[Arny Krueger]

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm


Q:
"While you certainly like your job and don't want to train your replacement
or give away your secrets.any tips for helping us improve the sound on our
on stereos-especially for those recordings DCC has not been able to license
and let you fix?"



A:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
programs."

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm


Q:
"While you certainly like your job and don't want to train your replacement
or give away your secrets.any tips for helping us improve the sound on our
on stereos-especially for those recordings DCC has not been able to license
and let you fix?"



A:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
programs."

Yes, Hoffman uses eq, although the settings I've seen were quite gentle.
He did make radical eq-choices for a Mamas & Pappas hits collection, but
that's rare in his output.

He is, of course, trying to replicate or sometimes reinterpret choices
made by others, so eq is a vital tool, along with, shudder, compression.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm

Q:
"While you certainly like your job and don't want to train your replacement
or give away your secrets.any tips for helping us improve the sound on our
on stereos-especially for those recordings DCC has not been able to license
and let you fix?"

A:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
programs."

Everyone uses EQ all the time in the recording chain. What's your
point?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Let's try and look into the spiritual depths of Arny's soul. I guess
that his point is : look - a "Vinyl maven" uses equalisers and you
argue with my advice to the audio listener that he should use it to
compensate for deficiences of his recordings.

As you say anyone can see the necessity for equalisers in recording to
compensate for the recording venue, equipment used etc. But Arny's
"mavens" don't get their equalisers at Radio Shack, while he
recommended equalisers, any equalisers, for home use.
It is true that judging by most of what passes for recorded music some
of the mavens, don't seem to know what they are doing - not just with
their "equalisers"- but indeed what are they doing recording music when
they should be sweeping the studio corridors.

The situation at home is quite different. As I said before I used quite
a few analogue equalisers including a professional one (Orban) and I
loathed them all. The first equaliser I'm familiar with that is
inobtrusive is a Behringer digital. I set it once to compensate for my
room etc. and never touched it since..

Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries to compensate
for deficiences of records he must end-up with an incredible mess.

Arny's advice is to put bluntly for the birds.
Ludovic Mirabel

[dizzy]

wrote:

Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries to compensate
for deficiences of records he must end-up with an incredible mess.

Incorrect.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm


Q:
"While you certainly like your job and don't want to train your replacement
or give away your secrets.any tips for helping us improve the sound on our
on stereos-especially for those recordings DCC has not been able to license
and let you fix?"



A:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
programs."

I thought everybody agreed that EQ is used in production. Is this some
kind of revelation?

[[email protected]]

dizzy wrote:
wrote:

Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries to compensate
for deficiences of records he must end-up with an incredible mess.

Incorrect.
===================

An invaluable contribution. Thanks.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm


Q:
"While you certainly like your job and don't want to train your replacement
or give away your secrets.any tips for helping us improve the sound on our
on stereos-especially for those recordings DCC has not been able to license
and let you fix?"



A:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
programs."

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all quotes from the
article, so I'm not messing with quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
grand....

The first one is "everything in moderation". Just a touch will do.

The second one is "never add, just subtract what is there already".
Most of the CD's you will be trying to fix (especially the new post
1998 "remasters") will need to have stuff removed for them to sound
acceptable to your new Audiophile Ears.

On a 1/3 octave, it is pretty hard to remove harshness. The bands are
not broad enough.

So Arny quotes a guy advocating a 9K EQ, states that 1/3 band won't cut
it, and so on.

Welcome to the audiophile world, Arny! That EQ will cost more than many
people's systems. LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

Let's try and look into the spiritual depths of Arny's
soul.

Delusions of grandeur noted.

I guess that his point is : look - a "Vinyl maven"
uses equalisers and you argue with my advice to the audio
listener that he should use it to compensate for
deficiences of his recordings.

Pretty close.

As you say anyone can see the necessity for equalisers in
recording to compensate for the recording venue,
equipment used etc.

Hold that thought.

But Arny's "mavens" don't get their
equalisers at Radio Shack,

And neither does Arny.

And neither does Arny recommend common types of consumer equalizers. As a
matter of fact, I seem to recall that the last person to mention a
consumer-grade equalizer around here was one Paul Packer. It sounds like it
doesn't exactly make him happy.

while he recommended
equalisers, any equalisers, for home use.

Not at all.

It is true that judging by most of what passes for
recorded music some of the mavens, don't seem to know
what they are doing - not just with their "equalisers"-
but indeed what are they doing recording music when they
should be sweeping the studio corridors.

Huh? Steve Hoffman doesn't do good enough work for you, Ludo?

The situation at home is quite different. As I said
before I used quite a few analogue equalisers including
a professional one (Orban) and I loathed them all.

That settles it. If something is not to Ludo's total satisfaction, no
audiophile anywhere should ever give it even just the time of day.

The first equaliser I'm familiar with that is inobtrusive is
a Behringer digital. I set it once to compensate for my
room etc. and never touched it since..

I had a Behringer digital equalizer that gave me about a decade of good
service and then died. It would be one of the equalizers that I might
recommend.

Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries
to compensate for deficiences of records he must end-up
with an incredible mess.

That settles it. If Ludo can't do a certain thing to his total
satisfaction, no audiophile anywhere should ever give it even just the time
of day.

Arny's advice is to put bluntly for the birds.

Even my past recommendations of the Berhinger digital equalizer?

[dizzy]

wrote:

dizzy wrote:

wrote:

Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries to compensate
for deficiences of records he must end-up with an incredible mess.

Incorrect.

An invaluable contribution.

You are stupid.

Thanks.

You are welcome.

[paul packer]

On 3 Nov 2006 16:00:58 -0800, "
wrote:


Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries to compensate
for deficiences of records he must end-up with an incredible mess.

Agreed.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

Let's try and look into the spiritual depths of Arny's
soul.

Delusions of grandeur noted.

I guess that his point is : look - a "Vinyl maven"
uses equalisers and you argue with my advice to the audio
listener that he should use it to compensate for
deficiences of his recordings.

Pretty close.

As you say anyone can see the necessity for equalisers in
recording to compensate for the recording venue,
equipment used etc.

Hold that thought.

But Arny's "mavens" don't get their
equalisers at Radio Shack,

And neither does Arny.

And neither does Arny recommend common types of consumer equalizers. As a
matter of fact, I seem to recall that the last person to mention a
consumer-grade equalizer around here was one Paul Packer. It sounds like it
doesn't exactly make him happy.

while he recommended
equalisers, any equalisers, for home use.

Not at all.

It is true that judging by most of what passes for
recorded music some of the mavens, don't seem to know
what they are doing - not just with their "equalisers"-
but indeed what are they doing recording music when they
should be sweeping the studio corridors.

Huh? Steve Hoffman doesn't do good enough work for you, Ludo?

The situation at home is quite different. As I said
before I used quite a few analogue equalisers including
a professional one (Orban) and I loathed them all.

That settles it. If something is not to Ludo's total satisfaction, no
audiophile anywhere should ever give it even just the time of day.

The first equaliser I'm familiar with that is inobtrusive is
a Behringer digital. I set it once to compensate for my
room etc. and never touched it since..

I had a Behringer digital equalizer that gave me about a decade of good
service and then died. It would be one of the equalizers that I might
recommend.

Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries
to compensate for deficiences of records he must end-up
with an incredible mess.

That settles it. If Ludo can't do a certain thing to his total
satisfaction, no audiophile anywhere should ever give it even just the time
of day.

Arny's advice is to put bluntly for the birds.

Even my past recommendations of the Berhinger digital equalizer?
==========================================

Late at night: Two points only:

Let's try and look into the spiritual depths of Arny's
soul.

Delusions of grandeur noted.

Arny- is trying to look into your spiritual depths a delusion of
grandeur? You cant't really be so far gone as to believe that.

Two: equalisers- when recording when used by a consumer;

The situation at home is quite different. As I said
before I used quite a few analogue equalisers including
a professional one (Orban) and I loathed them all.

That settles it. If something is not to Ludo's total satisfaction, no
audiophile anywhere should ever give it even just the time of day.

Repeat: I loathed the unpleasant sound that I I I heard analog
equalisers injecting into the music. Whoever has different experience-
be my guest.

Just pointing out quietly that what an audio engineer does with his
professional equipment is not what a consumer does. And wriggle as you
may you DID NOT specify any equipment for a consumer to use. You just
said "equalisers".

Arny, things are getting to you. Don't let them..
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" wrote in message

wrote:

dizzy wrote:

wrote:

Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer
tries to compensate for deficiences of records he must
end-up with an incredible mess.

Incorrect.

An invaluable contribution.

You are stupid.

My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ups.com
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm


Q:
"While you certainly like your job and don't want to
train your replacement or give away your secrets.any
tips for helping us improve the sound on our on
stereos-especially for those recordings DCC has not
been able to license and let you fix?"



A:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
parametric EQ programs."

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you
back 9 grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
parametric EQ programs."

The first one is "everything in moderation". Just a touch
will do.

For commercial recordings, this should be true.

The second one is "never add, just subtract what is there
already". Most of the CD's you will be trying to fix
(especially the new post 1998 "remasters") will need to
have stuff removed for them to sound acceptable to your
new Audiophile Ears.

Unfortunately it is difficult to remove the most egregious parts of these
recordings - the overbearing compression.

On a 1/3 octave, it is pretty hard to remove harshness.
The bands are not broad enough.

Agreed. How many times have I said "parametric eq" in the past few weeks?

So Arny quotes a guy advocating a 9K EQ,

That's an intential deception, as a full in-context quote shows.

states that 1/3 band won't cut it,

Which I've said here many times.

and so on.

Welcome to the audiophile world, Arny! That EQ will cost
more than many people's systems. LOL!

No, it is your intentional deceptions that are costly.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you
back 9 grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC. So what good
would it do to 'download' EQ programs?

So you go to the hardware version for your home system, which according
to the article you quote would run about 9K for a good one.

The first one is "everything in moderation". Just a touch
will do.

For commercial recordings, this should be true.

The second one is "never add, just subtract what is there
already". Most of the CD's you will be trying to fix
(especially the new post 1998 "remasters") will need to
have stuff removed for them to sound acceptable to your
new Audiophile Ears.

Unfortunately it is difficult to remove the most egregious parts of these
recordings - the overbearing compression.

So the EQ does no, or very little, good here.

On a 1/3 octave, it is pretty hard to remove harshness.
The bands are not broad enough.

Agreed. How many times have I said "parametric eq" in the past few weeks?

So Arny quotes a guy advocating a 9K EQ,

That's an intential deception, as a full in-context quote shows.

The full, in-text quote proves otherwise, Arns. While you may use your
PC as a stereo, as I said, most normal people do not.

I wonder how many people on RAO, for example, would benefit from a
software download.

If, OTOH, you are advocating that people download these programs to
create modified CDs on their computer, then (as I said in an earlier
post) we are back to using EQ in production. It's just that in this
case the production is done at home vs. at a studio. So we are back to
the already agreed upon point that EQ is used in production.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"dizzy" wrote in message

wrote:

dizzy wrote:

wrote:

Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer
tries to compensate for deficiences of records he must
end-up with an incredible mess.

Incorrect.

An invaluable contribution.

You are stupid.

My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.

==================================
Krueger reaches for his truly convincing and elegant argument
My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.

Not senile enough to forget that every time you're asked for a refernce
to your experiments with ABX, accepted and published in a professional
journal, you develop instant amnesia and quit the topic

Ludovic Mirabel.

[[email protected]]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you
back 9 grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC. So what good
would it do to 'download' EQ programs?

So you go to the hardware version for your home system, which according
to the article you quote would run about 9K for a good one.

The first one is "everything in moderation". Just a touch
will do.

For commercial recordings, this should be true.

The second one is "never add, just subtract what is there
already". Most of the CD's you will be trying to fix
(especially the new post 1998 "remasters") will need to
have stuff removed for them to sound acceptable to your
new Audiophile Ears.

Unfortunately it is difficult to remove the most egregious parts of these
recordings - the overbearing compression.

So the EQ does no, or very little, good here.

On a 1/3 octave, it is pretty hard to remove harshness.
The bands are not broad enough.

Agreed. How many times have I said "parametric eq" in the past few weeks?

So Arny quotes a guy advocating a 9K EQ,

That's an intential deception, as a full in-context quote shows.

The full, in-text quote proves otherwise, Arns. While you may use your
PC as a stereo, as I said, most normal people do not.

I wonder how many people on RAO, for example, would benefit from a
software download.

If, OTOH, you are advocating that people download these programs to
create modified CDs on their computer, then (as I said in an earlier
post) we are back to using EQ in production. It's just that in this
case the production is done at home vs. at a studio. So we are back to
the already agreed upon point that EQ is used in production.

===============================
You said:
Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC. So what good
would it do to 'download' EQ programs?

Arny does. Mo he recommends it to others,. Presumably he assumes
that most humanity suffer from musical handicaps like his:

This is his advice in the "Sound card versus..." thread to a Mr. Zheng.

"At this time, a $30 sound card for example the SoundBlaster Live!
24-bit PCI
card (not the USB version which is a POS) outperforms just about any
loudspeaker system known to man"

Poor Mr. Zheng. He might take Arny's wooden ears as his hi-fi
standard..
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"dizzy" wrote in message

wrote:

dizzy wrote:

wrote:

Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer
tries to compensate for deficiences of records he
must end-up with an incredible mess.

Incorrect.

An invaluable contribution.

You are stupid.

My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.

==================================
Krueger reaches for his truly convincing and elegant
argument
My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.

Not senile enough to forget that every time you're asked
for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted and
published in a professional journal, you develop instant
amnesia and quit the topic

Boredom puts me to sleep.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg chomps on a fresh floater.

Not senile enough to forget that every time you're asked
for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted and
published in a professional journal, you develop instant
amnesia and quit the topic

Boredom puts me to sleep.

Arnii, after you die and go to that happy sewage plant in the sky, you can
bob for turds to your heart's content. But while you're still clanking
around among the humans, it would benefit you immensely to realize that
your obsession with finding "liars" is several miles outside the crazy
line for the rest of us.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg
Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9 grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and
deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download
(if you can) some parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC.

By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically recommended
downloading EQ programs.

So what good would it do to 'download' EQ programs?

False presumption noted.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg
Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9 grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and
deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download
(if you can) some parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC.

By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically recommended
downloading EQ programs.

Can't you read, Arns? Let's rewind the tape. It's so far up the thread
you may have missed it:

"So, we use *graphic EQ's* to tailor the sound of our *playback*
systems, and we
use *Parametric EQ's* to tailor the sound of our *music.* Right? Now,
you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
programs."

Graphic EQs for playback. Parametric EQs for music (i.e. source). Hm.
It seems you recently admitted that 1/3 band graphic EQs won't cut it
for playback. (How many times have you said "parametric EQs" in the
past week?) LOL!

So Hoffman does not imply, but specifically states, parametric EQs to
tailor the *music.* Now we're back at production EQ, as I've said
(three times now). I haven't seen anybody argue that EQ is not used in
production. I hate to tell you this (and I know you won't believe it
anyway) but you're talking out of both sides of your ass. Just admit
that you're wrong and move on. I won't even ask you for an apology, or
comment on what talking out of your ass does to your breath.

So what good would it do to 'download' EQ programs?

False presumption noted.

LOL!

I don't have time to teach you to read, Arns.

[[email protected]]

dizzy wrote:
wrote:

dizzy wrote:

wrote:

Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries to compensate
for deficiences of records he must end-up with an incredible mess.

Incorrect.

An invaluable contribution.

You are stupid.

Thanks.

You are welcome.


Bravo Mr. Dizzy. You understood that I was being sarcastic. That shows
that you have elementary comprehension of a straightforward text.

Pity that the remainder of your contribution never rises above that
modest level..
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"dizzy" wrote in message

wrote:

dizzy wrote:

wrote:

Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer
tries to compensate for deficiences of records he
must end-up with an incredible mess.

Incorrect.

An invaluable contribution.

You are stupid.

My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.

==================================
Krueger reaches for his truly convincing and elegant
argument
My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.

Not senile enough to forget that every time you're asked
for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted and
published in a professional journal, you develop instant
amnesia and quit the topic

Boredom puts me to sleep.
============================

Argument so far. Krueger about me:" My money is on equal parts of
arrogant and senile."

I answered: Not senile enough to forget that every time you're
asked
for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted and
published in a professional journal, you develop instant
amnesia and quit the topic

His replica: " Boredom puts me to sleep.". Period.

Boredom is mutual but
it is audio website news that after all these years even the inventor
is bored with the topic of ABX as a tool for comparing audio
components.

Can we expect to see those your dentiments added tp the PCABX web site?


Can we also expect that you and your chapel members such as Sullivan et
al. will never again bother people to prove their preferences by an
"objective", "bias free", (and other such clever-clever cryptonyms)
"test"?
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg
Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9 grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and
deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download
(if you can) some parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC.

By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically recommended
downloading EQ programs.

By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the computer to learn how
to tailor an eq, then use this new skill on the regular system.

The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects digital eqs.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg
Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9 grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and
deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download
(if you can) some parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC.

By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically recommended
downloading EQ programs.

By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the computer to learn how
to tailor an eq, then use this new skill on the regular system.

The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects digital eqs.

Oh, so that's the deal? That would explain the 'if you can' [i.e.
download] comment.

If that's the case, I have some really old articles where audio gurus
argue that push-pull triodes with negative feedback (vs. pentodes) are
the way to go. I think the article specifically mentioned the 2A3 or
the 6B4G as a good choice.

I wonder what Arns would say about that...

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"dizzy" wrote in message

wrote:

dizzy wrote:

wrote:

Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer
tries to compensate for deficiences of records he
must end-up with an incredible mess.

Incorrect.

An invaluable contribution.

You are stupid.

My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.

==================================
Krueger reaches for his truly convincing and elegant
argument
My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.

Not senile enough to forget that every time you're asked
for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted
and published in a professional journal, you develop
instant amnesia and quit the topic

Boredom puts me to sleep.
============================

Argument so far. Krueger about me:" My money is on
equal parts of arrogant and senile."

I answered: Not senile enough to forget that every
time you're asked
for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted
and published in a professional journal, you develop
instant amnesia and quit the topic

His replica: " Boredom puts me to sleep.". Period.

Boredom is mutual but
it is audio website news that after all these years even
the inventor is bored with the topic of ABX as a tool for
comparing audio components.


Your problem Mirabel is the fact that your demands are totally unfair. You
want ABX to be certified with a specific kind of peer-reviewed paper,
completely ignoring the fact that no other kind of listening evaluation
methodology has similar certification.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot Mirabel - some years ago you suggested
a subjective testing methodology in Audio Amateur. Where is the
correspoinding peer-reviewed paper *certifying* your methodology? Hint:
there is none.

In fact it has been certifed by peer-reviewed papers that there are severe
and critical problems with sighted evaluations. So why aren't you making a
big point of that?

Can we expect to see those your dentiments added tp the
PCABX web site?

I guarantee you that dentiments will never be posted at www.pcabx.com.

However, if you are interested in my thoughts in the matter of subjective
testing, check www.pcabx.com for the "10 Requiments" sidebar.

Can we also expect that you and your chapel members such
as Sullivan et al. will never again bother people to
prove their preferences by an "objective", "bias free",
(and other such clever-clever cryptonyms) "test"?

As soon as you can show us a peer-reviewed paper supporting the subjective
testing methodology you published in Audio Amateur.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ps.com

After again being caught up in his own web of lies and deceptions, Shhhh!
I'm Listening to Reason!" (****R) has finally admitted that this is what
Steve Hoffman wrote about equalization:

"So, we use *graphic EQ's* to tailor the sound of our
*playback* systems, and we
use *Parametric EQ's* to tailor the sound of our *music.*
Right? Now, you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
parametric EQ programs."

Graphic EQs for playback. Parametric EQs for music (i.e. source).

It seems you recently admitted that 1/3 band
graphic EQs won't cut it for playback.

There was no such *admission*. I have forthrightly said all along that if
there is a one size fits all form of equalization, the form I prefer, it is
the multi-band parametric equalizer. The downside of parametric eq is that
it has a longer or steeper learning curve. The upside is that it can more
closely match a wider range of needs.

(How many times
have you said "parametric EQs" in the past week?)

Search google. I'm sure its count is at least representative.

So Hoffman does not imply, but specifically states,
parametric EQs to tailor the *music.* Now we're back at
production EQ, as I've said (three times now).

I'm glad to see that you've finally admitted to a little truth, ****R

I haven't seen anybody argue that EQ is not used in production.

Someone tried. I think it was Trevor. Sorry you missed the fun.

I hate to tell you this (and I know you won't believe it
anyway) but you're talking out of both sides of your ass.

Prove it, with in-context quotes if you can.


So what good would it do to 'download' EQ programs?

False presumption noted.

no substantiative answer from ****R, just more BS.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit
can set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec or
Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and
deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download
(if you can) some parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a
PC.

By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically
recommended downloading EQ programs.

By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this new
skill on the regular system.

Works for me. I

The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects digital eqs.

Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


It seems you recently admitted that 1/3 band
graphic EQs won't cut it for playback.

There was no such *admission*.

Maybe you *mentioned* it.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

substantiative answer from ****R,

That should be S!ILTR.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit
can set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec or
Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and
deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download
(if you can) some parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a
PC.

By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically
recommended downloading EQ programs.

By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this new
skill on the regular system.

Works for me. I

I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes eq.

The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects digital eqs.

Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.

His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an enthusiatic
supporter of hi-rez formats.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
(all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
with quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit
can set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
a good point in which to start. Download (if you
can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec
or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and
deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start.
Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a
PC.

By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically
recommended downloading EQ programs.

By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this new
skill on the regular system.

Works for me. I

I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes eq.

The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
digital eqs.

Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.

His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.

IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that 44/16 has inherent
audible difficulties.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ps.com

After again being caught up in his own web of lies and deceptions, Shhhh!
I'm Listening to Reason!" (****R) has finally admitted that this is what
Steve Hoffman wrote about equalization:

I've never said anything else, Arns. If you'd quit stroking your pecker
and learn to read...

"So, we use *graphic EQ's* to tailor the sound of our
*playback* systems, and we
use *Parametric EQ's* to tailor the sound of our *music.*
Right? Now, you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
parametric EQ programs."

Graphic EQs for playback. Parametric EQs for music (i.e. source).

It seems you recently admitted that 1/3 band
graphic EQs won't cut it for playback.

There was no such *admission*.

**********
On a 1/3 octave, it is pretty hard to remove harshness.
The bands are not broad enough.

Agreed. How many times have I said "parametric eq" in the past few
weeks?

**********

Whatever, Arns. Slice it any way that floats your boat.

I have forthrightly said all along that if
there is a one size fits all form of equalization, the form I prefer, it is
the multi-band parametric equalizer. The downside of parametric eq is that
it has a longer or steeper learning curve. The upside is that it can more
closely match a wider range of needs.

(How many times
have you said "parametric EQs" in the past week?)

Search google. I'm sure its count is at least representative.

Why bother? The pertinent one is requoted above.

So Hoffman does not imply, but specifically states,
parametric EQs to tailor the *music.* Now we're back at
production EQ, as I've said (three times now).

I'm glad to see that you've finally admitted to a little truth, ****R

LOL! So you caught it the third time around. Well, it could've been on
the fourth go around, so at least you eventually got it.

That doesn't, however, say much for your internal logic circuit or
computing power, Arns.

I haven't seen anybody argue that EQ is not used in production.

Someone tried. I think it was Trevor. Sorry you missed the fun.

Whatever, Arns. I'm sure someone, somewhere, has. It was not in this
discussion.

Wait! I remember now! There was an article in Popular Electronics in
1965 where this guy argued against it too.

I hate to tell you this (and I know you won't believe it
anyway) but you're talking out of both sides of your ass.

Prove it, with in-context quotes if you can.

Been there, done that. Asked and answered.

So what good would it do to 'download' EQ programs?

False presumption noted.

no substantiative answer from ****R, just more BS.

Uh-oh! Arns is stuck in 'attack mode' now.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

substantiative answer from ****R,

That should be S!ILTR.

Thanks, Stephen, but from what I've gathered here, Arns has a scat
fetish.

I'm OK with his interpretation as long as there isn't a sexual
connotation to it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ups.com

Uh-oh! Arns is stuck in 'attack mode' now.

Do you have any mode but "attack mode"?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
(all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
with quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit
can set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
a good point in which to start. Download (if you
can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec
or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and
deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start.
Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a
PC.

By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically
recommended downloading EQ programs.

By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this new
skill on the regular system.

Works for me. I

I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes eq.

The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
digital eqs.

Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.

His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.

IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that 44/16 has inherent
audible difficulties.

Arns, does people making money upset you for some reason?

You're not jealous, are you?;-)

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
(all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
with quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit
can set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
a good point in which to start. Download (if you
can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec
or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and
deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start.
Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a
PC.

By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically
recommended downloading EQ programs.

By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this new
skill on the regular system.

Works for me. I

I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes eq.

The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
digital eqs.

Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.

His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.

IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that 44/16 has inherent
audible difficulties.

Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD masterers, right Arny?
Would help if you knew what you were talking about.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.

IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that 44/16 has inherent
audible difficulties.

Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD masterers, right Arny?
Would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Arny quotes a guy as an expert to prove some point he's attempting to
make, screws the point up hopelessly, then tries to impeach the witness
he's just quoted as an expert.

He must be all agitated thinking about his new nickname for me. '****R'
must get him really wound up.

LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"****R!"
wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

""****R!"
wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


"****R!" wrote:

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
(all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
with quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ
unit can set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
a good point in which to start. Download (if you
can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live
Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set
you back 9 grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and
deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start.
Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into
a PC.

By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He
specfically recommended downloading EQ programs.

By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this
new skill on the regular system.

Works for me. I

I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes
eq.

The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
digital eqs.

Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.

His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.

IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.

Arns, does people making money upset you for some reason?

Being an avowed capitalist, I'm very much in favor of people making money by
honest means.

You're not jealous, are you?;-)

Of course not. Why would you bring such a strange idea up?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ps.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
(all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
with quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ
unit can set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
a good point in which to start. Download (if you
can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live
Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set
you back 9 grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and
deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start.
Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into
a PC.

By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He
specfically recommended downloading EQ programs.

By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this
new skill on the regular system.

Works for me. I

I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes
eq.
The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
digital eqs.

Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.

His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.

IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.

Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD
masterers, right Arny?

Think that Hoffman charges the same for mastering both CD and HiRez formats?
Think he faces similar competive pressures no matter which format the job
is?

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD masterers, right Arny?
Would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Arny quotes a guy as an expert to prove some point he's attempting to
make, screws the point up hopelessly, then tries to impeach the witness
he's just quoted as an expert.

Arnii is a "master of the debating trade". Just for grins™, ask him to
expound on his kredentials.

He must be all agitated thinking about his new nickname for me. '****R'
must get him really wound up.

Well, of course. It's almost lunchtime.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.