Now that you have returned from your Thanksgiving, are you planning to
explain why you have resorted to pushing snake oil in the form of hi-rez
formats and sound cards on your PCABX web site?

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:x0zqd.156054$bk1.118227@fed1read05
Now that you have returned from your Thanksgiving, are you planning to
explain why you have resorted to pushing snake oil in the form of
hi-rez formats and sound cards on your PCABX web site?

What pushing of hi-rez formats?

From: "ScottW"
Date: 11/28/2004 10:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: x0zqd.156054$bk1.118227@fed1read05

Now that you have returned from your Thanksgiving, are you planning to
explain why you have resorted to pushing snake oil in the form of hi-rez
formats and sound cards on your PCABX web site?

ScottW








LOL

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:x0zqd.156054$bk1.118227@fed1read05
Now that you have returned from your Thanksgiving, are you planning to
explain why you have resorted to pushing snake oil in the form of
hi-rez formats and sound cards on your PCABX web site?

What pushing of hi-rez formats?

Recall this exchange?

(begin quote)
So are you saying that we must use one of those hi-rez formats?

For experimental purposes, they seem to have some value.


But didn't you just say that those formats provide no audible improvement
over redbook CD?

Right, for the purpose of reproducing musical recordings, for general
purposes. This is a very specific application.

But if they provide no audible improvement then they
aren't audibly better and of no use in PCABX.

Wrong, PCABX is an experimental environment.
(end quote)

this implies PCABX requires hi-rez (better than 16/44).


and this blurb on your website?

"(Adequate Or Better Digital) Midiman DIO 2448, "Audiophile 24/96",
Echo "Mia", or Turtle Beach "Santa Cruz" sound card; "

Don't all these support better than 16 bit resolution?


Yet you have repeatedly stated that one cannot hear a difference
between 16/44 and higher rez recordings of the same source.
In fact when challenged to demonstrate that one can (in an
experimental environment) hear a difference you replied,

(begin quote)
I look forward to your proof that hi-rez recordings provide an
audible
difference on your test tracks.

Please hold your breath until it happens, Scott.
(end quote)


Clearly there is a conflict in these positions. Care to explain?

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:x0zqd.156054$bk1.118227@fed1read05
Now that you have returned from your Thanksgiving, are you planning
to explain why you have resorted to pushing snake oil in the form of
hi-rez formats and sound cards on your PCABX web site?

What pushing of hi-rez formats?

Recall this exchange?

(begin quote)
So are you saying that we must use one of those hi-rez formats?

For experimental purposes, they seem to have some value.


But didn't you just say that those formats provide no audible
improvement over redbook CD?

Right, for the purpose of reproducing musical recordings, for general
purposes. This is a very specific application.

But if they provide no audible improvement then they
aren't audibly better and of no use in PCABX.

Wrong, PCABX is an experimental environment.
(end quote)

this implies PCABX requires hi-rez (better than 16/44).


and this blurb on your website?

"(Adequate Or Better Digital) Midiman DIO 2448, "Audiophile 24/96",
Echo "Mia", or Turtle Beach "Santa Cruz" sound card; "

Don't all these support better than 16 bit resolution?


Yet you have repeatedly stated that one cannot hear a difference
between 16/44 and higher rez recordings of the same source.
In fact when challenged to demonstrate that one can (in an
experimental environment) hear a difference you replied,

(begin quote)
I look forward to your proof that hi-rez recordings provide an
audible
difference on your test tracks.

Please hold your breath until it happens, Scott.
(end quote)


Clearly there is a conflict in these positions. Care to explain?

I see no conflict at all. Please explain your misapprehensions, Scott.

Arny Krueger" wrote
ScottW" wrote




Now that you have returned from your Thanksgiving, are you planning to
explain why you have resorted to pushing snake oil in the form of
hi-rez formats and sound cards on your PCABX web site?

What pushing of hi-rez formats?


If you get kick each time you're caught with your falsehood, everyone in this
ng will be footless by the end of the day.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"ScottW" wrote in message
om

Clearly there is a conflict in these positions. Care to explain?

I see no conflict at all. Please explain your misapprehensions, Scott.


Alright, let me try to summarize.

1) PCABX is a listening test.
2) As a test, all steps in the test chain must not audibly mask the source.
3) You claim to manage masking in PCABX buy using hi-rez sources and
playback devices.

So 2 and 3 must be true or the concept of PCABX will be flawed.

4) But you also claim that hi-rez formats are snake-oil as they cannot be
shown to have any audible improvements over 16/44.

But if 4 is true then 3 cannot satisfy 2 and PCABX is flawed.

So you have a choice. Either PCABX is flawed or hi-rez works. I tend to
think PCABX is flawed.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:fFQqd.156697$bk1.116981@fed1read05
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"ScottW" wrote in message
om

Clearly there is a conflict in these positions. Care to explain?

I see no conflict at all. Please explain your misapprehensions,
Scott.

Alright, let me try to summarize.

1) PCABX is a listening test.

2) As a test, all steps in the test chain must not audibly mask the
source.

3) You claim to manage masking in PCABX buy using hi-rez
sources and playback devices.

I'm not managing proven masking with hi rez formats. Instead, what I'm
managing is the *possibility* that masking might take place.

As the results of the tests actually come out for *everybody*, one of the hi
rez formats that I successfully use to show where masking takes place, is
16/44. However, I use 24/96 to answer questions about the 16/44 format.
Whether the tests for masking are done with 16/44 files or 24/96 files, the
point of zero audible masking by the format is something like 14/32. I'm
under the impression that the BBC chose roughly this format over 20 years
ago for their own digital networks.

So 2 and 3 must be true or the concept of PCABX will be flawed.

That's because you misunderstand the purpose the use of hi-rex formats
(ironically 16/44 is one of the hi rez formats that actually works for the
purpose of avoiding masking) of item 3.

4) But you also claim that hi-rez formats are snake-oil as they
cannot be shown to have any audible improvements over 16/44.

This is true.

But if 4 is true then 3 cannot satisfy 2 and PCABX is flawed.

That's because you misstated my goals in item 3.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:fFQqd.156697$bk1.116981@fed1read05
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"ScottW" wrote in message
om

Clearly there is a conflict in these positions. Care to explain?

I see no conflict at all. Please explain your misapprehensions,
Scott.

Alright, let me try to summarize.

1) PCABX is a listening test.

2) As a test, all steps in the test chain must not audibly mask the
source.

3) You claim to manage masking in PCABX buy using hi-rez
sources and playback devices.

I'm not managing proven masking with hi rez formats. Instead, what I'm
managing is the *possibility* that masking might take place.

This is where you have admittedly fallen into the snake oil pit.

However this isn't the only potential source of masking and isn't
likely to even be the predominant one. Still, it is the only one for
which you have offered a solution, albeit, a snake oil one.

As the results of the tests actually come out for *everybody*, one of the hi
rez formats that I successfully use to show where masking takes place, is
16/44. However, I use 24/96 to answer questions about the 16/44 format.
Whether the tests for masking are done with 16/44 files or 24/96 files, the
point of zero audible masking by the format is something like 14/32. I'm
under the impression that the BBC chose roughly this format over 20 years
ago for their own digital networks.

So, if I may interpret, this paragraph indicates that your solution
to the "possibility of masking" in the digital realm is without
foundation and clearly resorting to unnecessary snake oil.

So 2 and 3 must be true or the concept of PCABX will be flawed.

That's because you misunderstand the purpose the use of hi-rex formats
(ironically 16/44 is one of the hi rez formats that actually works for the
purpose of avoiding masking) of item 3.

4) But you also claim that hi-rez formats are snake-oil as they
cannot be shown to have any audible improvements over 16/44.

This is true.

Then your solution to possible digital masking is snake oil when
applied to any listening tests like PCABX.


But if 4 is true then 3 cannot satisfy 2 and PCABX is flawed.

That's because you misstated my goals in item 3.

Actually, your goal in item 3 is completely lost when you resort to
listening as the final step in the test chain with inferior resolution
to all preceding steps. Somehow you seem to have concluded that this
step sets the resolution requirements for all the preceding steps to a
rather low level, that of audibility. Care to discuss cumulitive
degradation in analog stages now that we have shown your digital mask
management is snake oil?

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:fFQqd.156697$bk1.116981@fed1read05
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news "ScottW" wrote in message
om

Clearly there is a conflict in these positions. Care to explain?

I see no conflict at all. Please explain your misapprehensions,
Scott.

Alright, let me try to summarize.

1) PCABX is a listening test.

2) As a test, all steps in the test chain must not audibly mask the
source.

3) You claim to manage masking in PCABX buy using hi-rez
sources and playback devices.

I'm not managing proven masking with hi rez formats. Instead, what
I'm managing is the *possibility* that masking might take place.

This is where you have admittedly fallen into the snake oil pit.

No Scott, I've known your character or lack of it for a long time.

However this isn't the only potential source of masking and isn't
likely to even be the predominant one.

Agreed.

Still, it is the only one for
which you have offered a solution, albeit, a snake oil one.

Simply not true. However feel free to prove me wrong by providing your list
of sources of masking.

As the results of the tests actually come out for *everybody*, one
of the hi rez formats that I successfully use to show where masking
takes place, is 16/44. However, I use 24/96 to answer questions
about the 16/44 format. Whether the tests for masking are done with
16/44 files or 24/96 files, the point of zero audible masking by the
format is something like 14/32. I'm under the impression that the
BBC chose roughly this format over 20 years ago for their own
digital networks.

So, if I may interpret, this paragraph indicates that your solution
to the "possibility of masking" in the digital realm is without
foundation and clearly resorting to unnecessary snake oil.

Interpret incorrectly as you wish, Scott.

So 2 and 3 must be true or the concept of PCABX will be flawed.

That's because you misunderstand the purpose the use of hi-rez
formats (ironically 16/44 is one of the hi rez formats that actually
works for the purpose of avoiding masking) of item 3.

4) But you also claim that hi-rez formats are snake-oil as they
cannot be shown to have any audible improvements over 16/44.

This is true.

Then your solution to possible digital masking is snake oil when
applied to any listening tests like PCABX.

It's not snake oil that I invented or espouse. However, it is so popular
that I felt obliged to offer it as a potential solution.

But if 4 is true then 3 cannot satisfy 2 and PCABX is flawed.

That's because you misstated my goals in item 3.

Actually, your goal in item 3 is completely lost when you resort to
listening as the final step in the test chain with inferior resolution
to all preceding steps.

What alternative to listening do you propose, Scott?

Somehow you seem to have concluded that this
step sets the resolution requirements for all the preceding steps to a
rather low level, that of audibility.

So?

Care to discuss cumulitive degradation in analog stages now that we have
shown your digital mask
management is snake oil?

I've never had any problems with *cumulitive* errors.

ScottW

Arny said:

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:x0zqd.156054$bk1.118227@fed1read05
Now that you have returned from your Thanksgiving, are you planning to
explain why you have resorted to pushing snake oil in the form of
hi-rez formats and sound cards on your PCABX web site?

What pushing of hi-rez formats? What are you talking about? Who are you?
Where am I? What were we talking about? Where's Atkinson? Why is he
wiggling? What do you mean, what am I talking about? I don't know what I'm
talking about. Why don't I know what I'm talking about? Where's my medicine?
Lot's?

Boon

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...

Then your solution to possible digital masking is snake oil when
applied to any listening tests like PCABX.

It's not snake oil that I invented or espouse. However, it is so popular
that I felt obliged to offer it as a potential solution.



And there you have it. What should your penance be for your
admitted seduction by the dark side?

ScottW

On 1 Dec 2004 12:43:48 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...

Then your solution to possible digital masking is snake oil when
applied to any listening tests like PCABX.

It's not snake oil that I invented or espouse. However, it is so popular
that I felt obliged to offer it as a potential solution.

Hmmmm, substitute the concept of tubes and you have a kindred spirit.

Stupid, Fat 'n' Ugly is lost on RAO:

(Marc "Porky" Phillips) wrote:

What are you talking about? Who are you?
Where am I? What were we talking about?
What do you mean, what am I talking about? I don't know what I'm
talking about. Why don't I know what I'm talking about? Where's my medicine?

Boon

LOL!!!!

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


What pushing of hi-rez formats? What are you talking about? Who are
you? Where am I? What were we talking about? Where's Atkinson? Why
is he wiggling? What do you mean, what am I talking about? I don't
know what I'm talking about. Why don't I know what I'm talking about?
Where's my medicine? Lot's?

Discussion terminated on the grounds that Phillips has clearly lost his
mind.

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


What pushing of hi-rez formats? What are you talking about? Who are
you? Where am I? What were we talking about? Where's Atkinson? Why
is he wiggling? What do you mean, what am I talking about? I don't
know what I'm talking about. Why don't I know what I'm talking about?
Where's my medicine? Lot's?

Discussion terminated on the grounds that Phillips has clearly lost his
mind.

Yeah, it's all of us, not you.

Boon