| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Which is more important?
Getting the most accurate reproduction possible, through equipment that
measures properly, connected to speakers that add as little distortion as possible, (and face it this is where most distortion is generated) in a properly set up room, OR Simply picking out equipment that gives you what you believe the music should sound like according to your own criteria, preference, biases, and emotions? There is no right answer, since the end goal is to make the listener happy when playing one's favorite recordings. |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"avidlistener" wrote in message
oups.com Getting the most accurate reproduction possible, through equipment that measures properly, connected to speakers that add as little distortion as possible, (and face it this is where most distortion is generated) in a properly set up room, OR Simply picking out equipment that gives you what you believe the music should sound like according to your own criteria, preference, biases, and emotions? Why would these necessarily be in conflict? There is no right answer, since the end goal is to make the listener happy when playing one's favorite recordings. Oh, a rhetorical post. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
Arny Krueger wrote: "avidlistener" wrote in message oups.com Getting the most accurate reproduction possible, through equipment that measures properly, connected to speakers that add as little distortion as possible, (and face it this is where most distortion is generated) in a properly set up room, OR Simply picking out equipment that gives you what you believe the music should sound like according to your own criteria, preference, biases, and emotions? Why would these necessarily be in conflict? There is no right answer, since the end goal is to make the listener happy when playing one's favorite recordings. Oh, a rhetorical post. They don't have to be, they just seem to be quite often. There seems to be two groups of audiophiles, one devoted to measured accuracy and one that doesn't care about measured performance, only about an emotional connection. As I said, both are perfectly good reasons for choosing equipment, and probably the lines cross very often. |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"avidlistener" wrote in message
ps.com Arny Krueger wrote: "avidlistener" wrote in message oups.com Getting the most accurate reproduction possible, through equipment that measures properly, connected to speakers that add as little distortion as possible, (and face it this is where most distortion is generated) in a properly set up room, OR Simply picking out equipment that gives you what you believe the music should sound like according to your own criteria, preference, biases, and emotions? Why would these necessarily be in conflict? There is no right answer, since the end goal is to make the listener happy when playing one's favorite recordings. Oh, a rhetorical post. They don't have to be, they just seem to be quite often. Mostly in people's minds. There seems to be two groups of audiophiles, one devoted to measured accuracy and one that doesn't care about measured performance, only about an emotional connection. For the vast majority of people, there is a fairly strong connection between the two. As I said, both are perfectly good reasons for choosing equipment, and probably the lines cross very often. There's considerable evidence that poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes. |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "avidlistener" wrote in message ps.com Arny Krueger wrote: "avidlistener" wrote in message oups.com Getting the most accurate reproduction possible, through equipment that measures properly, connected to speakers that add as little distortion as possible, (and face it this is where most distortion is generated) in a properly set up room, OR Simply picking out equipment that gives you what you believe the music should sound like according to your own criteria, preference, biases, and emotions? Why would these necessarily be in conflict? There is no right answer, since the end goal is to make the listener happy when playing one's favorite recordings. Oh, a rhetorical post. They don't have to be, they just seem to be quite often. Mostly in people's minds. There seems to be two groups of audiophiles, one devoted to measured accuracy and one that doesn't care about measured performance, only about an emotional connection. For the vast majority of people, there is a fairly strong connection between the two. As I said, both are perfectly good reasons for choosing equipment, and probably the lines cross very often. There's considerable evidence that poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes. Fairly strong statements, Arny, presented as facts, not opinions. Your supporting evidence? |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
The Krooborg tries to rescuscitate its limp "debating trade" routine. There's considerable evidence that poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes. Speaking of "likes", I heard your upcoming "Guide to Dining on Turd's in Michigan" is still behind schedule. Why are you withholding your accumulated wisdom from us humans, Arnii? -- Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
Harry Lavo said: There's considerable evidence that poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes. Fairly strong statements, Arny, presented as facts, not opinions. Your supporting evidence? Are you questioning Mr. ****'s ability to distinguish the taste of geographically diverse turds? -- Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "avidlistener" wrote in message ps.com Arny Krueger wrote: "avidlistener" wrote in message oups.com Getting the most accurate reproduction possible, through equipment that measures properly, connected to speakers that add as little distortion as possible, (and face it this is where most distortion is generated) in a properly set up room, OR Simply picking out equipment that gives you what you believe the music should sound like according to your own criteria, preference, biases, and emotions? Why would these necessarily be in conflict? There is no right answer, since the end goal is to make the listener happy when playing one's favorite recordings. Oh, a rhetorical post. They don't have to be, they just seem to be quite often. Mostly in people's minds. There seems to be two groups of audiophiles, one devoted to measured accuracy and one that doesn't care about measured performance, only about an emotional connection. For the vast majority of people, there is a fairly strong connection between the two. As I said, both are perfectly good reasons for choosing equipment, and probably the lines cross very often. There's considerable evidence that poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes. Fairly strong statements, Arny, presented as facts, not opinions. Your supporting evidence? Supporting evidence: (1) SE triodes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (2) Tubes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (3) LP format abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (4) Analog tape abandoned by the mainstream audio world. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "avidlistener" wrote in message ps.com Arny Krueger wrote: "avidlistener" wrote in message oups.com Getting the most accurate reproduction possible, through equipment that measures properly, connected to speakers that add as little distortion as possible, (and face it this is where most distortion is generated) in a properly set up room, OR Simply picking out equipment that gives you what you believe the music should sound like according to your own criteria, preference, biases, and emotions? Why would these necessarily be in conflict? There is no right answer, since the end goal is to make the listener happy when playing one's favorite recordings. Oh, a rhetorical post. They don't have to be, they just seem to be quite often. Mostly in people's minds. There seems to be two groups of audiophiles, one devoted to measured accuracy and one that doesn't care about measured performance, only about an emotional connection. For the vast majority of people, there is a fairly strong connection between the two. As I said, both are perfectly good reasons for choosing equipment, and probably the lines cross very often. There's considerable evidence that poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes. Fairly strong statements, Arny, presented as facts, not opinions. Your supporting evidence? Supporting evidence: (1) SE triodes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (2) Tubes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (3) LP format abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (4) Analog tape abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (1) SE triodes never were part of the mainsteam audio world, at least as we have know it since "hi-fi" came into being in the '50's. (2) Tubes were abandoned, and then "rediscovered" by hi-fi lovers *because* they sound better than SS to many "hi-fi" lovers. They now account for a sizeable chunk of the "hi-fi lovers" market. As opposed to the mass market where convenience and not sound quality holds sway. You can't prefer "more accurate" sound quality if you don't even pay attention to sound quality, wouldn't you agree, Arny? (3) LP abandoned because most people took abysmal care of their LPs, hated the resulting noise, and abandoned them for the "easy path" of CD. Convenience and freedom from care, more than sound quality, Arny. (4) Analog tape other than cassettes (in other words, where *sound quality* was king, never was part of the mainstream audio world, Arny.) And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Most users were perfectly happy with the sound of cassettes....and would be today if they came in the form of indestructable little disks. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
Harry Lavo wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Fairly strong statements, Arny, presented as facts, not opinions. Your supporting evidence? Supporting evidence: (1) SE triodes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (2) Tubes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (3) LP format abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (4) Analog tape abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (1) SE triodes never were part of the mainsteam audio world, at least as we have know it since "hi-fi" came into being in the '50's. (2) Tubes were abandoned, and then "rediscovered" by hi-fi lovers *because* they sound better than SS to many "hi-fi" lovers. They now account for a sizeable chunk of the "hi-fi lovers" market. As opposed to the mass market where convenience and not sound quality holds sway. You can't prefer "more accurate" sound quality if you don't even pay attention to sound quality, wouldn't you agree, Arny? (3) LP abandoned because most people took abysmal care of their LPs, hated the resulting noise, and abandoned them for the "easy path" of CD. Convenience and freedom from care, more than sound quality, Arny. (4) Analog tape other than cassettes (in other words, where *sound quality* was king, never was part of the mainstream audio world, Arny.) And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Most users were perfectly happy with the sound of cassettes....and would be today if they came in the form of indestructable little disks. Old Arns is playing games as usual. He has to throw in "mainstream" (read: "Best Buy") to his claims to try to make them true. It is just as valid to say, "Tubes returned to audiophile status by some audiophiles." "LPs returned to audiophile status by some audiophiles." to refute his proclamations. Arns has a problem with logic. He can't grasp two fundamental logical concepts: 1. Just because a claim hasn't been conclusively refuted doesn't mean that it's true. (This is what he bases his ABX claims upon.) 2. Just because a claim hasn't been conclusively proven doesn't mean that it's false. (This is what he bases his ABX/floobydust/etc. claims upon.) For example, claims about Mpingo disks do not violate any physical or logical laws. While I don't *believe* that they do any good, all I could possibly say is, "I have seen no compelling reason to believe that they work." Which is all the old Arns can say about most things that he proclaims as fact. Once old Arns gets his arms wrapped around those two basic principles (if he ever does), he'll shut up if he has a brain. Or maybe not, since he is also a proven liar. ________________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
Arny Krueger a scris: There's considerable evidence that poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes. Fairly strong statements, Arny, presented as facts, not opinions. Your supporting evidence? Supporting evidence: (1) SE triodes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (2) Tubes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (3) LP format abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (4) Analog tape abandoned by the mainstream audio world. All a matter of convenience, highly valued in the less caring mass market. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "avidlistener" wrote in message ps.com Arny Krueger wrote: "avidlistener" wrote in message oups.com Getting the most accurate reproduction possible, through equipment that measures properly, connected to speakers that add as little distortion as possible, (and face it this is where most distortion is generated) in a properly set up room, OR Simply picking out equipment that gives you what you believe the music should sound like according to your own criteria, preference, biases, and emotions? Why would these necessarily be in conflict? There is no right answer, since the end goal is to make the listener happy when playing one's favorite recordings. Oh, a rhetorical post. They don't have to be, they just seem to be quite often. Mostly in people's minds. There seems to be two groups of audiophiles, one devoted to measured accuracy and one that doesn't care about measured performance, only about an emotional connection. For the vast majority of people, there is a fairly strong connection between the two. As I said, both are perfectly good reasons for choosing equipment, and probably the lines cross very often. There's considerable evidence that poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes. Fairly strong statements, Arny, presented as facts, not opinions. Your supporting evidence? Supporting evidence: (1) SE triodes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (2) Tubes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (3) LP format abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (4) Analog tape abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (1) SE triodes never were part of the mainsteam audio world, at least as we have know it since "hi-fi" came into being in the '50's. OK Harry, so you are brain dead to what happened with audio before the 60s. Your lack of historical perspective is noted. (2) Tubes were abandoned, and then "rediscovered" by hi-fi lovers *because* they sound better than SS to many "hi-fi" lovers. They now account for a sizeable chunk of the "hi-fi lovers" market. Define sizable. As far as the mainstream audio goes, tubes are almost entirely dead. As opposed to the mass market where convenience and not sound quality holds sway. Convenience in this case meaning more predictably higher quality. You can't prefer "more accurate" sound quality if you don't even pay attention to sound quality, wouldn't you agree, Arny? A truism. (3) LP abandoned because most people took abysmal care of their LPs, hated the resulting noise, and abandoned them for the "easy path" of CD. Convenience and freedom from care, more than sound quality, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. (4) Analog tape other than cassettes (in other words, where *sound quality* was king, never was part of the mainstream audio world, Arny.) Spoken like someone who is as ignorant of audio production in the 50s as 60s as he is of home audio. And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. But thanks Harry for showing your disregard for sound quality by defending the cassette format. Most users were perfectly happy with the sound of cassettes....and would be today if they came in the form of indestructable little disks. Enjoy wearing that tinfoil hat, Harry. ;-) |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
Clyde Slick said: abandoned by the mainstream audio world. All a matter of convenience, highly valued in the less caring mass market. Cars with stick-shifts, wine bottles with corks, and making pancakes from scratch are also "abandoned by the mainstream". Once again, the Krooborg evinces but does not admit his consuming class envy. -- Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "avidlistener" wrote in message ps.com Arny Krueger wrote: "avidlistener" wrote in message oups.com Getting the most accurate reproduction possible, through equipment that measures properly, connected to speakers that add as little distortion as possible, (and face it this is where most distortion is generated) in a properly set up room, OR Simply picking out equipment that gives you what you believe the music should sound like according to your own criteria, preference, biases, and emotions? Why would these necessarily be in conflict? There is no right answer, since the end goal is to make the listener happy when playing one's favorite recordings. Oh, a rhetorical post. They don't have to be, they just seem to be quite often. Mostly in people's minds. There seems to be two groups of audiophiles, one devoted to measured accuracy and one that doesn't care about measured performance, only about an emotional connection. For the vast majority of people, there is a fairly strong connection between the two. As I said, both are perfectly good reasons for choosing equipment, and probably the lines cross very often. There's considerable evidence that poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes. Fairly strong statements, Arny, presented as facts, not opinions. Your supporting evidence? Supporting evidence: (1) SE triodes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (2) Tubes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (3) LP format abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (4) Analog tape abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (1) SE triodes never were part of the mainsteam audio world, at least as we have know it since "hi-fi" came into being in the '50's. OK Harry, so you are brain dead to what happened with audio before the 60s. Your lack of historical perspective is noted. I grew up with the highest of 50's hi-fi, Arny. And they were not single ended triodes. That's when the "high-fidelity" marketplace was born. Yes, back in the '30's when my EE father was experimenting, he might have built a single-ended triode. It was never part of the high-fidelity market. Which is the only thing we (other than you) have been talking about. (2) Tubes were abandoned, and then "rediscovered" by hi-fi lovers *because* they sound better than SS to many "hi-fi" lovers. They now account for a sizeable chunk of the "hi-fi lovers" market. Define sizable. As far as the mainstream audio goes, tubes are almost entirely dead. As far as "high-end" goes, they are very much alive and kicking, and very much "mainstream". As opposed to the mass market where convenience and not sound quality holds sway. Convenience in this case meaning more predictably higher quality. You can't prefer "more accurate" sound quality if you don't even pay attention to sound quality, wouldn't you agree, Arny? A truism. Then why does your logic fail you? (3) LP abandoned because most people took abysmal care of their LPs, hated the resulting noise, and abandoned them for the "easy path" of CD. Convenience and freedom from care, more than sound quality, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Right....McDonalds hamburgers, rather than a Big Boy. So much for your sound quality argument. (4) Analog tape other than cassettes (in other words, where *sound quality* was king, never was part of the mainstream audio world, Arny.) Spoken like someone who is as ignorant of audio production in the 50s as 60s as he is of home audio. Arny, I lived through it. Analog tape was part of the high-fidelity market. It was not part of the "mainstream" market in the '50's and '60's. Even the first five years of high-quality cassette decks were of appeal only to the high-fidelity market as more or less a "gimmick". Otherwise, if they were used at all, they were used as dicatating machines. And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Not necessarily...just less chance of breakage and requiring less care. But thanks Harry for showing your disregard for sound quality by defending the cassette format. I'm not defending it for sound quality, quite the opposite Arny...can't you read. Most users were perfectly happy with the sound of cassettes....and would be today if they came in the form of indestructable little disks. Enjoy wearing that tinfoil hat, Harry. ;-) I'm simply saying that cassette rose to its prominence primarily based on its convenience, *NOT* sound quality. And was replaced by CD for the same reason. You are the only one who thinks CD's represent first class sound quality because they replaced the cassette. I'm saying to the average consumer (your "mainstream") could care less...they were happy with cassette sound.....but the CD could replace *BOTH* the LP and the cassette and was more convenient than both..both in use and in freedom from consumer-induced screw-ups...ticks, pops, scratches in the case of LP's and jammed tape, distended tape, broken cassette shells, etc. in the case of cassettes. Try as you might, Arny, you are on shaky ground trying to ignore the convenience reasons CD's won out, and at the same time ignoring the fundamental reason that professionals and "hi-fiers" are searching for better sound, because CD sound can be bettered. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "avidlistener" wrote in message ps.com Arny Krueger wrote: "avidlistener" wrote in message oups.com Getting the most accurate reproduction possible, through equipment that measures properly, connected to speakers that add as little distortion as possible, (and face it this is where most distortion is generated) in a properly set up room, OR Simply picking out equipment that gives you what you believe the music should sound like according to your own criteria, preference, biases, and emotions? Why would these necessarily be in conflict? There is no right answer, since the end goal is to make the listener happy when playing one's favorite recordings. Oh, a rhetorical post. They don't have to be, they just seem to be quite often. Mostly in people's minds. There seems to be two groups of audiophiles, one devoted to measured accuracy and one that doesn't care about measured performance, only about an emotional connection. For the vast majority of people, there is a fairly strong connection between the two. As I said, both are perfectly good reasons for choosing equipment, and probably the lines cross very often. There's considerable evidence that poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes. Fairly strong statements, Arny, presented as facts, not opinions. Your supporting evidence? Supporting evidence: (1) SE triodes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (2) Tubes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (3) LP format abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (4) Analog tape abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (1) SE triodes never were part of the mainsteam audio world, at least as we have know it since "hi-fi" came into being in the '50's. OK Harry, so you are brain dead to what happened with audio before the 60s. Your lack of historical perspective is noted. I grew up with the highest of 50's hi-fi, Arny. And they were not single ended triodes. That's when the "high-fidelity" marketplace was born. Yes, back in the '30's when my EE father was experimenting, he might have built a single-ended triode. It was never part of the high-fidelity market. Which is the only thing we (other than you) have been talking about. I agree Harry. I misread what you wrote. My apologies. SE triodes were indeed never part of the hifi world of the 50s. P-P triodes were, but SE triodes were long dead. They died in the early 30s when push-pull was invented. And, that was my initial point. Your initial response was irrelevant, as usual. (2) Tubes were abandoned, and then "rediscovered" by hi-fi lovers *because* they sound better than SS to many "hi-fi" lovers. They now account for a sizeable chunk of the "hi-fi lovers" market. Define sizable. As far as the mainstream audio goes, tubes are almost entirely dead. As far as "high-end" goes, they are very much alive and kicking, and very much "mainstream". That's the Harry I know and love to kick around. Keep changing what you say Harry until like that room with a million monkeys, you finally make sense. As opposed to the mass market where convenience and not sound quality holds sway. Convenience in this case meaning more predictably higher quality. You can't prefer "more accurate" sound quality if you don't even pay attention to sound quality, wouldn't you agree, Arny? A truism. Then why does your logic fail you? Because it doesn't. (3) LP abandoned because most people took abysmal care of their LPs, hated the resulting noise, and abandoned them for the "easy path" of CD. Convenience and freedom from care, more than sound quality, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Right....McDonalds hamburgers, rather than a Big Boy. Well Harry, if Big Boy's hamburgers are your reference standard for burgers, you've already conceeded my point. So much for your sound quality argument. So much for trying to make sense of your posts, Harry. (4) Analog tape other than cassettes (in other words, where *sound quality* was king, never was part of the mainstream audio world, Arny.) Spoken like someone who is as ignorant of audio production in the 50s as 60s as he is of home audio. Arny, I lived through it. Like so many things Harry, you got it wrong. Analog tape was part of the high-fidelity market. That's why I sold so many analog R-R tape machines in the 60s at that Lafayette store. That's why GIs brought so many R-R tape machines back from Vietnam and Germany. That's why the local high end audio stores were so proud of their Revox, Teac, Viking, Sony, and Tandberg franchises. It was not part of the "mainstream" market in the '50's and '60's. Wrong. Even the first five years of high-quality cassette decks were of appeal only to the high-fidelity market as more or less a "gimmick". IME, there never has been and never will be a high fidelity cassette machine. But thanks Harry for admitting tacitly that you have tin ears. Otherwise, if they were used at all, they were used as dicatating machines. In what alternative universe? And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Not necessarily...just less chance of breakage and requiring less care. I'm talking about formats, not specific recordings. But thanks Harry for showing your disregard for sound quality by defending the cassette format. I'm not defending it for sound quality, quite the opposite Arny...can't you read. I can read, and that's one of your problems Harry. You called cassette a high fidelity format, and thank you for making things so clear. Most users were perfectly happy with the sound of cassettes....and would be today if they came in the form of indestructable little disks. Enjoy wearing that tinfoil hat, Harry. ;-) I'm simply saying that cassette rose to its prominence primarily based on its convenience, *NOT* sound quality. You've said far more than that Harry. But thanks for changing your story once again. And was replaced by CD for the same reason. You are the only one who thinks CD's represent first class sound quality because they replaced the cassette. I never said any such thing, but thanks Harry for proving that you can't read with any useful degree of accuracy. I'm saying to the average consumer (your "mainstream") could care less...they were happy with cassette sound..... Nuts. but the CD could replace *BOTH* the LP and the cassette and was more convenient than both..both in use and in freedom from consumer-induced screw-ups...ticks, pops, scratches in the case of LP's and jammed tape, distended tape, broken cassette shells, etc. in the case of cassettes. As usual you got it all wrong. The CD format was a winner purely based on sound quality. I know that goes against what they teach in your secular religion of high end audio, but I did qualify what I said with *mainstream*, didn't I? Try as you might, Arny, you are on shaky ground trying to ignore the convenience reasons CD's won out, and at the same time ignoring the fundamental reason that professionals and "hi-fiers" are searching for better sound, because CD sound can be bettered. If the SQ of the CD format is so easy to better Harry, why can't you provide me with a commercial recording that won't easily ABX as being different when downsampled to 16/44 as opposed to say 24/96? |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: Keep changing what you say Harry until like that room with a million monkeys, you finally make sense. This is why I keep reading RAO! Stephen |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
MiNe 109 said: Keep changing what you say Harry until like that room with a million monkeys, you finally make sense. This is why I keep reading RAO! You mean because the vagaries of Krooglish are an endless source of mystification and unintentional humor? -- Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top. |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: Harry: Even the first five years of high-quality cassette decks were of appeal only to the high-fidelity market as more or less a "gimmick". IME, there never has been and never will be a high fidelity cassette machine. But thanks Harry for admitting tacitly that you have tin ears. Otherwise, if they were used at all, they were used as dicatating machines. In what alternative universe? This one: http://audiotools.com/cass.html "The cassette or rather the "Compact Cassette" was invented by the Dutch company Philips in the early 60's. Originally intended for voice recording and therefore designed with no regard for sound quality it nevertheless quickly gained acceptance with hobby recordists." And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Not necessarily...just less chance of breakage and requiring less care. I'm talking about formats, not specific recordings. But thanks Harry for showing your disregard for sound quality by defending the cassette format. I'm not defending it for sound quality, quite the opposite Arny...can't you read. I can read, and that's one of your problems Harry. You called cassette a high fidelity format, and thank you for making things so clear. Didn't he say "high-quality cassette decks"? Stephen |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Harry: Even the first five years of high-quality cassette decks were of appeal only to the high-fidelity market as more or less a "gimmick". IME, there never has been and never will be a high fidelity cassette machine. But thanks Harry for admitting tacitly that you have tin ears. Otherwise, if they were used at all, they were used as dicatating machines. In what alternative universe? This one: http://audiotools.com/cass.html "The cassette or rather the "Compact Cassette" was invented by the Dutch company Philips in the early 60's. Originally intended for voice recording and therefore designed with no regard for sound quality it nevertheless quickly gained acceptance with hobby recordists." You missed my point. It became unclear because I followed Harry's paragraphs. I agree that cassette was basically a voice-grade medium, and in the most limited meaning of that phrase. It's Harry's clear statement that it was a hifi medium that I take exception to. And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Not necessarily...just less chance of breakage and requiring less care. I'm talking about formats, not specific recordings. But thanks Harry for showing your disregard for sound quality by defending the cassette format. I'm not defending it for sound quality, quite the opposite Arny...can't you read. I can read, and that's one of your problems Harry. You called cassette a high fidelity format, and thank you for making things so clear. Didn't he say "high-quality cassette decks"? He also said a lot more than that. Try to see the whole picture. |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
In article ,
George M. Middius wrote: MiNe 109 said: Keep changing what you say Harry until like that room with a million monkeys, you finally make sense. This is why I keep reading RAO! You mean because the vagaries of Krooglish are an endless source of mystification and unintentional humor? It's so direct and unselfconscious. See how the half-assimilated device of the simile is employed to stand the concept of the "infinite monkey theorem" on its head as apparently sensible words reveal nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem Well, live and learn: the "Hundredth Monkey Effect" is something different (besides an 80s Austin band). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_Monkey Stephen |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
The Krooborg has new spectacles. What a great Xmas season it must have been in the Hive. Didn't he say "high-quality cassette decks"? He also said a lot more than that. Try to see the whole picture. Thanks to your leadership, the picture gets clearer all the time. http://monkey.org/sl/068a1a42 -- Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
It's so direct and unselfconscious. See how the half-assimilated device of the simile is employed to stand the concept of the "infinite monkey theorem" on its head as apparently sensible words reveal nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem That is so indirect in an unselfconscious way. ;-) |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Harry: Even the first five years of high-quality cassette decks were of appeal only to the high-fidelity market as more or less a "gimmick". IME, there never has been and never will be a high fidelity cassette machine. But thanks Harry for admitting tacitly that you have tin ears. Otherwise, if they were used at all, they were used as dicatating machines. In what alternative universe? This one: http://audiotools.com/cass.html "The cassette or rather the "Compact Cassette" was invented by the Dutch company Philips in the early 60's. Originally intended for voice recording and therefore designed with no regard for sound quality it nevertheless quickly gained acceptance with hobby recordists." You missed my point. It became unclear because I followed Harry's paragraphs. I agree that cassette was basically a voice-grade medium, and in the most limited meaning of that phrase. It's Harry's clear statement that it was a hifi medium that I take exception to. This? ("4) Analog tape other than cassettes (in other words, where *sound quality* was king, never was part of the mainstream audio world, Arny.)" Agree or disagree, I wouldn't call this a clear statement. It can be worked out with a little rewriting, eg, 'non-cassette analog tape was never part of the mainstream audio world where *sound quality* was king.' I tend to disagree, but that depends on what you consider the "mainstream audio world" to be. I think there were enough home recordists to constitute a sizable niche. And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Not necessarily...just less chance of breakage and requiring less care. I'm talking about formats, not specific recordings. But thanks Harry for showing your disregard for sound quality by defending the cassette format. I'm not defending it for sound quality, quite the opposite Arny...can't you read. I can read, and that's one of your problems Harry. You called cassette a high fidelity format, and thank you for making things so clear. Didn't he say "high-quality cassette decks"? He also said a lot more than that. Try to see the whole picture. Yes. He said they were considered gimmicks even when improved decks came to market. I assume he means products such as the Advent 201. http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue16/advent.htm He probably meant Quad 57s. Stephen |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
MiNe 109 said: Keep changing what you say Harry until like that room with a million monkeys, you finally make sense. This is why I keep reading RAO! You mean because the vagaries of Krooglish are an endless source of mystification and unintentional humor? It's so direct and unselfconscious. See how the half-assimilated device of the simile is employed to stand the concept of the "infinite monkey theorem" on its head as apparently sensible words reveal nonsense. In the Hive, similes may well be bidirectional. If a million 'borgs can pool their money to buy one decent stereo, then surely a wealthy Normal can afford to buy cheesy "adequate" stereos for 10,000 'borgs at Best Buy. Well, live and learn: the "Hundredth Monkey Effect" is something different (besides an 80s Austin band). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_Monkey This was a serious theorem, my friend: "The 'Hundredth Monkey Effect' is the name for a supposed phenomenon in which a particular learned behaviour spread instantaneously from one group of animals, once a critical number was reached, to all related animals in the region or perhaps throughout the world. Largely due to popularisation of this story, the 'Hundredth Monkey Effect' phenomenon is now thought by some to occur in human populations with respect to ideas and beliefs in general even though the original story has been discredited (Myers 1985)." Implantation and assimilation can be quite the time-savers. -- Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
The Krooborg dons his monkey suit. It's so direct and unselfconscious. See how the half-assimilated device of the simile is employed to stand the concept of the "infinite monkey theorem" on its head as apparently sensible words reveal nonsense. That is so indirect in an unselfconscious way. ;-) Monkey see, monkey do. Or is that monkey doo-doo? -- Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top. |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Harry: Even the first five years of high-quality cassette decks were of appeal only to the high-fidelity market as more or less a "gimmick". IME, there never has been and never will be a high fidelity cassette machine. But thanks Harry for admitting tacitly that you have tin ears. Otherwise, if they were used at all, they were used as dicatating machines. In what alternative universe? This one: http://audiotools.com/cass.html "The cassette or rather the "Compact Cassette" was invented by the Dutch company Philips in the early 60's. Originally intended for voice recording and therefore designed with no regard for sound quality it nevertheless quickly gained acceptance with hobby recordists." You missed my point. It became unclear because I followed Harry's paragraphs. I agree that cassette was basically a voice-grade medium, and in the most limited meaning of that phrase. It's Harry's clear statement that it was a hifi medium that I take exception to. Your point was a strawman wiggle. I never said the cassette was "hi-fi". I said it was an acceptable sound standard for the masses (your "mainstream") and still would be if it had the convenience of CD. In other words, Arny, if the CD had *only* the sound quality of cassettes circa 1980-85, it still would have been a success based on the industructableness and convenience. Especially if Sony called it "Perfect Sound Forever" (they now argue they didn't really mean to emphasize the "perfect sound", rather they really meant to emphasize the "forever"). And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Not necessarily...just less chance of breakage and requiring less care. I'm talking about formats, not specific recordings. But thanks Harry for showing your disregard for sound quality by defending the cassette format. I'm not defending it for sound quality, quite the opposite Arny...can't you read. I can read, and that's one of your problems Harry. You called cassette a high fidelity format, and thank you for making things so clear. Didn't he say "high-quality cassette decks"? He also said a lot more than that. Try to see the whole picture. Can't admit even a clear-cut mistake, eh Arny? |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Harry: Even the first five years of high-quality cassette decks were of appeal only to the high-fidelity market as more or less a "gimmick". IME, there never has been and never will be a high fidelity cassette machine. But thanks Harry for admitting tacitly that you have tin ears. Otherwise, if they were used at all, they were used as dicatating machines. In what alternative universe? This one: http://audiotools.com/cass.html "The cassette or rather the "Compact Cassette" was invented by the Dutch company Philips in the early 60's. Originally intended for voice recording and therefore designed with no regard for sound quality it nevertheless quickly gained acceptance with hobby recordists." You missed my point. It became unclear because I followed Harry's paragraphs. I agree that cassette was basically a voice-grade medium, and in the most limited meaning of that phrase. It's Harry's clear statement that it was a hifi medium that I take exception to. Your point was a strawman wiggle. I never said the cassette was "hi-fi". You said it had appeal to the Hi Fi market. I said it was an acceptable sound standard for the masses (your "mainstream") Wrong - it was incapable of unseating the LP. and still would be if it had the convenience of CD. Wrong again, cassettes were more convenient than CDs in several ways. In the days when cassettes were were competing with CDs: (1) Portable cassette players were cheaper (2) Cassettes could be recorded at home, CDs could not. (3) Cassettes were more pocket-sized In other words, Arny, if the CD had *only* the sound quality of cassettes circa 1980-85, it still would have been a success based on the industructableness and convenience. Wrong for reasons already stated. In fact I've never had problems with dstroying cassettes, and I still produce them regularly to this day. Especially if Sony called it "Perfect Sound Forever" (they now argue they didn't really mean to emphasize the "perfect sound", rather they really meant to emphasize the "forever"). Wrong again. And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Not necessarily...just less chance of breakage and requiring less care. I'm talking about formats, not specific recordings. But thanks Harry for showing your disregard for sound quality by defending the cassette format. I'm not defending it for sound quality, quite the opposite Arny...can't you read. I can read, and that's one of your problems Harry. You called cassette a high fidelity format, and thank you for making things so clear. Didn't he say "high-quality cassette decks"? He also said a lot more than that. Try to see the whole picture. Can't admit even a clear-cut mistake, eh Arny? What mistake, Harry? |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
Clyde Slick wrote: All a matter of convenience, highly valued in the less caring mass market. Which is the market that old Arns is after. He's looking forward to selling his 12th ABX box in the next year ot two.;-) |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
Arny Krueger wrote:
The CD format was a winner purely based on sound quality. Well, that's just not true, Arny. It was a combination of advantages, being able to be played in cars, sound quality, durability... |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "avidlistener" wrote in message ps.com Arny Krueger wrote: "avidlistener" wrote in message oups.com Getting the most accurate reproduction possible, through equipment that measures properly, connected to speakers that add as little distortion as possible, (and face it this is where most distortion is generated) in a properly set up room, OR Simply picking out equipment that gives you what you believe the music should sound like according to your own criteria, preference, biases, and emotions? Why would these necessarily be in conflict? There is no right answer, since the end goal is to make the listener happy when playing one's favorite recordings. Oh, a rhetorical post. They don't have to be, they just seem to be quite often. Mostly in people's minds. There seems to be two groups of audiophiles, one devoted to measured accuracy and one that doesn't care about measured performance, only about an emotional connection. For the vast majority of people, there is a fairly strong connection between the two. As I said, both are perfectly good reasons for choosing equipment, and probably the lines cross very often. There's considerable evidence that poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes. Fairly strong statements, Arny, presented as facts, not opinions. Your supporting evidence? Supporting evidence: (1) SE triodes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (2) Tubes abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (3) LP format abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (4) Analog tape abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (1) SE triodes never were part of the mainsteam audio world, at least as we have know it since "hi-fi" came into being in the '50's. OK Harry, so you are brain dead to what happened with audio before the 60s. Your lack of historical perspective is noted. I grew up with the highest of 50's hi-fi, Arny. And they were not single ended triodes. That's when the "high-fidelity" marketplace was born. Yes, back in the '30's when my EE father was experimenting, he might have built a single-ended triode. It was never part of the high-fidelity market. Which is the only thing we (other than you) have been talking about. I agree Harry. I misread what you wrote. My apologies. Accepted, thank you. SE triodes were indeed never part of the hifi world of the 50s. P-P triodes were, but SE triodes were long dead. They died in the early 30s when push-pull was invented. Thank you for reiterating what I just said. And, that was my initial point. Your initial response was irrelevant, as usual. I see. Apoligize for "misreading", confirm that it was correct, and then call it "irrelevant". Hey that's a five-and-a-half somersault with a full twist, Arny. Congratulations, you scored 11.5 on a ten-point "debating trade" dive. (2) Tubes were abandoned, and then "rediscovered" by hi-fi lovers *because* they sound better than SS to many "hi-fi" lovers. They now account for a sizeable chunk of the "hi-fi lovers" market. Define sizable. As far as the mainstream audio goes, tubes are almost entirely dead. As far as "high-end" goes, they are very much alive and kicking, and very much "mainstream". That's the Harry I know and love to kick around. Keep changing what you say Harry until like that room with a million monkeys, you finally make sense. What was it in my original statement about "hi-fi lovers" that you didn't understand, Arny. I was talking about the high-fidelity market, Arny. You are they one who only sees value in what the "masses" will accept. As opposed to the mass market where convenience and not sound quality holds sway. Convenience in this case meaning more predictably higher quality. You can't prefer "more accurate" sound quality if you don't even pay attention to sound quality, wouldn't you agree, Arny? A truism. Then why does your logic fail you? So you are saying the mass market does pay attention to sound quality? That it is a main motivating force? And that they define sound quality as "more accurate"? (3) LP abandoned because most people took abysmal care of their LPs, hated the resulting noise, and abandoned them for the "easy path" of CD. Convenience and freedom from care, more than sound quality, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Right....McDonalds hamburgers, rather than a Big Boy. Well Harry, if Big Boy's hamburgers are your reference standard for burgers, you've already conceeded my point. I tried to make it a reference that you as a denizen of lower Michigan would understand, Arny. I doubt you've ever been to The Palm. My point is that at the very least the LP can deliver "Big Boy" quality whereas early CD delivered "Big Mac" quality at best. But getting a "Big Boy" requires more effort. So much for your sound quality argument. So much for trying to make sense of your posts, Harry. I do *SO* appreciate it, though, Arny! :-) (4) Analog tape other than cassettes (in other words, where *sound quality* was king, never was part of the mainstream audio world, Arny.) Spoken like someone who is as ignorant of audio production in the 50s as 60s as he is of home audio. Arny, I lived through it. Like so many things Harry, you got it wrong. Analog tape was part of the high-fidelity market. That's why I sold so many analog R-R tape machines in the 60s at that Lafayette store. That's why GIs brought so many R-R tape machines back from Vietnam and Germany. That's why the local high end audio stores were so proud of their Revox, Teac, Viking, Sony, and Tandberg franchises. During the fifties, open-reel tape was for the well to do audiophile...that's where stereo got started with almost exclusively classical content. Sure , by the end of the sixties you sold lots of tape machines, but only to people who were interested in sound quality and home-recording...most people were not. And as you well know, while Lafayette did serve as a "Radio Shack" of its day, it also served as a Hi-Fi store and many of those people who bought tape machines from you were hi-fi afficionados. As were those GI's who could buy machines dirt-cheap at the overseas PX. It was not part of the "mainstream" market in the '50's and '60's. Wrong. Stereos were part of the "mainstream" market, Arny. What proportion of stereo's had open-reel tape decks where you lived? In Chicago and the Northeast where I hung out, not very many. Even the first five years of high-quality cassette decks were of appeal only to the high-fidelity market as more or less a "gimmick". IME, there never has been and never will be a high fidelity cassette machine. But thanks Harry for admitting tacitly that you have tin ears. I said "high-quality cassette decks", Arny. I did not say they were high-fidelity. I furthermore said "even....they were seen as gimmicks". That's a qualifier, Arny...it certainly doesn't imply high-fidelity. Otherwise, if they were used at all, they were used as dicatating machines. In what alternative universe? In the "mainstream" world of the mid-to-late '60's, Arny. Do your homework! And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Not necessarily...just less chance of breakage and requiring less care. I'm talking about formats, not specific recordings. So am I. Cassettes could be a pain in the ass, although because of their portability and small size they came to be the "convenient" choice. But thanks Harry for showing your disregard for sound quality by defending the cassette format. I'm not defending it for sound quality, quite the opposite Arny...can't you read. I can read, and that's one of your problems Harry. You called cassette a high fidelity format, and thank you for making things so clear. First you "misread me" again, Arny, and then you take me to task for something I never said. Slow down and try to comprehend what I might be saying, Arny. Before you take figurative "pen to hand". Most users were perfectly happy with the sound of cassettes....and would be today if they came in the form of indestructable little disks. Enjoy wearing that tinfoil hat, Harry. ;-) You have evidence or proof otherwise, Arny? You are the one who made the initial claim that "poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes" but the evidence you offered suffers under examination. Any other evidence? I'm simply saying that cassette rose to its prominence primarily based on its convenience, *NOT* sound quality. You've said far more than that Harry. But thanks for changing your story once again. The only changes were in your mind, Arny, since you "misread" me twice and proceeded to set up strawmen. And was replaced by CD for the same reason. You are the only one who thinks CD's represent first class sound quality because they replaced the cassette. I never said any such thing, but thanks Harry for proving that you can't read with any useful degree of accuracy. Okay, I'll take back "first class". But would you please explain why the remainder doesn't harken back to your staement that I've just quoted above? You clearly stated in the "evidence" you provided that you believe the CD won over LP's and tape ("analog") because it had more accurate sound quality, and since people didn't like the "less accurate" sound quality of analog, they flocked to CD? " (3) LP format abandoned by the mainstream audio world." " (4) Analog tape abandoned by the mainstream audio world." Implied,of course, is that they were abandoned in favor of CD and digital PCM, which you have stated explicitly elsewhere is your belief. But implication is not evidence....and you stated your belief as fact. So do I misunderstand you? And if so, where is you "proof" that your assertions are correct, and my assertions are incorrect? Or even evidence to suggest that my assertions are less likely to be the truth? I'm saying to the average consumer (your "mainstream") could care less...they were happy with cassette sound..... Nuts. Hey, now there's a solid argument. but the CD could replace *BOTH* the LP and the cassette and was more convenient than both..both in use and in freedom from consumer-induced screw-ups...ticks, pops, scratches in the case of LP's and jammed tape, distended tape, broken cassette shells, etc. in the case of cassettes. As usual you got it all wrong. The CD format was a winner purely based on sound quality. I know that goes against what they teach in your secular religion of high end audio, but I did qualify what I said with *mainstream*, didn't I? I'm afraid Arny that most of us are no longer buying your repeated assertions as "proof". Certainly I'm not. Try as you might, Arny, you are on shaky ground trying to ignore the convenience reasons CD's won out, and at the same time ignoring the fundamental reason that professionals and "hi-fiers" are searching for better sound, because CD sound can be bettered. If the SQ of the CD format is so easy to better Harry, why can't you provide me with a commercial recording that won't easily ABX as being different when downsampled to 16/44 as opposed to say 24/96? Another of Arny's fallbacks....dumb down your high-quality signal using my lesser technology, and I'll prove to you you can't hear the difference. 0 for 2, Arny. What are you going to do with the third pitch? |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news  "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Harry: Even the first five years of high-quality cassette decks were of appeal only to the high-fidelity market as more or less a "gimmick". IME, there never has been and never will be a high fidelity cassette machine. But thanks Harry for admitting tacitly that you have tin ears. Otherwise, if they were used at all, they were used as dicatating machines. In what alternative universe? This one: http://audiotools.com/cass.html "The cassette or rather the "Compact Cassette" was invented by the Dutch company Philips in the early 60's. Originally intended for voice recording and therefore designed with no regard for sound quality it nevertheless quickly gained acceptance with hobby recordists." You missed my point. It became unclear because I followed Harry's paragraphs. I agree that cassette was basically a voice-grade medium, and in the most limited meaning of that phrase. It's Harry's clear statement that it was a hifi medium that I take exception to. Your point was a strawman wiggle. I never said the cassette was "hi-fi". You said it had appeal to the Hi Fi market. I think you need new glasses Arny. I said no such thing. I said even the high quality cassette decks were initially viewed as gimmicks. It wasn't until many years after Dolby came along that the Hi Fi market accepted them...and then only as a means of making music portable, certainly not as a high fidelity sound standard. Open-reel tape and LP held that rank, and for many hi-fi lovers they still do. I said it was an acceptable sound standard for the masses (your "mainstream") Wrong - it was incapable of unseating the LP. That's funny .... because by the late '80's it did....in terms of number of hamburgers sold...to the masses. and still would be if it had the convenience of CD. Wrong again, cassettes were more convenient than CDs in several ways. And CD's were more convenient than cassettes (and LP's) in many ways. They were industructable. In the days when cassettes were were competing with CDs: (1) Portable cassette players were cheaper (2) Cassettes could be recorded at home, CDs could not. (3) Cassettes were more pocket-sized Yep, and they continued to grow until nearly 1990 partly for that reason. Why do you suppose the masses behaved this way when they could have had vastly superior "perfect sound forever". Was it perhaps because they weren't that critical or discerning about sound quality and cassette quality was perfectly acceptable to them? In other words, Arny, if the CD had *only* the sound quality of cassettes circa 1980-85, it still would have been a success based on the industructableness and convenience. Wrong for reasons already stated. Your opinion, of course, and you are welcome to it. I will grant you it would probably have taken longer, because then they would have been less acceptable to those who did care about sound....but they would have suceeded nonetheless IMO. The real thing holding the cassette up and the CD back was the fact that cassettes had a lock on the car market until the early '90's. When CD's took over the car market, it would not have mattered if the sound quality was cassette level or not....they would have become the standard in any case. In fact I've never had problems with dstroying cassettes, and I still produce them regularly to this day. Just as I've never had problems destroying my records....but apparently others including you have. I've had my share of tape snarls and cracked shells, and I'm not alone. Especially if Sony called it "Perfect Sound Forever" (they now argue they didn't really mean to emphasize the "perfect sound", rather they really meant to emphasize the "forever"). Wrong again. Not according to a report I heard recently (can't remember where on the internet, so it is not highly credible). This source said he was told that directly by a Sony engineer. And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Not necessarily...just less chance of breakage and requiring less care. I'm talking about formats, not specific recordings. But thanks Harry for showing your disregard for sound quality by defending the cassette format. I'm not defending it for sound quality, quite the opposite Arny...can't you read. I can read, and that's one of your problems Harry. You called cassette a high fidelity format, and thank you for making things so clear. Didn't he say "high-quality cassette decks"? He also said a lot more than that. Try to see the whole picture. Can't admit even a clear-cut mistake, eh Arny? What mistake, Harry? The one you keep repeating, Arny. Perhaps you should read the beginning of *this* post again. |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"dizzy" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: The CD format was a winner purely based on sound quality. Well, that's just not true, Arny. Oh, you think that there was a more sonically accurate format that was availble to consumers at the time? It was a combination of advantages, being able to be played in cars, sound quality, durability... Cassette tapes could also be played in cars, so that was not a CD advantage at all. Quality - I covered that. Durability - CD is not appreciably more durable than say, LD which also coexisted at the time. |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message (2) Tubes were abandoned, and then "rediscovered" by hi-fi lovers *because* they sound better than SS to many "hi-fi" lovers. They now account for a sizeable chunk of the "hi-fi lovers" market. Define sizable. As far as the mainstream audio goes, tubes are almost entirely dead. As far as "high-end" goes, they are very much alive and kicking, and very much "mainstream". That's the Harry I know and love to kick around. Keep changing what you say Harry until like that room with a million monkeys, you finally make sense. What was it in my original statement about "hi-fi lovers" that you didn't understand, Arny. The part where you didn't make up a new term "hi fi lovers" and then defined it and redefined it as many times as you needed to make a dissmbling fool out of yoursef, Harry. I was talking about the high-fidelity market, Arny. Is that the same thing as what I meant in my OP by "mainstream", Harry? If it isn't, then your comment was irrelevant to mine. If it is, then you are guilty of introducing an unecessary confusion factor. You are they one who only sees value in what the "masses" will accept. Where did I say "masses"? I didn't. Harry, you are simply being deceptive, again. As opposed to the mass market where convenience and not sound quality holds sway. Convenience in this case meaning more predictably higher quality. You can't prefer "more accurate" sound quality if you don't even pay attention to sound quality, wouldn't you agree, Arny? A truism. Then why does your logic fail you? Because it doesn't. So you are saying the mass market does pay attention to sound quality? Where did I say "mass market"? I didn't. Harry, you are simply being deceptive, again. (3) LP abandoned because most people took abysmal care of their LPs, hated the resulting noise, and abandoned them for the "easy path" of CD. Convenience and freedom from care, more than sound quality, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Right....McDonalds hamburgers, rather than a Big Boy. Well Harry, if Big Boy's hamburgers are your reference standard for burgers, you've already conceeded my point. I tried to make it a reference that you as a denizen of lower Michigan would understand, Arny. There is obviously quite a bit you don't understand about SE Michigan that you don't understand. One is the fact that no way is Elias Big Boy a high quality provider of hamburgers and french fries. I doubt you've ever been to The Palm. Obviously Harry you either have very poor taste in burgers and beef, or you haven't been to an Elias Bothers Big Boy recently enough to speak intelligently about them. My point is that at the very least the LP can deliver "Big Boy" quality whereas early CD delivered "Big Mac" quality at best. But getting a "Big Boy" requires more effort. Harry, you are so confused by your own misapplied metaphors that I don't know where to start. Suffice it to say that Elias Big Boy resturants deliver LP quality beef, including burgers. My tastes run quite a bit higer than that sort of crud. (4) Analog tape other than cassettes (in other words, where *sound quality* was king, never was part of the mainstream audio world, Arny.) Spoken like someone who is as ignorant of audio production in the 50s as 60s as he is of home audio. Arny, I lived through it. Like so many things Harry, you got it wrong. Analog tape was part of the high-fidelity market. That's why I sold so many analog R-R tape machines in the 60s at that Lafayette store. That's why GIs brought so many R-R tape machines back from Vietnam and Germany. That's why the local high end audio stores were so proud of their Revox, Teac, Viking, Sony, and Tandberg franchises. During the fifties, open-reel tape was for the well to do audiophile...that's where stereo got started with almost exclusively classical content. Yeah, all those well-to-do audiophiles with Wollensaks. LOL! Sure , by the end of the sixties you sold lots of tape machines, but only to people who were interested in sound quality and home-recording...most people were not. Again Harry, you are shifting the discussion away from my OP. And as you well know, while Lafayette did serve as a "Radio Shack" of its day, it also served as a Hi-Fi store and many of those people who bought tape machines from you were hi-fi afficionados. As were those GI's who could buy machines dirt-cheap at the overseas PX. Nahh, most of the GIs who bought open reel tape machines were just ordinary music lovers. It was not part of the "mainstream" market in the '50's and '60's. Wrong. Stereos were part of the "mainstream" market, Arny. Sure they were. Of course now you are ahoist your own inability to use relevant words. Stereo is very broad. Harry, I suspect that what you are struggling so ineffectively to refer to is what was known in the day as "brown goods stereos". What proportion of stereo's had open-reel tape decks where you lived? In Chicago and the Northeast where I hung out, not very many. Harry, unlike you I won't make up data and pretend that it is factual. Even the first five years of high-quality cassette decks were of appeal only to the high-fidelity market as more or less a "gimmick". IME, there never has been and never will be a high fidelity cassette machine. But thanks Harry for admitting tacitly that you have tin ears. I said "high-quality cassette decks", Arny. I did not say they were high-fidelity. More Harry abuse of common terms. I furthermore said "even....they were seen as gimmicks". That's a qualifier, Arny...it certainly doesn't imply high-fidelity. You used them in conjunctuion with the words "high fidelity". Enjoy your little shuffle, Harry. Otherwise, if they were used at all, they were used as dicatating machines. In what alternative universe? In the "mainstream" world of the mid-to-late '60's, Arny. Again Harry, you've completely lost track of the words and obvious meaning of my OP. Do your homework! And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Not necessarily...just less chance of breakage and requiring less care. More "Harry facts". I'm talking about formats, not specific recordings. So am I. Cassettes could be a pain in the ass, although because of their portability and small size they came to be the "convenient" choice. Again Harry, you've completely lost track of the words and obvious meaning of my OP. But thanks Harry for showing your disregard for sound quality by defending the cassette format. I'm not defending it for sound quality, quite the opposite Arny...can't you read. I can read, and that's one of your problems Harry. You called cassette a high fidelity format, and thank you for making things so clear. First you "misread me" again, Arny, and then you take me to task for something I never said. Harry, I didn't make you justapose the words cassette and high fidelity like you did. Slow down and try to comprehend what I might be saying, Arny. Before you take figurative "pen to hand". Again Harry, you've completely lost track of the words and obvious meaning of my OP. Most users were perfectly happy with the sound of cassettes....and would be today if they came in the form of indestructable little disks. Enjoy wearing that tinfoil hat, Harry. ;-) You have evidence or proof otherwise, Arny? Sure the cassette format is grotesquely incabable of anything like facsimile reproduction, its only a little worse than the LP format. You are the one who made the initial claim that "poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes" but the evidence you offered suffers under examination. Any other evidence? Harry, people don't like what the cassette format does to music, that's why just about everybody abandoned it. And coincidentally or relevantly, the cassette format measures very poorly. I'm simply saying that cassette rose to its prominence primarily based on its convenience, *NOT* sound quality. You've said far more than that Harry. But thanks for changing your story once again. The only changes were in your mind, Arny, since you "misread" me twice and proceeded to set up strawmen. Harry, *you* are going to complain about making up straw men? LOL! And was replaced by CD for the same reason. You are the only one who thinks CD's represent first class sound quality because they replaced the cassette. I never said any such thing, but thanks Harry for proving that you can't read with any useful degree of accuracy. Okay, I'll take back "first class". But would you please explain why the remainder doesn't harken back to your staement that I've just quoted above? The problem Harry is that you've completely lost track of the words and obvious meaning of my OP. You clearly stated in the "evidence" you provided that you believe the CD won over LP's and tape ("analog") because it had more accurate sound quality, and since people didn't like the "less accurate" sound quality of analog, they flocked to CD? What I actually said is: (3) LP format abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (4) Analog tape abandoned by the mainstream audio world. Implied,of course, is that they were abandoned in favor of CD and digital PCM, which you have stated explicitly elsewhere is your belief. Not only my beliefe, but observable reality. But implication is not evidence....and you stated your belief as fact. Those beliefs are factual as stated, but less factual after you twist them Harry. I'm saying to the average consumer (your "mainstream") could care less...they were happy with cassette sound..... Nuts. Hey, now there's a solid argument. but the CD could replace *BOTH* the LP and the cassette and was more convenient than both..both in use and in freedom from consumer-induced screw-ups...ticks, pops, scratches in the case of LP's and jammed tape, distended tape, broken cassette shells, etc. in the case of cassettes. As usual you got it all wrong. The CD format was a winner purely based on sound quality. I know that goes against what they teach in your secular religion of high end audio, but I did qualify what I said with *mainstream*, didn't I? I'm afraid Arny that most of us are no longer buying your repeated assertions as "proof". Certainly I'm not. What "us" is this Harry, you and your miltiple personalities? ;-) Try as you might, Arny, you are on shaky ground trying to ignore the convenience reasons CD's won out, and at the same time ignoring the fundamental reason that professionals and "hi-fiers" are searching for better sound, because CD sound can be bettered. If the SQ of the CD format is so easy to better Harry, why can't you provide me with a commercial recording that won't easily ABX as being different when downsampled to 16/44 as opposed to say 24/96? Another of Arny's fallbacks....dumb down your high-quality signal using my lesser technology, and I'll prove to you you can't hear the difference. Thanks Harry for contradicting your previous glowing stattements about 24/96. For example: "No, the surround is usually 96/24 on DVD-A. This gives superior results with analog transfers, high-res PCM recordings, and especially pure DSD recordings. " "Most 24/96 DVD-A's sound quite good, primarily because they remove the high frequency problems inherent in the CD standard's practical implementation." "...the sound on the DVD-A's is really exceptional. 24/96 six channel sound (5.1)." "The DVD-A PCM is all 24/96. The DVD-A sounds like a "cleaner" CD..cleaner in the sense that the treble is smoother, their is more apparent depth, and the bass seems to be a little more dimensional than on CD." |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
Harry Lavo wrote: I think you need new glasses Arny. I wouldn't worry about it, Harry. old Arns is not only insane, but he's apparently pretty stupid, too. For example, just this evening he implied that a retired army officer would not be able to detect a 'forged' reading list from the Army COS, while old Arns was unable to find the real McCoy for himself. I thought his line was computers, but apparently you don't have to have any competence to build a business to that rarified level that old Arns has built his business to. This episode also shows his lack of a grasp on simple logic. Doesn't that just make you wonder how competent old Arns is in other areas?;-) |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message (2) Tubes were abandoned, and then "rediscovered" by hi-fi lovers *because* they sound better than SS to many "hi-fi" lovers. They now account for a sizeable chunk of the "hi-fi lovers" market. Define sizable. As far as the mainstream audio goes, tubes are almost entirely dead. As far as "high-end" goes, they are very much alive and kicking, and very much "mainstream". That's the Harry I know and love to kick around. Keep changing what you say Harry until like that room with a million monkeys, you finally make sense. What was it in my original statement about "hi-fi lovers" that you didn't understand, Arny. The part where you didn't make up a new term "hi fi lovers" and then defined it and redefined it as many times as you needed to make a dissmbling fool out of yoursef, Harry. I specifically used that term so you wouldn't have an excuse to go off on a tangent about "audiophools", Arny, as you are wont to do at the drop of a hat. I was using a deliberately neutral term to describe what in the '50's and '60's we called "high fi mavens". Hardly makes me a dissembling fool except in your mind. I was talking about the high-fidelity market, Arny. Is that the same thing as what I meant in my OP by "mainstream", Harry? No, Arny, but I clearly defined the market where tubes continue to be "mainstream"....which when it comes to sound quality is what counts. As a counter to your assertion that because joe sixpack no longer buys tube equipment, that is proof that he doesn't like the sound because tubes are less "accurate" than transistors, which is the premise you were/are promoting. Tell me Arny, where in Best Buy would he find those tubes if he wanted to buy tube gear? The fact that the Japanese settled on transistor gear in the '70's doesn't say a thing about sound quality, accuracy, or anything else. I hope you enjoy riding your horse. If it isn't, then your comment was irrelevant to mine. If it is, then you are guilty of introducing an unecessary confusion factor. Neither of the above. It was a refinement clearly stated, as an explaination against and partial repudiation of your point. It is called "an opposing argument" Arny. Got that? You are they one who only sees value in what the "masses" will accept. Where did I say "masses"? I didn't. Harry, you are simply being deceptive, again. Don't give me that debating trade horse****, Arny. From your OP: "For the vast majority of people, there is a fairly....." ".....abandoned by the mainstream audio world." If you are not referring to the mass market in the above, who are you referring to? As opposed to the mass market where convenience and not sound quality holds sway. Convenience in this case meaning more predictably higher quality. You can't prefer "more accurate" sound quality if you don't even pay attention to sound quality, wouldn't you agree, Arny? A truism. Then why does your logic fail you? Because it doesn't. So you are saying the mass market does pay attention to sound quality? Where did I say "mass market"? I didn't. Harry, you are simply being deceptive, again. More debating trade horse**** to divert the reader from the weakness of your argument, especially as you are about to contradict yourself. (3) LP abandoned because most people took abysmal care of their LPs, hated the resulting noise, and abandoned them for the "easy path" of CD. Convenience and freedom from care, more than sound quality, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Right....McDonalds hamburgers, rather than a Big Boy. Well Harry, if Big Boy's hamburgers are your reference standard for burgers, you've already conceeded my point. I tried to make it a reference that you as a denizen of lower Michigan would understand, Arny. There is obviously quite a bit you don't understand about SE Michigan that you don't understand. One is the fact that no way is Elias Big Boy a high quality provider of hamburgers and french fries. I doubt you've ever been to The Palm. Obviously Harry you either have very poor taste in burgers and beef, or you haven't been to an Elias Bothers Big Boy recently enough to speak intelligently about them. Got me there, Arny. Last time was in the sixties.....but in fact at that time, the Big Boy was a good hamburger, which McDonalds tried to copy with its Big Mac and gave us that mediocre product "for the masses". My point is that at the very least the LP can deliver "Big Boy" quality whereas early CD delivered "Big Mac" quality at best. But getting a "Big Boy" requires more effort. Harry, you are so confused by your own misapplied metaphors that I don't know where to start. Suffice it to say that Elias Big Boy resturants deliver LP quality beef, including burgers. My tastes run quite a bit higer than that sort of crud. Alright, so choose a better burger of your choice......then think about what I said rather than wrapping yourself in debating trade righteousness, okay? (4) Analog tape other than cassettes (in other words, where *sound quality* was king, never was part of the mainstream audio world, Arny.) Spoken like someone who is as ignorant of audio production in the 50s as 60s as he is of home audio. Arny, I lived through it. Like so many things Harry, you got it wrong. Analog tape was part of the high-fidelity market. That's why I sold so many analog R-R tape machines in the 60s at that Lafayette store. That's why GIs brought so many R-R tape machines back from Vietnam and Germany. That's why the local high end audio stores were so proud of their Revox, Teac, Viking, Sony, and Tandberg franchises. During the fifties, open-reel tape was for the well to do audiophile...that's where stereo got started with almost exclusively classical content. Yeah, all those well-to-do audiophiles with Wollensaks. LOL! When those Wollensaks first became popular, there wasn't much else except professional Magnecords and Ampexes. And at over a $100 in 1952 dollars they weren't cheap (thats $400-500 today, btw). Moreover, many of those Wollensaks were used in schools and churches for just about everything and had little to do with sound quality, other than that they could do a sonic document which was a novelty at the time. Sure , by the end of the sixties you sold lots of tape machines, but only to people who were interested in sound quality and home-recording...most people were not. Again Harry, you are shifting the discussion away from my OP. You are the one bragging about all the tape machines you single-handedly sold at Lafayette in the sixties, Arny. I agree it is irrelevant, largely because it is anecdotal and misleading as you use it in any case. And as you well know, while Lafayette did serve as a "Radio Shack" of its day, it also served as a Hi-Fi store and many of those people who bought tape machines from you were hi-fi afficionados. As were those GI's who could buy machines dirt-cheap at the overseas PX. Nahh, most of the GIs who bought open reel tape machines were just ordinary music lovers. Not too far off from hi-fi afficionados, Arny. If you recall at the time the two groups were pretty close to one and the same. It was not part of the "mainstream" market in the '50's and '60's. Wrong. Stereos were part of the "mainstream" market, Arny. Sure they were. Of course now you are ahoist your own inability to use relevant words. Stereo is very broad. Harry, I suspect that what you are struggling so ineffectively to refer to is what was known in the day as "brown goods stereos". What proportion of stereo's had open-reel tape decks where you lived? In Chicago and the Northeast where I hung out, not very many. Harry, unlike you I won't make up data and pretend that it is factual. Did I make up data? I just gave you an anecdotal expression. Can you tell the difference, Arny? Apparently not. You'd rather create a straw man and duck the possibility that having forced you to think, you might see I have a point. Even the first five years of high-quality cassette decks were of appeal only to the high-fidelity market as more or less a "gimmick". IME, there never has been and never will be a high fidelity cassette machine. But thanks Harry for admitting tacitly that you have tin ears. I said "high-quality cassette decks", Arny. I did not say they were high-fidelity. More Harry abuse of common terms. Ah, this time a weak little insult! Nothing to say, don't say it. Pretty good rule to live by, Arns. I furthermore said "even....they were seen as gimmicks". That's a qualifier, Arny...it certainly doesn't imply high-fidelity. You used them in conjunctuion with the words "high fidelity". Enjoy your little shuffle, Harry. Repeating this lie won't wash, Arny. I already pointed out to you, as have others, that I said nor implied any such thing. This is what earns you a reputation as a liar. Otherwise, if they were used at all, they were used as dicatating machines. In what alternative universe? In the "mainstream" world of the mid-to-late '60's, Arny. Again Harry, you've completely lost track of the words and obvious meaning of my OP. Cassettes were not part of the "mainstream" audio world of the '60's Arny. Can I be clearer than that. I was there as a hobbiest. I was there moonlighting selling audio equipment in salons. Do your homework! And cassettes were again superceded by the CD because they were more convenient, Arny. Convenience in this case also meaning more predictably higher quality. Not necessarily...just less chance of breakage and requiring less care. More "Harry facts". Neither of us have "facts" Arny. But I do have observations to use as counter-arguments to yours. I'm talking about formats, not specific recordings. So am I. Cassettes could be a pain in the ass, although because of their portability and small size they came to be the "convenient" choice. Again Harry, you've completely lost track of the words and obvious meaning of my OP. Youre OP stated that analog in general was superceded by digital because it was less accurate, and the mainstream audio market was not happy with its sound. That is what we have been arguing about. What is not clear, and of what have I lost track? I made cogent couter-arguments to your hypothesis. You then countered with debating trade and counter-arguments of your own. So here we are. But thanks Harry for showing your disregard for sound quality by defending the cassette format. I'm not defending it for sound quality, quite the opposite Arny...can't you read. I can read, and that's one of your problems Harry. You called cassette a high fidelity format, and thank you for making things so clear. First you "misread me" again, Arny, and then you take me to task for something I never said. Harry, I didn't make you justapose the words cassette and high fidelity like you did. Liar! Liar! Liar! When you do it three times in a row, that's all that is left. You've shown your true colors, Arny. Slow down and try to comprehend what I might be saying, Arny. Before you take figurative "pen to hand". Again Harry, you've completely lost track of the words and obvious meaning of my OP. Well, if you think so Arny, you've had lots of opportunity to restate it. Why haven't you. Most users were perfectly happy with the sound of cassettes....and would be today if they came in the form of indestructable little disks. Enjoy wearing that tinfoil hat, Harry. ;-) You have evidence or proof otherwise, Arny? Sure the cassette format is grotesquely incabable of anything like facsimile reproduction, its only a little worse than the LP format. Ah, now we see. It is your *measurements* that convince you that people *must* find the sound bad if the measurements of what they listen to don't seems as good to you. Right, Arns old boy. Some research , Arny. As I have said to you for years now, you are a true religous zealot, Arny. But it is your belief in the sanctity of measurements that is your true religion, whatever else you believe in. And once again, when one strips away the pettifoggery, one sees the belief system. It is too bad you can't distinquish between evidence and belief. You are the one who made the initial claim that "poor measured performance = bad sound that almost nobody likes" but the evidence you offered suffers under examination. Any other evidence? Harry, people don't like what the cassette format does to music, that's why just about everybody abandoned it. And coincidentally or relevantly, the cassette format measures very poorly. So that's why it kept right on growing through the first eight years of CD's existence? Because they "hated what it did to music?" C'mon, Arny. I'm simply saying that cassette rose to its prominence primarily based on its convenience, *NOT* sound quality. You've said far more than that Harry. But thanks for changing your story once again. The only changes were in your mind, Arny, since you "misread" me twice and proceeded to set up strawmen. Harry, *you* are going to complain about making up straw men? LOL! Yep, LOL. But we'll let others decide at whom. And was replaced by CD for the same reason. You are the only one who thinks CD's represent first class sound quality because they replaced the cassette. I never said any such thing, but thanks Harry for proving that you can't read with any useful degree of accuracy. Okay, I'll take back "first class". But would you please explain why the remainder doesn't harken back to your staement that I've just quoted above? The problem Harry is that you've completely lost track of the words and obvious meaning of my OP. Another debating trade bob and weave! Oh, the beauty of it! You clearly stated in the "evidence" you provided that you believe the CD won over LP's and tape ("analog") because it had more accurate sound quality, and since people didn't like the "less accurate" sound quality of analog, they flocked to CD? What I actually said is: (3) LP format abandoned by the mainstream audio world. (4) Analog tape abandoned by the mainstream audio world. Implied,of course, is that they were abandoned in favor of CD and digital PCM, which you have stated explicitly elsewhere is your belief. Not only my beliefe, but observable reality. But implication is not evidence....and you stated your belief as fact. Those beliefs are factual as stated, but less factual after you twist them Harry. They are not facts, Arny. They are you beliefs. They are your opinions. They have counter-arguments that are at least as plasible, if not more so. You of all people, "mr. scientist", ought to hand your head in shame. I'm saying to the average consumer (your "mainstream") could care less...they were happy with cassette sound..... Nuts. Hey, now there's a solid argument. I take it you agree. :-) but the CD could replace *BOTH* the LP and the cassette and was more convenient than both..both in use and in freedom from consumer-induced screw-ups...ticks, pops, scratches in the case of LP's and jammed tape, distended tape, broken cassette shells, etc. in the case of cassettes. As usual you got it all wrong. The CD format was a winner purely based on sound quality. I know that goes against what they teach in your secular religion of high end audio, but I did qualify what I said with *mainstream*, didn't I? I'm afraid Arny that most of us are no longer buying your repeated assertions as "proof". Certainly I'm not. What "us" is this Harry, you and your miltiple personalities? ;-) No, me and many other silent and not so silent readers of this audio usenet group. Try as you might, Arny, you are on shaky ground trying to ignore the convenience reasons CD's won out, and at the same time ignoring the fundamental reason that professionals and "hi-fiers" are searching for better sound, because CD sound can be bettered. If the SQ of the CD format is so easy to better Harry, why can't you provide me with a commercial recording that won't easily ABX as being different when downsampled to 16/44 as opposed to say 24/96? Another of Arny's fallbacks....dumb down your high-quality signal using my lesser technology, and I'll prove to you you can't hear the difference. Thanks Harry for contradicting your previous glowing stattements about 24/96. For example: "No, the surround is usually 96/24 on DVD-A. This gives superior results with analog transfers, high-res PCM recordings, and especially pure DSD recordings. " "Most 24/96 DVD-A's sound quite good, primarily because they remove the high frequency problems inherent in the CD standard's practical implementation." "...the sound on the DVD-A's is really exceptional. 24/96 six channel sound (5.1)." "The DVD-A PCM is all 24/96. The DVD-A sounds like a "cleaner" CD..cleaner in the sense that the treble is smoother, their is more apparent depth, and the bass seems to be a little more dimensional than on CD." Without references, I'll take your word I said those things. And your point? The only way to truly test is to use a top-flight system, and carefully blind a-b test both a commercial CD and a hi-rez version of the same. There are several disks that qualify. I've listened to them. I've reported what I've heard. Others have done the same. Others have reached the same conclusion I have. The hi-rez wins...with subtle yet important advantages. Perhaps someday I'll have the time, patience, and desire to do a full blown test, done right. But frankly I don't have the motivation since to me the differences are sufficient to make me want to buy and listen to hi-rez disks. Without formal testing. And I am certainly not going to accept a dumbed down, computerized version of such a test as an acceptable trade-off. I recently experienced another comparison when doing a test recording of two live performers....recording at 88.2/24 and then downsampling with dither to 44.1/16. Either through my Koss Pro4a headphones, or through my main Thiel system, the 88.2/24 played directly from the DAW was clearly superior to the 44.1/16 played the same way. It had a smooth, silky, natural sounding high end and great depth and transparency; the 44.1 version was noticeably "sharper" in the high frequencies and had a foreshortened depth...what I call a "flatter" soundstage. Finally, I also burned the 44.1/16 ISO to CD and played that from the computer...it was slightly worse than the same ISO played off the DAW...again in treble and in depth of soundstage. As an experiment, I took the CD to my office computer and played it on the quite decent (for computers) JBL speakers. It just became another acceptable CD...the high-frequency edge and "flat" soundstage were nowhere to be found on such a system. But easy to discern when listened to on true high-end gear. And nowhere to be found at 88.2/24. |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
Harry Lavo wrote: I specifically used that term so you wouldn't have an excuse to go off on a tangent about "audiophools", Arny, as you are wont to do at the drop of a hat. Lest we forget, old Arns has problems with logic. This is typical of those who are insane. |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message (2) Tubes were abandoned, and then "rediscovered" by hi-fi lovers *because* they sound better than SS to many "hi-fi" lovers. They now account for a sizeable chunk of the "hi-fi lovers" market. Define sizable. As far as the mainstream audio goes, tubes are almost entirely dead. As far as "high-end" goes, they are very much alive and kicking, and very much "mainstream". That's the Harry I know and love to kick around. Keep changing what you say Harry until like that room with a million monkeys, you finally make sense. What was it in my original statement about "hi-fi lovers" that you didn't understand, Arny. The part where you didn't make up a new term "hi fi lovers" and then defined it and redefined it as many times as you needed to make a dissmbling fool out of yoursef, Harry. I specifically used that term so you wouldn't have an excuse to go off on a tangent about "audiophools", Arny, as you are wont to do at the drop of a hat. I was using a deliberately neutral term to describe what in the '50's and '60's we called "high fi mavens". Hardly makes me a dissembling fool except in your mind. Harry, it seems like the only part of your brain that still works is the imagination. Please post again when you can express yourself without making up a whole new audio lexicon. I was talking about the high-fidelity market, Arny. Is that the same thing as what I meant in my OP by "mainstream", Harry? No Good Harry, so you finally admit that you have nothing relevant to add. End of non-discussion. |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
Arny Krueger a scris: There is obviously quite a bit you don't understand about SE Michigan that you don't understand. There is quite a bit I don't understand about that sentence that I don't understand. |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
Clyde Slick said: There is obviously quite a bit you don't understand about SE Michigan that you don't understand. There is quite a bit I don't understand about that sentence that I don't understand. Every time you mock the Krooborg, Lionel sheds a tear. -- Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top. |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which is more important?
Arny Krueger wrote:
dizzy wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: The CD format was a winner purely based on sound quality. Well, that's just not true, Arny. Oh, you think that there was a more sonically accurate format that was availble to consumers at the time? Do you never tire of displaying your incredible illogic, Arny? Only someone truly logically handicapped could honestly leap from "CD did not win 'purely' based on sound quality" to "there were more-sonically-accurate formats available". Do you know what "purely" means, Arny? Do you wonder why no one likes you, Arny? It was a combination of advantages, being able to be played in cars, sound quality, durability... Cassette tapes could also be played in cars, so that was not a CD advantage at all. CD could be played in cars AND had excellent sound quality. No other format offered that "combination of advantages". Try reading for comprehension, Arny. Quality - I covered that. Durability - CD is not appreciably more durable than say, LD which also coexisted at the time. CD did not win "purely" based on sound quality. You're wrong, Arny. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| rec.audio.car FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (caution, this is HUGE) | Car Audio | |||
| Just for Ludovic | Audio Opinions | |||
| An Important Point | Audio Opinions | |||
| What are they Teaching | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
