[west]

What would be a good SACD player for my tube audio system in your opinion? I
would like to enjoy the full benefits of the SACD format without spending a
king' ransom. Thanks in advance.

Cordially,
west

[Harry Lavo]

"west" wrote in message
news:8l4Hh.568$Ih.297@trnddc02...
What would be a good SACD player for my tube audio system in your opinion?
I
would like to enjoy the full benefits of the SACD format without spending
a
king' ransom. Thanks in advance.

Cordially,
west

I'll give you my usual recommendation....it is very hard to beat Sony's
XA2000ES pure-DSD (in direct mode) at any price under $2000...and it costs
only about 15% of that on eBay. I use one with an ARC tube preamplifier and
the sound is gorgeous. The SACD player is as transparent as any on the
market...not as smooth perhaps as some of the super-expensive gear, but very
very good. At a price under $300 you can get started and decided for
yourself whether good enough is good enough. For me it was and is.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 21:41:34 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


It bests my Musical Fidelity $2K 192K oversampling DAC, at 5% of the price.

That must be somewhat upsetting.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 21:41:34 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


It bests my Musical Fidelity $2K 192K oversampling DAC,
at 5% of the price.

That must be somewhat upsetting.

Not for me. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 21:41:34 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


It bests my Musical Fidelity $2K 192K oversampling
DAC, at 5% of the price.

That must be somewhat upsetting.

All of us have that instinct.

No, just the people who don't know digital technology and psychoacoustics
well enough.

Progress is unsettling.

It can be, for those who find keeping up to be challenging. Personally, I
relish true technological advances. As far as that goes, I relish the
pseudo-technological advances because they provide an opportunity to clear
the newly-fouled air.

But it really is a remark about SACD versus CD. Remember when
"upsampling DAC" was the buzz phrase?

Upsampling DAC was also snake oil. That's in contrast to oversampling DAC
which was a true technological advance, because it vastly improved the
price/performance of DACs.

I'm saddened that
progress in audio appears to be coming to an end, caused
by the lack of interest in the young.

Or alternatively, many people smartened up.

I am going to satisfy this niche in my brain by making
DVD-A recordings with which I can experience much of the
benefit of SACD.

The alleged superiority of the SACD over DVD-A is just more snake oil. In
fact SACD has less dynamic range for music than either 192/24 or 96/24
DVD-A.

[George M. Middius]

Arnii "Super Genius" Krooger tells it like it is.

I relish the pseudo-technological advances because they provide an opportunity to clear the newly-fouled air.

Please use some Kroologic to demonstrate the meaning of that Kroo-klaim.
Otherwise a sane human being has to assume you're still locked in a futile
search for a way to de-Kroogerize yourself.

snake oil
snake oil

I think you can be snottier than that, Arnii. Try harder.

Or alternatively, many people smartened up.

There it is -- the quintessence of snottiness we've come to expect from
Arnii "Big ****" Krooger. Here's your brown star.




--

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

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 21:41:34 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


It bests my Musical Fidelity $2K 192K oversampling
DAC, at 5% of the price.

That must be somewhat upsetting.

All of us have that instinct.

No, just the people who don't know digital technology and psychoacoustics
well enough.

Progress is unsettling.

It can be, for those who find keeping up to be challenging. Personally, I
relish true technological advances. As far as that goes, I relish the
pseudo-technological advances because they provide an opportunity to clear
the newly-fouled air.

But it really is a remark about SACD versus CD. Remember when
"upsampling DAC" was the buzz phrase?

Upsampling DAC was also snake oil. That's in contrast to oversampling DAC
which was a true technological advance, because it vastly improved the
price/performance of DACs.

I'm saddened that
progress in audio appears to be coming to an end, caused
by the lack of interest in the young.

Or alternatively, many people smartened up.

I am going to satisfy this niche in my brain by making
DVD-A recordings with which I can experience much of the
benefit of SACD.

The alleged superiority of the SACD over DVD-A is just more snake oil. In
fact SACD has less dynamic range for music than either 192/24 or 96/24
DVD-A.

Arny continues to extoll the merits of S/N as if a) that is all that
matters, and b) it doesn't matter where such S/N lies, in or out of the
audible spectrum.

AS to dynamics, as opposed to dynamic range.....take a look at the 3us
impulse response on the following charts....notice which one mimics the
actual impulse...both height (strength) of the impulse and lack of
pre-ripple and time-smear. Notice that this holds true even against
352kh/32bit DXD pcm processing. Notice that this holds true whether or not
we are speaking of 64fse DSD (SACD) or 128fse DSD (mastering). It is
inherent in the technology. Notice also that the inherent higher noise of
SACD (a so-called detriment) takes place well above 20khz and peaks
at -80db. Even Arny will have trouble arguing that those are audibly
significant (although that doesn't keep him from using them to belittle
SACD).

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm

Now bear with me for a paragraph or two of comparison listening comment from
one of the earliest such descriptions I published on Usenet, from early
2003:



(quote from response to post by the late Stewart Pinkerton)



Unfortunately, it is technically vastly inferior to DVD-A.

It appears, that despite its limitations, SACD seems to be taking off.

Put that down to Sony marketing muscle.



That being said, nonetheless to my ears the SACD sounds better.

I have two SACDs with DVD-A counterparts. in the case of "3 Doors Down" the
mix is identical by admission of the mixing engineer and the only difference
is that in the workstations the output was feed into DSD files and PCM
files. The DVD-A PCM is all 24/96. This is a current recording recorded
directly into ProTools at 24/192 In the case of Swing Live, the same
microphone (a soundfield) was apparently used directly into a PCM
workstation and a DSD workstation.

In both cases, the results sound different. The difference can best be
described as follows:

* 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.

* the SACD sounds much more like live music...in the sense that there is a
complete freedom from "mechanical" and high frequencies seem completely
natural and "float" in space very much like the real thing. In addition,
their is a greater apparent sense of dynamics and dimensionality,
particularly in the bass.

I've also had a chance to compare the SACD of Verdi's Requiem (Philadelphia
Orchestra) to a 7.5ips prerecorded tape from the '60's (fourth generation by
my estimation). They both obviously derive from the same source and sound
very much the same...with that same effortless floating quality that live
music has. The SACD is actually more transparent (as it should be if they
went back to the master tape) while the pre-recorded tape has slightly
enhanced voices, IMO a result of somewhat built up harmonic distortion from
the tape copies.

IMO opinion and in the opinion of many others, SACD sounds "more real"
despite whatever theoretical limitations it might have, versus DVD-A. At
least as implemented in reasonably priced low-end high-end front-end
equipment.

(end quote)



*THAT* is how the cleaner, more accurate transient response of DSD (SACD)
shows up even against the already excellent hi-rez 96/24 PCM and against
excellent quality pre-recorded tape Against CD's the contrast is even
greater. As I concluded later in another thread:



(quote in response to Chung)

I'm not sure what your point is here. My issues have always largely been
with the high-end of the CD standard. And secondarily with CD's tendency to
have less depth and a 'flatter' bass and lower midrange dimensionality.
SACD solves these problems wonderfully. So does DVD-A. Both assuming
equipment that allows the advantage to come through, of course.

(end quote)



Arny's POV is increasingly becoming a minority POV among audio
professionals, who increasingly embrace the idea that DSD is an audibly (but
not commercially) superior means of recording and archiving sound. It's
clean, accurate transient behavior and universality, both due to its one-bit
nature, is the reason.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

The alleged superiority of the SACD over DVD-A is just
more snake oil. In fact SACD has less dynamic range for
music than either 192/24 or 96/24 DVD-A.

Arny continues to extoll the merits of S/N as if a) that
is all that matters, and b) it doesn't matter where such
S/N lies, in or out of the audible spectrum.

Just goes to show that Harry doesn't know the difference between dynamic
range and S/N. Pitiful.

AS to dynamics, as opposed to dynamic range.....take a
look at the 3us impulse response on the following
charts....notice which one mimics the actual
impulse...both height (strength) of the impulse and lack
of pre-ripple and time-smear.

That's not is not about dynamics at all Harry, that is bandwidth. Thanks for
showing that you don't know the difference between performance in the
amplitude domain (dynamics) and frequency domain (bandwidth).

Notice that this holds
true even against 352kh/32bit DXD pcm processing. Notice
that this holds true whether or not we are speaking of
64fse DSD (SACD) or 128fse DSD (mastering). It is
inherent in the technology. Notice also that the
inherent higher noise of SACD (a so-called detriment)
takes place well above 20khz and peaks at -80db. Even Arny will have
trouble arguing that those
are audibly significant (although that doesn't keep him
from using them to belittle SACD).

Harry, where are the results of your reliable listening tests supporting the
existance of any audible differences between any of these formats? If these
formats differ as much as you seem to claim, you should be able to readily
demonstrate the difference with your ears, and your audio system.

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm

Meaningless, since this is the performance of a certain commercial product,
and not necessarily representative of the inherent properties of the
respective formats.

BTW Harry's URL is wrong, the correct URL is
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24_present.htm . Speaks to the care with which
Harry does his analysis.

snip baseless opinions

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com

Based strictly on subjective listening AND with the lack
of the identical title in DVD-A and SACD to compare them
against, bith somewhat limiting factors, I have to say
that SACD seems to sound better to me.

In the end it has a lot to do with whether you believe the results of just
listening to two alternatives presented in as similar way as possible but
not identified, or whether you base your judgements on experiences where any
number of irrelevant factors can intrude.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



snip Arnies attempts to show off by blathering irrelevancies

Notice that this holds
true even against 352kh/32bit DXD pcm processing. Notice
that this holds true whether or not we are speaking of
64fse DSD (SACD) or 128fse DSD (mastering). It is
inherent in the technology. Notice also that the
inherent higher noise of SACD (a so-called detriment)
takes place well above 20khz and peaks at -80db. Even Arny will have
trouble arguing that those
are audibly significant (although that doesn't keep him
from using them to belittle SACD).

Harry, where are the results of your reliable listening tests supporting
the existance of any audible differences between any of these formats? If
these formats differ as much as you seem to claim, you should be able to
readily demonstrate the difference with your ears, and your audio system.

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm

Meaningless, since this is the performance of a certain commercial
product, and not necessarily representative of the inherent properties of
the respective formats.

First, note that Arny has snipped without attribution the very tests and
comparisons that I cited the results of...including the fact that the test
recordings were chosen especially because they were based on the identical,
uncompressed recordings in the comparative media.


BTW Harry's URL is wrong, the correct URL is
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24_present.htm . Speaks to the care with
which Harry does his analysis.

Actually, Arnie, the page I cited has changed and when I was referred to it
it contained the graphs on that same page, much smaller. Obviously a page
has been added to increase the size of the charts. Nonetheless, it is the
charts themselves that are important, not your blatherings in an attempt to
discredit me. I notice you have nothing to say about what lies there. But
once again, you have snipped my commentary and observations to prevent the
reader from making his own judgements. You continue to amaze me with your
blatent dishonesty and unwillingness/inability to engage in any meaningful
discussion of DSD as it emerges as a stronger and stronger pro audio
technology, simply because you might have to acknowledge that you were
premature in your dismissal of same five years ago.

snip baseless opinions

[paul packer]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:44:15 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


caused by the lack of interest in the young.

Far be in for me to correct someone's grammar (Hi, George!), but
shouldn't that be .."lack of interest from the young?"

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com

Based strictly on subjective listening AND with the lack
of the identical title in DVD-A and SACD to compare them
against, bith somewhat limiting factors, I have to say
that SACD seems to sound better to me.

In the end it has a lot to do with whether you believe the results of just
listening to two alternatives presented in as similar way as possible but
not identified, or whether you base your judgements on experiences where
any number of irrelevant factors can intrude.

And in the end you continue to excuse yourself, who have never done such a
test or even the kind of careful comparisons I have outlined, but that
doesn't stop you from denigrating anybody who holds a pro-sacd point of
view. And to ignore those few engineers and other audio professionals who
have had a chance to compare DSD to a live feed, who proclaim it closer to
transparent than *any* PCM comparison they have made under similar
conditions. Here's a recent antecdotal report from a well-regarded reviewer
who has had access to this comparison:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue30/emm.htm

[dizzy]

Harry Lavo wrote:

(quote from response to post by the late Stewart Pinkerton)

Did he really die?

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:


caused by the lack of interest in the young.


Far be in for me to correct someone's grammar (Hi, George!), but
shouldn't that be .."lack of interest from the young?"


Far be it from me to correct someone's grammar (Hi, Paul, Ringo!), but
shouldn't that be: ..."Far be it from me..."?

;-)

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

caused by the lack of interest in the young.

Far be in for me to correct someone's grammar (Hi, George!), but
shouldn't that be .."lack of interest from the young?"

No, but if your interpretation of Robert's bizarre locution is accurate,
it should be "among the young" or "by the young".




--

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

[George M. Middius]

Harry Lavo said:

whether you base your judgements on experiences where
any number of irrelevant factors can intrude.

And in the end you continue to excuse yourself, who have never done such a
test or even the kind of careful comparisons I have outlined, but that
doesn't stop you from denigrating anybody who holds a pro-sacd point of
view.

The rules of the "debating trade" are fully compatible with Kroopocrisy.



--

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

[Harry Lavo]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

(quote from response to post by the late Stewart Pinkerton)

Did he really die?


I was told he did, and he has not posted since. I don't know for sure.

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Arny you have not commented on my post "Spectral Analyses
192/24 for Arny". Doesn't it appear on your server or are
you ignoring my efforts to oblige your recent request.

Regards TT

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com

Based strictly on subjective listening AND with the lack
of the identical title in DVD-A and SACD to compare
them against, bith somewhat limiting factors, I have
to say that SACD seems to sound better to me.

In the end it has a lot to do with whether you believe
the results of just listening to two alternatives
presented in as similar way as possible but not
identified, or whether you base your judgements on
experiences where any number of irrelevant factors can
intrude.

And in the end you continue to excuse yourself, who have
never done such a test or even the kind of careful
comparisons I have outlined, but that doesn't stop you
from denigrating anybody who holds a pro-sacd point of
view.

Delusions of omnsicence noted. How do you know what I have or have not done?

And to ignore those few engineers and other audio
professionals who have had a chance to compare DSD to a
live feed, who proclaim it closer to transparent than
*any* PCM comparison they have made under similar
conditions.

It's real simple Harry. If they've done a credible listening test, then I'll
listen to them. Heck, I've listened to them anyway, I just weighted what
they said by the effort they failed to put into their evaluations.

Here's a recent antecdotal report from a
well-regarded reviewer who has had access to this
comparison:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue30/emm.htm

Yup, a guy who uses the alias Dr. Sardonicus is *very* credible.

Did I miss his discussion of his experimental controls, or were there none
at all?

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


snip

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm

Meaningless, since this is the performance of a certain commercial
product, and not necessarily representative of the inherent properties of
the respective formats.

BTW Harry's URL is wrong, the correct URL is
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24_present.htm . Speaks to the care with
which Harry does his analysis.

snip baseless opinions

I went back and doublechecked the URL I gave....it does indeed have the
graphs at the bottom of the page....Arny simply overlooked it and went to
the "Features and Benefits Page" from the menu at the top of the page I
referenced. The "Features and Benefits Page" has the same identical graphs
I referenced...either set will do.

But if Arny couldn't find the graphs on the page I referenced, then he is
the one being sloppy, not I.

[RapidRonnie]

On Mar 6, 6:09 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"dizzy" wrote in message

...

Harry Lavo wrote:

(quote from response to post by the late Stewart Pinkerton)

Did he really die?

I was told he did, and he has not posted since. I don't know for sure.

Too bad it wasn't Allison. He's an even bigger jackoff.

[RapidRonnie]

On Mar 6, 4:02 pm, "Bret Ludwig" wrote:
A unique feature is a precision analog volume control on both the
front panel and remote that allows direct connection to a power
amplifier for a CD player only system. An amplifier and speakers are
all that is needed with the MCD201! Both balanced and unbalanced
variable outputs swing up to 6 volts to effortlessly drive any power
amp directly.http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/mcprod/s...asp?hid=1&id=1...

I would add that I have auditioned the MCD201. Its performance with
SACDs is about the same as much (much much) less expensive universal
players, which is still very good. With CDs its performance is quite
good, better than the universal player alone, but using the Benchmark
DAC is a small improvement. However, using the cheap universal player
as a transport vis-a-vis the Mc is absolutely indistinguishable when
the outboard DAC is employed, and the pair are much cheaper than the
Mc.


The Mc CD players are not very good sounding, but then in my opinion
neither are Mark Levinsons or Jeff Rowland's.

I still have my Gary Galo design mod Philips. I actually prefer it to
much later players, but the Benchmark DAC has a lot of appeal and I am
set to buy one. Is there any disadvantage to getting the new one with
USB as well as the traditional inputs?


Another disappointment with Mc players in the past has been that
unlike their analog products, Mc has totally ended support on earlier
optical disc players when the transport becomes unobtainable. Given
the large sums they sell for I think that's very poor support. It
would certainly be possible for Mc to update older player chassis with
a more modern transport and a controller and firmware.

Yes. Plus, Mc dealers are sometimes really obnoxious. Herb Mooney has
to be the worst. I understand the guy in Paramus, NJ, would give him a
good fight for the title though.

[George M. Middius]

Robert said:

Far be in for me to correct someone's grammar (Hi, George!), but
shouldn't that be .."lack of interest from the young?"

No, but if your interpretation of Robert's bizarre locution is accurate,
it should be "among the young" or "by the young".

I find myself slipping. But if no one reads my posts, why should I?

Are you saying mr. packer is "no one"?




--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


snip

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm

Meaningless, since this is the performance of a certain
commercial product, and not necessarily representative
of the inherent properties of the respective formats.

BTW Harry's URL is wrong, the correct URL is
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24_present.htm . Speaks to
the care with which Harry does his analysis.

snip baseless opinions

I went back and doublechecked the URL I gave....it does
indeed have the graphs at the bottom of the page....Arny
simply overlooked it and went to the "Features and
Benefits Page" from the menu at the top of the page I
referenced. The "Features and Benefits Page" has the
same identical graphs I referenced...either set will do.

But if Arny couldn't find the graphs on the page I
referenced, then he is the one being sloppy, not I.

Not at all. The host web site was so slow that when I pulled up the page,
all there was at the bottom of the page was blank spaces. This persisted for
several minutes. I came back several hours later, and the pictures finally
filled in.

But at usual you're obfuscating and whining Harry.

Deal with this:

Meaningless, since this is the performance of a certain
commercial product, and not necessarily representative
of the inherent properties of the respective formats.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:30:38 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr _ george
@ comcast . net wrote:



Robert said:

Far be in for me to correct someone's grammar (Hi, George!), but
shouldn't that be .."lack of interest from the young?"

No, but if your interpretation of Robert's bizarre locution is accurate,
it should be "among the young" or "by the young".

I find myself slipping. But if no one reads my posts, why should I?

Are you saying mr. packer is "no one"?

No putting words in other people's mouths, George.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:40:31 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

You continue to amaze me with your
blatent dishonesty and unwillingness/inability to engage in any meaningful
discussion

Why? You've seen it all before.

[paul packer]

On 6 Mar 2007 17:49:47 -0800, "RapidRonnie"
wrote:

On Mar 6, 6:09 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"dizzy" wrote in message

...

Harry Lavo wrote:

(quote from response to post by the late Stewart Pinkerton)

Did he really die?

I was told he did, and he has not posted since. I don't know for sure.

Too bad it wasn't Allison. He's an even bigger jackoff.


That's putting it mildly.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:54:46 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(paul packer) said:


caused by the lack of interest in the young.


Far be in for me to correct someone's grammar (Hi, George!), but
shouldn't that be .."lack of interest from the young?"


Far be it from me to correct someone's grammar (Hi, Paul, Ringo!), but
shouldn't that be: ..."Far be it from me..."?

Er...no, it should be "Far be it for me...." Neither of us got it
right. I guess it's a draw, but at least the RAO rule that anyone
correcting someone's grammar will themselves make an error is intact.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

Far be it from me to correct someone's grammar (Hi, Paul, Ringo!), but
shouldn't that be: ..."Far be it from me..."?

Er...no, it should be "Far be it for me...."

Wrong!

Neither of us got it right.

Except for Sander, who did get it right.




--

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

[paul packer]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:08:12 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr _ george
@ comcast . net wrote:



paul packer said:

Far be it from me to correct someone's grammar (Hi, Paul, Ringo!), but
shouldn't that be: ..."Far be it from me..."?

Er...no, it should be "Far be it for me...."

Wrong!

Sorry, George, I have to pull you up on that. I don't know if it's a
cultural thing, but we say, "Far be it for me..." Definitely not
"from".

[paul packer]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 22:49:08 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
news


Robert said:

Far be in for me to correct someone's grammar (Hi, George!), but
shouldn't that be .."lack of interest from the young?"

No, but if your interpretation of Robert's bizarre locution is
accurate,
it should be "among the young" or "by the young".

I find myself slipping. But if no one reads my posts, why should I?

Are you saying mr. packer is "no one"?

Paul is just a dr... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Hmmm...what am I to make of that?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



snip Arnies attempts to show off by blathering
irrelevancies

Notice that this holds
true even against 352kh/32bit DXD pcm processing. Notice that this holds
true whether or not we are speaking of
64fse DSD (SACD) or 128fse DSD (mastering). It is
inherent in the technology. Notice also that the
inherent higher noise of SACD (a so-called detriment)
takes place well above 20khz and peaks at -80db. Even Arny will have
trouble arguing that those
are audibly significant (although that doesn't keep him
from using them to belittle SACD).

Harry, where are the results of your reliable listening
tests supporting the existance of any audible
differences between any of these formats? If these
formats differ as much as you seem to claim, you should
be able to readily demonstrate the difference with your
ears, and your audio system.
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm

Meaningless, since this is the performance of a certain
commercial product, and not necessarily representative
of the inherent properties of the respective formats.

First, note that Arny has snipped without attribution the
very tests and comparisons that I cited the results
of...including the fact that the test recordings were
chosen especially because they were based on the
identical, uncompressed recordings in the comparative
media.

I'll repeat the answer that Harry deceptively removed from the flow of my
post:

The tests you cite Harry lack proper experimental controls.

BTW Harry's URL is wrong, the correct URL is
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24_present.htm . Speaks to
the care with which Harry does his analysis.

Actually, Arnie, the page I cited has changed and when I
was referred to it it contained the graphs on that same
page, much smaller. Obviously a page has been added to
increase the size of the charts. Nonetheless, it is the
charts themselves that are important, not your
blatherings in an attempt to discredit me.

You've done enough butchering of posts on your own Harry. You whined and
blathered to obfuscate my responses.

I notice you have nothing to say about what lies there.

That's a lie. Here's what I said:

Meaningless, since this is the performance of a certain
commercial product, and not necessarily representative
of the inherent properties of the respective formats.


But once
again, you have snipped my commentary and observations to
prevent the reader from making his own judgements.

I'll repeat the answer that Harry deceptively removed from the flow of my
post:

The tests you cite Harry lack proper experimental controls.


You
continue to amaze me with your blatent dishonesty and
unwillingness/inability to engage in any meaningful
discussion of DSD as it emerges as a stronger and
stronger pro audio technology,

One product does not make a market trend.

simply because you might have to acknowledge that you were premature in
your
dismissal of same five years ago.

The market has spoken. SACD and DVD-A media sales have fallen dramatically.
The market found out that the emperor had no clothes.



snip baseless opinions

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

(quote from response to post by the late Stewart
Pinkerton)

Did he really die?


I was told he did, and he has not posted since. I don't
know for sure.

Perfect setup for Pinkerton to point out that the reports of his death were
exagerrated.

It takes a dupe to make this work of course, so Harry steps up...

LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Arny you have not commented on my post "Spectral Analyses
192/24 for Arny". Doesn't it appear on your server or are
you ignoring my efforts to oblige your recent request.

No, I just lost track of the post.

The spectral response shown is weird to say the least. I'm speaking of the
band of of noise around 29 KHz.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


snip

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24.htm

Meaningless, since this is the performance of a certain
commercial product, and not necessarily representative
of the inherent properties of the respective formats.

BTW Harry's URL is wrong, the correct URL is
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ax24_present.htm . Speaks to
the care with which Harry does his analysis.

snip baseless opinions

I went back and doublechecked the URL I gave....it does
indeed have the graphs at the bottom of the page....Arny
simply overlooked it and went to the "Features and
Benefits Page" from the menu at the top of the page I
referenced. The "Features and Benefits Page" has the
same identical graphs I referenced...either set will do.

But if Arny couldn't find the graphs on the page I
referenced, then he is the one being sloppy, not I.

Not at all. The host web site was so slow that when I pulled up the page,
all there was at the bottom of the page was blank spaces. This persisted
for several minutes. I came back several hours later, and the pictures
finally filled in.

But at usual you're obfuscating and whining Harry.

Deal with this:

Meaningless, since this is the performance of a certain
commercial product, and not necessarily representative
of the inherent properties of the respective formats.

Well, that's funny Arny since the Meitner-generated graphs of a 4us impulse
response that were circulated by Ray Kimber at the last few audio shows
showed exactly the same thing as far as impulse response is concerned.
IIRC, you response was "may have been generated in Photoshop". LOL!!

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

snip, irrelevant to following

Not at all. The host web site was so slow that when I pulled up the page,
all there was at the bottom of the page was blank spaces. This persisted
for several minutes. I came back several hours later, and the pictures
finally filled in.

Time for a new machine, Arny. On my hardly SOTA Athlon 3800 machine, the
graphics take all of about three seconds to appear.


snip, irrelevant to the above

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


snip, irrelevant to the following


simply because you might have to acknowledge that you were premature in
your
dismissal of same five years ago.

The market has spoken. SACD and DVD-A media sales have fallen
dramatically. The market found out that the emperor had no clothes.

Well, Arny, it's nice to see you still haven't forgotten your old McDonalds
gambit. Still consistently used when your technical arguments don't stand
up, I see.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

(quote from response to post by the late Stewart
Pinkerton)

Did he really die?


I was told he did, and he has not posted since. I don't
know for sure.

Perfect setup for Pinkerton to point out that the reports of his death
were exagerrated.

It takes a dupe to make this work of course, so Harry steps up...

LOL!

Come out, come out, wherever you are, Stewart! Arny (with me as dupe) has
invited you.

[Arny Krueger]

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


snip, irrelevant to the following


simply because you might have to acknowledge that you
were premature in your
dismissal of same five years ago.

The market has spoken. SACD and DVD-A media sales have
fallen dramatically. The market found out that the
emperor had no clothes.

Well, Arny, it's nice to see you still haven't forgotten
your old McDonalds gambit.

Wrong Harry. SACD players and media are generally positioned as higher end
products. They never ever made it into the McDonald's market. The obvious
lesson is that in this higher end market, SACD and DVD-A simply lacked legs.

It is an incontrovertable fact that there is zero evidence that the SACD and
DVD-A technologies provide even an audible diffrerence in anybody's home
system, if reasonble comparison techniques are used. If the difference were
as great as you will probably claim to your dying day, it should be pretty
easy to demonstrate.

Harry, you seem to be just as incapable of resolving differences in the
realm of marketing as you are in resolving differences in the area of
technology.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..


But at usual you're obfuscating and whining Harry.

Deal with this:

Meaningless, since this is the performance of a certain
commercial product, and not necessarily representative
of the inherent properties of the respective formats.

Well, that's funny Arny since the Meitner-generated
graphs of a 4us impulse response that were circulated by
Ray Kimber at the last few audio shows showed exactly the
same thing as far as impulse response is concerned. IIRC,
you response was "may have been generated in Photoshop". LOL!!

Harry, you've been caught in yet another lie if you can't provide evidence
of this from google.

Anybody who wants to can try this reasonable google retrieval:

meitner photoshop author:arny

and watch is come up

"did not match any documents"