I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s original Mercury
master tapes, for example) but never in a home audio setting. I'd like
to try to borrow a good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to be similar to LP.
That would help to determine if what I like about LP sound is due to
colorations inherent to LPs.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s original Mercury
master tapes, for example) but never in a home audio setting. I'd like
to try to borrow a good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to be similar to LP.
That would help to determine if what I like about LP sound is due to
colorations inherent to LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and calibrated Dolby A setup, I
think you'd be blown away by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and
raises it to six no-trump.

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s original Mercury
master tapes, for example) but never in a home audio setting. I'd like
to try to borrow a good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to be similar to LP.
That would help to determine if what I like about LP sound is due to
colorations inherent to LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and calibrated Dolby A setup, I
think you'd be blown away by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and
raises it to six no-trump.

It would be an interesting comparison, to be sure. I think that our
studio might have a good machine, and knowing our RE, it would still be
in fine shape and if not calibrated well, he would do it for me. Hmmmm..

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never in
a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a good
Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue master
tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to be
similar to LP. That would help to determine if what I
like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent to
LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away by
how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises it to
six no-trump.

Agreed. The only thing better is CD.

Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s original Mercury
master tapes, for example) but never in a home audio setting. I'd like
to try to borrow a good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to be similar to LP.
That would help to determine if what I like about LP sound is due to
colorations inherent to LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and calibrated Dolby A setup, I
think you'd be blown away by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and
raises it to six no-trump.

It would be an interesting comparison, to be sure. I think that our
studio might have a good machine, and knowing our RE, it would still be
in fine shape and if not calibrated well, he would do it for me. Hmmmm..

A 15 ips Dolby A master will blow your socks off.

LP doesn't even remotely come close to reproducing it adequately.

Graham

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never in
a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a good
Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue master
tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to be
similar to LP. That would help to determine if what I
like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent to
LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away by
how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises it to
six no-trump.

Agreed. The only thing better is CD.

CD can't *improve* on an analogue master.

Early CDs were often dreadful due to technical limitations of the
then-available equipment and methods used.

Graham

In article ,
Pooh Bear wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s original Mercury
master tapes, for example) but never in a home audio setting. I'd like
to try to borrow a good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to be similar to LP.
That would help to determine if what I like about LP sound is due to
colorations inherent to LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and calibrated Dolby A setup,
I
think you'd be blown away by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and
raises it to six no-trump.

It would be an interesting comparison, to be sure. I think that our
studio might have a good machine, and knowing our RE, it would still be
in fine shape and if not calibrated well, he would do it for me. Hmmmm..

A 15 ips Dolby A master will blow your socks off.

LP doesn't even remotely come close to reproducing it adequately.

Graham

So I've heard. The Mercurys sure impressed, but as I mentioned, I waas
hearing through studio speakers, etc. rather than in a home audio
environment.

"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never
in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a
good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to
be similar to LP. That would help to determine if what
I like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent to
LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away by
how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises it to
six no-trump.

Agreed. The only thing better is CD.

CD can't *improve* on an analogue master.

Agreed. However it can improve on the system that I was specifically
commenting on, which is a "appropriate and calibrated Dolby A setup"


Early CDs were often dreadful due to technical
limitations of the then-available equipment and methods
used.

At one point early in the introduction of the CD I owned every CD title that
was sold by any retail outlet in the midwest US - all 16! They were a mixed
bag - some were dreadful and some are still among the best-sounding
recordings I've ever heard. That tells me that the best then-available
equipment and methods were entirely adequate, if they were properly used.
IOW, it was all about the human factor, not any limitations of the basic
technology, even as implemented at that time.

Through a quirk of fate, I recently acquired an operational CDP-101, the
first CD player sold widely at retail in the US, that I still occasionally
use. AFAIK it is 100% origional. It sounds no different from the
best-sounding modern players including my SACD/DVD player. It even does a
credible job of playing CD-Rs.

At the time of the introduction of the CD, Denon had been doing digital
recording for about 10 years, and Telarc had had been doing the same for 5
years. Mainstream labels had been using digital recorders to master
commercial releases that were initially released on LPs for about 4 years.
The technology had been around long enough and used often enough to be
relatively mature and sound good, if properly used.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


"Jenn" wrote in message
...

I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never
in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a
good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to
be similar to LP. That would help to determine if what
I like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent to
LPs.


Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away by
how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises it to
six no-trump.


Agreed. The only thing better is CD.
Total nonsense


CD can't *improve* on an analogue master.


Agreed. However it can improve on the system that I was specifically
commenting on, which is a "appropriate and calibrated Dolby A setup"



Early CDs were often dreadful due to technical
limitations of the then-available equipment and methods
used.


At one point early in the introduction of the CD I owned every CD title that
was sold by any retail outlet in the midwest US - all 16! They were a mixed
bag - some were dreadful and some are still among the best-sounding
recordings I've ever heard. That tells me that the best then-available
equipment and methods were entirely adequate, if they were properly used.
IOW, it was all about the human factor, not any limitations of the basic
technology, even as implemented at that time.

Through a quirk of fate, I recently acquired an operational CDP-101, the
first CD player sold widely at retail in the US, that I still occasionally
use. AFAIK it is 100% origional. It sounds no different from the
best-sounding modern players including my SACD/DVD player. It even does a
credible job of playing CD-Rs.

If you cannot ear any differences between a CDP-101 and today's best digital
player tell us a lot about your total lack of credibility concerning
audio. It also tell us that we should not give a damn about your opinion
about hi-fi. I have owned a Sony CDP-101 in 1984 and I could not stand
its harsh high (it was giving me headaches) so I sold it after a bit
more than a month.

At the time of the introduction of the CD, Denon had been doing digital
recording for about 10 years, and Telarc had had been doing the same for 5
years. Mainstream labels had been using digital recorders to master
commercial releases that were initially released on LPs for about 4 years.
The technology had been around long enough and used often enough to be
relatively mature and sound good, if properly used.

"J.Major" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


"Jenn" wrote in message
...

I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and
60s original Mercury master tapes, for example) but
never in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to
borrow a good Revox or similar and hear an excellent
analogue master tape and see if I perceive the
timbre issue to be similar to LP. That would help to
determine if what I like about LP sound is due to
colorations inherent to LPs.


Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away
by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises
it to six no-trump.


Agreed. The only thing better is CD.
Total nonsense


CD can't *improve* on an analogue master.


Agreed. However it can improve on the system that I was
specifically commenting on, which is a "appropriate and calibrated Dolby
A setup"
Early CDs were often dreadful due to technical
limitations of the then-available equipment and methods
used.


At one point early in the introduction of the CD I owned
every CD title that was sold by any retail outlet in the
midwest US - all 16! They were a mixed bag - some were
dreadful and some are still among the best-sounding
recordings I've ever heard. That tells me that the best
then-available equipment and methods were entirely
adequate, if they were properly used. IOW, it was all
about the human factor, not any limitations of the basic
technology, even as implemented at that time.

Through a quirk of fate, I recently acquired an
operational CDP-101, the first CD player sold widely at
retail in the US, that I still occasionally use. AFAIK
it is 100% origional. It sounds no different from the
best-sounding modern players including my SACD/DVD
player. It even does a credible job of playing CD-Rs.

If you cannot ear any differences between a CDP-101 and
today's best digital player tell us a lot about your
total lack of credibility concerning audio.

Right, since I have crediblity concerning audio, it tells you that part of
having credibility concerning audio involves having one's facts right.

It also tell us that we should not give a damn
about your opinion about hi-fi.

Depends how interested you are in reliable facts.

For example consider that 2 years after you dumped your CDP101, probably
because it was too sonically accurate for your tastes, the following was
published:

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

This article found that in level-matched, time-synched and bias-controlled
listening tests, a panel of about 20 audiophiles failed to reliably
sonically differentiate between a humble CDP 101 and Sony's latest-greatest
high end CD player.

I have owned a Sony
CDP-101 in 1984 and I could not stand its harsh high (it was giving me
headaches) so I sold it
after a bit more than a month.

Myabe you got a bad one. Maybe it was the first time you heard audio
reproduced accurately, as opposed to the traditional analog/LP sonic smoked
glass.

So how is that vinyl system, chump? ;-)

Arny Krueger wrote:
"J.Major" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:



"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



"Jenn" wrote in message
...


I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and
60s original Mercury master tapes, for example) but
never in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to
borrow a good Revox or similar and hear an excellent
analogue master tape and see if I perceive the
timbre issue to be similar to LP. That would help to
determine if what I like about LP sound is due to
colorations inherent to LPs.


Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away
by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises
it to six no-trump.


Agreed. The only thing better is CD.

Total nonsense


CD can't *improve* on an analogue master.


Agreed. However it can improve on the system that I was
specifically commenting on, which is a "appropriate and calibrated Dolby
A setup"

Early CDs were often dreadful due to technical
limitations of the then-available equipment and methods
used.


At one point early in the introduction of the CD I owned
every CD title that was sold by any retail outlet in the
midwest US - all 16! They were a mixed bag - some were
dreadful and some are still among the best-sounding
recordings I've ever heard. That tells me that the best
then-available equipment and methods were entirely
adequate, if they were properly used. IOW, it was all
about the human factor, not any limitations of the basic
technology, even as implemented at that time.


Through a quirk of fate, I recently acquired an
operational CDP-101, the first CD player sold widely at
retail in the US, that I still occasionally use. AFAIK
it is 100% origional. It sounds no different from the
best-sounding modern players including my SACD/DVD
player. It even does a credible job of playing CD-Rs.


If you cannot ear any differences between a CDP-101 and
today's best digital player tell us a lot about your
total lack of credibility concerning audio.


Right, since I have crediblity concerning audio, it tells you that part of
having credibility concerning audio involves having one's facts right.


It also tell us that we should not give a damn
about your opinion about hi-fi.


Depends how interested you are in reliable facts.

For example consider that 2 years after you dumped your CDP101, probably
because it was too sonically accurate for your tastes, the following was
published:

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

This article found that in level-matched, time-synched and bias-controlled
listening tests, a panel of about 20 audiophiles failed to reliably
sonically differentiate between a humble CDP 101 and Sony's latest-greatest
high end CD player.


I have owned a Sony
CDP-101 in 1984 and I could not stand its harsh high (it was giving me
headaches) so I sold it
after a bit more than a month.


Myabe you got a bad one. Maybe it was the first time you heard audio
reproduced accurately, as opposed to the traditional analog/LP sonic smoked
glass.

So how is that vinyl system, chump? ;-)



My vinyl system is quite Ok for me (Oracle Delphi), also my CD system is
also OK (Moon Equinox) and also the live concert I attend regulary (once
a week) is also OK

By the way here is own I rated what I hear: LIVE Performance- Best, LP-
Better, CD-from not bad to Very Good

I always try to get the sound I listen in the live concert and actually
no CD gave me that kind of sound. Only my Oracle at the moment can bring
me close to the spund I got at the live concert.

"J.Major" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"J.Major" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:



"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



"Jenn" wrote in message
...


I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and
60s original Mercury master tapes, for example) but
never in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to
borrow a good Revox or similar and hear an
excellent analogue master tape and see if I
perceive the timbre issue to be similar to LP.
That would help to determine if what I like about
LP sound is due to colorations inherent to LPs.


Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown
away by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and
raises it to six no-trump.


Agreed. The only thing better is CD.

Total nonsense


CD can't *improve* on an analogue master.


Agreed. However it can improve on the system that I was
specifically commenting on, which is a "appropriate
and calibrated Dolby A setup"

Early CDs were often dreadful due to technical
limitations of the then-available equipment and
methods used.


At one point early in the introduction of the CD I
owned every CD title that was sold by any retail outlet in
the midwest US - all 16! They were a mixed bag - some were
dreadful and some are still among the best-sounding
recordings I've ever heard. That tells me that the
best then-available equipment and methods were entirely
adequate, if they were properly used. IOW, it was all
about the human factor, not any limitations of the
basic technology, even as implemented at that time.


Through a quirk of fate, I recently acquired an
operational CDP-101, the first CD player sold widely at
retail in the US, that I still occasionally use. AFAIK
it is 100% origional. It sounds no different from the
best-sounding modern players including my SACD/DVD
player. It even does a credible job of playing CD-Rs.


If you cannot ear any differences between a CDP-101 and
today's best digital player tell us a lot about your
total lack of credibility concerning audio.


Right, since I have crediblity concerning audio, it
tells you that part of having credibility concerning
audio involves having one's facts right.
It also tell us that we should not give a damn
about your opinion about hi-fi.


Depends how interested you are in reliable facts.

For example consider that 2 years after you dumped your
CDP101, probably because it was too sonically accurate
for your tastes, the following was published:

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

This article found that in level-matched, time-synched
and bias-controlled listening tests, a panel of about 20
audiophiles failed to reliably sonically differentiate
between a humble CDP 101 and Sony's latest-greatest high
end CD player.
I have owned a Sony
CDP-101 in 1984 and I could not stand its harsh high
(it was giving me headaches) so I sold it
after a bit more than a month.


Myabe you got a bad one. Maybe it was the first time you
heard audio reproduced accurately, as opposed to the
traditional analog/LP sonic smoked glass.

So how is that vinyl system, chump? ;-)

My vinyl system is quite Ok for me (Oracle Delphi), also
my CD system is also OK (Moon Equinox) and also the live
concert I attend regulary (once a week) is also OK

Bingo!

By the way here is own I rated what I hear: LIVE
Performance- Best, LP- Better, CD-from not bad to Very
Good

Bingo!

I always try to get the sound I listen in the live
concert and actually no CD gave me that kind of sound.
Only my Oracle at the moment can bring me close to the
spund I got at the live concert.

Bingo!

Can I detect these vinyl bigots by smell or what?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"J.Major" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"J.Major" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:



"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



"Jenn" wrote in message
...


I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and
60s original Mercury master tapes, for example) but
never in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to
borrow a good Revox or similar and hear an
excellent analogue master tape and see if I
perceive the timbre issue to be similar to LP.
That would help to determine if what I like about
LP sound is due to colorations inherent to LPs.


Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown
away by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and
raises it to six no-trump.


Agreed. The only thing better is CD.

Total nonsense


CD can't *improve* on an analogue master.


Agreed. However it can improve on the system that I was
specifically commenting on, which is a "appropriate
and calibrated Dolby A setup"

Early CDs were often dreadful due to technical
limitations of the then-available equipment and
methods used.


At one point early in the introduction of the CD I
owned every CD title that was sold by any retail outlet in
the midwest US - all 16! They were a mixed bag - some were
dreadful and some are still among the best-sounding
recordings I've ever heard. That tells me that the
best then-available equipment and methods were entirely
adequate, if they were properly used. IOW, it was all
about the human factor, not any limitations of the
basic technology, even as implemented at that time.


Through a quirk of fate, I recently acquired an
operational CDP-101, the first CD player sold widely at
retail in the US, that I still occasionally use. AFAIK
it is 100% origional. It sounds no different from the
best-sounding modern players including my SACD/DVD
player. It even does a credible job of playing CD-Rs.


If you cannot ear any differences between a CDP-101 and
today's best digital player tell us a lot about your
total lack of credibility concerning audio.


Right, since I have crediblity concerning audio, it
tells you that part of having credibility concerning
audio involves having one's facts right.
It also tell us that we should not give a damn
about your opinion about hi-fi.


Depends how interested you are in reliable facts.

For example consider that 2 years after you dumped your
CDP101, probably because it was too sonically accurate
for your tastes, the following was published:

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

This article found that in level-matched, time-synched
and bias-controlled listening tests, a panel of about 20
audiophiles failed to reliably sonically differentiate
between a humble CDP 101 and Sony's latest-greatest high
end CD player.
I have owned a Sony
CDP-101 in 1984 and I could not stand its harsh high
(it was giving me headaches) so I sold it
after a bit more than a month.


Myabe you got a bad one. Maybe it was the first time you
heard audio reproduced accurately, as opposed to the
traditional analog/LP sonic smoked glass.

So how is that vinyl system, chump? ;-)

My vinyl system is quite Ok for me (Oracle Delphi), also
my CD system is also OK (Moon Equinox) and also the live
concert I attend regulary (once a week) is also OK

Bingo!

By the way here is own I rated what I hear: LIVE
Performance- Best, LP- Better, CD-from not bad to Very
Good

Bingo!

I always try to get the sound I listen in the live
concert and actually no CD gave me that kind of sound.
Only my Oracle at the moment can bring me close to the
spund I got at the live concert.

Bingo!

Can I detect these vinyl bigots by smell or what?

Oh, you're so WONDERFUL, Arny! A real smell out the bigots guy!

(DEF) bigot (noun) -- somebody who perceives the world differently than
Arnold Kruger.

LOL!

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"J.Major" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"J.Major" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:



"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



"Jenn" wrote in message
...


I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s
and 60s original Mercury master tapes, for
example) but never in a home audio setting. I'd
like to try to borrow a good Revox or similar
and hear an excellent analogue master tape and
see if I perceive the timbre issue to be similar
to LP. That would help to determine if what I
like about LP sound is due to colorations
inherent to LPs.


Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown
away by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound"
and raises it to six no-trump.


Agreed. The only thing better is CD.

Total nonsense


CD can't *improve* on an analogue master.


Agreed. However it can improve on the system that I
was specifically commenting on, which is a
"appropriate and calibrated Dolby A setup"

Early CDs were often dreadful due to technical
limitations of the then-available equipment and
methods used.


At one point early in the introduction of the CD I
owned every CD title that was sold by any retail
outlet in the midwest US - all 16! They were a
mixed bag - some were dreadful and some are still
among the best-sounding recordings I've ever heard. That tells me
that the best then-available equipment and methods were
entirely adequate, if they were properly used. IOW,
it was all about the human factor, not any
limitations of the basic technology, even as implemented at that
time.


Through a quirk of fate, I recently acquired an
operational CDP-101, the first CD player sold widely
at retail in the US, that I still occasionally use.
AFAIK it is 100% origional. It sounds no different from
the best-sounding modern players including my
SACD/DVD player. It even does a credible job of playing CD-Rs.


If you cannot ear any differences between a CDP-101
and today's best digital player tell us a lot about
your total lack of credibility concerning audio.


Right, since I have crediblity concerning audio, it
tells you that part of having credibility concerning
audio involves having one's facts right.
It also tell us that we should not give a damn
about your opinion about hi-fi.


Depends how interested you are in reliable facts.

For example consider that 2 years after you dumped your
CDP101, probably because it was too sonically accurate
for your tastes, the following was published:

Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players
Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January
1986) This article found that in level-matched, time-synched
and bias-controlled listening tests, a panel of about
20 audiophiles failed to reliably sonically
differentiate between a humble CDP 101 and Sony's
latest-greatest high end CD player.
I have owned a Sony
CDP-101 in 1984 and I could not stand its harsh high
(it was giving me headaches) so I sold it
after a bit more than a month.


Myabe you got a bad one. Maybe it was the first time
you heard audio reproduced accurately, as opposed to
the traditional analog/LP sonic smoked glass.

So how is that vinyl system, chump? ;-)

My vinyl system is quite Ok for me (Oracle Delphi), also
my CD system is also OK (Moon Equinox) and also the live
concert I attend regulary (once a week) is also OK

Bingo!

By the way here is own I rated what I hear: LIVE
Performance- Best, LP- Better, CD-from not bad to Very
Good

Bingo!

I always try to get the sound I listen in the live
concert and actually no CD gave me that kind of sound.
Only my Oracle at the moment can bring me close to the
spund I got at the live concert.

Bingo!

Can I detect these vinyl bigots by smell or what?

Oh, you're so WONDERFUL, Arny! A real smell out the
bigots guy!
(DEF) bigot (noun) -- somebody who perceives the world
differently than Arnold Kruger.

Simply not true. I appreciate diverse thought and embrace it quickly as it
applies in helpful ways. What I get tired of is people who keep harping on
stuff that is already well-known to be unhelpful. In audio, the vinyl LP
comes to mind. Tubed audio comes to mind.

LOL!

The irony is that as odd and wrong as he is, Harry thinks he's normal and
right.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never
in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a
good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to
be similar to LP. That would help to determine if what
I like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent to
LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away by
how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises it to
six no-trump.

How excellent, then, that by doing a good digital
transfer of that tape, one can capture that six no-trump
sound and protect it from degradation.

Exactly. She's really exposed herself this time. The worst thing that can be
said about CDs is that they may accurately reflect master tapes, which the
LP never could do.

Jenn has revealed that she has no clue as to what master tapes are really
all about, or how they relate to her obsession with the non-existent realism
of LPs.

She's also beginning to expose the fact that she has no idea about how
recording and reproduction are actually supposed to work.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never
in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a
good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to
be similar to LP. That would help to determine if what
I like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent to
LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away by
how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises it to
six no-trump.

How excellent, then, that by doing a good digital
transfer of that tape, one can capture that six no-trump
sound and protect it from degradation.

Exactly. She's really exposed herself this time. The worst thing that can
be said about CDs is that they may accurately reflect master tapes, which
the LP never could do.

Jenn has revealed that she has no clue as to what master tapes are really
all about, or how they relate to her obsession with the non-existent
realism of LPs.

She's also beginning to expose the fact that she has no idea about how
recording and reproduction are actually supposed to work.

Pure BS Arny. Jenn has said she prefers really good LP's over most CD's,
because to her ears instrumental timbres sound "more real". A lot of
audiophiles agree with her. She has said nothing about overall accuracy or
about master tapes or about recording. These are simply strawman inventions
of yours.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never
in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a
good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to
be similar to LP. That would help to determine if what
I like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent
to LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away
by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises
it to six no-trump.

How excellent, then, that by doing a good digital
transfer of that tape, one can capture that six no-trump
sound and protect it from degradation.

Exactly. She's really exposed herself this time. The
worst thing that can be said about CDs is that they may
accurately reflect master tapes, which the LP never
could do. Jenn has revealed that she has no clue as to what master
tapes are really all about, or how they relate to her
obsession with the non-existent realism of LPs.

She's also beginning to expose the fact that she has no
idea about how recording and reproduction are actually
supposed to work.

Pure BS Arny. Jenn has said she prefers really good LP's
over most CD's, because to her ears instrumental timbres
sound "more real".

You forgot about the part about Jenn's opinion being oh-so-credible and
applicable to the rest of us peons because she's this great symphony
conductor.


A lot of audiophiles agree with her.

Percentage-wise its about zip and shrinking. I notice that the heavy-LP used
disc dealer near me has cut his floorspace by 50%, as have others around
town. Sony tuned their SACD pitch to capture the LP bigot market, and now
SACD is failing to grow, verging on fading.

She has said nothing about overall accuracy or about
master tapes or about recording.

Yup, "instrumental timbres sound more real" has nothing to do with accuracy.
And if you believe that, I've got this bridge over the Detroit River you
want to buy... ;_)

These are simply strawman inventions of yours.

Even Jenn admits that she has special listening powers because of her trade.
I agree with that at its core, its just that her skills aren't as global as
she's been misinformed to believe.

"J.Major" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

[snip]

Through a quirk of fate, I recently acquired an operational CDP-101, the
first CD player sold widely at retail in the US, that I still
occasionally use. AFAIK it is 100% origional. It sounds no different
from the best-sounding modern players including my SACD/DVD player. It
even does a credible job of playing CD-Rs.

If you cannot ear any differences between a CDP-101 and today's best
digital
player tell us a lot about your total lack of credibility concerning
audio. It also tell us that we should not give a damn about your opinion
about hi-fi. I have owned a Sony CDP-101 in 1984 and I could not stand its
harsh high (it was giving me headaches) so I sold it after a bit more than
a month.

At the time of the introduction of the CD, Denon had been doing digital
recording for about 10 years, and Telarc had had been doing the same for
5 years. Mainstream labels had been using digital recorders to master
commercial releases that were initially released on LPs for about 4
years. The technology had been around long enough and used often enough
to be relatively mature and sound good, if properly used.

I've been warning about Arny's presbycusis,
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...ticlekey=24916, for some time
now. It's obvious; it's painful, and tragically, Arny covers it up with a
blustery, offensive attitude. Arny, it's time for you to recuse yourself
from personal observations about audio quality. I suggest that instead you
concentrate on formalism, methodology, and critique thereof. Age has no
prejudice there.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"J.Major" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

[snip]

Through a quirk of fate, I recently acquired an
operational CDP-101, the first CD player sold widely at
retail in the US, that I still occasionally use. AFAIK
it is 100% origional. It sounds no different from the
best-sounding modern players including my SACD/DVD
player. It even does a credible job of playing CD-Rs.

If you cannot ear any differences between a CDP-101 and
today's best digital
player tell us a lot about your total lack of
credibility concerning audio. It also tell us that we
should not give a damn about your opinion about hi-fi. I
have owned a Sony CDP-101 in 1984 and I could not stand
its harsh high (it was giving me headaches) so I sold it
after a bit more than a month.

At the time of the introduction of the CD, Denon had
been doing digital recording for about 10 years, and
Telarc had had been doing the same for 5 years.
Mainstream labels had been using digital recorders to
master commercial releases that were initially released
on LPs for about 4 years. The technology had been
around long enough and used often enough to be
relatively mature and sound good, if properly used.

I've been warning about Arny's presbycusis,
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...ticlekey=24916,
for some time now. It's obvious; it's painful, and
tragically, Arny covers it up with a blustery, offensive
attitude.

What cover up? I still hear the absence of highs above 15 Khz, and pure
tones out to 20 KHz.

Arny, it's time for you to recuse yourself from
personal observations about audio quality.

Here's a news flash old man, sound quality is not all about the extreme high
end.

I suggest that
instead you concentrate on formalism, methodology, and
critique thereof. Age has no prejudice there.

As I pointed out in another post, the 19-40 year-olds that I mix with still
rely on me for the final word on equalization.

"youth and strength can always be beaten by age and wiliness."

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"J.Major" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

[snip]

Through a quirk of fate, I recently acquired an
operational CDP-101, the first CD player sold widely at
retail in the US, that I still occasionally use. AFAIK
it is 100% origional. It sounds no different from the
best-sounding modern players including my SACD/DVD
player. It even does a credible job of playing CD-Rs.

If you cannot ear any differences between a CDP-101 and
today's best digital
player tell us a lot about your total lack of
credibility concerning audio. It also tell us that we
should not give a damn about your opinion about hi-fi. I
have owned a Sony CDP-101 in 1984 and I could not stand
its harsh high (it was giving me headaches) so I sold it
after a bit more than a month.

At the time of the introduction of the CD, Denon had
been doing digital recording for about 10 years, and
Telarc had had been doing the same for 5 years.
Mainstream labels had been using digital recorders to
master commercial releases that were initially released
on LPs for about 4 years. The technology had been
around long enough and used often enough to be
relatively mature and sound good, if properly used.

I've been warning about Arny's presbycusis,
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...ticlekey=24916,
for some time now. It's obvious; it's painful, and
tragically, Arny covers it up with a blustery, offensive
attitude.

What cover up? I still hear the absence of highs above 15 Khz, and pure
tones out to 20 KHz.

Arny, it's time for you to recuse yourself from
personal observations about audio quality.

Here's a news flash old man, sound quality is not all about the extreme
high end.

I suggest that
instead you concentrate on formalism, methodology, and
critique thereof. Age has no prejudice there.

As I pointed out in another post, the 19-40 year-olds that I mix with
still rely on me for the final word on equalization.

"youth and strength can always be beaten by age and wiliness."
"Wiliness" does not connote honest appraisal.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never
in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a
good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to
be similar to LP. That would help to determine if what
I like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent to
LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away by
how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises it to
six no-trump.

How excellent, then, that by doing a good digital
transfer of that tape, one can capture that six no-trump
sound and protect it from degradation.

Exactly. She's really exposed herself this time. The worst thing that can
be said about CDs is that they may accurately reflect master tapes, which
the LP never could do.

Jenn has revealed that she has no clue as to what master tapes are really
all about, or how they relate to her obsession with the non-existent
realism of LPs.

She's also beginning to expose the fact that she has no idea about how
recording and reproduction are actually supposed to work.

Pure BS Arny. Jenn has said she prefers really good LP's over most CD's,
because to her ears instrumental timbres sound "more real".

Which if you spent a couple of seconds of thought on would confirm why
it's ridiculous.
Nothing that adds distortion and robs dynamic range can actually be
more real.

A lot of
audiophiles agree with her.

Which is why the majority of audiophiles think those people are crazy,
they are claiming that distortion is better than clarity. It's the
same thing as saying that a DVD picture is less real becuase the images
are sharper and reveal more detail.

She has said nothing about overall accuracy or
about master tapes or about recording. These are simply strawman inventions
of yours.

Where is it excatly that the music on those LP's comes from?
Oh yeah, MASTER TAPES.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


"youth and strength can always be beaten by age and wiliness."

"Wiliness" does not connote honest appraisal.

I think it was a typo. He meant vileness.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"J.Major" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

[snip]

Through a quirk of fate, I recently acquired an
operational CDP-101, the first CD player sold widely
at retail in the US, that I still occasionally use.
AFAIK it is 100% origional. It sounds no different
from the best-sounding modern players including my
SACD/DVD player. It even does a credible job of
playing CD-Rs.

If you cannot ear any differences between a CDP-101 and
today's best digital
player tell us a lot about your total lack of
credibility concerning audio. It also tell us that we
should not give a damn about your opinion about hi-fi.
I have owned a Sony CDP-101 in 1984 and I could not
stand its harsh high (it was giving me headaches) so I
sold it after a bit more than a month.

At the time of the introduction of the CD, Denon had
been doing digital recording for about 10 years, and
Telarc had had been doing the same for 5 years.
Mainstream labels had been using digital recorders to
master commercial releases that were initially
released on LPs for about 4 years. The technology had
been around long enough and used often enough to be
relatively mature and sound good, if properly used.

I've been warning about Arny's presbycusis,
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...ticlekey=24916,
for some time now. It's obvious; it's painful, and
tragically, Arny covers it up with a blustery, offensive
attitude.

What cover up? I still hear the absence of highs above
15 Khz, and pure tones out to 20 KHz.

Arny, it's time for you to recuse yourself from
personal observations about audio quality.

Here's a news flash old man, sound quality is not all
about the extreme high end.

I suggest that
instead you concentrate on formalism, methodology, and
critique thereof. Age has no prejudice there.

As I pointed out in another post, the 19-40 year-olds
that I mix with still rely on me for the final word on
equalization.

"youth and strength can always be beaten by age and
wiliness."

"Wiliness" does not connote honest appraisal.

Whine, whine, whine.

wrote in message
oups.com
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and
60s original Mercury master tapes, for example) but
never in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to
borrow a good Revox or similar and hear an excellent
analogue master tape and see if I perceive the
timbre issue to be similar to LP. That would help to
determine if what I like about LP sound is due to
colorations inherent to LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away
by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises
it to six no-trump.

How excellent, then, that by doing a good digital
transfer of that tape, one can capture that six
no-trump sound and protect it from degradation.

Exactly. She's really exposed herself this time. The
worst thing that can be said about CDs is that they may
accurately reflect master tapes, which the LP never
could do.

Jenn has revealed that she has no clue as to what
master tapes are really all about, or how they relate
to her obsession with the non-existent realism of LPs.

She's also beginning to expose the fact that she has no
idea about how recording and reproduction are actually
supposed to work.

Pure BS Arny. Jenn has said she prefers really good
LP's over most CD's, because to her ears instrumental
timbres sound "more real".

Which if you spent a couple of seconds of thought on
would confirm why it's ridiculous.

Harry and clear thinking have been strangers for years.

Nothing that adds distortion and robs dynamic range can
actually be more real.

When will these tubes and vinyl bigots get that?

A lot of audiophiles agree with her.

Which is why the majority of audiophiles think those
people are crazy, they are claiming that distortion is
better than clarity.

Does Harry leave the dirt on his windshield so that he can drive better?

It's the same thing as saying that
a DVD picture is less real becuase the images are sharper
and reveal more detail.

Or like saying that HDTV is less real because of the added resolution.

She has said nothing about overall accuracy or
about master tapes or about recording. These are simply
strawman inventions of yours.

Where is it excatly that the music on those LP's comes
from?
Oh yeah, MASTER TAPES.

One irony is that LP's are often twice removed from master tapes. There is
often one generation of cutting master tape, and then there is the ruinous
LP cutting/playback process itself.

OTOH, its entirely feasible to hook a tape player to the input of a CD disc
cutter, and produce CDs for consumers that will play back indistingushably
from the master tape playback itself.

If Jenn finds that master tapes are realistic enough for her to prefer, she
automatically becomes a convert to CD. Since she has already said that she
doesn't find CDs to be sufficiently realistic, she can't possibly prefer to
listen to master tapes without contradicting herself.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never
in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a
good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to
be similar to LP. That would help to determine if what
I like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent to
LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away by
how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises it to
six no-trump.

Agreed. The only thing better is CD.

CD can't *improve* on an analogue master.

Agreed. However it can improve on the system that I was specifically
commenting on, which is a "appropriate and calibrated Dolby A setup"


Early CDs were often dreadful due to technical
limitations of the then-available equipment and methods
used.

At one point early in the introduction of the CD I owned every CD title that
was sold by any retail outlet in the midwest US - all 16! They were a mixed
bag - some were dreadful and some are still among the best-sounding
recordings I've ever heard. That tells me that the best then-available
equipment and methods were entirely adequate, if they were properly used.
IOW, it was all about the human factor, not any limitations of the basic
technology, even as implemented at that time.

Through a quirk of fate, I recently acquired an operational CDP-101, the
first CD player sold widely at retail in the US, that I still occasionally
use. AFAIK it is 100% origional. It sounds no different from the
best-sounding modern players including my SACD/DVD player. It even does a
credible job of playing CD-Rs.

At the time of the introduction of the CD, Denon had been doing digital
recording for about 10 years, and Telarc had had been doing the same for 5
years. Mainstream labels had been using digital recorders to master
commercial releases that were initially released on LPs for about 4 years.
The technology had been around long enough and used often enough to be
relatively mature and sound good, if properly used.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arny saysabout the first cdplayer ever made:
It sounds no different from the
best-sounding modern players including my SACD/DVD player. It even does a
credible job of playing CD-Rs.
I also happen to own the CDP 101, retired on its laurels, in the
loft.
I also have a new Pioneer heavily modified by my guru friend.
You just confirmed everything I guessed about your taste (are you
acquainted with that non-technical word?) in music.
Otherwise you're an esteemable and knowledgable engineer,
Ludovic Mirabel
Ludovic M..

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never
in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a
good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to
be similar to LP. That would help to determine if what
I like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent to
LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away by
how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises it to
six no-trump.

How excellent, then, that by doing a good digital
transfer of that tape, one can capture that six no-trump
sound and protect it from degradation.

Exactly. She's really exposed herself this time. The worst thing that can be
said about CDs is that they may accurately reflect master tapes, which the
LP never could do.

Jenn has revealed that she has no clue as to what master tapes are really
all about, or how they relate to her obsession with the non-existent realism
of LPs.

She's also beginning to expose the fact that she has no idea about how
recording and reproduction are actually supposed to work.

You've gotten quite boring, Arny. All I did was "reveal" that I'm open
to hearing master tapes, in order to determine if what I like has to do
with the distortion of LPs. In other words, as most normal people do,
I'm keeping an open mind. And what I get in return is your silliness, as
shown above. Having an open mind shouldn't be subject to criticism,
IMV. I'm 250 miles away from home this morning, as we've gone to my
father's city because he is in the hospital, just diagnosed with
congestive heart failure. I'll get back to this and all of the other
posts late tonight.

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never
in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a
good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to
be similar to LP. That would help to determine if what
I like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent to
LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away by
how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises it to
six no-trump.

How excellent, then, that by doing a good digital
transfer of that tape, one can capture that six no-trump
sound and protect it from degradation.

Exactly. She's really exposed herself this time. The worst thing that can
be said about CDs is that they may accurately reflect master tapes, which
the LP never could do.

Jenn has revealed that she has no clue as to what master tapes are really
all about, or how they relate to her obsession with the non-existent
realism of LPs.

She's also beginning to expose the fact that she has no idea about how
recording and reproduction are actually supposed to work.

Pure BS Arny. Jenn has said she prefers really good LP's over most CD's,

all CDs -- at least, all she's heard -- really.

because to her ears instrumental timbres sound "more real". A lot of
audiophiles agree with her.

A lot don't. Game over?



--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never
in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a
good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to
be similar to LP. That would help to determine if what
I like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent to
LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away by
how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises it to
six no-trump.

How excellent, then, that by doing a good digital
transfer of that tape, one can capture that six no-trump
sound and protect it from degradation.

Exactly. She's really exposed herself this time. The worst thing that can
be
said about CDs is that they may accurately reflect master tapes, which
the
LP never could do.

Jenn has revealed that she has no clue as to what master tapes are really
all about, or how they relate to her obsession with the non-existent
realism
of LPs.

She's also beginning to expose the fact that she has no idea about how
recording and reproduction are actually supposed to work.

You've gotten quite boring, Arny. All I did was "reveal" that I'm open
to hearing master tapes, in order to determine if what I like has to do
with the distortion of LPs. In other words, as most normal people do,
I'm keeping an open mind. And what I get in return is your silliness, as
shown above. Having an open mind shouldn't be subject to criticism,
IMV. I'm 250 miles away from home this morning, as we've gone to my
father's city because he is in the hospital, just diagnosed with
congestive heart failure. I'll get back to this and all of the other
posts late tonight.

Arny is worse than boring, Jenn. He is abusive, demeaning, an "ugly" man who
uses this group as a prop for his ego. He appears to be a manic depressive,
and this is his "up" part of the cycle. What's important is how yoiur father
does. Best wishes, Bob.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and
60s original Mercury master tapes, for example) but
never in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to
borrow a good Revox or similar and hear an excellent
analogue master tape and see if I perceive the
timbre issue to be similar to LP. That would help to
determine if what I like about LP sound is due to
colorations inherent to LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away
by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises
it to six no-trump.

How excellent, then, that by doing a good digital
transfer of that tape, one can capture that six
no-trump sound and protect it from degradation.

Exactly. She's really exposed herself this time. The
worst thing that can be said about CDs is that they may
accurately reflect master tapes, which the LP never
could do.

Jenn has revealed that she has no clue as to what
master tapes are really all about, or how they relate
to her obsession with the non-existent realism of LPs.

She's also beginning to expose the fact that she has no
idea about how recording and reproduction are actually
supposed to work.

Pure BS Arny. Jenn has said she prefers really good
LP's over most CD's,

all CDs -- at least, all she's heard -- really.

because to her ears instrumental timbres sound "more
real". A lot of audiophiles agree with her.

A lot don't. Game over?

Make that: At least 100 times more music lovers disagree with Jenn.

That Harry could imagine that the number of vinyl bigots is a significant
percentage of all audiophiles is part of his, umm disconnectedness with
reality.

"Jenn" wrote in message


You've gotten quite boring, Arny.

Well then quit replying to my posts at your earliest convenience, Jenn.

All I did was "reveal"
that I'm open to hearing master tapes, in order to
determine if what I like has to do with the distortion of
LPs.

That's what you did overtly.

In other words, as most normal people do, I'm
keeping an open mind.

No Jenn your mind has been closed to the CD format for about 24 years by
your own statements. Most normal audiophiles and music lovers had abandoned
the LP format as their "daily driver" about 12-15 years ago. *Anybody* who
favors the LP format over CD is abnormal by modern standards.

And what I get in return is your silliness, as shown above.

Sticks and stones, Jenn.

Having an open mind shouldn't be subject to criticism, IMV.

I'm sure we'll all notice when your mind returns to a normal state of
openness to the CD and other digital formats, Jenn. That you would claim to
have a normal open mind after closing it for about 24 years shows how out of
touch with reality, you really are.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message


You've gotten quite boring, Arny.

Well then quit replying to my posts at your earliest convenience, Jenn.

All I did was "reveal"
that I'm open to hearing master tapes, in order to
determine if what I like has to do with the distortion of
LPs.

That's what you did overtly.

In other words, as most normal people do, I'm
keeping an open mind.

No Jenn your mind has been closed to the CD format for about 24 years by
your own statements. Most normal audiophiles and music lovers had abandoned
the LP format as their "daily driver" about 12-15 years ago. *Anybody* who
favors the LP format over CD is abnormal by modern standards.

And what I get in return is your silliness, as shown above.

Sticks and stones, Jenn.

Having an open mind shouldn't be subject to criticism, IMV.

I'm sure we'll all notice when your mind returns to a normal state of
openness to the CD and other digital formats, Jenn. That you would claim to
have a normal open mind after closing it for about 24 years shows how out of
touch with reality, you really are.

Arny tells Jenn about the way of the world:
Most normal audiophiles and music lovers had abandoned
the LP format as their "daily driver" about 12-15 years ago. *Anybody* who
favors the LP format over CD is abnormal by modern standards.


Arny when will you grasp that preferences and cultural choices are not
subject to an opinion poll. If 99.99% of rock concert
attendees-screamers, car boom box lover and Best Buy "theater systems"
prefer something the chances are it will be something that I'll find
boring or repulsive.
A very, very unpopular stance in a huckster driven economy. But then
one of very few advantages of age is that one ceases to care.
Regards Ludovic M.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and
60s original Mercury master tapes, for example) but
never in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to
borrow a good Revox or similar and hear an excellent
analogue master tape and see if I perceive the
timbre issue to be similar to LP. That would help to
determine if what I like about LP sound is due to
colorations inherent to LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away
by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises
it to six no-trump.

How excellent, then, that by doing a good digital
transfer of that tape, one can capture that six
no-trump sound and protect it from degradation.

Exactly. She's really exposed herself this time. The
worst thing that can be said about CDs is that they may
accurately reflect master tapes, which the LP never
could do.

Jenn has revealed that she has no clue as to what
master tapes are really all about, or how they relate
to her obsession with the non-existent realism of LPs.

She's also beginning to expose the fact that she has no
idea about how recording and reproduction are actually
supposed to work.

Pure BS Arny. Jenn has said she prefers really good
LP's over most CD's,

all CDs -- at least, all she's heard -- really.

because to her ears instrumental timbres sound "more
real". A lot of audiophiles agree with her.

A lot don't. Game over?

Make that: At least 100 times more music lovers disagree with Jenn.

That Harry could imagine that the number of vinyl bigots is a significant
percentage of all audiophiles is part of his, umm disconnectedness with
reality.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Make that: At least 100 times more music lovers disagree with Jenn.

That Harry could imagine that the number of vinyl bigots is a significant
percentage of all audiophiles is part of his, umm disconnectedness with
reality

Sullivan wins again. The crowd is with him.
QED.
Ludovic M

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never
in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a
good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to
be similar to LP. That would help to determine if what
I like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent to
LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away by
how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises it to
six no-trump.

How excellent, then, that by doing a good digital
transfer of that tape, one can capture that six no-trump
sound and protect it from degradation.

Exactly. She's really exposed herself this time. The worst thing that can
be said about CDs is that they may accurately reflect master tapes, which
the LP never could do.

Jenn has revealed that she has no clue as to what master tapes are really
all about, or how they relate to her obsession with the non-existent
realism of LPs.

She's also beginning to expose the fact that she has no idea about how
recording and reproduction are actually supposed to work.

Pure BS Arny. Jenn has said she prefers really good LP's over most CD's,

all CDs -- at least, all she's heard -- really.

To be accurate, I've stated this in terms of timbres only.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


You've gotten quite boring, Arny.

Well then quit replying to my posts at your earliest convenience, Jenn.

All I did was "reveal"
that I'm open to hearing master tapes, in order to
determine if what I like has to do with the distortion of
LPs.

That's what you did overtly.

In other words, as most normal people do, I'm
keeping an open mind.

No Jenn your mind has been closed to the CD format for about 24 years by
your own statements.

I see. Well thanks for letting me know.

Most normal audiophiles and music lovers had abandoned
the LP format as their "daily driver" about 12-15 years ago. *Anybody* who
favors the LP format over CD is abnormal by modern standards.

And what I get in return is your silliness, as shown above.

Sticks and stones, Jenn.

Having an open mind shouldn't be subject to criticism, IMV.

I'm sure we'll all notice when your mind returns to a normal state of
openness to the CD and other digital formats, Jenn. That you would claim to
have a normal open mind after closing it for about 24 years shows how out of
touch with reality, you really are.

I see.

In article ,
"Robert Morein" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never
in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a
good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to
be similar to LP. That would help to determine if what
I like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent to
LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away by
how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises it to
six no-trump.

How excellent, then, that by doing a good digital
transfer of that tape, one can capture that six no-trump
sound and protect it from degradation.

Exactly. She's really exposed herself this time. The worst thing that can
be
said about CDs is that they may accurately reflect master tapes, which
the
LP never could do.

Jenn has revealed that she has no clue as to what master tapes are really
all about, or how they relate to her obsession with the non-existent
realism
of LPs.

She's also beginning to expose the fact that she has no idea about how
recording and reproduction are actually supposed to work.

You've gotten quite boring, Arny. All I did was "reveal" that I'm open
to hearing master tapes, in order to determine if what I like has to do
with the distortion of LPs. In other words, as most normal people do,
I'm keeping an open mind. And what I get in return is your silliness, as
shown above. Having an open mind shouldn't be subject to criticism,
IMV. I'm 250 miles away from home this morning, as we've gone to my
father's city because he is in the hospital, just diagnosed with
congestive heart failure. I'll get back to this and all of the other
posts late tonight.

Arny is worse than boring, Jenn. He is abusive, demeaning, an "ugly" man who
uses this group as a prop for his ego. He appears to be a manic depressive,
and this is his "up" part of the cycle. What's important is how yoiur father
does. Best wishes, Bob.

Thanks. He's doing well for a guy of 83 who has worked hard all of his
life, and who must now adjust to lighter lifting and life with less
salt. He's an amazing man. Thanks again.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and 60s
original Mercury master tapes, for example) but never
in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to borrow a
good Revox or similar and hear an excellent analogue
master tape and see if I perceive the timbre issue to
be similar to LP. That would help to determine if what
I like about LP sound is due to colorations inherent
to LPs.

Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away
by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises
it to six no-trump.

How excellent, then, that by doing a good digital
transfer of that tape, one can capture that six no-trump
sound and protect it from degradation.

Exactly. She's really exposed herself this time. The
worst thing that can be said about CDs is that they may
accurately reflect master tapes, which the LP never
could do. Jenn has revealed that she has no clue as to what master
tapes are really all about, or how they relate to her
obsession with the non-existent realism of LPs.

She's also beginning to expose the fact that she has no
idea about how recording and reproduction are actually
supposed to work.

Pure BS Arny. Jenn has said she prefers really good LP's
over most CD's, because to her ears instrumental timbres
sound "more real".

You forgot about the part about Jenn's opinion being oh-so-credible and
applicable to the rest of us peons because she's this great symphony
conductor.

See another post by me made a bit earlier tonight.


A lot of audiophiles agree with her.

Percentage-wise its about zip and shrinking. I notice that the heavy-LP used
disc dealer near me has cut his floorspace by 50%, as have others around
town. Sony tuned their SACD pitch to capture the LP bigot market, and now
SACD is failing to grow, verging on fading.

She has said nothing about overall accuracy or about
master tapes or about recording.

Yup, "instrumental timbres sound more real" has nothing to do with accuracy.
And if you believe that, I've got this bridge over the Detroit River you
want to buy... ;_)

These are simply strawman inventions of yours.

Even Jenn admits that she has special listening powers because of her trade.
I agree with that at its core, its just that her skills aren't as global as
she's been misinformed to believe.

wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:

Arny tells Jenn about the way of the world:

Most normal audiophiles and music lovers had abandoned
the LP format as their "daily driver" about 12-15 years
ago. *Anybody* who favors the LP format over CD is
abnormal by modern standards.

Arny when will you grasp that preferences and cultural
choices are not subject to an opinion poll.

I never said they were.

If 99.99% of
rock concert attendees-screamers, car boom box lover and
Best Buy "theater systems" prefer something the chances
are it will be something that I'll find boring or
repulsive.

Straw man argument.

wrote:
Arny tells Jenn about the way of the world:
Most normal audiophiles and music lovers had abandoned
the LP format as their "daily driver" about 12-15 years ago.
*Anybody* who favors the LP format over CD is abnormal by
modern standards.

Arny when will you grasp that preferences and cultural choices
are not subject to an opinion poll.

There is no rational reason for Arny Krueger to keep attacking
Jenn's preference for listening to music on LP. And while there
is an element of "anachrophilia" about a preference for LPs
almost a quarter century after the launch of CD, it is a fact
that sales of LP playback equipment are increasing.
Admittedly from a low base, but the etnhusiasm is real.

On the subject iof string sound on CD that provoked Arny
Krueger's crusade, the violin sound on the new Harmonia
Mundi SACD of Tchaikovsky's Symphony 6 is good as I
as have ever heard from LP.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote:
Arny saysabout the first cdplayer ever made:
It sounds no different from the best-sounding modern
players including my SACD/DVD player. It even does
a credible job of playing CD-Rs.

I also happen to own the CDP 101, retired on its laurels,
in the loft.

Would you be interested in selling the CDP-101, Ludovic? I'd
love to run it through a set of measurements to get a baseline
for my Stereophile reviews.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


No Jenn your mind has been closed to the CD format for about 24 years by
your own statements. Most normal audiophiles and music lovers had
abandoned the LP format as their "daily driver" about 12-15 years ago.
*Anybody* who favors the LP format over CD is abnormal by modern
standards.


Yes
We are better than normal!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access