"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
.net,
" wrote:

snip

Vinyl LP's are an iferior medium and have several orders
of magnitude more distortion than CD's snip

Yeah, but to many ears, they can sound so much better
than most CDs. Go figure.

OK, so sentimentality is affecting your perceptions.

Sentimentality has nothing to do with appreciating LP sound.
I'm sentimental for 78's, and they sound like ****.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
.net,
" wrote:

snip

Vinyl LP's are an iferior medium and have several
orders of magnitude more distortion than CD's snip

Yeah, but to many ears, they can sound so much better
than most CDs. Go figure.

OK, so sentimentality is affecting your perceptions.

Sentimentality has nothing to do with appreciating LP
sound. I'm sentimental for 78's, and they sound like ****.

Art, I'll bet money you can't figure out how these two
statements contradict each other.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
From http://www.electronicstalk.com/news/mat/mat150.html

"A further noise variable that can specifically affect
small
AC
voltages
can
be observed with reed contacts and with relays
constructed
according
to
the
reed principle - designs with their contact springs in
the
magnetic
field of
the relay coil."
When the contact is closed there is a damped oscillation
with
a
frequency of
between 2 and 3kHz, corresponding to the inherent
resonant
frequency
of
the
tongues.

"However a typical level for standard contacts can be
extremely
significant
on very low-level signal switching circuits."

Once again, Arny and his amphibian sidekick are caught in
the
quagmire
of
unscientific thought and sloppy design.


Yeah, but who gives a ****? You aren't going to use his
box
anyway.

Responsibility for this device weighs heavily on those who
push
it.
Arny
should have spent his time synthesizing flu viruses.


What is your educational level, Mikey? Do amphibians attend
college,
and
the
like?


Who are you really, sock puppet Morein?
Why do you feel the need to persecute people who tell the trtuh
about
your
incompetence?

I am your conscience, Mikey. I am inside your head.


Prove that an ABX box masks any differences.
Prove that ABX is not a valid protocol.

I am your conscience, Mikey. ABX is very bad. Very bad, Mikey.

That must be why it is the sthandard for subtle difference detection.

Sorry, Mikey, it is completely ignored by 20,000,000 consumers for
subtle
detection of audio quality.

Then why don't you ignore it as wll?
Why does a reliable methodology for detecting difference bother you so
much?
Why do you consistently lie that it is not a standard for audio research?
ITU BS 1116-1

ITU BS = I Tella You Bull ****

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
From http://www.electronicstalk.com/news/mat/mat150.html

"A further noise variable that can specifically affect
small
AC
voltages
can
be observed with reed contacts and with relays
constructed
according
to
the
reed principle - designs with their contact springs in
the
magnetic
field of
the relay coil."
When the contact is closed there is a damped oscillation
with
a
frequency of
between 2 and 3kHz, corresponding to the inherent
resonant
frequency
of
the
tongues.

"However a typical level for standard contacts can be
extremely
significant
on very low-level signal switching circuits."

Once again, Arny and his amphibian sidekick are caught
in
the
quagmire
of
unscientific thought and sloppy design.


Yeah, but who gives a ****? You aren't going to use his
box
anyway.

Responsibility for this device weighs heavily on those who
push
it.
Arny
should have spent his time synthesizing flu viruses.


What is your educational level, Mikey? Do amphibians attend
college,
and
the
like?


Who are you really, sock puppet Morein?
Why do you feel the need to persecute people who tell the trtuh
about
your
incompetence?

I am your conscience, Mikey. I am inside your head.


Prove that an ABX box masks any differences.
Prove that ABX is not a valid protocol.

I am your conscience, Mikey. ABX is very bad. Very bad, Mikey.

That must be why it is the sthandard for subtle difference detection.

Sorry, Mikey, it is completely ignored by 20,000,000 consumers for
subtle
detection of audio quality.

Then why don't you ignore it as wll?
Why does a reliable methodology for detecting difference bother you so
much?
Why do you consistently lie that it is not a standard for audio research?
ITU BS 1116-1

ITU BS = I Tella You Bull ****

We've known that about you for some time.

wrote:
snip
Global feedback is not something that makes amps inferior, but if to much is
used it will affect the way an amp clips.

Excessive amounts of global feedback are a detriment to sound and a
cheap fix for less than determined design. Almost all good sounding
amps use moderate to minimal amounts of global feedback.



Stereophile has some of the most incredibly idiotic and hearing impaired
reviewers on the planet working for them and they frequently endorse snake
oil.

That well may be so, nonetheless, they are correct some of the time.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
wrote:
snip
Global feedback is not something that makes amps
inferior, but if to much is used it will affect the way
an amp clips.

Excessive amounts of global feedback are a detriment to
sound and a cheap fix for less than determined design.
Almost all good sounding amps use moderate to minimal
amounts of global feedback.



Stereophile has some of the most incredibly idiotic and
hearing impaired reviewers on the planet working for
them and they frequently endorse snake oil.

That well may be so, nonetheless, they are correct some
of the time.

So is a stopped clock - its correct twice a day, right? ;-)

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 05:33:05 GMT, "
wrote:


(snip wrong headedness)

Vinyl LP's are an iferior medium and have several orders of magnitude more
distortion than CD's, which is not to say that there are not some really
awfull sounding CD's.

Well, at least you got that right. (Assuming of course that by
"iferior" you meant "inferior").

(snip wrong headedness)

" wrote in
message
link.net

Desperation time for the audiophools, now they're forging
posts in order to deceive.

Hardly new news. I find it ironic that self-proclaimed
guardians of truth so often resort to deception.

The simple facts are these:

Wire is wire.

Well, really thin speaker wire can hurt sound quality in
long lengths.

Amplifiers contribute nothing to imaging, that's a
funtion of teh recording and the speakers.

Well, other than really bad amps. I suspect that some SETs
are so bad that they do affect imaging, in a bad way.

ABX is the accepted standard for audio research into
subtle differences.

Well, ABX and ABC/hr. ABC/hr is not optimal for research
into subtle differences, but it can work well enough. ABC/hr
is better for quantifying audible degradation of sound
quality where it exists.

It is a simple matter thse days to build auio equipment
that is sonically neutral, that is neither adds nor
subtracts from the input signal.

Certainly true for amps, preamps, digital players and
recorders, etc.

An ABX box does not mask any differences.

When used properly by trained listeners.

Vinyl LP's are an iferior medium and have several orders
of magnitude more distortion than CD's, which is not to
say that there are not some really awfull sounding CD's.

I still remember the first time I heard the comparison of LP
playback to playback of a high speed master tape. The LP
sounded pretty good by itself, but listening to the tape was
so much better.


Global feedback is not something that makes amps
inferior, but if to much is used it will affect the way
an amp clips.

Designing feedback systems has traditionally been a junior
or senior level undergraduate topic in electrical
engineering. It takes skill to get it right. It takes
experience to get it right in real world product
development. Most of the people who damn global feedback
lack appropriate technical training and experience.

Stereophile has some of the most incredibly idiotic and
hearing impaired reviewers on the planet working for them
and they frequently endorse snake oil.

I don't know if they are better or worse than some of their
competition. The whole market segment has spun out of
control. There is evidence that its dying at an increasing
rate. For example:

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Obse...20Thoughts.pdf

Arny Krueger wrote:
" wrote in
message
link.net
Stereophile has some of the most incredibly idiotic and
hearing impaired reviewers on the planet working for them
and they frequently endorse snake oil.

I don't know if they are better or worse than some of their
competition. The whole market segment has spun out of
control. There is evidence that its dying at an increasing
rate. For example:
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Obse...20Thoughts.pdf

Other than the fact that Mr. Geddss is offering opinions, not
"evidence," he presents an interesting point of view (though not
one I agree with). However, Mike McKelvy was discussing Stereophile
and its reviewers, Mr. Geddes is discussing high-end audio as a
whole, not magazines.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

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

wrote:
snip
Global feedback is not something that makes amps inferior, but if to much
is
used it will affect the way an amp clips.

Excessive amounts of global feedback are a detriment to sound and a
cheap fix for less than determined design. Almost all good sounding
amps use moderate to minimal amounts of global feedback.


Can be so, but it is not, as some people seem to believe a bad idea, in fact
it is a requirement.



Stereophile has some of the most incredibly idiotic and hearing impaired
reviewers on the planet working for them and they frequently endorse
snake
oil.

That well may be so, nonetheless, they are correct some of the time.

I want something better than some of the time.
I never want reviewers that aren't smart enough to call snake oil for what
it is.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
" wrote in
message
link.net
Stereophile has some of the most incredibly idiotic and
hearing impaired reviewers on the planet working for them
and they frequently endorse snake oil.

I don't know if they are better or worse than some of their
competition. The whole market segment has spun out of
control. There is evidence that its dying at an increasing
rate. For example:
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Obse...20Thoughts.pdf

Other than the fact that Mr. Geddss is offering opinions, not
"evidence," he presents an interesting point of view (though not
one I agree with). However, Mike McKelvy was discussing Stereophile
and its reviewers, Mr. Geddes is discussing high-end audio as a
whole, not magazines.

Feel free to apply my comments about Sp to all the other idiots who write
for other similar mags. Any mag that allows unchecked endorsements of snake
oil products should IMO more than just criticized, they should be charged
with whatever legal statutes apply to people who aid and abet fraud.

As editor of SP you bear a large portion of responsability for the idiotic
recomendations of some of the idiots who endorse things known to be
fraudulent.

Bottom line, find out what technical reasons if any are at work in any of
the products your writers endorse. If there are no reasons why something
could do what it is claimed, say so.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
" wrote in
message
link.net
Stereophile has some of the most incredibly idiotic and
hearing impaired reviewers on the planet working for them
and they frequently endorse snake oil.

I don't know if they are better or worse than some of their
competition. The whole market segment has spun out of
control. There is evidence that its dying at an increasing
rate. For example:
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Obse...20Thoughts.pdf

Other than the fact that Mr. Geddss is offering opinions, not
"evidence," he presents an interesting point of view (though not
one I agree with). However, Mike McKelvy was discussing Stereophile
and its reviewers, Mr. Geddes is discussing high-end audio as a
whole, not magazines.

There might be a germ of truth in his viewpoint, even if it is not literally
true. You have commented in the past about the convergence of DACs, and the
resultant similarity of sound. I found this changed with the advent of
upsampling DACs, yet I do most of my listening on a system with a 15 year
old 18 bit ladder DAC. Perhaps I should change it, but for reasons unknown,
it works very well with a Acoustat panels.

At one of the Stereophile HT shows, where I had an opportunity to sample the
very high end, I found a spread that equally encompassed the very
unimpressive, as well as innovations with a capacity to surprise and
delight. I went home both disappointed and amazed, but not convinced that
great expenditures of money provide proportional reward. Since Dunlavy used
paper, and others used diamonds, there is the question of whether liberal
use of diamonds actually facilitates gem-like sound

I do feel that at the beginning of the 90's, the desire for marketplace
differentiation caused somewhat of the effect Geddes writes of. Utilitarian
products have been significantly displaced. For example, Parasound has
replaced simply styled equipment with more impressively packages, but the
specifications for signal-to-noise have actually decreased. The perception
by manufacturers that appearance, rather than performance, registers with
today's buyer, may be causing an occult adulteration.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 05:33:05 GMT, "
wrote:


An ABX box does not mask any differences.


Vinyl LP's are an inferior medium and have several orders of magnitude
more
distortion than CD's, which is not to say that there are not some really
awfull sounding CD's.

Well, at least you got that right.

I got it all right. Nothing I said was incorrect.
I've put back the things you snipped so as to give you a chance to offer up
proof that I made an error. Other than spelling.

Stereophile has some of the most incredibly idiotic and hearing impaired
reviewers on the planet working for them and they frequently endorse snake
oil.

I suppose I should actually have some data on their hearing, but judging by
the things that get good reviews, especially speakers, they don't seem to
have a clue most of the time.