Dan says:

I have reformatted the original post from Anthony in order to make it
more readable. I intend to pin it on the wall at the radio station I
work at. As a service to you all, I am pasting it again below, and
attaching it in a text file.

Dan

On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 20:55:39 -0500, "Anthony PDC"
wrote:

Having been interested in audio for a number of years, I wonder
whether fellow readers/contributors might care to comment on the
following:

1. Audio magazines and their reviewers cannot be objective since their
proprietors depend on advertising money from the audio equipment
manufacturers;

2. Audio equipment dealers in general measure up the punter and sell
them the most expensive kit they think they can flog to these innocent
souls. “Facilities” figure highly in the sales pitch, as do “watts”.
These dealers know little about hi fi and rather more about sales
targets and shifting boxes. However, they are not as disingenuous (but
only out of sheer ignorance) as the specialists “see below”;

3. Specialist “mid/upper-fi” audio dealers are driven by smaller
profit margins and therefore have to compromise their integrity fairly
nakedly to the objective observer. Among other things, deals with
particular
manufacturers figure largely in how they pitch their ‘advice’ to the
half-savvy punter. Photocopies of favourable reviews are much in
evidence in the showroom – a product of the same little conspiracy
that fuels the audio magazine industry. The brands most often pushed
change year-on-year, depending on the deals struck with manufacturers.
Last year’s top model becomes this year’s crapola. Their staff are
reasonably bright, but suffer from a mild form of self-guilt over the
fibs they have to tell. However, by default, their stuff is usually OK
anyway, since it achieves the minimum standards for decent sound
reproduction;

4. High-end “audiophile” dealers usually operate from a converted
house/barn/ bus stop/trailer-park (though there are exceptions – there
are a number of “New Jerusalem” outlets in big cities. These often
concentrate on just a few brands since they are de facto factory
outlets (not at factory prices however!) for the elite manufacturers
).
On the whole, however, profit margins are exceedingly slim, thus the
high level of desperation and self-deception among their proprietors.
And can one blame them? – well , erm…yes and no. The tyro’s first
foray
into these dealers’ premises can recognise them thus:

? the staff often sport (often greying) pony-tails, and perhaps a hint
of unreconstructed hippyism; ? there is a large second-hand equipment
section, fuelled by the dealers’ victims’ cast-off equipment (as a
result of the permanent paranoia instilled by the dealers’ perennial
prosetlyising;

? analogue equipment such as LP turntables and valve amplifiers will
be
much in evidence – a mithrab will be set aside for stupendously costly
stuff, eg a Linn Sondek LP12 or Pink Triangle turdtables powered by an
elastic band, together with a mechanical pivoting tube with a needle
attached at the end; (apparently these devices are dragged across a
plastic matrix with grooves moulded in);

? romantically named cables and interconnects at fabulous prices
(notwithstanding the testimony of any competent electrical engineer’s
evidence to the contrary of the “golden- eared” (hey – hairy-eared!)
dealer);

? a purposeful, nay maniacal, advocacy of particular esoterica eg
cones
($50 and up for three bits of cheap brass billets in velvet-lined
jewellery cases - giggle); astronomically-priced interconnects; bits
of
silver wire, and a Tolkien-beating fantasy about the sonic advantages
of
anything analogue costing the earth;

? …and recently (as profit margins have dictated) a Damascan
conversion
to CD (read digital) – but only from the (hitherto unconverted – tee
hee) “high end” analogue equipment manufacturers. Their
banks/accountants said “hey guys/Neanderthals… get your asses to
digital
or else…”. And of course they did. Now we hear the likes of Naim/Linn
et
al saying stuff like “…we believe we have now achieved digital
playback
to rival the very best vinyl turntables”. Please…I mean how do
manufacturers and the magazines which promote their business
differentiate between CD players that sound substantially the same as
a
$145 Sony? By pricing them at $1500+ of course – and by virtue of the
terminally insecure disposition of the “audiophile community”.

The latter category of dealer is, by and large, by far the most
dishonest, or self-deluding, plain crazy, or a combination of all
these
things. Isn’t it time this whole business was exposed, debunked, or
otherwise demystified by a paper from a competent person whose skills
combine the following: audio engineering; music (lover) (performer)
(composer) (concert-goer) (statistician – for blind testing of audio
equipment with informed listeners and interpretation of results)?

To you all in anticipation.

Ant

PS: Four years on from that post above-quoted, SACD and DVD-Audio are
genuine advances over CD and high-end LP playback. Anyone with ears
can discern the higher quality immediately with half-decent
amplification/speakers. Trouble is (for the cottage industry, ever
intent on exploiting vulnerable and insecure people with an audiophile
self-esteem problem) one can buy a universal
SACD/DVD-Audio/progressive scan video DVD player today for $160, which
rather craps on everything analogue that ever moved in terms of
consumer-level playback quality. Said device is the Pioneer DV-563A -
get it at Best Buy or elsewhere.


Regards,

Anthony

Asus P4P800/XP

Anthony PDC said:

[snip irrational, dogmatic upchuck of superficial stereotyping and
infantile posturing]


If the whole idea of learning what's good value and what's not is so
terrifying to you, then you most certainly deserve to be fleeced by
some unscrupulous "high end" dealer who's only in the business to make
a succession of quick bucks. And if you're so disbelieving of
everything you read in print that your limited brainpower falls victim
to your mindless paranoia, you should definitely scale down your
materialistic lust and buy the cheapest yet adequate ensemble you can
find at Circuit City or Best Buy.

Stay away from all carriage-trade goods and services. Never go to a
fancy restaurant; ignore jewelry completely; consider only vehicles
that are value-priced. Accept your mediocrity and adapt your
expectations to suit your insipid taste.

And finally: Shut the **** up, you sniveling twit.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:40:12 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



Anthony PDC said:

[snip irrational, dogmatic upchuck of superficial stereotyping and
infantile posturing]


If the whole idea of learning what's good value and what's not is so
terrifying to you, then you most certainly deserve to be fleeced by
some unscrupulous "high end" dealer who's only in the business to make
a succession of quick bucks. And if you're so disbelieving of
everything you read in print that your limited brainpower falls victim
to your mindless paranoia, you should definitely scale down your
materialistic lust and buy the cheapest yet adequate ensemble you can
find at Circuit City or Best Buy.

Stay away from all carriage-trade goods and services. Never go to a
fancy restaurant; ignore jewelry completely; consider only vehicles
that are value-priced. Accept your mediocrity and adapt your
expectations to suit your insipid taste.

And finally: Shut the **** up, you sniveling twit.



Ooops - I hit a sensitive spot with you didn't I?

At any rate, it's great you kicked off the debate - though not in a
way that's much removed from um...well, puerile and hysterical.

I'm speculating here, but you sound like someone whose perception is
determined by the superfice of the *package* - rather than the
*content* Myself, well I don't know much about jewellery or fancy
restaurants...umm. I'm not an aesthete as you guessed, and in that
sense I suppose I proved my point apropos elitism and similar
indulgences.

Tatty bye.

Regards,

Anthony

Asus P4P800/XP

Anthony PDC sniveled de novo:

[snip irrational, dogmatic upchuck of superficial stereotyping and
infantile posturing]


If the whole idea of learning what's good value and what's not is so
terrifying to you, then you most certainly deserve to be fleeced by
some unscrupulous "high end" dealer who's only in the business to make
a succession of quick bucks. And if you're so disbelieving of
everything you read in print that your limited brainpower falls victim
to your mindless paranoia, you should definitely scale down your
materialistic lust and buy the cheapest yet adequate ensemble you can
find at Circuit City or Best Buy.

Stay away from all carriage-trade goods and services. Never go to a
fancy restaurant; ignore jewelry completely; consider only vehicles
that are value-priced. Accept your mediocrity and adapt your
expectations to suit your insipid taste.

And finally: Shut the **** up, you sniveling twit.



Ooops - I hit a sensitive spot with you didn't I?

No, stupid. You displayed a soft spot in your own brain, and a pretty
big one at that.


At any rate, it's great you kicked off the debate - though not in a
way that's much removed from um...well, puerile and hysterical.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Anybody who believes high-end audio, and by extension other value-in-
the-eye-of-the-buyer goods, can be reduced to a series of objective
comparisons is what we on RAO call a 'borg. Yes, it appeals to
people's desire own fancy stuff. No, it is not necessarily
distinguishable from lower-priced, utilitarian-designed, mass-market
hardware.

Finally, in direct response to your childish insult ("hysterical"),
such tactics are, in my opinion, the best and most direct way to
counter obvious trolls. Don't pull that passive-aggressive **** on us,
whiney-boy. We've seen your type all too often. Usenet is largely a
giant playpen, and you are no more than one of the sly children on the
playground who start fights quietly, and then run for cover when the
sound of adult supervision is heard.


I'm speculating here, but you sound like someone whose perception is
determined by the superfice of the *package* - rather than the
*content*

No, stupid, you have it completely backwards. High-end audio is
largely *about* the package. That is a large part of the *point*. More
so in the ultra-expensive part of the market, anyway. It's not a
question of perception; it's reality.

Myself, well I don't know much about jewellery or fancy
restaurants...umm. I'm not an aesthete as you guessed, and in that
sense I suppose I proved my point apropos elitism and similar
indulgences.

Yes, you certainly did. You've shown your grungy fingernails and
sweaty blue collar to the world. You've also shown us that you don't
comprehend how pathetic and revolting your parochial viewpoint is.

Anthony PDC a écrit :
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:40:12 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



Anthony PDC said:

[snip irrational, dogmatic upchuck of superficial stereotyping and
infantile posturing]



[snip feodal garbage]


And finally: Shut the **** up, you sniveling twit.




Ooops - I hit a sensitive spot with you didn't I?

At any rate, it's great you kicked off the debate - though not in a
way that's much removed from um...well, puerile and hysterical.

I'm speculating here, but you sound like someone whose perception is
determined by the superfice of the *package* - rather than the
*content* Myself, well I don't know much about jewellery or fancy
restaurants...umm. I'm not an aesthete as you guessed, and in that
sense I suppose I proved my point apropos elitism and similar
indulgences.

Tatty bye.

Regards,

Anthony

Asus P4P800/XP

Thank you for opening the window, we need fresh air.

I would like to know the average statistic cost of one hour of music
(divide the cost of high-end audio equipment by the time the owners
really spend to listen MUSIC).

Concerning fancy restaurants you can have a lot of pleasure, here in
France, for about USD 150.00 including the wine (50-60% of the cost).
Let say you have 1 to 3 such good meals per year and you are an happy man.

Concerning the way your interlocutor answer, please be informed that Mr
George "Ayatollah" Middius himself proclamed "Resistance Commander" of
his own holy war has all the rights here, including insults, threats,
fatwa...

Lionel

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message


PS: Four years on from that post above-quoted, SACD and DVD-Audio are
genuine advances over CD and high-end LP playback. Anyone with ears
can discern the higher quality immediately with half-decent
amplification/speakers.

The difference you can hear with SACD and DVD-A discs, as compared to
earlier CDs is due to the fact that they were remastered. The basic
technology has zero audible benefits for listening to music.

The subject could be "Is the quest of pleasure is a mild form of mental
illness ?"

For me, before anything it is a problem of mood.
My avarice doesn't allow me to invest on such hazardous value...

Others, rich and prodigal people can be interested in the following link.

http://www.shakti-innovations.com./hallograph.htm

Once again, thank you for the question. :-)

Lionel

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:48:45 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
wrote:

Anthony PDC a écrit :
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:40:12 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



Anthony PDC said:

[snip irrational, dogmatic upchuck of superficial stereotyping and
infantile posturing]



[snip feodal garbage]


And finally: Shut the **** up, you sniveling twit.




Ooops - I hit a sensitive spot with you didn't I?

At any rate, it's great you kicked off the debate - though not in a
way that's much removed from um...well, puerile and hysterical.

I'm speculating here, but you sound like someone whose perception is
determined by the superfice of the *package* - rather than the
*content* Myself, well I don't know much about jewellery or fancy
restaurants...umm. I'm not an aesthete as you guessed, and in that
sense I suppose I proved my point apropos elitism and similar
indulgences.

Tatty bye.

Regards,

Anthony

Asus P4P800/XP

Thank you for opening the window, we need fresh air.

I would like to know the average statistic cost of one hour of music
(divide the cost of high-end audio equipment by the time the owners
really spend to listen MUSIC).

Concerning fancy restaurants you can have a lot of pleasure, here in
France, for about USD 150.00 including the wine (50-60% of the cost).
Let say you have 1 to 3 such good meals per year and you are an happy man.

Concerning the way your interlocutor answer, please be informed that Mr
George "Ayatollah" Middius himself proclamed "Resistance Commander" of
his own holy war has all the rights here, including insults, threats,
fatwa...

Lionel

Thank you Lionel In fact, I have already dined in a real French
Restaurant (in Normandy) and very delightful it was too!

As for Mr Middius, yes I must admit I was somewhat taken aback and yet
intrigued by his rather disproportionate response to my trollish post,
so I looked at some of his earlier, umm, contributions. Sure enough,
my initial suspicions were confirmed on seeing his long history of
posting prodigious quantities of (largely defensive) comments, fueled
by an almost maniacal degree of hatred and spite. The cheese certainly
seems to have fallen off his cracker years ago.

Moreover, far from trying to lecture anyone on the proprieties of
Usenet, Mr Middius might care to look in the mirror and ask himself
why he and his apologists have turned rec.audio.opinion into a
disgraceful flame-fest, peppered with the kind of bileful vituperation
one would normally associate only with someone suffering from profound
emotional problems. And on a scale which reaches far wider than mere
audio; the absence of subtlety, irony, or even smart sarcasm and wit
in his language is telling. I'm afraid he's also just a rude oaf.

What it boils down to is an incapacity to debate or otherwise
communicate rationally, as a grown-up, mature, and fully-formed
individual. I'd venture to guess Mr Middius gets off on the anonymity
Usenet affords him as a form of catharsis, by way of compensating for
his possible failure to participate fully, normally, in the adult
world. (Someone privately emailed me following Middius' reply to my
original post and alleged that Middius dons a "Star Trek Admiral's"
uniform when posting here. Well, people may very well say that; I
couldn't possibly comment).

Maybe he has Social Anxiety Disorder, who knows? - it's a particularly
debilitating mental illness which turns some (a tiny minority) of
painfully shy people into monstrous bullies manque, given the
opportunity to vent their alter ego in a medium like Usenet. In the
real World of course, most people would just give him a good slapping
if he spoke to them thus, and of course he would learn from that, like
most children do. Ever see that film the "Green Mile" which features a
sadistic, wretchedly inadequate prison warder who sneaks around
getting his "own back" on prisoners within his (externally-sourced)
power. Do you see the parallels here?

Whatever, Mr Middius appears to have problems of much more serious
dimension than the circumscribed and (let's be honest) ultimately
trivial world of high-end audio. How a person like George Middius can
invest so much of his *life* lurking around here in this virtual World
of a *single* Newsgroup, sniping away like a demented ferret, is also
astonishing, and also somewhat telling. As William Shatner once
implored of the crazier Trekkies; "Get A Life!"

Finally, it's surely a pity Admiral Middius' problems haven't been
fixed - both for his sake and for others with whom he interacts. So,
at the end of the day, one should try to exercise restraint with
regard to George Middius. Resist his perennial attempts to enjoin you
in his sad and spiteful little Universe lest you allow yourself to be
sucked in, for it's surely a sad, ugly and exceedingly lonely place to
inhabit!

Regards,

Anthony

Asus P4P800/XP

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:50:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message


PS: Four years on from that post above-quoted, SACD and DVD-Audio are
genuine advances over CD and high-end LP playback. Anyone with ears
can discern the higher quality immediately with half-decent
amplification/speakers.

The difference you can hear with SACD and DVD-A discs, as compared to
earlier CDs is due to the fact that they were remastered. The basic
technology has zero audible benefits for listening to music.


Then I am happy they were remastered (if I agree with your basic
assumptions a la Emperor's New Clothes, with which I do not). But hey,
we are all agreed thay sound better, so what's the problem?



Regards,

Anthony

Asus P4P800/XP

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:50:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message


PS: Four years on from that post above-quoted, SACD and DVD-Audio
are genuine advances over CD and high-end LP playback. Anyone with
ears can discern the higher quality immediately with half-decent
amplification/speakers.

The difference you can hear with SACD and DVD-A discs, as compared to
earlier CDs is due to the fact that they were remastered. The basic
technology has zero audible benefits for listening to music.

Then I am happy they were remastered (if I agree with your basic
assumptions a la Emperor's New Clothes, with which I do not). But hey,
we are all agreed thay sound better, so what's the problem?

I've heard a lot of remastering jobs that were IMO steps backwards,
sonically speaking. Two ways that this can happen involve adding dynamic
range compression, and adding artificial reverb. I haven't heard that any of
the remastered SACD/DVD-A releases have added artificial reverb, but several
of them have had their dynamic range substantially compressed.

As always, newer does not always mean better.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:30:25 -0400, Anthony PDC
antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:48:45 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
wrote:

Anthony PDC a écrit :
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:40:12 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



Anthony PDC said:

[snip irrational, dogmatic upchuck of superficial stereotyping and
infantile posturing]



[snip feodal garbage]


And finally: Shut the **** up, you sniveling twit.




Ooops - I hit a sensitive spot with you didn't I?

At any rate, it's great you kicked off the debate - though not in a
way that's much removed from um...well, puerile and hysterical.

I'm speculating here, but you sound like someone whose perception is
determined by the superfice of the *package* - rather than the
*content* Myself, well I don't know much about jewellery or fancy
restaurants...umm. I'm not an aesthete as you guessed, and in that
sense I suppose I proved my point apropos elitism and similar
indulgences.

Tatty bye.

Regards,

Anthony

Asus P4P800/XP

Thank you for opening the window, we need fresh air.

I would like to know the average statistic cost of one hour of music
(divide the cost of high-end audio equipment by the time the owners
really spend to listen MUSIC).

Concerning fancy restaurants you can have a lot of pleasure, here in
France, for about USD 150.00 including the wine (50-60% of the cost).
Let say you have 1 to 3 such good meals per year and you are an happy man.

Concerning the way your interlocutor answer, please be informed that Mr
George "Ayatollah" Middius himself proclamed "Resistance Commander" of
his own holy war has all the rights here, including insults, threats,
fatwa...

Lionel

Thank you Lionel In fact, I have already dined in a real French
Restaurant (in Normandy) and very delightful it was too!

As for Mr Middius, yes I must admit I was somewhat taken aback and yet
intrigued by his rather disproportionate response to my trollish post,
so I looked at some of his earlier, umm, contributions. Sure enough,
my initial suspicions were confirmed on seeing his long history of
posting prodigious quantities of (largely defensive) comments, fueled
by an almost maniacal degree of hatred and spite. The cheese certainly
seems to have fallen off his cracker years ago.

Moreover, far from trying to lecture anyone on the proprieties of
Usenet, Mr Middius might care to look in the mirror and ask himself
why he and his apologists have turned rec.audio.opinion into a
disgraceful flame-fest, peppered with the kind of bileful vituperation
one would normally associate only with someone suffering from profound
emotional problems. And on a scale which reaches far wider than mere
audio; the absence of subtlety, irony, or even smart sarcasm and wit
in his language is telling. I'm afraid he's also just a rude oaf.

What it boils down to is an incapacity to debate or otherwise
communicate rationally, as a grown-up, mature, and fully-formed
individual. I'd venture to guess Mr Middius gets off on the anonymity
Usenet affords him as a form of catharsis, by way of compensating for
his possible failure to participate fully, normally, in the adult
world. (Someone privately emailed me following Middius' reply to my
original post and alleged that Middius dons a "Star Trek Admiral's"
uniform when posting here. Well, people may very well say that; I
couldn't possibly comment).

Maybe he has Social Anxiety Disorder, who knows? - it's a particularly
debilitating mental illness which turns some (a tiny minority) of
painfully shy people into monstrous bullies manque, given the
opportunity to vent their alter ego in a medium like Usenet. In the
real World of course, most people would just give him a good slapping
if he spoke to them thus, and of course he would learn from that, like
most children do. Ever see that film the "Green Mile" which features a
sadistic, wretchedly inadequate prison warder who sneaks around
getting his "own back" on prisoners within his (externally-sourced)
power. Do you see the parallels here?

Whatever, Mr Middius appears to have problems of much more serious
dimension than the circumscribed and (let's be honest) ultimately
trivial world of high-end audio. How a person like George Middius can
invest so much of his *life* lurking around here in this virtual World
of a *single* Newsgroup, sniping away like a demented ferret, is also
astonishing, and also somewhat telling. As William Shatner once
implored of the crazier Trekkies; "Get A Life!"

Finally, it's surely a pity Admiral Middius' problems haven't been
fixed - both for his sake and for others with whom he interacts. So,
at the end of the day, one should try to exercise restraint with
regard to George Middius. Resist his perennial attempts to enjoin you
in his sad and spiteful little Universe lest you allow yourself to be
sucked in, for it's surely a sad, ugly and exceedingly lonely place to
inhabit!

Regards,

Anthony

Asus P4P800/XP

Antony DUDE u just dropped a ****in nukelar bomb on that Middius ****
and let me tell U a whole bunch of ppl here where waiting 4 somone 2
get that smarmy guy and u just blew him out the water cuz u r cute
smart and u beat him up gr8 and hey u know what he deserved it. i was
smieling big time when i read your words.that guy has been hangin
around here 4 ever with his star trek **** and he says bad stuff that
hurts cool ppl but inly cuz he is a loser and crazy. i cant wait 2 see
how hes gets his freako head back after u smashed him right into his
loser face cuz hes crapped on RAO 4 way 2 long. man U R a STAR way 2
go dude.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 05:59:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:50:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message


PS: Four years on from that post above-quoted, SACD and DVD-Audio
are genuine advances over CD and high-end LP playback. Anyone with
ears can discern the higher quality immediately with half-decent
amplification/speakers.

The difference you can hear with SACD and DVD-A discs, as compared to
earlier CDs is due to the fact that they were remastered. The basic
technology has zero audible benefits for listening to music.

Then I am happy they were remastered (if I agree with your basic
assumptions a la Emperor's New Clothes, with which I do not). But hey,
we are all agreed thay sound better, so what's the problem?

I've heard a lot of remastering jobs that were IMO steps backwards,
sonically speaking. Two ways that this can happen involve adding dynamic
range compression, and adding artificial reverb. I haven't heard that any of
the remastered SACD/DVD-A releases have added artificial reverb, but several
of them have had their dynamic range substantially compressed.

As always, newer does not always mean better.


Hmmm...well, all I can say to you is that IMHO you are mistaken -
profoundly so. As a cathedral chorister over many years, and a person
who listens to live music regularly, DVD-A and SACD are immediately,
stunningly, better than CD (and LP) in terms both of dynamic range,
resolution, accuracy and...blah. If you cannot hear the sonic
improvement over CD and LP (and all my non-audiophile friends CAN)
then there's something, somewhere, seriously awry!

Regards,

Anthony

"Anthony PDC" wrote in message

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 05:59:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:50:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message


PS: Four years on from that post above-quoted, SACD and DVD-Audio
are genuine advances over CD and high-end LP playback. Anyone with
ears can discern the higher quality immediately with half-decent
amplification/speakers.

The difference you can hear with SACD and DVD-A discs, as compared
to earlier CDs is due to the fact that they were remastered. The
basic technology has zero audible benefits for listening to music.

Then I am happy they were remastered (if I agree with your basic
assumptions a la Emperor's New Clothes, with which I do not). But
hey, we are all agreed thay sound better, so what's the problem?

I've heard a lot of remastering jobs that were IMO steps backwards,
sonically speaking. Two ways that this can happen involve adding
dynamic range compression, and adding artificial reverb. I haven't
heard that any of the remastered SACD/DVD-A releases have added
artificial reverb, but several of them have had their dynamic range
substantially compressed.

As always, newer does not always mean better.


Hmmm...well, all I can say to you is that IMHO you are mistaken -
profoundly so. As a cathedral chorister over many years, and a person
who listens to live music regularly, DVD-A and SACD are immediately,
stunningly, better than CD (and LP) in terms both of dynamic range,
resolution, accuracy and...blah. If you cannot hear the sonic
improvement over CD and LP (and all my non-audiophile friends CAN)
then there's something, somewhere, seriously awry!

Yep, and the problem is that:

(a) You don't know how to evaluate audio gear - you've confused being a
musican with being an expert in all aspects of reproducing music. Music is
just another technology/art that no single person can master all of.

(b) SACD and DVD-A come up as zeros, psychoacoustically speaking. They were
brought to market despite decades of scientific knowledge that basically
said that they can't provide an audible advantage.

Da Man Orion a écrit :

Antony DUDE u just dropped a ****in nukelar bomb on that Middius ****
and let me tell U a whole bunch of ppl here where waiting 4 somone 2
get that smarmy guy and u just blew him out the water cuz u r cute
smart and u beat him up gr8 and hey u know what he deserved it. i was
smieling big time when i read your words.that guy has been hangin
around here 4 ever with his star trek **** and he says bad stuff that
hurts cool ppl but inly cuz he is a loser and crazy. i cant wait 2 see
how hes gets his freako head back after u smashed him right into his
loser face cuz hes crapped on RAO 4 way 2 long. man U R a STAR way 2
go dude.


Hey E.T.

Don't you know that here on the earth we use more numbers than 4 and 2.
For example 3,1,0,6,9,7,5,8. This numbers can be combine together to
make longer ones.
I stop here because the rest is a matter of scientists.

Don't waste your time here or you're going to miss your last
intergalactic vessel.

Lionel

Anthony PDC wrote in message . ..

As a cathedral chorister over many years, and a person
who listens to live music regularly, DVD-A and SACD are immediately,
stunningly, better than CD (and LP) in terms both of dynamic range,
resolution, accuracy and...blah. If you cannot hear the sonic
improvement over CD and LP (and all my non-audiophile friends CAN)
then there's something, somewhere, seriously awry!


Anthony - What sort of stereo do you have? In particular, the SACD
player and speakers would be good to know.

Thanks.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:47:09 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr wrote:

Da Man Orion a écrit :

Antony DUDE u just dropped a ****in nukelar bomb on that Middius ****
and let me tell U a whole bunch of ppl here where waiting 4 somone 2
get that smarmy guy and u just blew him out the water cuz u r cute
smart and u beat him up gr8 and hey u know what he deserved it. i was
smieling big time when i read your words.that guy has been hangin
around here 4 ever with his star trek **** and he says bad stuff that
hurts cool ppl but inly cuz he is a loser and crazy. i cant wait 2 see
how hes gets his freako head back after u smashed him right into his
loser face cuz hes crapped on RAO 4 way 2 long. man U R a STAR way 2
go dude.


Hey E.T.

Don't you know that here on the earth we use more numbers than 4 and 2.
For example 3,1,0,6,9,7,5,8. This numbers can be combine together to
make longer ones.
I stop here because the rest is a matter of scientists.

Don't waste your time here or you're going to miss your last
intergalactic vessel.

Lionel

Dear Lionel,

You seem to be a thoughtful kind of person with principles and valid
statements to make - if often badly articulated (if I may say so). I
know YOU know that you run the risk of being taken to task (or more
likely, in THIS Group at least, lampooned) for imperfect English - so
I'll skip further comment. Anglophones are an intolerant lot!

However, I ask YOU the same question you posed to our ET friend,
namely: why do YOU waste your time here?

Very best wishes,

Regards,

Anthony

Anthony PDC a écrit :

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:47:09 +0200, Lionel Chapuis
lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr wrote:


Da Man Orion a écrit :


Antony DUDE u just dropped a ****in nukelar bomb on that Middius ****
and let me tell U a whole bunch of ppl here where waiting 4 somone 2
get that smarmy guy and u just blew him out the water cuz u r cute
smart and u beat him up gr8 and hey u know what he deserved it. i was
smieling big time when i read your words.that guy has been hangin
around here 4 ever with his star trek **** and he says bad stuff that
hurts cool ppl but inly cuz he is a loser and crazy. i cant wait 2 see
how hes gets his freako head back after u smashed him right into his
loser face cuz hes crapped on RAO 4 way 2 long. man U R a STAR way 2
go dude.



Hey E.T.

Don't you know that here on the earth we use more numbers than 4 and 2.
For example 3,1,0,6,9,7,5,8. This numbers can be combine together to
make longer ones.
I stop here because the rest is a matter of scientists.

Don't waste your time here or you're going to miss your last
intergalactic vessel.

Lionel


Dear Lionel,

You seem to be a thoughtful kind of person with principles and valid
statements to make - if often badly articulated (if I may say so). I
know YOU know that you run the risk of being taken to task (or more
likely, in THIS Group at least, lampooned) for imperfect English - so
I'll skip further comment. Anglophones are an intolerant lot!

However, I ask YOU the same question you posed to our ET friend,
namely: why do YOU waste your time here?

Very best wishes,

Regards,

Anthony

Anthony,

Once again you come at a good time.
Do you remember Don Quichotte ? So lets say this is an other Mill.
Many thanks you for your advise and your sympathy.

Kind regards
Lionel

"Anthony PDC" wrote in message

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 05:38:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" wrote in message

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 05:59:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:50:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message


PS: Four years on from that post above-quoted, SACD and
DVD-Audio are genuine advances over CD and high-end LP
playback. Anyone with ears can discern the higher quality
immediately with half-decent amplification/speakers.

The difference you can hear with SACD and DVD-A discs, as
compared to earlier CDs is due to the fact that they were
remastered. The basic technology has zero audible benefits for
listening to music.

Then I am happy they were remastered (if I agree with your basic
assumptions a la Emperor's New Clothes, with which I do not). But
hey, we are all agreed thay sound better, so what's the problem?

I've heard a lot of remastering jobs that were IMO steps
backwards, sonically speaking. Two ways that this can happen
involve adding dynamic range compression, and adding artificial
reverb. I haven't heard that any of the remastered SACD/DVD-A
releases have added artificial reverb, but several of them have
had their dynamic range substantially compressed.

As always, newer does not always mean better.

Hmmm...well, all I can say to you is that IMHO you are mistaken -
profoundly so.

You are unqualified to judge that.

As a cathedral chorister over many years, and a
person who listens to live music regularly, DVD-A and SACD are
immediately, stunningly, better than CD (and LP) in terms both of
dynamic range, resolution, accuracy and...blah. If you cannot hear
the sonic improvement over CD and LP (and all my non-audiophile
friends CAN) then there's something, somewhere, seriously awry!

Yep, and the problem is that:

(a) You don't know how to evaluate audio gear - you've confused
being a musican with being an expert in all aspects of reproducing
music. Music is just another technology/art that no single person
can master all of.

(b) SACD and DVD-A come up as zeros, psychoacoustically speaking.
They were brought to market despite decades of scientific knowledge
that basically said that they can't provide an audible advantage.

Ok - let's discuss this a bit more

First, and with the greatest respect, as regards the sonic advantages
of DVD-A and SACD, I have never heard any other consumer audio
technology that sounds so true and real and communicative.

Meaningless poetry.

Now, either
I have gone crazy, missed the bus somehow, gone deaf, had my hearing
sabotaged by some Sony/Philips/Warner conspiracy, or otherwise lost my
marbles. Read on...

No, your problem is that you just don't know how to listen to audio gear to
reliably hear if its making a difference.

You know, it doesn't take a musician to appreciate audio technology
that just sounds *right* - natural and accurate.

It is well known that musicans don't know what the music they make sounds
like to the audience, since they can't be in two places at one time.

Faithful sound
reproduction is what we are talking about here of course, as measured
against one's experience of real, live *sound* (not just music). One
can adduce technical measurement evidence in favour of one point of
view or the other, but the litmus test surely has to lie with the
listener.

This is all irrelevant talk anyway because no recording sounds exactly like
live music. So comparting the sound of live music to recorded sound is
interesting and meaningful, but it doesn't involve small differences. I
record live performances for hours every week. I know that the musicans on
stage don't know what they really sound like down in the audience.

I think I am right in saying that charts and tables never
said much about the subjective end result in audio and I know this is
an argument most often deployed by unswervingly loyal devotees of
analogue/valve systems. It's a futile, subjective argument, not
amenable to any objective test that science has produced so far - and
thus this apparently endless mobius strip of a debate continues,
fueled by all kinds of dogma, prejudice, snake oil...one could go on
and on.

This is all futile posturing.

As far as I am concerned, given a good recording, it's really very
easy indeed to judge the quality of any playback system against one's
own reference of what sounds *right* and *true* and *natural* - it's
unmistakable.

What is unmistakable is that the musicans who are recorded have no idea
about what they sound like to the listeners in the room, and all recordings
sound vastly different then the live recordings they are made of. That is
why this sort of discussion is just futile posturing.

And since we can't acquire the masters of the recordings
we want to listen to (even if we possessed the requisite playback
hardware) a facsimile of said tapes in the form of Hi-Res Audio has to
be attractive.

A facsimile may be attractive or not, depending on how good of a facimile it
is, but also depending on how attractive the original was.

Like many readers here, I've heard some playback systems over time
which have made my head turn, as if some *real*, *live* sound event
had taken place. I include high-end LP playback, as well as later CD
sources in this. When a playback system's sonic quality approaches
what one instinctively *knows* to be true to real life, it strikes
like a thunderbolt. I know I am not alone in this - far from it. And
just like one's appreciation for say: art, music, literature,
develops, matures and is refined in small, incremental, steps - so
does one's appreciation of audio playback quality.

This is all futile posturing.

Most members of this Group know that - in absolute terms - the
experience of a live musical performance has *never* been accurately
reproduced by any audio technology. I'm obviously not an
audio-engineer, but I believe this has to do with:

a: dynamic range/amplification/waveform issues, especially in the
average domestic listening environment

You have no clue. Our basic technology today has at least 10 times more
dynamic range than our live performances. So, this isn't a problematical
issue.

b: obscure, as yet scientifically-unproven theories about the
ear-brain interface, for example what goes on above the 20kHz
brick-wall that the CD standard imposes, and why this affects
perceived quality even though humans can't hear much beyond 20kHz

You have no clue. Today, it's painfully easy to make recordings that go up
to 50, 100 KHz. It's painfully easy to make loudspeakers that reproduce
sounds up to 50, 100 KHz. It is well-known that you can take those 50, 100
KHz recordings and play them through those 50, 100 KHz speakers, and
alternately interpose a brick wall filter at 16-20 KHz. Listeners will not
hear whether the filter is there or not.

c: sampling frequency, bitrate (for PCM) and other digital-analogue
conversion technology issues.

Again, modern converters are so good that you can record and re-record very
high quality musical recordings through them 10-20 times with zero audible
effects.

At any rate, we all know that sometimes, rarely, one's attention is
grabbed by a playback technology which makes one's spine tingle. And I
must say, listening to my first DVD-A did exactly that - just like
when I heard a decent hi-fi system for the first time as a kid; when I
first donned a pair of cheap stereo headphones; when I first heard a
high-end analogue system (built around a Linn Sondek LP12 and valve
amplification); heard a pair of Quad Electrostatic speakers; heard
early CD for the first time (it was Vivaldi's Glorias - Decca/Guest/St
John's College Cambridge).

You didn't do a proper level-matched, time-synched blind test. End of story.

As I hinted earlier, I've got no "audio/political" axe to grind (in
this post at least!). So if you have a good stereo amp - or better
still a multichannel 5.1 or higher amp with connectors for all
channels via analogue inputs which go *directly* to the pre-amp (ie
which bypass crappy DSP or other processing) then you really should
give Hi-Resolution audio an audition. It doesn't matter (to my ears at
least) whether it's DVD-A or SACD.

You have no clue about the relevant issues. You don't know how to compare
things like this. You don't know how to set up a proper experiment. All you
have is this irrelevant posturing and anecdotes.

You can educate yourself in these matters at my www.pcabx.com web site, and
by studying other referneces cited there.

Anthony PDC a écrit :

Ok - let's discuss this a bit more

You mean you take the risk ? :-)

Lionel

Lionel Chapuis a écrit :

Arny Krueger a écrit :

You can educate yourself in these matters at my www.pcabx.com web
site, and
by studying other referneces cited there.

Anthony how lucky you are, it's free of charge !
Don't lost a precious occasion to be intelligent, silly boy :-(

Lionel

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 08:07:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" wrote in message

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 05:38:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" wrote in message

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 05:59:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:50:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message


PS: Four years on from that post above-quoted, SACD and
DVD-Audio are genuine advances over CD and high-end LP
playback. Anyone with ears can discern the higher quality
immediately with half-decent amplification/speakers.

The difference you can hear with SACD and DVD-A discs, as
compared to earlier CDs is due to the fact that they were
remastered. The basic technology has zero audible benefits for
listening to music.

Then I am happy they were remastered (if I agree with your basic
assumptions a la Emperor's New Clothes, with which I do not). But
hey, we are all agreed thay sound better, so what's the problem?

I've heard a lot of remastering jobs that were IMO steps
backwards, sonically speaking. Two ways that this can happen
involve adding dynamic range compression, and adding artificial
reverb. I haven't heard that any of the remastered SACD/DVD-A
releases have added artificial reverb, but several of them have
had their dynamic range substantially compressed.

As always, newer does not always mean better.

Hmmm...well, all I can say to you is that IMHO you are mistaken -
profoundly so.

You are unqualified to judge that.

As a cathedral chorister over many years, and a
person who listens to live music regularly, DVD-A and SACD are
immediately, stunningly, better than CD (and LP) in terms both of
dynamic range, resolution, accuracy and...blah. If you cannot hear
the sonic improvement over CD and LP (and all my non-audiophile
friends CAN) then there's something, somewhere, seriously awry!

Yep, and the problem is that:

(a) You don't know how to evaluate audio gear - you've confused
being a musican with being an expert in all aspects of reproducing
music. Music is just another technology/art that no single person
can master all of.

(b) SACD and DVD-A come up as zeros, psychoacoustically speaking.
They were brought to market despite decades of scientific knowledge
that basically said that they can't provide an audible advantage.

Ok - let's discuss this a bit more

First, and with the greatest respect, as regards the sonic advantages
of DVD-A and SACD, I have never heard any other consumer audio
technology that sounds so true and real and communicative.

Meaningless poetry.

Now, either
I have gone crazy, missed the bus somehow, gone deaf, had my hearing
sabotaged by some Sony/Philips/Warner conspiracy, or otherwise lost my
marbles. Read on...

No, your problem is that you just don't know how to listen to audio gear to
reliably hear if its making a difference.

You know, it doesn't take a musician to appreciate audio technology
that just sounds *right* - natural and accurate.

It is well known that musicans don't know what the music they make sounds
like to the audience, since they can't be in two places at one time.

Faithful sound
reproduction is what we are talking about here of course, as measured
against one's experience of real, live *sound* (not just music). One
can adduce technical measurement evidence in favour of one point of
view or the other, but the litmus test surely has to lie with the
listener.

This is all irrelevant talk anyway because no recording sounds exactly like
live music. So comparting the sound of live music to recorded sound is
interesting and meaningful, but it doesn't involve small differences. I
record live performances for hours every week. I know that the musicans on
stage don't know what they really sound like down in the audience.

I think I am right in saying that charts and tables never
said much about the subjective end result in audio and I know this is
an argument most often deployed by unswervingly loyal devotees of
analogue/valve systems. It's a futile, subjective argument, not
amenable to any objective test that science has produced so far - and
thus this apparently endless mobius strip of a debate continues,
fueled by all kinds of dogma, prejudice, snake oil...one could go on
and on.

This is all futile posturing.

As far as I am concerned, given a good recording, it's really very
easy indeed to judge the quality of any playback system against one's
own reference of what sounds *right* and *true* and *natural* - it's
unmistakable.

What is unmistakable is that the musicans who are recorded have no idea
about what they sound like to the listeners in the room, and all recordings
sound vastly different then the live recordings they are made of. That is
why this sort of discussion is just futile posturing.

And since we can't acquire the masters of the recordings
we want to listen to (even if we possessed the requisite playback
hardware) a facsimile of said tapes in the form of Hi-Res Audio has to
be attractive.

A facsimile may be attractive or not, depending on how good of a facimile it
is, but also depending on how attractive the original was.

Like many readers here, I've heard some playback systems over time
which have made my head turn, as if some *real*, *live* sound event
had taken place. I include high-end LP playback, as well as later CD
sources in this. When a playback system's sonic quality approaches
what one instinctively *knows* to be true to real life, it strikes
like a thunderbolt. I know I am not alone in this - far from it. And
just like one's appreciation for say: art, music, literature,
develops, matures and is refined in small, incremental, steps - so
does one's appreciation of audio playback quality.

This is all futile posturing.

Most members of this Group know that - in absolute terms - the
experience of a live musical performance has *never* been accurately
reproduced by any audio technology. I'm obviously not an
audio-engineer, but I believe this has to do with:

a: dynamic range/amplification/waveform issues, especially in the
average domestic listening environment

You have no clue. Our basic technology today has at least 10 times more
dynamic range than our live performances. So, this isn't a problematical
issue.

b: obscure, as yet scientifically-unproven theories about the
ear-brain interface, for example what goes on above the 20kHz
brick-wall that the CD standard imposes, and why this affects
perceived quality even though humans can't hear much beyond 20kHz

You have no clue. Today, it's painfully easy to make recordings that go up
to 50, 100 KHz. It's painfully easy to make loudspeakers that reproduce
sounds up to 50, 100 KHz. It is well-known that you can take those 50, 100
KHz recordings and play them through those 50, 100 KHz speakers, and
alternately interpose a brick wall filter at 16-20 KHz. Listeners will not
hear whether the filter is there or not.

c: sampling frequency, bitrate (for PCM) and other digital-analogue
conversion technology issues.

Again, modern converters are so good that you can record and re-record very
high quality musical recordings through them 10-20 times with zero audible
effects.

At any rate, we all know that sometimes, rarely, one's attention is
grabbed by a playback technology which makes one's spine tingle. And I
must say, listening to my first DVD-A did exactly that - just like
when I heard a decent hi-fi system for the first time as a kid; when I
first donned a pair of cheap stereo headphones; when I first heard a
high-end analogue system (built around a Linn Sondek LP12 and valve
amplification); heard a pair of Quad Electrostatic speakers; heard
early CD for the first time (it was Vivaldi's Glorias - Decca/Guest/St
John's College Cambridge).

You didn't do a proper level-matched, time-synched blind test. End of story.

As I hinted earlier, I've got no "audio/political" axe to grind (in
this post at least!). So if you have a good stereo amp - or better
still a multichannel 5.1 or higher amp with connectors for all
channels via analogue inputs which go *directly* to the pre-amp (ie
which bypass crappy DSP or other processing) then you really should
give Hi-Resolution audio an audition. It doesn't matter (to my ears at
least) whether it's DVD-A or SACD.

You have no clue about the relevant issues. You don't know how to compare
things like this. You don't know how to set up a proper experiment. All you
have is this irrelevant posturing and anecdotes.

You can educate yourself in these matters at my www.pcabx.com web site, and
by studying other referneces cited there.



Dear Arnold,

Thank you for your comments. In my society we use something called
"manners" to communicate ideas and opinions, especially where one's
views might be in conflict with others. It's a tried and tested social
skill, which children in civilised countries are taught at an early
age - the aim being to avert violence, both verbal and physical. Let
the animals and other cultures sort themselves out, but it's a good
idea to learn said manners, lest one diminishes one's case simply in
terms of the rudeness of their presentation.

Notwithstanding your apparent hostility and intolerance to opposing
opinions, I've an open mind in all of this and am prepared to debate
it.

I shall take the time to look at your program, since you seem to hold
a lot of sway by it.

Meantime, you seem to be saying this:

1. CD-A stereo is the pinnacle of consumer music playback quality and
cannot, by any known technology, be exceeded sonically - at least by
SACD or DVD-A; (You may hold this idea to be true regarding high-end
LP playback - I don't know);

2. SACD/DVD-A is no sonic advance over CD/LP;

3. experienced listeners' opinions that SACD/DVD-A sounds a lot better
than CD/LP, are WRONG;

Finally, do you have any theories as to why so many people hear
SACD/DVD-A as a significant sonic advance over earlier technologies?

Best regards,





Regards,

Anthony

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 08:44:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It's not polite to be that stupid and arrogant in public.

Self-awareness noted.

Anthony, welcome to the Wonderful World of Arnold.

Now you know why he's generally despised on this forum.

And you also have a clue as to why RAO is so vitrolic.

BTW Arnold, I saw a couple of really good bands last night, Cracker
and The Smithereens. It was amazing how much better the sound was for
Cracker than it was for The Smithereens. Just thought you'd like to
know.

Oh yeah, since I know you are interested, Cracker covered Victoria and
Pictures of Matchstick Men.

I hope you're looking forwad to yur self-admittedly poor organ music
this Sunday. Happy recording!

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 09:06:10 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

I hope you're looking forwad to yur self-admittedly poor organ music
this Sunday. Happy recording!

I'm sure that Arnold will want to point out one of my infrequent typos
here.

Of course, George might want to quibble with the term
"self-admittedly".

dave weil said:

I hope you're looking forwad to yur self-admittedly poor organ music
this Sunday. Happy recording!

I'm sure that Arnold will want to point out one of my infrequent typos
here.

Of course, George might want to quibble with the term
"self-admittedly".

Huh?

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:36:42 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said:

I hope you're looking forwad to yur self-admittedly poor organ music
this Sunday. Happy recording!

I'm sure that Arnold will want to point out one of my infrequent typos
here.

Of course, George might want to quibble with the term
"self-admittedly".

Huh?

Well, it's not exactly correct, unless Arnold plays the organ, right?

Still, I was trying to get across the idea that he has commented on
the musicianship of his church organist in the past, and it wasn't a
rave-up.

dave weil said:

I hope you're looking forwad to yur self-admittedly poor organ music
this Sunday. Happy recording!

I'm sure that Arnold will want to point out one of my infrequent typos
here.

Of course, George might want to quibble with the term
"self-admittedly".

Huh?

Well, it's not exactly correct, unless Arnold plays the organ, right?

Oh, you must mean this little gem:

Do you play an instrument or sing?
I "play my instrument", my partner sometimes "sings".

Krooger is nothing if not unashamedly crude.

Still, I was trying to get across the idea that he has commented on
the musicianship of his church organist in the past, and it wasn't a
rave-up.

Did he really admit that? I poked some holes in his church music
scam too, and as I recall he screamed in pain at being busted. A
church is one of the few places he can go to hear live music without
having to buy a ticket, so it's odd that he would complain about the
musicality.

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 11:29:32 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said:

I hope you're looking forwad to yur self-admittedly poor organ music
this Sunday. Happy recording!

I'm sure that Arnold will want to point out one of my infrequent typos
here.

Of course, George might want to quibble with the term
"self-admittedly".

Huh?

Well, it's not exactly correct, unless Arnold plays the organ, right?

Oh, you must mean this little gem:

Do you play an instrument or sing?
I "play my instrument", my partner sometimes "sings".

Krooger is nothing if not unashamedly crude.

Still, I was trying to get across the idea that he has commented on
the musicianship of his church organist in the past, and it wasn't a
rave-up.

Did he really admit that? I poked some holes in his church music
scam too, and as I recall he screamed in pain at being busted. A
church is one of the few places he can go to hear live music without
having to buy a ticket, so it's odd that he would complain about the
musicality.

It was something that he posted on RAP, IIRC. You might want to look
it up.

The Cracker/Smithereens show was $5 but you can get a free armband if
you go to one of the neighborhood eateries before the show. Which is
what I did. So, I either got in free or got half-price on my dozen
slightly smoked Savannah oysters on the half shell, depending on your
viewpoint.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Fact: Many musicians seem to think that they are God's gift to audio, when
in fact most of them can't reliably hear gross differences, let alone small
ones. Musicians should never hear what sound techs typically say about
setting monitor levels for most of them, as it would shatter their precious
little egos. Musos typically can't tell if you jack up monitor levels up or
down by 3 dB. In the quality audio cosmic scheme of things a 3 dB defense is
IMMENSE, and typically they can't hear it.

What does "quality audio" have with monitor levels? Presumably you're
talking about a rock band or the church equivalent in a noisy
environment, or they wouldn't need monitors at all. Sure, the singer
with a finger in one ear and the Holy Spirit in the other might have
trouble distingishing the relative level of his mix amidst the cacaphony
(tip o' the pin to George) but let the battery in the guitar player's
distortion box run down and he'll be all over his rig before you can say
"Melchezedec".

Stephen

dave weil said:

Krooger is nothing if not unashamedly crude.

Still, I was trying to get across the idea that he has commented on
the musicianship of his church organist in the past, and it wasn't a
rave-up.

Did he really admit that? I poked some holes in his church music
scam too, and as I recall he screamed in pain at being busted. A
church is one of the few places he can go to hear live music without
having to buy a ticket, so it's odd that he would complain about the
musicality.

It was something that he posted on RAP, IIRC. You might want to look
it up.

Look what I found:

I'm not saying I'm anything like an expert, but offer these
comments in an effort to smoke out some words of wisdom
from people who actually know what they are doing."

Does that sound like our Krooger? ;-)

And here he revealing his guiding principles:

For an allegedly Bible-believing church there seems to be
considerable ignorance of what The Book says about idolatry.

Or about lying. Unless "The Book" lies to Krooger too.

It might be just the ticket for your applications, while the
cost of experimentation is low.

Nothing, repeat *nothing*, is more important than low cost.


Not sure I found what you were referring to though.

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:49:55 GMT, MiNE 109
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Fact: Many musicians seem to think that they are God's gift to audio, when
in fact most of them can't reliably hear gross differences, let alone small
ones. Musicians should never hear what sound techs typically say about
setting monitor levels for most of them, as it would shatter their precious
little egos. Musos typically can't tell if you jack up monitor levels up or
down by 3 dB. In the quality audio cosmic scheme of things a 3 dB defense is
IMMENSE, and typically they can't hear it.

What does "quality audio" have with monitor levels? Presumably you're
talking about a rock band or the church equivalent in a noisy
environment, or they wouldn't need monitors at all. Sure, the singer
with a finger in one ear and the Holy Spirit in the other might have
trouble distingishing the relative level of his mix amidst the cacaphony
(tip o' the pin to George) but let the battery in the guitar player's
distortion box run down and he'll be all over his rig before you can say
"Melchezedec".

Yes, Eric Johnson is notorious for being able to detect when stomp box
batteries are running low.

And Jerry Garcia used to be able to tell when the mains voltage
sagged, at least according to his techs.

"MiNE 109" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Fact: Many musicians seem to think that they are God's gift to
audio, when in fact most of them can't reliably hear gross
differences, let alone small ones. Musicians should never hear what
sound techs typically say about setting monitor levels for most of
them, as it would shatter their precious little egos. Musos
typically can't tell if you jack up monitor levels up or down by 3
dB. In the quality audio cosmic scheme of things a 3 dB defense is
IMMENSE, and typically they can't hear it.

What does "quality audio" have with monitor levels?

The point is that many musos can't hear relatively large differences in the
character of reproduced sound.

Presumably you're
talking about a rock band or the church equivalent in a noisy
environment, or they wouldn't need monitors at all.

One ends up using monitors for reasons that have nothing to do with rock n'
roll or high ambient noise levels. For example, there are electronic
instruments that aren't guitars or drums. For example there's a fair amount
of singing with pre-recorded accompaniments. Then there are acoustical
asymmetries and acoustical instruments that don't have much oomph 80 feet
away in a room with suboptimal acoustics.

Tell me Stephen, when was the last time you were in a reasonably up-to-date
medium-to-large evangelical church? Sounds like we're gonna be enumerating
in decades...

Sure, the singer
with a finger in one ear and the Holy Spirit in the other might have
trouble distinguishing the relative level of his mix amidst the
cacophony (tip o' the pin to George) but let the battery in the
guitar player's distortion box run down and he'll be all over his rig
before you can say "Melchezedec".

Stephen, I think Marc Phillips showed more insight into what happens in a
modern evangelical church when he painted a picture of masses of Baptists
and Methodists proudly fingering their prayer beads...

Turdy "Dimbulb" Kroogles, bereft of experience, postures yet again:

The point is that many musos can't hear relatively large differences in the
character of reproduced sound.

Given the pathetic pool of "musos" you work with (I've heard some of your
crippled crap), it is obvious that you don't know what you're talking about and
are reverting to OSAF. Name just +one+ known talent with whom you've
+worked+. I'd proffer a wager but you're penniless. IOW, prove it.

One ends up using monitors for reasons that have nothing to do with... blah,
blah, blah.

Clean up your attitude and you may even be able to work with some moderately
talented players before you die. As it stands, you don't have a clue as to
what the capabilities of "many musos" might be. Hint: successful musicians
become such because they +can+ hear quite well and those inept schlubs you
record are far, far from being professional musicians. Let's see, you have no
perception of pitch, no track record, no performances of your own talent that
you can show, you've only watched others from afar or recorded stuff that is
retched - yup, you know it all. Bwahahahahahaha

You remain fatally stupid.

I remain,

The Shadow

--
"It's not polite to be that stupid and arrogant in public." A. Dimbulb Krooger

Uncle Troll said:

I don't know that Arny is "generally despised". I certainly don't.

Do you mean you don't despise him? Normy, we've covered this ground
before. You know what that makes you.

suspect that those who DO despise Arny make no secret of the fact.

Not all of us "make no secret of it". Some of us do keep it to
ourselves, or only share it in email or other offline conversation.

And it's also true that Arny does not suffer fools gladly.

Why do you say that? Is he getting fed up with your simple-minded
garbage?

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 17:05:01 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
Anthony, welcome to the Wonderful World of Arnold.

Now you know why he's generally despised on this forum.

And you also have a clue as to why RAO is so vitrolic.

I don't know that Arny is "generally despised".

Do you know of anyone who generates the sort of heat that he does?

I certainly don't. I suspect that those who DO despise Arny make no secret of the fact.
And it's also true that Arny does not suffer fools gladly.

Fools often don't, you know.

As to the subject of SACD/DVD-A sound v. CDDA sound, I've had the
opportunity to compare 16/44.1 DAT to the live mike feed. I couldn't
tell the difference. It therefore follows logically that I would not
be able to tell the difference between 16/44.1 and anything closer in
quality to the mike feed.

Why don't you give us the details of your dbts.

dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:42:32 -0700, Leon North
wrote:

That would hold true for you. The beast has a self admitted hearing
impairment that encourages its bent toward cheap junk. It can't compete
in the world of those who have normal hearing so "it all sounds the
same".

This is apparently true in that he talks about liking to crank the
headphones at loud volumes.

I remember when he used my cutting the grass as some sort of excuse
for my "poor hearing abilities".

Cutting the garbage must be really damaging.

Lionel Chapuis a écrit :
Arny Krueger a écrit :

You have no clue about the relevant issues. You don't know how to compare
things like this. You don't know how to set up a proper experiment.
All you
have is this irrelevant posturing and anecdotes.

You can educate yourself in these matters at my www.pcabx.com web
site, and
by studying other referneces cited there.




They are real freaks don't they.
Anthony now if you want to leave in a sane way don't forget to tell
"Thank you". :-)

Lionel


Lived EHT a écrit :

And if you should not forget, don't thank to tell him! ;-)

--
Thyme

Hey Boonie "Oily Target" Phillips take example on the above.
I love this one because I understand.
Simpliest are the best

Lionel

In article ,

Me, as quoted by Arnie:

cacophony (tip o' the pin to George)

Notice anything?

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Fact: Many musicians seem to think that they are God's gift to
audio, when in fact most of them can't reliably hear gross
differences, let alone small ones. Musicians should never hear what
sound techs typically say about setting monitor levels for most of
them, as it would shatter their precious little egos. Musos
typically can't tell if you jack up monitor levels up or down by 3
dB. In the quality audio cosmic scheme of things a 3 dB defense is
IMMENSE, and typically they can't hear it.

What does "quality audio" have with monitor levels?

The point is that many musos can't hear relatively large differences in the
character of reproduced sound.

As evidenced by monitor mixes and the sound-guy equivalent of the
mechanic's shrug? Weak stuff. For one thing, to a musician a small
change in volume may not be as important as a difference in frequency
response in determining "character" especially in performance.

You're also mixing reproduced and produced sound. Musicians are acutely
aware of volume differences related to balance.

Presumably you're
talking about a rock band or the church equivalent in a noisy
environment, or they wouldn't need monitors at all.

One ends up using monitors for reasons that have nothing to do with rock n'
roll or high ambient noise levels. For example, there are electronic
instruments that aren't guitars or drums.

Like keyboards? Keyboard amp. Or you could just listen to the room PA.

For example there's a fair amount of singing with pre-recorded
accompaniments.

Klassy.

Then there are acoustical
asymmetries and acoustical instruments that don't have much oomph 80 feet
away in a room with suboptimal acoustics.

Your singers are 80 feet away from your acoustic instruments?

Tell me Stephen, when was the last time you were in a reasonably up-to-date
medium-to-large evangelical church? Sounds like we're gonna be enumerating
in decades...

I am familiar with churches of the type you mention, not that this has
anything to do with your generalization about musicians.

Sure, the singer
with a finger in one ear and the Holy Spirit in the other might have
trouble distinguishing the relative level of his mix amidst the
cacophony (tip o' the pin to George) but let the battery in the
guitar player's distortion box run down and he'll be all over his rig
before you can say "Melchezedec".

Stephen, I think Marc Phillips showed more insight into what happens in a
modern evangelical church when he painted a picture of masses of Baptists
and Methodists proudly fingering their prayer beads...

Googling baptist+praise+band brought up 47,000+ hits.

Stephen

MiNE 109 said:

Me, as quoted by Arnie:

cacophony (tip o' the pin to George)

Notice anything?

Krooger is getting tired of crap jokes?