[KH]

On 2/12/2011 9:46 AM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 12, 5:46=A0am, "Arny wrote:
On Feb 11, 10:32 am, "Arny
wrote:
wrote in message
snip

If you don't trust me that much, we have nothing to talk about. Period.

OK so now your excuse for not taking a test that is proctored is
because I'm not a trusting person.

More likely because you imply Arny is dishonest, and he requires *your*
intervention in proctoring such a test to ensure he doesn't cheat.
Touting, loudly, such mistrust seldom engenders cooperation in anyone.

Despite the trivial ease that is
claimed for such a test, proctoring is a deal breaker because I
personally am not trusting enough. The opportunity to shut me up on
the subject and prove me wrong on all counts passed up because I'm not
trusting.

A false premise. You presume that 'shutting you up' is a commodity of
such value that others should be willing to spend their time and
resources to execute tests of your choosing, in locations of your
choosing, in order to acquire that commodity.

Hmmmm. If I were so confident in my ability that I thought
such a test were to be trivially easy I'd want the test to be
proctored. Given just how easy it would be to use means other than by
ear to analyse the files and determine their source I'd want everyone
to know without a doubt I did the test by ear only. But that is me.

Ok, so for every aspect in which our audio philosophies and preferences
diverge, you'll be willing to participate a proctored test of my
choosing right? Because you're so invested in changing my mind right?

Well Arny, Any time you make your typical claims about the sound of
vinyl I will be here to remind you and everyone else of this challenge
and your unwillingness to prove your assertions under blind conditions
by ear alone. Clearly you have agreed on the methodologies. Your only
excuse now is that I insist the test be proctored. Others reading this
thread can draw their own conclusions.

I would posit that the simplest conclusion - the one I draw - is that
Arny is far less invested in *your* opinion than are you, and is
unwilling to invest any significant amount of effort to disabuse you of it.

Franky, I have no doubt that with sufficient resources, one could find
numerous excerpts from LP tracks - specific, limited segments of
particularly high grade pressings, with spectral content and dynamic
ranges that help mask LP distortions - that would be difficult if not
impossible to identify as LP derived without a comparable digital
reference. But, so what?

This is merely the flip side of the argument made by AudioEmpire,
namely, you can cherry pick parts and pieces of LP tracks that, for the
reasons mentioned, may not be unambiguously identifiable as LP derived,
BUT, that is *Not* indicative of LP quality writ large. Just as CD's
are seldom as good as they should be, or can be, LP, in microcosm, can
be almost perceptually free of distortion. As a practical matter, IME
LP's virtually never achieve this.

Keith