some forget evidence that does not fit with their prejudices?

Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)

I don't know how many times I've posted this reference, just in RAHE.