[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a
matter of "picking your poison". It's ALL artificial.
I can listen through a few tics. I can't listen
through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
instrument made of plastic.

You think digital does that to a recording of a
violin?

I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP, and
I have on CD.

Obviously Jenn, you lack my 55 years, more or less, of
listening to vinyl.

That's true. I'm only 51.

I guess you were very indiscriminate when you were young, because you
obviously didn't notice the horrors of vinyl in the day.

For the first 36 years of my life, basically vinyl was
all that we had, and it often sucked mightily even
though our player technology for the last 10 or so years
was essentially what is available today.

During that time I heard plenty of recordings that made
music sound like it was played on plastic instruments.

I've heard lots of bad reproduction via LP, but bad in
different ways than some digital.

That is a meaningless statement. Well it has meaning, but its a truism.

Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
doesn't do that.

Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm speaking
about all the CD players I've heard.

Obviously a problem with lack of experience,

lol A statement for which you have no evidence.

Yes I do, I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn.

but I think there is a little
bias and hysteria tossed in.

Of course you do.

Really? That's a staement for which you have no compelling evidence.

Nothing like recently blowing nearly a $grand
on a vinyl player to keep the illusion going.

You're entitled to your opinion.

You're entitled to try to justify your poor judgement, Jenn.;

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


Both arsenic and water can be poisonous, but I'll pick
the glass of water every time.

Good for you. I hear it differently.

Obviously. You've got that recent large expenditure on substandard
technology to justify to yourself.

Please keep enjoying your music, and I'll enjoy mine.

You're changing the subject Jenn, from analysis of relevant facts to
personal preferences.

The sound quality failings of the vinyl format are
well-known and generally-agreed-upon to be by far the
stronger poison to our mutual goal of lifelike sound.

It's ALL artificial.

Not necessarily. I've played CDs through a live sound
system and temporarily fooled people into thinking there
is a live performance going on.

I can't imagine that happening,

Attributable to a lack of real-world experience.

but good for you and for those people.

Dismissive attitude noted, Ironic coming from a person with such limited
real world experience with audio.

Nothing coming through a speaker ever sounds close to real, IMO.

You've obviously never done the experiment I described, or done it right.

As usual Jenn, you've placed yourself on a high pedestal above people who
simply know more about the topic than you do.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a
matter of "picking your poison". It's ALL artificial.
I can listen through a few tics. I can't listen
through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
instrument made of plastic.

You think digital does that to a recording of a
violin?

I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP, and
I have on CD.

Obviously Jenn, you lack my 55 years, more or less, of
listening to vinyl.

That's true. I'm only 51.

I guess you were very indiscriminate when you were young, because you
obviously didn't notice the horrors of vinyl in the day.

What makes you say that? Of course I noticed the faults. And I've said
time and time again that most CDs sound better than most LPs.


For the first 36 years of my life, basically vinyl was
all that we had, and it often sucked mightily even
though our player technology for the last 10 or so years
was essentially what is available today.

During that time I heard plenty of recordings that made
music sound like it was played on plastic instruments.

I've heard lots of bad reproduction via LP, but bad in
different ways than some digital.

That is a meaningless statement. Well it has meaning, but its a truism.

Of course. I'm simply stating that I hear different faults in the two
media. For some reason, you feel the need to question that.


Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
doesn't do that.

Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm speaking
about all the CD players I've heard.

Obviously a problem with lack of experience,

lol A statement for which you have no evidence.

Yes I do, I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn.

You presume that I hear what I hear based on lack of experience. You
have no evidence to support that statement. What you do have is a
desire to argue with me.


but I think there is a little
bias and hysteria tossed in.

Of course you do.

Really? That's a staement for which you have no compelling evidence.

No, the evidence is that "hysteria" seems to be your default statement
concerning why I like the sound of something.


Nothing like recently blowing nearly a $grand
on a vinyl player to keep the illusion going.

You're entitled to your opinion.

You're entitled to try to justify your poor judgement, Jenn.;

Again, you're entitled to your opinion. I spend $1000 on a
TT/arm/cartridge because I like the way that it sounds. If you think
that this is foolish, I simply advise you not to do the same.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


Both arsenic and water can be poisonous, but I'll pick
the glass of water every time.

Good for you. I hear it differently.

Obviously. You've got that recent large expenditure on substandard
technology to justify to yourself.

You've got the chronology wrong.


Please keep enjoying your music, and I'll enjoy mine.

You're changing the subject Jenn, from analysis of relevant facts to
personal preferences.

I'm not changing the subject at all, Arny. It's not about analysis of
facts. For me, listening to music is about, in this order:
1. The music itself
2. Listening to the best sound possible on a given recording according
my my ears.

Perhaps your priorities are different.


The sound quality failings of the vinyl format are
well-known and generally-agreed-upon to be by far the
stronger poison to our mutual goal of lifelike sound.

It's ALL artificial.

Not necessarily. I've played CDs through a live sound
system and temporarily fooled people into thinking there
is a live performance going on.

I can't imagine that happening,

Attributable to a lack of real-world experience.

No, I've listened to a great deal of live music and a great many audio
systems in several locales.


but good for you and for those people.

Dismissive attitude noted, Ironic coming from a person with such limited
real world experience with audio.

It's not dismissive at all. If some people can be fooled in this way,
they are ahead of the game.


Nothing coming through a speaker ever sounds close to real, IMO.

You've obviously never done the experiment I described, or done it right.

What experiment?


As usual Jenn, you've placed yourself on a high pedestal above people who
simply know more about the topic than you do.

A ridiculous statement. I've in no way said that I'm better or on some
kind of other "pedestal". All I've said is that I hear what I hear, you
hear what you hear, and everyone should enjoy what sounds best to them.
I have no idea why you have such a problem with that concept.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Aug 31, 9:12*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Aug 29, 11:56*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 29 Aug, 17:56, ScottW wrote:
On Aug 29, 2:46*pm, Jenn wrote:

In article

,

*ScottW wrote:
On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
.
com
,

*vlad wrote:
On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

.net
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

bal.
net
In article ,
Andrew Barss wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger
wrote:

Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
equalizer.

How to increase "warmth":

snip

Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? *
Given
that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound
of
vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.

Why do you say, "claim to"?

Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.

True with CDs too, of course.

Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make
*such
an
off-topic
comment?

Just being clear.

There does seem to be a general preference for sound
with
less
audible
noise
and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell
LPs by
more than
100:
1.

Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds
like.

* What an elitist statement to make.

Not at all.

Yeah, it was a bit snooty.

No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.

*Critical? *I thought you liked to be snooty?

If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did
10
years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know
what
grape soda tastes like?

*If you obviously think grape soda is some sign of culture and
culinary appreciation,
yeah, and it's also wrong.
I drink far less soda than I once did, but I still know what they
taste like.
Your conclusion is not a given from the facts presented.
Ask your community college students for some assistance with
your critical thinking.

ScottW-

LOL!!!

today's teeneagers were not teenagers 10 years
ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bingo. *Please explain it to Scott.

Doesn't change anything.

Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
mean change. * Your premise is the count outside
the normal distribution is changing while the evidence for
your claim is based upon the average.
That is foolish.

ScottW

Scott, the example was statistics showing that fewer teenagers drink
grape soda, not that the same number of teenagers who drank grape soda
years ago now drink less of it. *See the difference?

Neither has a direct proven correlation with the "never drank" count
which is what you're trying to claim.

ScottW

Scott this is going nowhere. One more statement, then let's end it, OK?
If fewer teens drink grape soda, doesn't it make sense that as the
teenaged population "ages out" and the larger population of teens who
used to drink it are no longer teens, the number of teens who know the
taste of grape soda is shrinking?

At any rate, back to the point, IF stats show that fewer people know the
taste of grape soda, it's not a "snooty" statement to point that out.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Aug 31, 9:09*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Aug 29, 11:50*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Aug 29, 3:06*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Aug 29, 1:57*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

t

Or another name: *"It sounds more like typical acoustic
music to ______ (insert name)."

Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all
what the original acoustic performance sounded like
because they weren't there.

As I wrote, "typical acoustic music".

Oh, so Jenn you think that all acoustic music sounds the
same?

What makes you think that?

*There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,

Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops, inner
groove
distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc. Yet I have yet to
hear an
LP
that fails to have one or more of those failings. I've
visited
the
homes
of
audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but yet
when
they
play
vinyl, one or more of those failings is audible. I've been to
what
are
alleged to be some of the best high end audio shows around,
and
even
in
carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has one or
more
of
those
problems.

and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.

Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I can
count on
vinyl
to stick its hand right up and say "I've got clearly audible
flaws".

We've been through this before.

Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that there's
something
going
on with you that keeps you from hearing the well-known
audible
flaws
of
vinyl.

Wrong Arny. *As I've said many times before, it's a matter of
"picking
your poison". *It's ALL artificial. *I can listen through a few
tics.
*I
can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
instrument made of plastic.

*You think digital does that to a recording of a violin?

I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP, and I have on
CD.

All recordings or just some?

All to a greater or lesser degree.

That would indicate there is a factor other than
digital infuencing your perception.

Why?

Because the process of digitizing an analogue audio
signal is straightforward, thoroughly evaluated and highly
repeatable. That process won't have greater or
lesser degree impacts to a violin.

Your playback system FR is likely different from CD
to vinyl. Identical recordings may not sound the same
between your CD player or vinyl.



*Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
doesn't do that.

Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm speaking about all
the
CD
players I've heard.

*All CD players make violins sound like plastic.

To a greater or lesser degree in certain ranges of the instrument. *I
hear a similar problem with female voice above about G on top of the
treble staff.

*I suspect your room curve of your digital system(s) is not
representative
of live music to you. *Flat FR is not typical of live music.
Some recordings have some compensation, others have none.
Your vinyl rig likely provides some hi-freq rolloff that is more to
your liking.
For less than $100 and your PC you can set yourself up to measure
it.

Except that I've heard what I hear on all digital systems in all the
rooms in which I've heard digital.

Lots of speaker/amp systems target flat FR. IME, flat beyond 10K is
fatiguing.
Vinyl may sound fine on such a system while CD providing a
flatter HF output doesn't.
The lower distortion of the speaker, the more this becomes
apparent.
From what I've read your vandersteens have some crossover
adjustments that may help your CDs.

ScottW

All interesting, and I'll take it under advisement. I do have hope.
Yesterday I purchased a Pentatone CD of Julia Fischer playing Mozart
conerti. It's an EXCELLENT sounding recording. I hear only a bit of
the negative violin timbre that I complain about on first, casual
hearing. I hope that things are getting better, because as I've said
before, I would like nothing better than to love everything about CDs.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 1, 10:25*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
mean change. * Your premise is the count outside
the normal distribution is changing while the evidence for
your claim is based upon the average.
That is foolish.

ScottW

Scott, the example was statistics showing that fewer teenagers drink
grape soda, not that the same number of teenagers who drank grape soda
years ago now drink less of it. *See the difference?

Neither has a direct proven correlation with the "never drank" count
which is what you're trying to claim.

ScottW

Scott this is going nowhere. *One more statement, then let's end it, OK? *
If fewer teens drink grape soda, doesn't it make sense that as the
teenaged population "ages out" and the larger population of teens who
used to drink it are no longer teens, the number of teens who know the
taste of grape soda is shrinking?

You want to "end it" with a statement question

I meant one more statement by each of us.

that is just
repetition of the same false assertion?
Good luck with that
.

At any rate, back to the point, IF stats show that fewer people know the
taste of grape soda, it's not a "snooty" statement to point that out.

Going back to your pedestal of claiming to be one of the few who still
know
what acoustic music and instruments sound like, yeah it's snooty
to imply a unique perspective on something to gain some
weird self-proclaimed authority viewpoint.
Especially when your stereo is admittedly so flawed as to make
violins sound like plastic toys, your authority is
truly suspect.

ScottW

Scott, you can claim that I am claiming "to be one of the few who still
know what acoustic music and instruments sound like" all you want, but
it just makes you look foolish, as I am claiming nothing of the sort.
But carry on your fantasy if you wish. I tried to have a nice
conversation with you, and obviously that doesn't work.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

It always ends this way. Some posters persist in repeating the exercise
for reasons unknown. Always the same result.

Scott, you can claim that I am claiming "to be one of the few who still
know what acoustic music and instruments sound like" all you want, but
it just makes you look foolish,

That's like saying Bozo's big red clown wig and floppy clown shoes make
him look like a clown.

But carry on your fantasy if you wish.

Did it ever occur to you that Yapper might be dissuaded from indulging in
his fantasies if nobody enabled him? Just asking.

I tried to have a nice
conversation with you, and obviously that doesn't work.

It didn't work today. It didn't work last week. It didn't work last month,
or last year, or last decade. It will never work. Remember when Scottie
bleated about the dearth of 'discussions'? It would be a mistake to
conflate Scottie-style 'discussions' with the Normal activity of the same
name.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 1, 11:24*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Sep 1, 10:25*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
mean change. * Your premise is the count outside
the normal distribution is changing while the evidence for
your claim is based upon the average.
That is foolish.

ScottW

Scott, the example was statistics showing that fewer teenagers
drink
grape soda, not that the same number of teenagers who drank grape
soda
years ago now drink less of it. *See the difference?

Neither has a direct proven correlation with the "never drank" count
which is what you're trying to claim.

ScottW

Scott this is going nowhere. *One more statement, then let's end it,
OK? *
If fewer teens drink grape soda, doesn't it make sense that as the
teenaged population "ages out" and the larger population of teens who
used to drink it are no longer teens, the number of teens who know the
taste of grape soda is shrinking?

You want to "end it" with a statement question

I meant one more statement by each of us.

So much for doing what you mean.



that is just
repetition of the same false assertion?
Good luck with that
.

At any rate, back to the point, IF stats show that fewer people know
the
taste of grape soda, it's not a "snooty" statement to point that out.

Going back to your pedestal of claiming to be one of the few who still
know
what acoustic music and instruments sound like, yeah it's snooty
to imply a unique perspective on something to gain some
weird self-proclaimed authority viewpoint.
Especially when your stereo is admittedly so flawed as to make
violins sound like plastic toys, your authority is
truly suspect.

ScottW

Scott, you can claim that I am claiming "to be one of the few who still
know what acoustic music and instruments sound like" all you want, but
it just makes you look foolish, as I am claiming nothing of the sort.

Really? Perhaps you've already forgotten the origin of this subthread
which began with this comment from Arny and your reply.

" There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less
audible noise
and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by more than 100:
1.

Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like. Some
of
those people like the sound of many CDs. I agree with them. Some of
them also have experienced some LPs to be the best sound at home they
have yet experienced. I'm also one of those people. "

You do clearly claim to be one "those" "fewer and fewer".

Yes. Where did I say that there are "few" people?


*
But carry on your fantasy if you wish.

Your words are now my fantasy. LoL.

*I tried to have a nice
conversation with you, and obviously that doesn't work.

It won't if you require me to ignore what you write to be nice.

ScottW

God, Scott, you win yet again. The fact that there are fewer acoustic
instruments sold and played, and the fact that fewer people go to
acoustic music concerts has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how many
people know the sound of live acoustic music. Perfectly logical on your
part. Congrats.

[Chronic Philharmonic]

"ScottW" wrote in message
...
On Aug 29, 9:29 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Chronic Philharmonic" wrote in message

news:cy0uk.46$393.40@trnddc05...

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:20:01 GMT, Chronic Philharmonic
wrote:

[...]

A worn out record being played with a worn out stylus never sounded
warm
to
me. It sounds noisy, fuzzy and distorted. Reducing frequencies above
about
5kHz might provide some relief from that, but it isn't high fidelity.
As
far
as that goes, "warm" isn't a term I would associate with high fidelity
either. Accuracy, perhaps.

Since recording a live event (or generating the illusion of a live
event
in
the studio) is an art form, high fidelity is a complex concept. IMHO,
the
most neutral medium and reproduction equipment would be the best way
to
reproduce the original sound. Vinyl, and most analog storage
technology
is
measurably and objectively nowhere near as neutral as modern digital
technology. Flame on...

No argument here, but I didn't have a $10K phono investment to
rationalize when
CD's first came out. Mine's $10K! It has to sound better than a $300
CD
player! That muffled sound has to be better... Let's give it a name...
warm!

The other problem: My cat has taken to sleeping on the dust cover of my
expensive turntable. I play CDs now, because I can still get the CD
drawer
open with the cat sitting there. So the vinyl format simply is not
cat-friendly.

LOL! How true!

My cat is banned from my listening rooms.
Cat fur and claws with electrostats and vinyl
simply don't mix.

You must not have a wife and kids. When it's more than just me in the house,
cat's go where they will. ;-)

[Chronic Philharmonic]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ec0uk.34$Dj1.14@trnddc02,
"Chronic Philharmonic" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


Or another name: "It sounds more like typical acoustic
music to ______ (insert name)."

Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all
what the original acoustic performance sounded like
because they weren't there.

As I wrote, "typical acoustic music".

Oh, so Jenn you think that all acoustic music sounds the same?

What makes you think that?



There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,

Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops, inner groove
distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc. Yet I have yet to hear an
LP
that fails to have one or more of those failings. I've visited the
homes
of
audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but yet when they
play
vinyl, one or more of those failings is audible. I've been to what are
alleged to be some of the best high end audio shows around, and even
in
carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has one or more of
those
problems.

and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.

Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I can count on
vinyl
to stick its hand right up and say "I've got clearly audible flaws".

We've been through this before.

Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that there's something
going
on with you that keeps you from hearing the well-known audible flaws
of
vinyl.

Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a matter of "picking
your poison". It's ALL artificial. I can listen through a few tics.
I
can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
instrument made of plastic.

If it sounds that way, it is because of the production quality, not
because
of the technology. Digital audio is the closest thing we have to a
straight
wire between the performance and your living room.

I've heard the effect on CD. I've not heard the effect on the best LPs.

Here's an experiment you could run, if you really want to get at the truth:
Copy the LPs that exhibit the sound you prefer to a CD, using a high quality
sound card, taking care that any ticks and pops do not exceed digital full
scale, while simultaneously making sure the rumble and surface noise stays
above the properly dithered digital noise level (fortunately, this is not
difficult). Then play back the LP and the newly-recorded CD in a properly
implemented A-B-X listening test, and see if you can distinguish any
difference between the two with any statistically significant repeatability.

[Geoff]

Jenn wrote:

Interesting thoughts, thanks.

Any chance of trimming several screenloads of quoted text before you your
3-word reply ?

geoff

[Richard Crowley]

"geoff" wrote ...
Jenn wrote:
Interesting thoughts, thanks.

Any chance of trimming several screenloads of quoted text before you your
3-word reply ?

It is r.a.o (or r.a.m).
It is an alternative universe devoid of common sense.

Please drop r.a.t!

[MiNe 109]

In article AbZuk.279$393.193@trnddc05,
"Chronic Philharmonic" wrote:

I've heard the effect on CD. I've not heard the effect on the best LPs.

Here's an experiment you could run, if you really want to get at the truth:
Copy the LPs that exhibit the sound you prefer to a CD, using a high quality
sound card, taking care that any ticks and pops do not exceed digital full
scale, while simultaneously making sure the rumble and surface noise stays
above the properly dithered digital noise level (fortunately, this is not
difficult). Then play back the LP and the newly-recorded CD in a properly
implemented A-B-X listening test, and see if you can distinguish any
difference between the two with any statistically significant repeatability.

That wouldn't help the poorly recorded cds on which the effect manifests.

Stephen

[Chronic Philharmonic]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article AbZuk.279$393.193@trnddc05,
"Chronic Philharmonic" wrote:

I've heard the effect on CD. I've not heard the effect on the best
LPs.

Here's an experiment you could run, if you really want to get at the
truth:
Copy the LPs that exhibit the sound you prefer to a CD, using a high
quality
sound card, taking care that any ticks and pops do not exceed digital
full
scale, while simultaneously making sure the rumble and surface noise
stays
above the properly dithered digital noise level (fortunately, this is not
difficult). Then play back the LP and the newly-recorded CD in a properly
implemented A-B-X listening test, and see if you can distinguish any
difference between the two with any statistically significant
repeatability.

That wouldn't help the poorly recorded cds on which the effect manifests.

No, this would only prove or disprove the ability of the medium to
accurately reproduce whatever is fed into it. That's what a medium is
supposed to do. Gold in, gold out. Garbage in, garbage out. A poorly
recorded CD, like a poorly recorded LP, is garbage.

[Geoff]

Chronic Philharmonic wrote:

No, this would only prove or disprove the ability of the medium to
accurately reproduce whatever is fed into it. That's what a medium is
supposed to do. Gold in, gold out. Garbage in, garbage out. A poorly
recorded CD, like a poorly recorded LP, is garbage.

To be pedantic, it's not a "poorly recorded CD", but poorly recorded or
mastered music that happens to be carried on a CD.

geoff

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
"geoff" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Interesting thoughts, thanks.

Any chance of trimming several screenloads of quoted text before you your
3-word reply ?

geoff

Sure.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article AbZuk.279$393.193@trnddc05,
"Chronic Philharmonic" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

I've heard the effect on CD. I've not heard the effect on the best LPs.

Here's an experiment you could run, if you really want to get at the truth:
Copy the LPs that exhibit the sound you prefer to a CD, using a high quality
sound card, taking care that any ticks and pops do not exceed digital full
scale, while simultaneously making sure the rumble and surface noise stays
above the properly dithered digital noise level (fortunately, this is not
difficult). Then play back the LP and the newly-recorded CD in a properly
implemented A-B-X listening test, and see if you can distinguish any
difference between the two with any statistically significant repeatability.

I'd be happy to do that. Perhaps I can find someone to help me
implement it. If I can't tell the difference, I'll be happy to report
that.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech George M. Middius wrote:



Stupey Sillybot's back is up. What's scaring Stupey? Why, some hideously
uninhibited Normal mentioned [gasp!] vinyl recordings!

"Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
the first place..."

'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.

The horror! They're talking about LPs in public! And -- get this --
THEY'RE NOT WAVING PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES!!

Who can blame Stupey for reacting like this? He was minding his own
business, peacefully building up his Fortress Of Audio Safety (known to
Normals as a crypt). And along comes a Normal who DARES to mention the
Forbidden Truth. Of course Sillybot is terrified. What 'borg wouldn't be?


The only possible 'horror' here, for me, would come from putting myself in your place, and
realizing that *all* I'd ever had to show for myself was puerile 'funny' names, ten-ton
sarcasm, and nerdy in-jokes in the service of endless, pointless, psychotic vendettas...all of
which would still be there in the public record to condemn me as a sad, pathetic loser long
after I'm dead.

shudder


--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Stupey's fragile ego is bruised.

Stupey Sillybot's back is up. What's scaring Stupey? Why, some hideously
uninhibited Normal mentioned [gasp!] vinyl recordings!

"Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
the first place..."

'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.

The horror! They're talking about LPs in public! And -- get this --
THEY'RE NOT WAVING PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES!!

Who can blame Stupey for reacting like this? He was minding his own
business, peacefully building up his Fortress Of Audio Safety (known to
Normals as a crypt). And along comes a Normal who DARES to mention the
Forbidden Truth. Of course Sillybot is terrified. What 'borg wouldn't be?

The only possible 'horror' here, for me, would come from putting myself in your place, and
realizing that *all* I'd ever had to show for myself was puerile 'funny' names, ten-ton
sarcasm, and nerdy in-jokes in the service of endless, pointless, psychotic vendettas...all of
which would still be there in the public record to condemn me as a sad, pathetic loser long
after I'm dead.


I get this kind of reaction from time to time. Nine times out of ten, it
arises out of envy. I see you engaged your thesaurus to show your
vocabulary chops. Did you weigh the risk of getting shunned in the nerds'
colony because of your wanton use of three-syllable words?

BTW, I have it on good authority that you giggled uncontrollably the first
time you read my pet name for you. Don't worry, I don't have it on tape.

[Clyde Slick]

On 2 Sep, 14:08, Steven Sullivan wrote:


....all of
which would still be there in the public record to condemn me as a sad, pathetic loser long
after I'm dead.

shudder


I have high hopes for you

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech George M. Middius wrote:


Stupey's fragile ego is bruised.

Stupey Sillybot's back is up. What's scaring Stupey? Why, some hideously
uninhibited Normal mentioned [gasp!] vinyl recordings!

"Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
the first place..."

'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.

The horror! They're talking about LPs in public! And -- get this --
THEY'RE NOT WAVING PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES!!

Who can blame Stupey for reacting like this? He was minding his own
business, peacefully building up his Fortress Of Audio Safety (known to
Normals as a crypt). And along comes a Normal who DARES to mention the
Forbidden Truth. Of course Sillybot is terrified. What 'borg wouldn't be?

The only possible 'horror' here, for me, would come from putting myself in your place, and
realizing that *all* I'd ever had to show for myself was puerile 'funny' names, ten-ton
sarcasm, and nerdy in-jokes in the service of endless, pointless, psychotic vendettas...all of
which would still be there in the public record to condemn me as a sad, pathetic loser long
after I'm dead.


I get this kind of reaction from time to time. Nine times out of ten, it
arises out of envy.



This is the tenth time, ****bag.




--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Stupey Sillybot reveals a nice, shiny button with a big red bull's eye on
it. I've hit it twice squarely, and now Stupey begs for more shocks.

Stupey's fragile ego is bruised.

Stupey Sillybot's back is up. What's scaring Stupey? Why, some hideously
uninhibited Normal mentioned [gasp!] vinyl recordings!

"Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
the first place..."

'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.

The horror! They're talking about LPs in public! And -- get this --
THEY'RE NOT WAVING PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES!!

Who can blame Stupey for reacting like this? He was minding his own
business, peacefully building up his Fortress Of Audio Safety (known to
Normals as a crypt). And along comes a Normal who DARES to mention the
Forbidden Truth. Of course Sillybot is terrified. What 'borg wouldn't be?

The only possible 'horror' here, for me, would come from putting myself in your place, and
realizing that *all* I'd ever had to show for myself was puerile 'funny' names, ten-ton
sarcasm, and nerdy in-jokes in the service of endless, pointless, psychotic vendettas...all of
which would still be there in the public record to condemn me as a sad, pathetic loser long
after I'm dead.

I get this kind of reaction from time to time. Nine times out of ten, it
arises out of envy.

This is the tenth time, ****bag.

Nobody believes that, Stupey. You're an audio know-nothing, just like your
pal Arnii Kroofeces. You get your ass handed to you on a regular basis by
Real Audio Guys. That wouldn't matter if you weren't so wrapped up in
phoney, unjustified egotism. You desperately want to believe you know all
there is to know, but time and again you ram your dull little head into
the brick wall of reality. Your ego is so distended that you even
confessed your total ignorance of the high end. Remember that embarrassing
episode, Stupes? You blathered at length about how much you "know", and
then it turned out your prize possession is a $1200 surround receiver you
bought through the mail without a single audition. That's the opposite of
an audiophile's sensibility, Stupey. It reveals the mindset of a lazy,
bourgeois monkey.

Let us know the next time you feel compelled to yammer about the virtues
of audio DBTs for consumers so we can remind you that you have never, ever
participated in any audio DBTs. That's not any, not ever. Zero. Never a
single one. But does that stop you from singing their praises? No it does
not. You flap your lips about the holy blinding rituals anyway. And when
you get called on your ignorance, how do you support your "opinions"? With
ad-hominem attacks, that's how. You're a pathetic little weasel and
everybody knows it. (Except maybe Arnii Krooborg, but you actually believe
the Beast's lies about being an "engineer". What a laugh!)


I see you engaged your thesaurus to show your
vocabulary chops. Did you weigh the risk of getting shunned in the nerds'
colony because of your wanton use of three-syllable words?

BTW, I have it on good authority that you giggled uncontrollably the first
time you read my pet name for you. Don't worry, I don't have it on tape.

Why were you silent here, Silly? Did I hit too close to a major nerve
plexus?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message


Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds
like.

Probably true.

But what is its relevance to the LP versus CD debate?

There is a massive amount of violence that is usually done to recorded
music, and it is an accomplished fact by the time a signal comes out of a
microphone(s). In comparison to that, discussion of relatively good media
like digital is pretty moot.

There are hysterical people who have had some kind of transcendent
experience where they perceived something unique and desirable coincident
with listening to a certain recording. They lack the logic and reason that
it takes to separate the medium from the message they heard at that magic
moment. For them, no other medium will be able to duplicate that kind of
moment.

Some of those people like the sound of many CDs.

Actually, nobody much cares what medium they are listening to. Loving music
is about the message, not the medium.

I agree with them.

About what?

Some of them also have experienced some LPs to be the best sound at home
they have yet
experienced.

Some of them may be serial killers, an/or understudies for Mother Theresa..
When a statement is as vague as many of the ones above, they are really
quite meaningless.

I'm also one of those people.

Equally meaningless.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a
matter of "picking your poison". It's ALL
artificial. I can listen through a few tics. I
can't listen through a recorded violin sound that
resembles an instrument made of plastic.

You think digital does that to a recording of a
violin?

I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP,
and I have on CD.

Obviously Jenn, you lack my 55 years, more or less, of
listening to vinyl.

That's true. I'm only 51.

I guess you were very indiscriminate when you were
young, because you obviously didn't notice the horrors
of vinyl in the day.

What makes you say that? Of course I noticed the faults.
And I've said time and time again that most CDs sound
better than most LPs.


For the first 36 years of my life, basically vinyl was
all that we had, and it often sucked mightily even
though our player technology for the last 10 or so
years was essentially what is available today.

During that time I heard plenty of recordings that made
music sound like it was played on plastic instruments.

I've heard lots of bad reproduction via LP, but bad in
different ways than some digital.

That is a meaningless statement. Well it has meaning,
but its a truism.

Of course. I'm simply stating that I hear different
faults in the two media. For some reason, you feel the
need to question that.

The questioning comes because in fact one medium is subjectively perfect,
and the other is rather egregiously imperfect. You seem to be confused as to
which is which.

Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
doesn't do that.

Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm
speaking about all the CD players I've heard.

Obviously a problem with lack of experience,

lol A statement for which you have no evidence.

Yes I do, I have months and months of your statements as
evidence, Jenn.

You presume that I hear what I hear based on lack of
experience.

Well Jenn, you are rather callow, poorly educated, and intentionally
ignorant of much about audio.

You have no evidence to support that statement.

Yes I do, I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn

What you do have is a desire to argue with me.

No, I have a desire to overcome what residual effects your importune
statements might have.

but I think there is a little
bias and hysteria tossed in.

Of course you do.

Really? That's a statement for which you have no
compelling evidence.

No, the evidence is that "hysteria" seems to be your
default statement concerning why I like the sound of
something.

I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn

Nothing like recently blowing nearly a $grand
on a vinyl player to keep the illusion going.

You're entitled to your opinion.

You're entitled to try to justify your poor judgment,
Jenn.;

Again, you're entitled to your opinion. I spend $1000 on
a TT/arm/cartridge because I like the way that it sounds.

For a price that obviously caused some sacrifice on your part, you bought a
new rendition of the same old audible artifacts.

If you think that this is foolish, I simply advise you
not to do the same.

I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article AbZuk.279$393.193@trnddc05,
"Chronic Philharmonic" wrote:

I've heard the effect on CD. I've not heard the effect
on the best LPs.

Here's an experiment you could run, if you really want
to get at the truth: Copy the LPs that exhibit the sound
you prefer to a CD, using a high quality sound card,
taking care that any ticks and pops do not exceed
digital full scale, while simultaneously making sure the
rumble and surface noise stays above the properly
dithered digital noise level (fortunately, this is not
difficult). Then play back the LP and the newly-recorded
CD in a properly implemented A-B-X listening test, and
see if you can distinguish any difference between the
two with any statistically significant repeatability.

That wouldn't help the poorly recorded cds on which the
effect manifests.


Yet another technical tyro who have the medium and message hopelessly
confused. No coincidence - a LP lover.

[Arny Krueger]

"geoff" wrote in message

Chronic Philharmonic wrote:

No, this would only prove or disprove the ability of the
medium to accurately reproduce whatever is fed into it.
That's what a medium is supposed to do. Gold in, gold
out. Garbage in, garbage out. A poorly recorded CD, like
a poorly recorded LP, is garbage.

To be pedantic, it's not a "poorly recorded CD", but
poorly recorded or mastered music that happens to be
carried on a CD.

Good point, and a point that is hoplessly obscured by the confused thinking
of LP bigots.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:


Both arsenic and water can be poisonous, but I'll pick
the glass of water every time.

Good for you. I hear it differently.

Obviously. You've got that recent large expenditure on
substandard technology to justify to yourself.

You've got the chronology wrong.

Prove it.

Please keep enjoying your music, and I'll enjoy mine.

You're changing the subject Jenn, from analysis of
relevant facts to personal preferences.

I'm not changing the subject at all, Arny. It's not
about analysis of facts. For me, listening to music is
about, in this order:

1. The music itself

Then any medium that has even modest fidelity, like the LP format, might
even suffice.

2. Listening to the best sound possible on a given
recording according my my ears.

In fact for most people, listening is not just about the ears. It's about
the ears and the brain. This one fact alone might explain your great
obsession with the ancient and widely-discredited LP format.

Perhaps your priorities are different.

Well, I do a lot of production of recorded media and sound reinforcement.

The sound quality failings of the vinyl format are
well-known and generally-agreed-upon to be by far the
stronger poison to our mutual goal of lifelike sound.

It's ALL artificial.

Not necessarily. I've played CDs through a live sound
system and temporarily fooled people into thinking
there is a live performance going on.

I can't imagine that happening,

Attributable to a lack of real-world experience.

No, I've listened to a great deal of live music and a
great many audio systems in several locales.

Several locales?

LOL!

If you've only visited several locales, please come back when you have
experiences that compare with mine.

but good for you and for those people.

Dismissive attitude noted, Ironic coming from a person
with such limited real world experience with audio.

It's not dismissive at all. If some people can be fooled
in this way, they are ahead of the game.

?????????????

Nothing coming through a speaker ever sounds close to
real, IMO.

You've obviously never done the experiment I described,
or done it right.

What experiment?

The one I just described - playing a specific recording in a medium-sized
venue where music is played much of the time.

As usual Jenn, you've placed yourself on a high pedestal
above people who simply know more about the topic than
you do.

A ridiculous statement.

I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn

I've in no way said that I'm
better or on some kind of other "pedestal".

Quite visible in months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn.

All I've
said is that I hear what I hear, you hear what you hear,
and everyone should enjoy what sounds best to them. I
have no idea why you have such a problem with that
concept.

For one thing, I favor using the brain while listening. That appears to be
an irreconcilable difference between us, Jenn.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech George M. Middius wrote:

I get this kind of reaction from time to time. Nine times out of ten, it
arises out of envy.

This is the tenth time, ****bag.

Nobody believes that, Stupey.

Nobody but you gives a damn, you pathetic, saliva-spraying mental case. Now **** off
to the only place you can call home:

*plonk*




--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:


Both arsenic and water can be poisonous, but I'll pick
the glass of water every time.

Good for you. I hear it differently.

Obviously. You've got that recent large expenditure on
substandard technology to justify to yourself.

You've got the chronology wrong.

Prove it.

lol


Please keep enjoying your music, and I'll enjoy mine.

You're changing the subject Jenn, from analysis of
relevant facts to personal preferences.

I'm not changing the subject at all, Arny. It's not
about analysis of facts. For me, listening to music is
about, in this order:

1. The music itself

Then any medium that has even modest fidelity, like the LP format, might
even suffice.

Yes, at the end of the day, any medium that doesn't get in the way of
the music will do. But sometimes one also likes to enjoy excellent
sound to go along with the music. Excellent sound that one can
experience with good CDs and LPs.


2. Listening to the best sound possible on a given
recording according my my ears.

In fact for most people, listening is not just about the ears. It's about
the ears and the brain.

Of course listening involves both the ears and the brain. The ears by
themselves hear nothing. That's a truism.

This one fact alone might explain your great
obsession with the ancient and widely-discredited LP format.

I don't have an obsession. You have an obsession with claiming that I
have an obsession.


Perhaps your priorities are different.

Well, I do a lot of production of recorded media and sound reinforcement.

So?


The sound quality failings of the vinyl format are
well-known and generally-agreed-upon to be by far the
stronger poison to our mutual goal of lifelike sound.

It's ALL artificial.

Not necessarily. I've played CDs through a live sound
system and temporarily fooled people into thinking
there is a live performance going on.

I can't imagine that happening,

Attributable to a lack of real-world experience.

No, I've listened to a great deal of live music and a
great many audio systems in several locales.

Several locales?

LOL!

If you've only visited several locales, please come back when you have
experiences that compare with mine.

"Several" is an inexact word. Is "many" more to your liking? OK. I've
listened to a great deal of live music and a great many audio systems in
many locales.


but good for you and for those people.

Dismissive attitude noted, Ironic coming from a person
with such limited real world experience with audio.

It's not dismissive at all. If some people can be fooled
in this way, they are ahead of the game.

?????????????

If the game is to as closely possible replicate the sound of actual live
music, then those who can fooled into thinking that a stereo is live
music is indeed ahead of the game.


Nothing coming through a speaker ever sounds close to
real, IMO.

You've obviously never done the experiment I described,
or done it right.

What experiment?

The one I just described - playing a specific recording in a medium-sized
venue where music is played much of the time.

I didn't know that that was an experiment. Tell us how that experiment
was carried out.


As usual Jenn, you've placed yourself on a high pedestal
above people who simply know more about the topic than
you do.

A ridiculous statement.

I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn

Impossible, as I've never "placed myself on a high pedestal". Care to
provide an example?


I've in no way said that I'm
better or on some kind of other "pedestal".

Quite visible in months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn.

See above.


All I've
said is that I hear what I hear, you hear what you hear,
and everyone should enjoy what sounds best to them. I
have no idea why you have such a problem with that
concept.

For one thing, I favor using the brain while listening. That appears to be
an irreconcilable difference between us, Jenn.

False premise, as I use my brain a great deal while listening.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message

Chronic Philharmonic wrote:

No, this would only prove or disprove the ability of the
medium to accurately reproduce whatever is fed into it.
That's what a medium is supposed to do. Gold in, gold
out. Garbage in, garbage out. A poorly recorded CD, like
a poorly recorded LP, is garbage.

To be pedantic, it's not a "poorly recorded CD", but
poorly recorded or mastered music that happens to be
carried on a CD.

Good point, and a point that is hoplessly obscured by the confused thinking
of LP bigots.

Ah! The "LP bigots" canard! That took longer than it usually does.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a
matter of "picking your poison". It's ALL
artificial. I can listen through a few tics. I
can't listen through a recorded violin sound that
resembles an instrument made of plastic.

You think digital does that to a recording of a
violin?

I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP,
and I have on CD.

Obviously Jenn, you lack my 55 years, more or less, of
listening to vinyl.

That's true. I'm only 51.

I guess you were very indiscriminate when you were
young, because you obviously didn't notice the horrors
of vinyl in the day.

What makes you say that? Of course I noticed the faults.
And I've said time and time again that most CDs sound
better than most LPs.


For the first 36 years of my life, basically vinyl was
all that we had, and it often sucked mightily even
though our player technology for the last 10 or so
years was essentially what is available today.

During that time I heard plenty of recordings that made
music sound like it was played on plastic instruments.

I've heard lots of bad reproduction via LP, but bad in
different ways than some digital.

That is a meaningless statement. Well it has meaning,
but its a truism.

Of course. I'm simply stating that I hear different
faults in the two media. For some reason, you feel the
need to question that.

The questioning comes because in fact one medium is subjectively perfect,
and the other is rather egregiously imperfect. You seem to be confused as to
which is which.

Not at all. You seem to be confused about the obvious fact that people
have different listening priorities. The few faults of well produced
happen to lay in in an area that is important to how I perceive music.
If it's different for you, I certainly have no problem with that.


Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
doesn't do that.

Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm
speaking about all the CD players I've heard.

Obviously a problem with lack of experience,

lol A statement for which you have no evidence.

Yes I do, I have months and months of your statements as
evidence, Jenn.

You presume that I hear what I hear based on lack of
experience.

Well Jenn, you are rather callow, poorly educated, and intentionally
ignorant of much about audio.

I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. I've
admitted that all along. But by definition, I'm highly educated about
what sounds like music to my ears. Obviously, that is far more
important.


You have no evidence to support that statement.

Yes I do, I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn

Already addressed.


What you do have is a desire to argue with me.

No, I have a desire to overcome what residual effects your importune
statements might have.

Yes, I'm "importune" about what I hear. You would rather I lie about
what I hear? How odd.


but I think there is a little
bias and hysteria tossed in.

Of course you do.

Really? That's a statement for which you have no
compelling evidence.

No, the evidence is that "hysteria" seems to be your
default statement concerning why I like the sound of
something.

I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn

How have I displayed "hysteria", Arny?


Nothing like recently blowing nearly a $grand
on a vinyl player to keep the illusion going.

You're entitled to your opinion.

You're entitled to try to justify your poor judgment,
Jenn.;

Again, you're entitled to your opinion. I spent $1000 on
a TT/arm/cartridge because I like the way that it sounds.

For a price that obviously caused some sacrifice on your part, you bought a
new rendition of the same old audible artifacts.

If you think that this is foolish, I simply advise you
not to do the same.

I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.

The reality is that I hear what I hear. Why you have problems with me
expressing my thoughts on that is anyone's guess.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds
like.

Probably true.

But what is its relevance to the LP versus CD debate?

There is a massive amount of violence that is usually done to recorded
music, and it is an accomplished fact by the time a signal comes out of a
microphone(s). In comparison to that, discussion of relatively good media
like digital is pretty moot.

There are hysterical people who have had some kind of transcendent
experience where they perceived something unique and desirable coincident
with listening to a certain recording. They lack the logic and reason that
it takes to separate the medium from the message they heard at that magic
moment. For them, no other medium will be able to duplicate that kind of
moment.

Some of those people like the sound of many CDs.

Actually, nobody much cares what medium they are listening to. Loving music
is about the message, not the medium.

Of course.


I agree with them.

About what?

That some people like the sound of many CDs.


Some of them also have experienced some LPs to be the best sound at home
they have yet
experienced.

Some of them may be serial killers, an/or understudies for Mother Theresa..
When a statement is as vague as many of the ones above, they are really
quite meaningless.

Really? The statement that some people like many CDs and some people
like some LPs is a meaningless statement when discussing preferences of
media? OK...


I'm also one of those people.

Equally meaningless.

Not when debunking the your myth that I'm "hysterical" about what I
listen to.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Sep 3, 11:38*am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:
I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.

The reality is that I hear what I hear. *Why you have problems
with me expressing my thoughts on that is anyone's guess.

In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
express a preference different from his own is equivalent to
a personal attack and that he will respond accordingly.

The context for that remark was a dsicussion of a preference
test I had performed in the Fall of 1982, where, under blind
conditions, listeners expressed a preference for LP rather
than the then-new CD.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
,
John Atkinson wrote:

On Sep 3, 11:38*am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:
I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.

The reality is that I hear what I hear. *Why you have problems
with me expressing my thoughts on that is anyone's guess.

In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
express a preference different from his own is equivalent to
a personal attack and that he will respond accordingly.

The context for that remark was a dsicussion of a preference
test I had performed in the Fall of 1982, where, under blind
conditions, listeners expressed a preference for LP rather
than the then-new CD.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

How odd.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

John Atkinson said:

In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
express a preference different from his own is equivalent to
a personal attack and that he will respond accordingly.

The context for that remark was a dsicussion of a preference
test I had performed in the Fall of 1982, where, under blind
conditions, listeners expressed a preference for LP rather
than the then-new CD.

That was a prejudicial and discriminatory event, as you well know, John.
How many 'borgs did you invite? None, I daresay.

[Richard Crowley]

"John Atkinson" wrote ...
Jenn wrote:
"Arny Krueger" \ wrote:
I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.

The reality is that I hear what I hear. Why you have problems
with me expressing my thoughts on that is anyone's guess.

In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
express a preference different from his own is equivalent to
a personal attack and that he will respond accordingly.

The context for that remark was a dsicussion of a preference
test I had performed in the Fall of 1982, where, under blind
conditions, listeners expressed a preference for LP rather
than the then-new CD.

So now we're back to comparing 21-st century LP technology
to 1st generation CD technology? Has the discussion now
come full-circle? Now I remember why I was ignoring
this thread and I'll leave you to it.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote ...
Jenn wrote:
"Arny Krueger" \ wrote:
I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.

The reality is that I hear what I hear. Why you have problems
with me expressing my thoughts on that is anyone's guess.

In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
express a preference different from his own is equivalent to
a personal attack and that he will respond accordingly.

The context for that remark was a dsicussion of a preference
test I had performed in the Fall of 1982, where, under blind
conditions, listeners expressed a preference for LP rather
than the then-new CD.

So now we're back to comparing 21-st century LP technology
to 1st generation CD technology?

No, the test was in the 20th century Fall of 1982.

Stephen


Has the discussion now
come full-circle? Now I remember why I was ignoring
this thread and I'll leave you to it.

[Mr.T]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
On 29 Aug, 16:57, Jenn wrote:
I can listen through a few tics.

Even better when I don't have to any more.

I can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
instrument made of plastic

Me either, regardless of whether it ends up on vinyl, CD, tape, or carving
on a cerial box.

well put!!! excellent.

It simply reaffirms your bias then I take it?
Good for you.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Nothing like recently blowing nearly a $grand
on a vinyl player to keep the illusion going.

Nearly a grand? You can't get anything halfway decent for under a grand!
That you can pay over $100,000 on a turntable proves there are people with
far more money than sense. Where you could possibly get records in this
universe that would justify even 1/10th of that money remains a mystery.

MrT.