New technology does have an upside...
Arny Krueger
"Kurt Hamster" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:RoucnT7IE77...@giganews.com...
> For a long time I've loved an album by Mo Foster - Bel Assis. I'd always
> been impressed with both the quality of the music and the sound.
> In the last couple of days I've had my eyes opened.
> There have been various discussions in this NGs about the merits or
> demerits of 16bit and 24bit processing. I've just had a stark
> demonstration of the superiority of one over the other.
No you haven't Kurt, and some of us have explained this in your presence
until we got tired of knocking our heads against you really hard,
uneducatable head.
What you are hearing Kurt is two different artistic works, that also
happened to be reproduced via different delivery formats.
> I've also been educated with regard to how much digital audio has
improved over the
> last 15 years.
Not really. What's changed the most is what the respective mastering
engineers had in mind when they mastered the recording each time.
Here's a little science for you, Kurt that you obviously need to know if you
are going to keep mouthing off like this. If you want to compare two
delivery formats for music, you record the identical same thing by each
means, and then do a good job (bias-controlled, level-matched, &
time-synched) of comparing them. It's the big leagues, we call it
controlling relevant variables.
What dumcraps like you Kurt do is make silly little posts like these, where
you compare two different artistic works by the worst means known, and then
attribute any perceived differences to the technical nature of the delivery
format. The very idea that one could demonstrate differences in two delivery
formats that are as similar as 16/44 and 24/192 is of course highly
laughable in itself.
And oh by the way Kurt, let me beat you to the punch and suggest that you
something sexual and physically impossible to yourself. I believe that in
politer society than you've ever seen or will ever be fortunate enough to
see, it is sometimes called "self-insemination".
But what does one expect of a person who has Vinyl Ears?
Dave Plowman
Kurt Hamster <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> That's the point you dickless wonder. It's the same artistic work. There
> has been no remixing, no changes to the original work. All that's
> different is the method used to get it onto a CD.
Care to go through that method, including all the stages from the SR
master tape? Or are you saying those are all identical to the '87 ones?
Aren't you one of those who thinks all sorts of things influence the
sound you hear at home like cables, stands etc? But somehow think only the
sampling rate matters in anything that ends up digital.
And FWIW, approx 10dB is commonly allowed on digital mastering for
'headroom'. It would be stupid not to do so. If you want it louder, turn
up your amp...
--
*All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand *
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
Dave Plowman
Kurt Hamster <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >Care to go through that method, including all the stages from the SR
> >master tape? Or are you saying those are all identical to the '87 ones?
> The stereo master tape is the exact same tape/mix that was used for both
> mastering sessions. This makes it an identical performance. No remixes,
> no additions, no changes were made to the original performance. Is it so
> hard to understand?
Don't you understand anything? What I'm saying is that the SP master will
have gone through different analogue stages before being digitized for
this new recording. Likely even a different 1/4" machine. It's quite
possible the stages after that are all now digital where in '87 they were
analogue - anything is possible. And then there's the 1610 inputs. Not
always of the finest.
To say the difference is all down to 16/44.1 against 24/92 is a
nonsense. As a final rate there is no audible difference - the higher rate
is just useful for processing.
> > Aren't you one of those who thinks all sorts of things influence the
> >sound you hear at home like cables, stands etc? But somehow think only
> >the sampling rate matters in anything that ends up digital.
> No I'm not. I'm one of those people who prefer vinyl. Incidentally, the
> description Mo gave of this new mastering is that it sounds so much more
> "analogue".
What - than the original analogue master of a totally analogue recording?
Clever, that.
> > And FWIW, approx 10dB is commonly allowed on digital mastering for
> >'headroom'. It would be stupid not to do so. If you want it louder, turn
> >up your amp...
> FWIW the original mastering engineer used -9db as I stated originally.
> Or would you like to argue that too?
Which part of approximately didn't you understand? I used that because
there are two standards - one -10 and one -8 commonly in use. Perhaps he
decided to compromise. But you seem to think this isn't done anymore.
You're wrong again. It is by those with sense.
--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Arny Krueger
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 13:02:48 -0400, Arny Krueger used
> <28Cdnfzvbtg...@comcast.com> to say...
>
> >
> >"Kurt Hamster" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >news:RoucnT7IE77...@giganews.com...
> >
> >> For a long time I've loved an album by Mo Foster - Bel Assis. I'd
always
> >> been impressed with both the quality of the music and the sound.
> >
> >> In the last couple of days I've had my eyes opened.
> >
> >> There have been various discussions in this NGs about the merits or
> >> demerits of 16bit and 24bit processing. I've just had a stark
> >> demonstration of the superiority of one over the other.
> >
> >
> >No you haven't Kurt, and some of us have explained this in your presence
> >uneducatable head.
>
> No Arny, the difference is I've now heard it with my own ears.
That's totally unknown and unknwoable given how horrifically naive your
so-called listening test was.
> >What you are hearing Kurt is two different artistic works, that also
> >happened to be reproduced via different delivery formats.
> That's the point (coarse talk indicating Kurt was born and raised in a
barn deleted). It's the same artistic work.
Only to persons who are totally naive about the art and science of producing
commercial recordings. This has also been discussed this in your presence
Kurt until we got tired of knocking our heads against your really hard,
uneducatable head.
> There
> has been no remixing, no changes to the original work. All that's
> different is the method used to get it onto a CD.
You said that it was remastered, Kurt.
> >> I've also been educated with regard to how much digital audio has
> >improved over the
> >> last 15 years.
> >Not really. What's changed the most is what the respective mastering
> >engineers had in mind when they mastered the recording each time.
> Don't you get it you (coarse talk indicating Kurt was born and raised in a
barn deleted). ? When the artist and
> producer say it is the same work with nothing added only this time there
is nothing taken away either.
You said that it was remastered, Kurt. Do you know what remastered means
Kurt? I guess not! Remastering has also been discussed this in your
presence Kurt until we got tired of knocking our heads against your really
hard,
uneducatable head.
> >Here's a little science for you, Kurt that you obviously need to know if
you
> >are going to keep mouthing off like this. If you want to compare two
> >delivery formats for music, you record the identical same thing by each
> >means, and then do a good job (bias-controlled, level-matched, &
> >time-synched) of comparing them. It's the big leagues, we call it
> >controlling relevant variables.
> The whole point was to show what the real world difference is.
Kurt, your procedure is so crude that it will make everything sound
different for reasons that have nothing to do with the inherent sound
quality of the various media.
> Not some
> artificial test. The reason I didn't level match the files is to
> show the exact difference between the CD that was released in '88 and
> the one that will be released in a few months.
So the two files are guaranteed to sound different even if both were
recorded on a CD directly from the same master.
> >What dumcraps like you Kurt do is make silly little posts like these,
where
> >you compare two different artistic works by the worst means known, and
then
> >attribute any perceived differences to the technical nature of the
delivery
> >format. The very idea that one could demonstrate differences in two
delivery
> >formats that are as similar as 16/44 and 24/192 is of course highly
> >laughable in itself.
> Hmmm, so who's word do I take about whether they are different artistic
> works? The Artist/Producer or you? Hmmm, no brainer!
You said that it was remastered, Kurt. Do you know what remastered means
Kurt? I guess not! Remastering has also been discussed this in your
presence Kurt until we got tired of knocking our heads against your really
hard,
uneducatable head.
> >And oh by the way Kurt, let me beat you to the punch and suggest that you
> >something sexual and physically impossible to yourself. I believe that in
> >politer society than you've ever seen or will ever be fortunate enough to
> >see, it is sometimes called "self-insemination".
> You're an encyclopedia of sexual techniques aren't you Arny?
I lack direct experience with self-insemination, but should I need advice
from a well-practiced expert in the art, I'll be sure to call on you Kurt.
> >But what does one expect of a person who has Vinyl Ears?
> Does that go for Mo too? Who's blown away by the difference.
Whatever.
> Did you actually listen to the 2 files Arny,
Sure. BTW Kurt, you really have ignorant taste in *music* and I use that
word in a highly approximate sense.
> or are you just spouting shit again?
Again would indicate that I had already done such a thing before, making the
question irrelevant.
Arny Krueger
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 21:07:27 +0100, Dave Plowman used
> <4bf1990510...@argonet.co.uk> to say...
>
> >In article <WfmcnRRnG9L...@giganews.com>,
> > Kurt Hamster <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> That's the point you dickless wonder. It's the same artistic work.
There
> >> has been no remixing, no changes to the original work. All that's
> >> different is the method used to get it onto a CD.
> >Care to go through that method, including all the stages from the SR
> >master tape? Or are you saying those are all identical to the '87 ones?
> The stereo master tape is the exact same tape/mix that was used for both
> mastering sessions.
Right, but the two recordings were mastered in significantly different ways.
It is quite clear that one of the recordings is about 7 dB louder than the
other. However, there is a more subtle, but audible difference as well.
> This makes it an identical performance. No remixes,
> no additions, no changes were made to the original performance. Is it so
> hard to understand?
Regrettably, this isn't a statement of all possible parameters.
It turns out that the 24 bit file has been compressed in the amplitude
domain so that its dynamic range is actually about 2.4 dB LESS than the 16
bit file. This is consistent with modern production trends.
More significantly, Hamster is expecting one and all to believe that he can
reliably judge differences in delivery format by comparing two recordings
without time-synchronization, given that one file is about 7 dB louder than
the other, aside from the compression. This is absolutely ludicrous.
I'd accuse Hamster of lying except that I know that he's too poorly-informed
and technically incompetent to be held responsible for knowing about such
things.
A pity!
Arnold Krooger
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>Don't you understand anything?
*I* understand something . . . and it's best you don't know it.
--
Arnold Krooger Gallop
Arnold Krooger
wrote:
>I'd accuse Hamster of lying except
. . . except you've done it to hundreds of other posters and people
have gotten wise to your fragrant bollocks, you will saltily note.
How about simply killing yourself? A hair dryer, an extension reel and
a bath tub aren't so difficult for you to put together, are they?
--
Arnold Krooger
Dave Plowman
Arnold Krooger <A...@ABX.com> wrote:
> >Don't you understand anything?
> *I* understand something . . . and it's best you don't know it.
That you understand *something* would be the limit of your tiny brain, oh
anonymous one.
--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?
Dave Plowman
Kurt Hamster <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> You obviously didn't read what I wrote.
Oh, I did. But trying to fight one's way through your lack of
understanding ain't easy.
> The mix down to stereo was in the analogue domain. The exact same stereo
> master tape was used for both versions.
Indeed - that much is obvious.
> The new version was taken directly off the same tape. IOW the only thing
> that differed between the 2 versions was the digitisation procedure
> itself (okay the analogue tape deck was different too). The new version
> was digitised to HD for doing whatever they did in ProTools. I don't
> have the specifics but if it is really important to you I can find out.
Ever heard of re-mastering? That's where you take a studio master and
*from* that create the final version which goes on CD or LP. And if
nothing was changed from the original, why use Protools?
> >> > Aren't you one of those who thinks all sorts of things influence
> >> >the sound you hear at home like cables, stands etc? But somehow
> >> >think only the sampling rate matters in anything that ends up
> >> >digital.
> >
> >> No I'm not. I'm one of those people who prefer vinyl. Incidentally,
> >> the description Mo gave of this new mastering is that it sounds so
> >> much more "analogue".
> >
> >What - than the original analogue master of a totally analogue
> >recording? Clever, that.
> No, than the original CD version you fuckwit.
Fuckwit, eh? This from one who still doesn't understand the first thing
about the process of producing a commercial recording...
How many times must it be said. If the original SR studio master had been
transferred to CD in 16/44.1 *properly* with no buggering about in between
in the form of re-mastering, it would have sounded as close as dammit -
*you* certainly wouldn't have been able to tell. That it didn't doesn't
surprise me - it was 'improved' in the re-mastering process. And the
latest version is either 'improved' again or not - hence the difference.
And the point I was making was that even if both had a direct transfer
there could well be a slight difference due to the different equipment
employed within such a time span. But the final format doesn't account for
that difference.
> >> > And FWIW, approx 10dB is commonly allowed on digital mastering for
> >> >'headroom'. It would be stupid not to do so. If you want it louder, turn
> >> >up your amp...
> >
> >> FWIW the original mastering engineer used -9db as I stated originally.
> >> Or would you like to argue that too?
> >
> >Which part of approximately didn't you understand? I used that because
> >there are two standards - one -10 and one -8 commonly in use. Perhaps he
> >decided to compromise. But you seem to think this isn't done anymore.
> >You're wrong again. It is by those with sense.
> The point was that you were generalising when it wasn't required.
I was just trying to educate you that you don't need to peak to maximum in
such digital systems, unlike analogue, and that the difference of a few dB
*provided* it doesn't overmod is totally insignificant to the final sound.
But only if in subsequent comparisons you match levels, which you haven't
done on your MP3s which of course by nature of their algorithms are *very*
level sensitive...
> I'd already given the specific measurement. The new version was around
> -5db I think, again I can find out if you wish.
So you use a medium with a lower theoretical noise floor but raise the
peak level - on a pop record dubbed from a master with a maximum of around
50dB. Kewl.
--
*Therapy is expensive, poppin' bubble wrap is cheap! You choose.
Arny Krueger
"Paul D." <sig...@lineout.net> wrote in message
news:4mg1cvk1d74ncbb7d...@4ax.com...
> Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> >> You obviously didn't read what I wrote.
> >Oh, I did. But trying to fight one's way through your lack of
> >understanding ain't easy.
> Guys, life is too short for this. Make love!
Just for grins Dormer, try making sense.
> >*Therapy is expensive, poppin' bubble wrap is cheap! You choose.
> In the case of two or three prominent anti-preference posters on the
> group, bubble wrap is not going to meet the therapeutic needs of the
> patient.
By now even you should have figured out that we're not anti-preference,
we're anti-stupidity.
You don't have to be stupid to be a subjectivist, but it seems to help keep
you that way.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> >> In the case of two or three prominent anti-preference posters on the
> >> group, bubble wrap is not going to meet the therapeutic needs of the
> >> patient.
> >
> >By now even you should have figured out that we're not anti-preference,
> >we're anti-stupidity.
>
> preference trashing, you surely have the mental capacity of a baboon.
Thanks for trying to make an intelligent argument Bamborough. This example
shows your mental capacity at its best.
George M. Middius
Paul D. said to Shit-for-Brains:
> If you genuinely are unaware of your endlessly repetitive blatant
> preference trashing, you surely have the mental capacity of a baboon.
How about that, Arnii? Does that help with your application for
continuation of your long-term disability insurance?
Arny Krueger
"George M. Middius" <Spam-...@resistance.org> wrote in message
news:4am1cvguriga58nt7...@4ax.com...
> Paul D. pandered to deludes audiophiles and high end audio salesman by
writing:
> > If you genuinely are unaware of your endlessly repetitive blatant
> > preference trashing, you surely have the mental capacity of a baboon.
> How about that, Arnii?
Dormer seems to have gotten old and senile since the days when he was
interesting to talk with. I don't know what the matter is, drugs,
minstrokes, alzies, whatever. Poor old coot has confused debunking with
preference trashing.
>Does that help with your application for
> continuation of your long-term disability insurance?
There tain't no such thing - it's one of your delusions, Middius just like
your brain.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> >"George M. Middius" <Spam-...@resistance.org> wrote in message
> >news:4am1cvguriga58nt7...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Paul D. pandered to deludes audiophiles and high end audio salesman by
> >writing:
>
If you can count ">"s and know what they mean, there's no indication that
Middius did write it.
>Krueger disingenuously edited the text, and passed it off as if George
wrote it, but he did not.
Dormer, you're delusional. Also, you're obviously spoiling for a fight
because this is not a serious issue.
George M. Middius
Paul D. said to Shit-for-Brains:
> >> Paul D. pandered to deludes audiophiles and high end audio salesman by
> >writing:
> George Middius did not write that. Krueger disingenious edited the
> text, and passed it off as if George wrote it, but he did not.
Poor Arnii. As if he thinks people of normal intelligence wouldn't
recognize how he, and only he, butchers quoted text.
dave weil
wrote:
>
Since you can't seem to know to whom you're responding, I'm guessing
that this puts the baboon ahead of you.
dave weil
Plus, he's now conflated two Pauls...
Hearing him bluster about writing ability and ivory towers this
morning has pegged the bullshit meter as well...
Dave Plowman
Kurt Hamster <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> The mix down to stereo was in the analogue domain. The exact same stereo
> >> master tape was used for both versions.
> >
> >Indeed - that much is obvious.
> So why state "What I'm saying is that the SP master will
> have gone through different analogue stages before being digitized" when
> I had already said no more analogue stages had been utilised.
Tell me how you digitize an analogue tape?
--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.
Dave Plowman
> Apologies are in order for stating an incorrect fact.
> The new version had a -9db peak level.
That makes sense and fits in with accepted practice.
> The old version was lower than
> that.
Could well be. Depending on the metering used, they might well have left a
little more for 'safety'. As I stated before, the sig to noise of 16/44 is
so far superior to that of a non Dolby 24 tk mixed to SR that it could
make sense to avoid at all costs any form of clipping.
> I don't know what the precise level was though unfortunately.
--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.
Arny Krueger
> On Tue, 13 May 2003 17:09:36 +0100, Dave Plowman used
> <4bf207142e...@argonet.co.uk> to say...
>
> >In article <gj-dnXt8or-...@giganews.com>,
> > Kurt Hamster <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> >> The mix down to stereo was in the analogue domain. The exact same
stereo
> >> >> master tape was used for both versions.
> >> >
> >> >Indeed - that much is obvious.
> >
> >> So why state "What I'm saying is that the SP master will
> >> have gone through different analogue stages before being digitized"
when
> >
> >Tell me how you digitize an analogue tape?
>
>
> In the meantime I'd guess that the analogue signal is fed into an ADC
> somewhere along the line.
>
> Now bearing in mind I've already stated this is not my profession, but
> why would additional analogue procedures be required to convert an
> already analogue signal into a digital one?
I think we ought to cut to the chase. It is a simple fact that there are
three technical differences between the two MP3 files that you posted:
(1) The 16 bit file has an average level that is about 7 dB lower than the
24 bit file.
(2) The 16 bit file has a peak/average ratio that is 2.4 dB greater than
that of the 24 bit file.
(3) The files have significantly different bass roll-off characteristics.
It is also a fact that if one equalizes the two file's average levels, they
still sound different.
Now anybody who understands how commercial recordings are produced will look
at this laundry list of differences and say that the two recordings were
mastered differently.
The difference in average levels is simply a matter of turning up the gain,
and this was described, albeit somewhat erroneously in the post that started
this thread. The error is the idea that it was common to make CDs with 9 dB
of headroom in the early days. In fact the actual typical headroom of early
CD recordings was in the zero to 3 dB range.
The fact that the 16 bit file is more dynamic than the 24 bit file defies
reason, unless one realizes that it is more common to use compression while
mastering a recording today than say, 10-15 years ago. This amounts to being
an artistic difference because there is no technical justification for it.
The fact that the files have two different bass roll-offs indicates that
again there were differences during the mastering process.
The second and third differences are sufficient to explain how one might
reliably perceive that the files sound different in a blind test. FWIW I did
an ABX test to determine whether or not the files sounded the same. It is
well known that 16 and 24 bit files that have identical sources and
otherwise identical processing are sonically indistinguishable.
However unless the first difference - the 9 dB difference is equalized
within 0.1 db, all that can be reasonably said is that the two files sound
vastly different because one is a whole lot louder than the other.
Arny Krueger
"Dave Plowman" <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4bf213c28d...@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <Qw2dnW4usdW...@giganews.com>,
> Kurt Hamster <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > > So you use a medium with a lower theoretical noise floor but raise the
> > >peak level - on a pop record dubbed from a master with a maximum of
> > >around 50dB. Kewl.
>
> > Apologies are in order for stating an incorrect fact.
>
> > The new version had a -9db peak level.
>
> That makes sense and fits in with accepted practice.
I disagree. I've reviewed a the peak levels of a large number of
recordings, and I can count the recordings with a peak level of -9 dB or
less on one hand. The usual range of peaks runs from FS down to about -3 dB.
Paul B
Ummm.... "this example" wasn't written by me. In the circumstances I can't help
wondering what spitting vitriol at the wrong person says about *your* mental capacity.
p
Arny Krueger
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 17:35:05 -0400, Arny Krueger used
> <k46cnbdBlcu...@comcast.com> to say...
>
> >
> >"Kurt Hamster" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >news:WfmcnRRnG9L...@giganews.com...
> >> On Mon, 12 May 2003 13:02:48 -0400, Arny Krueger used
> >> <28Cdnfzvbtg...@comcast.com> to say...
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Kurt Hamster" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:RoucnT7IE77...@giganews.com...
> >> >
> >> >> For a long time I've loved an album by Mo Foster - Bel Assis. I'd
> >always
> >> >> been impressed with both the quality of the music and the sound.
> >> >
> >> >> In the last couple of days I've had my eyes opened.
> >> >
> >> >> There have been various discussions in this NGs about the merits or
> >> >> demerits of 16bit and 24bit processing. I've just had a stark
> >> >> demonstration of the superiority of one over the other.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >No you haven't Kurt, and some of us have explained this in your
presence
> >> >until we got tired of knocking our heads against your really hard,
> >> >uneducatable head.
> >>
> >> No Arny, the difference is I've now heard it with my own ears.
> >
> >That's totally unknown and unknwoable given how horrifically naive your
> >so-called listening test was.
>
It's a simple fact.
For the record, I've done level-matched, time-synchronized, bias-controlled
listening tests of the two files and found that they sounded different. I
also found that aside from the level difference you described Kurt, there
are two other potentially-audible differences. The 16 bit file has better
dynamics (a higher peak/average ratio) then the 24 bit file. The files also
differ in their bass roll-off characteristics.
> I didn't give _any_ details on what _my_ listening test was.
Tell me about your level-matched, time-synchronized, bias-controlled
listening tests, and then we'll talk about it.
> >> >What you are hearing Kurt is two different artistic works, that also
> >> >happened to be reproduced via different delivery formats.
>
> >> That's the point (coarse talk indicating Kurt was born and raised in a
> >barn deleted). It's the same artistic work.
> >Only to persons who are totally naive about the art and science of
producing
> >commercial recordings. This has also been discussed this in your
presence
> >Kurt until we got tired of knocking our heads against your really hard,
> >uneducatable head.
>
> No Arny, that is the description of the artist who produced the work. I
> merely repeated it.
The artist in question was not the only person who worked on the recording
unless he does his own mastering. However it doesn't matter - there are
undeniable and factual differences between the two recordings, other than
just average recorded levels.
> If you know more than a 30+ year veteran of the music world about his
> own work then I suggest you attempt to get a record contract asap.
I trust science and my own ears.
> >> There
> >> has been no remixing, no changes to the original work. All that's
> >> different is the method used to get it onto a CD.
> >You said that it was remastered, Kurt.
> So shoot me for using the wrong term. I'm not a music professional, my
> expertise is in different areas.
The fact of the matter is that the recording was remastered. In the new
remastering the dynamics of the recording were slightly reduced and there
were other (probably incidental) changes to the bass rolloff.
Whether or not someone would hear these differences I can't predict. That
anybody who is technically competent and has appropriate tools can and will
measure them, I can predict.
> >> >> I've also been educated with regard to how much digital audio has
> >> >improved over the
> >> >> last 15 years.
> >> >Not really. What's changed the most is what the respective mastering
> >> >engineers had in mind when they mastered the recording each time.
> >> Don't you get it you (coarse talk indicating Kurt was born and raised
in a
> >barn deleted). ? When the artist and
> >> producer say it is the same work with nothing added only this time
there
> >is nothing taken away either.
>
> >You said that it was remastered, Kurt. Do you know what remastered means
> >Kurt? I guess not! Remastering has also been discussed this in your
> >presence Kurt until we got tired of knocking our heads against your
really
> >hard,
> >uneducatable head.
> See above.
All you've done Kurt is admitted that when mastering was last explained
around here, you were asleep at the switch. For an independent memory jog,
here's an independent source that describes mastering:
http://www.vex.net/~pcook/RecAudioPro/
Q6.3 - What is mastering?
Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often misunderstood. Back in the
days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of the master
that would be used for pressing. This often involved a variety of sonic
adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately be properly rendered on
vinyl.
The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit. There are
now two elements often called mastering. The first is the eminently
straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing. As most mixdowns
now occur on DAT, this often involves the relatively simple tasks of
generating the PQ subcode necessary for CD replication. PQ subcode is the
data stream that contains information such as the number of tracks on a
disc, the location of the start points of each track, the clock display
information, and the like. This information is created during mastering and
prepared as a PQ data burst which the pressing plant uses to make the glass
pressing master.
Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a recording
sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get the recording
sounding the way it ought to. Tasks often done in mastering include:
adjustment of time between pieces, quality of fade-in/out, relation of
levels between tracks (such that the listener doesn't have to go swinging
the volume control all over the place), program EQ to achieve a desired
consistency, compression to make one's disc sound LOUDER than others on the
market, the list goes on.
A good mastering engineer can often take a poorly-produced recording and
make it suitable for the market. A bad one can make a good recording sound
terrible. Some recordings are so well produced, mixed, and edited that all
they need is to be given PQ subcode and sent right out. Other recordings are
made by people on ego trips, who think they know everything about recording,
and who make recordings that are, technically speaking, wretched trash.
Good mastering professionals are acquainted with many styles of music, and
know what it is that their clients hope to achieve. They then use their
tools either lightly or severely to accomplish all the multiple steps
involved in preparing a disc for pressing. [Gabe]
> >> >Here's a little science for you, Kurt that you obviously need to know
if you
> >> >are going to keep mouthing off like this. If you want to compare two
> >> >delivery formats for music, you record the identical same thing by
each
> >> >means, and then do a good job (bias-controlled, level-matched, &
> >> >time-synched) of comparing them. It's the big leagues, we call it
> >> >controlling relevant variables.
> >> The whole point was to show what the real world difference is.
> >Kurt, your procedure is so crude that it will make everything sound
> >different for reasons that have nothing to do with the inherent sound
> >quality of the various media.
> Did I bill it as a scientific test?
You claimed a technical and scientific difference, Kurt.
> Stop trying to make out it failed in doing something it was never
> intended to do in the first place.
You offered a scientific claim, Kurt.
> It was just a way of showing the difference between a CD released in 87
> and one due to be released in 2003.
Then bill it as such, and nothing more!
> Within the confines of the MP3 format it was a real world difference
> between the old CD and the new one.
Then bill it as such, and nothing more!
> >> Not some
> >> artificial test. The reason I didn't level match the files is to
> >> show the exact difference between the CD that was released in '88 and
> >> the one that will be released in a few months.
> >So the two files are guaranteed to sound different even if both were
> >recorded on a CD directly from the same master.
> That is exactly how things are. I deliberately (as initially stated)
> didn't alter anything. This was because I didn't want to skew anything.
> What you hear is what the old CD sounds like and what the new one sounds
> like. The rest is up to the listener to discern as I initially stated.
And, as I've shown there were differences in mastering that go beyond what
you claimed, are audible, and are consistent with what mastering is
well-known to be.
> To me that is a fair, real world representation. Joe Blow walking into a
> shop and buying either CD will hear what I demonstrated. No more, no
> less.
But there's no reason to believe that the fact that one recording is 16 bits
and the other is 24 bits has anything to do with the fact that the two
recordings sound different.
> >> >What dumcraps like you Kurt do is make silly little posts like these,
where
> >> >you compare two different artistic works by the worst means known, and
then
> >> >attribute any perceived differences to the technical nature of the
delivery
> >> >format. The very idea that one could demonstrate differences in two
delivery
> >> >formats that are as similar as 16/44 and 24/192 is of course highly
> >> >laughable in itself.
> >> Hmmm, so who's word do I take about whether they are different artistic
> >> works? The Artist/Producer or you? Hmmm, no brainer!
> >You said that it was remastered, Kurt. Do you know what remastered means
> >Kurt? I guess not! Remastering has also been discussed this in your
> >presence Kurt until we got tired of knocking our heads against your
really hard,
> >uneducatable head.
> Like I say, who's word do I take?
Read the well-known independent reference I cited, Kurt. Get someone else to
make the measurements that I made.
> Yours or Mo's?
Trust science, not anecdotes from someone who doesn't seem to know all the
relevant facts.
> You haven't demonstrated why I should take yours.
Sure I have. If you don't check out my measurements with an independent
source, then the fault is clearly with you Kurt.
> >> >And oh by the way Kurt, let me beat you to the punch and suggest that
you
> >> >something sexual and physically impossible to yourself. I believe that
in
> >> >politer society than you've ever seen or will ever be fortunate enough
to
> >> >see, it is sometimes called "self-insemination".
>
> >> You're an encyclopedia of sexual techniques aren't you Arny?
> >I lack direct experience with self-insemination, but should I need advice
> >from a well-practiced expert in the art, I'll be sure to call on you
Kurt.
> You seem to know far more about them than I do.
No Kurt, its audio and the dynamic range of recording that I know far more
about than you.
> >> >But what does one expect of a person who has Vinyl Ears?
> >> Does that go for Mo too? Who's blown away by the difference.
> >Whatever.
> No cogent argument then?
I already presented sufficient evidence to impeach your interpretation of
his statements, Kurt.
> >> Did you actually listen to the 2 files Arny,
>
> >Sure. BTW Kurt, you really have ignorant taste in *music* and I use that
> >word in a highly approximate sense.
> 1) You posted your message approximately 7 minutes after downloading the
> first file. Is that representative of your attention to detail?
It's representative of the fact that I can download and listen to files
pretty quickly.
> 2) Please explain what you mean by "ignorant taste in *music*"?
This music is pap.
> >> or are you just spouting shit again?
> >Again would indicate that I had already done such a thing before, making
the
> >question irrelevant.
>
> But very perceptive.
Not hardly Kurt. Check out my analysis and come back when someone else
finally steps up to the job of educating you!
Straycat
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:wdydnSZdJ_R...@comcast.com...
yawn
so anyway, there was these two tincans connected by strings you see
one string was 10 feet long and the other was 1001 feet long
so they was both digital you see
and then if you put your finger on it
then you have a digital - digital transducer
but the vibrations was analog
or was they just log log
i dunno
but more string is better
so the 1001 digital thing was a better sound
in blinded
tests
of course it does kinda depend upon the
size of your can i think
Dave Plowman
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> > > The new version had a -9db peak level.
> >
> > That makes sense and fits in with accepted practice.
> I disagree. I've reviewed a the peak levels of a large number of
> recordings, and I can count the recordings with a peak level of -9 dB or
> less on one hand. The usual range of peaks runs from FS down to about -3
> dB.
I was talking about *my* accepted practice. ;-) Of course in the race for
the 'loudest' possible sounding CD mastering companies will mod as high as
possible. And frequently throw the baby out with the bath water. There's
no need or justification to do this with the CD medium.
--
*How about "never"? Is "never" good for you?
tony sayer
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <I_mcnXycA4C...@comcast.com>,
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> > > The new version had a -9db peak level.
>> >
>> > That makes sense and fits in with accepted practice.
>
>> I disagree. I've reviewed a the peak levels of a large number of
>> recordings, and I can count the recordings with a peak level of -9 dB or
>> less on one hand. The usual range of peaks runs from FS down to about -3
>> dB.
>
> I was talking about *my* accepted practice. ;-) Of course in the race for
>the 'loudest' possible sounding CD mastering companies will mod as high as
>possible. And frequently throw the baby out with the bath water. There's
>no need or justification to do this with the CD medium.
>
In fact there a bit on the * Orban website about using the 6200 unit to
make recordings sound *better*..
* Orban, the company that makes devices normally to make radio stations
sound louder than what they might be..
--
Tony Sayer
Arny Krueger
> In article <I_mcnXycA4C...@comcast.com>,
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>> The new version had a -9db peak level.
>>> That makes sense and fits in with accepted practice.
>> I disagree. I've reviewed a the peak levels of a large number of
>> recordings, and I can count the recordings with a peak level of -9
>> dB or less on one hand. The usual range of peaks runs from FS down
>> to about -3 dB.
This would be in the context of a delivery format.
> I was talking about *my* accepted practice. ;-)
Sounds about right for making live and studio recordings, where the levels
are unpredictable.
>Of course in the
> race for the 'loudest' possible sounding CD mastering companies will
> mod as high as possible.
After analyzing a lot of players, leaving about 1 dB headroom at playback
time makes sense.
> And frequently throw the baby out with the
> bath water. There's no need or justification to do this with the CD
> medium.
Right - lots of people mess up their digital recordings by trying to stay
too close to FS.
Arny Krueger
> On Tue, 13 May 2003 16:43:31 -0400, Arny Krueger used
> <wdydnSZdJ_R...@comcast.com> to say...
>
>>
>> "Kurt Hamster" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:gj-dnXh8or8...@giganews.com...
>>> On Mon, 12 May 2003 17:35:05 -0400, Arny Krueger used
>>> <k46cnbdBlcu...@comcast.com> to say...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Kurt Hamster" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:WfmcnRRnG9L...@giganews.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 12 May 2003 13:02:48 -0400, Arny Krueger used
>>>>> <28Cdnfzvbtg...@comcast.com> to say...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Kurt Hamster" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:RoucnT7IE77...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a long time I've loved an album by Mo Foster - Bel Assis.
>>>>>>> I'd always been impressed with both the quality of the music
>>>>>>> and the sound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the last couple of days I've had my eyes opened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There have been various discussions in this NGs about the
>>>>>>> merits or demerits of 16bit and 24bit processing. I've just had
>>>>>>> a stark demonstration of the superiority of one over the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No you haven't Kurt, and some of us have explained this in your
presence
>>>>>> until we got tired of knocking our heads against your really
>>>>>> hard, uneducatable head.
>
>>>>> No Arny, the difference is I've now heard it with my own ears.
>>>> That's totally unknown and unknowable given how horrifically naive
>>>> your so-called listening test was.
>>> Stating opinions on something you have no knowledge of again Arny?
>> It's a simple fact.
> Based on what evidence? Guess work?
Not at all. It's based on science.
>> For the record, I've done level-matched, time-synchronized,
>> bias-controlled listening tests of the two files and found that they
>> sounded different. I also found that aside from the level difference
>> you described Kurt, there are two other potentially-audible
>> differences. The 16 bit file has better dynamics (a higher
>> peak/average ratio) then the 24 bit file. The files also differ in
>> their bass roll-off characteristics.
> I hope you took longer than the initial 7 minutes.
I hope you buy, steal or borrow a clue, Kurt. Your mouth is moving a lot
faster than your brain.
>>> I didn't give _any_ details on what _my_ listening test was.
>> Tell me about your level-matched, time-synchronized, bias-controlled
>> listening tests, and then we'll talk about it.
> Why should I, you've already made your mind up?
I have to admit that I'd fall out of my chair if you claimed to do anything
like a proper listening test, Kurt. Let's see if you can depart from form
and do something competently!
>>>>>> What you are hearing Kurt is two different artistic works, that
>>>>>> also happened to be reproduced via different delivery formats.
>>>>> That's the point (coarse talk indicating Kurt was born and raised in
a
>>>> barn deleted). It's the same artistic work.
>>>> Only to persons who are totally naive about the art and science of
>>>> producing commercial recordings. This has also been discussed this in
your presence
>>>> Kurt until we got tired of knocking our heads against your really
>>>> hard, uneducatable head.
>>> No Arny, that is the description of the artist who produced the
>>> work. I merely repeated it.
>> The artist in question was not the only person who worked on the
>> recording unless he does his own mastering. However it doesn't
>> matter - there are undeniable and factual differences between the
>> two recordings, other than just average recorded levels.
> I've already mentioned the 2 people who worked on this mastering.
It doesn't matter because the facts about the differences between these two
recordings are simple facts, apparent to anybody who is competent to run the
appropriate tests.
>>> If you know more than a 30+ year veteran of the music world about
>>> his own work then I suggest you attempt to get a record contract
>>> asap.
>> I trust science and my own ears.
> I don't trust you. I certainly don't trust your motives for your
> comments.
Don't trust me or my motives, Kurt. Get someone independent to run the same
tests as I ran. Hint: they'll find the same things I did. Those sort of
things are facts not opinions. Motivations don't change them. They simply
are what they are.
>>>>> There
>>>>> has been no remixing, no changes to the original work. All that's
>>>>> different is the method used to get it onto a CD.
>>>> You said that it was remastered, Kurt.
>>> So shoot me for using the wrong term. I'm not a music professional,
>>> my expertise is in different areas.
>> The fact of the matter is that the recording was remastered. In the
>> new remastering the dynamics of the recording were slightly reduced
>> and there were other (probably incidental) changes to the bass
>> rolloff.
> Of course it was remastered. Duh!
And remastering involves making a recording sound different, dude.
>> Whether or not someone would hear these differences I can't predict.
>> That anybody who is technically competent and has appropriate tools
>> can and will measure them, I can predict.
> Buy the 2 CDs then you will know if you can hear the differences.
No need to if the MP3's are competently made.
The story I've told is apparent in the MP3s. It's so gross that we can count
on MP3s to properly tell it.
>>>>>>> I've also been educated with regard to how much digital audio
>>>>>>> has improved over the last 15 years.
>>>>>> Not really. What's changed the most is what the respective
>>>>>> mastering engineers had in mind when they mastered the recording
>>>>>> each time.
>>>>> Don't you get it you (coarse talk indicating Kurt was born and
>>>>> raised in a barn deleted). ? When the artist and producer say it
>>>>> is the same work with nothing added only this time there
>>>> is nothing taken away either.
>>>> You said that it was remastered, Kurt. Do you know what remastered
>>>> means Kurt? I guess not! Remastering has also been discussed
>>>> this in your presence Kurt until we got tired of knocking our heads
against your really
>>>> hard, uneducatable head.
>>> See above.
>> All you've done Kurt is admitted that when mastering was last
>> explained around here, you were asleep at the switch. For an
>> independent memory jog, here's an independent source that describes
>> mastering:
> No Arny, I admitted I don't know the technical intricacies of
> remastering.
Well I did and do Kurt, and I've tried to point them out to you and show how
they explain what I observed.
Are you going to admit that you were wrong and that I was right, or are you
continue to keep posturing, Kurt?
> I don't hang on every word you say. The minute it gets
> technical I get bored very quickly.
Kurt, its not my fault that you little pea brain can't fathom relatively
simple situations like this one. If you can't understand the details, maybe
you should just take what I say on faith. I don't think you should do that,
but given how simple-minded you are and wish to remain, that might be the
best choice for you. But, if you wish to remain simple-minded, at least have
the common sense to show some respect to your intellectual betters!
> This is your profession, it isn't mine. I doubt you could know the
> intricacies of mine and I wouldn't expect you to.
I doubt that you have the mental powers to fathom a complex profession,
Kurt. BTW, what is your profession?
> [remastering lecture snipped due to boredom]
Absolute evidence of how simple-minded Kurt Hamster is.
>>>>>> Here's a little science for you, Kurt that you obviously need to
know if you
>>>>>> are going to keep mouthing off like this. If you want to
>>>>>> compare two delivery formats for music, you record the identical
>>>>>> same thing by ach
>>>>>> means, and then do a good job (bias-controlled, level-matched, &
>>>>>> time-synched) of comparing them. It's the big leagues, we call it
>>>>>> controlling relevant variables.
>>>>> The whole point was to show what the real world difference is.
And your point is what, Kurt? Are you so uneducated and simple-minded that
you believe that avoiding proper controls makes a test more meaningful?
>>>> Kurt, your procedure is so crude that it will make everything sound
>>>> different for reasons that have nothing to do with the inherent
>>>> sound quality of the various media.
>>> Did I bill it as a scientific test?
>> You claimed a technical and scientific difference, Kurt.
> No Arny I didn't
Yes you did Kurt. Here's the relevant paragraph:
"Kurt Hamster" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:RoucnT7IE77...@giganews.com
"There have been various discussions in this NGs about the merits or
demerits of 16bit and 24bit processing. I've just had a stark
demonstration of the superiority of one over the other. I've also been
educated with regard to how much digital audio has improved over the
last 15 years."
Now Kurt, are you denying that you wrote this or what?
>. Try re-reading my initial post.
I just did. I even did what you obviously don't want to do Kurt, and that is
to quote it. Or, is quoting a post something that's too complex for your pea
brain to fathom as well?
>I gave very little scientific and technical information.
You gave more than enough!
>I didn't attempt to explain the differences.
You sure did, Kurt. Anybody with a brain can see that. I guess, the "with a
brain" clause leaves you off the hook, but for the rest of us who are
mentally competent and literate...
>I only gave the technical details of the MP3 encoding so
> that people would know what I'd done.
Kurt, you said quite clearly that the audible differences between these two
files were whole explained by the fact that one was processed with 16 bits
and the other was processed with 24 bits. It's there in black-and-white!
>>> Stop trying to make out it failed in doing something it was never
>>> intended to do in the first place.
>> You offered a scientific claim, Kurt.
> No Arny, I offered a subjective claim.
Wrong Kurt. You clearly used technical terms, not subjective terms. or Kurt
are you so stooped that you think that "16 bits" and "24 bits" are
subjective terms?
LOL!
>>> It was just a way of showing the difference between a CD released
>>> in 87 and one due to be released in 2003.
>> Then bill it as such, and nothing more!
> I did you fuckwit.
No you didn't and I just quoted where you attributed the differences between
the two recordings to the fact that one was processed with 16 bits and the
other was processed with 24 bits. Are you denying that you used those exact
words, Kurt? Are you that stoopid that you want us to believe that some
other Kurt Hamster started this thread? Is that the Kurt Hamster that rides
around in black helicopters or what?
LOL!
>>> Within the confines of the MP3 format it was a real world difference
>>> between the old CD and the new one.
>>
>> Then bill it as such, and nothing more!
> I did you fuckwit.
See proof above.
>>>>> Not some
>>>>> artificial test. The reason I didn't level match the files is to
>>>>> show the exact difference between the CD that was released in '88
>>>>> and the one that will be released in a few months.
>>
>>>> So the two files are guaranteed to sound different even if both
>>>> were recorded on a CD directly from the same master.
>>
>>> That is exactly how things are. I deliberately (as initially stated)
>>> didn't alter anything. This was because I didn't want to skew
>>> anything. What you hear is what the old CD sounds like and what the
>>> new one sounds like. The rest is up to the listener to discern as I
>>> initially stated.
>>
>> And, as I've shown there were differences in mastering that go
>> beyond what you claimed, are audible, and are consistent with what
>> mastering is well-known to be.
> You haven't "shown" anything Arny, all you've done is spouted
> undocumented claptrap.
I presented facts that any person who is competent in modern audio
technology can confirm or deny, Kurt. I realize that you now admit that you
are incompetent in modern audio technology but that's no defense. You made
the claim, take responsibility for your actions like an adult Kurt, even if
this is the first time in your life you do so!
>>> To me that is a fair, real world representation. Joe Blow walking
>>> into a shop and buying either CD will hear what I demonstrated. No
>>> more, no less.
>> But there's no reason to believe that the fact that one recording is
>> 16 bits and the other is 24 bits has anything to do with the fact
>> that the two recordings sound different.
> They sound different, I've heard it, the artist has heard it, the
> mastering engineer has heard it.
Sure, one is about 7 dB louder, has about 2.4 dB more dynamics, and has more
bass. None of these things have anything to do with 16 versus 24 bits.
> They both say it is because of the
> new technology (as I stated in the sybject (sic) line).
Actually, you haven't proven that Kurt. And given that you are so stooopid
and naive, why should anybody believe your claims?
>I believe them.
Given that scientific proof exists or these other relevant facts, that would
be very stupid and naive of you Kurt. But, its characteristics of true
believers. I think that the same mental deficiency that allows you to
persist in these obvious errors also makes you susceptible to all those
ludicrous claims about other areas of audio that you spout off!
>They
> actually produced something of substance. What have you ever produced
> apart from gallons of vitriol?
A concise technical report that anybody who is technically competent can
reproduce.
>>>>>> What dumcraps like you Kurt do is make silly little posts like
>>>>>> these, where you compare two different artistic works by the
>>>>>> worst means known, and then attribute any perceived differences
>>>>>> to the technical nature of the delivery format. The very idea
>>>>>> that one could demonstrate differences in two delivery formats
>>>>>> that are as similar as 16/44 and 24/192 is of course highly
>>>>>> laughable in itself.
>>>>> Hmmm, so who's word do I take about whether they are different
>>>>> artistic works? The Artist/Producer or you? Hmmm, no brainer!
>>>> You said that it was remastered, Kurt. Do you know what remastered
>>>> means Kurt? I guess not! Remastering has also been discussed
>>>> this in your presence Kurt until we got tired of knocking our
>>>> heads against your really hard, uneducatable head.
>>> Like I say, who's word do I take?
>
>> Read the well-known independent reference I cited, Kurt. Get someone
>> else to make the measurements that I made.
> And that independent reference has heard these 2 MP3s then?
They can listen to them or not as they wish. The listening only confirms the
technical claims I have made.
>>> Yours or Mo's?
>> Trust science, not anecdotes from someone who doesn't seem to know
>> all the relevant facts.
> Science as in all things relies greatly on interpretation.
The facts that I've presented are very easy for anybody who is competent in
audio to understand, Kurt. I regret that "competent" leaves you out of the
game.
>I choose to
> ignore your interpretation due to your lack of impartiality on the
> matter.
Your gun, your bullet, you foot, baby Kurt.
>>> You haven't demonstrated why I should take yours.
>> Sure I have. If you don't check out my measurements with an
>> independent source, then the fault is clearly with you Kurt.
> I have no need to check out the measurements. All I have to do is
> email the engineer and he can tell me what he did. I'm not interested
> in that minutae.
Then don't make dumass technical claims that you can't back up and that are
so easy to falsify, Kurt.
>>>>>> And oh by the way Kurt, let me beat you to the punch and suggest
>>>>>> that you something sexual and physically impossible to yourself.
>>>>>> I believe that in politer society than you've ever seen or will
>>>>>> ever be fortunate enough to see, it is sometimes called
>>>>>> "self-insemination".
>>>>> You're an encyclopedia of sexual techniques aren't you Arny?
>>>> I lack direct experience with self-insemination, but should I need
>>>> advice from a well-practiced expert in the art, I'll be sure to call on
you Kurt.
>>> You seem to know far more about them than I do.
>> No Kurt, its audio and the dynamic range of recording that I know
>> far more about than you.
> Your expertise in sexual techniques has been ably demonstrated
> (including types of dildos). That's enough for me.
Kurt, you're making this up. Thanks for admitting that you are a liar who
will drop to any moral depth to save face in public.
>>>>>> But what does one expect of a person who has Vinyl Ears?
>>>>> Does that go for Mo too? Who's blown away by the difference.
How stoopid and naive are you Kurt? It's like the artist is going to say
that his newly remastered recording has worse dynamics than his old one?
LOL!
>>>> Whatever.
>>> No cogent argument then?
>> I already presented sufficient evidence to impeach your
>> interpretation of his statements, Kurt.
> On what criteria do you base "sufficient"?
Facts, logic and reason, just to introduce some concepts that are obvious
foreign to you, Kurt.
>>>>> Did you actually listen to the 2 files Arny,
>>>> Sure. BTW Kurt, you really have ignorant taste in *music* and I
>>>> use that word in a highly approximate sense.
>>> 1) You posted your message approximately 7 minutes after
>>> downloading the first file. Is that representative of your
>>> attention to detail?
>> It's representative of the fact that I can download and listen to
>> files pretty quickly.
And also do a first-pass technical analysis, BTW.
Oh, and that includes and allowance for time to LMAO at your naiveté and
stoopidity, Kurt.
> No it's representative of the fact that you prematurely ejaculated
> your post.
The facts I've presented remain unchallenged.
>>> 2) Please explain what you mean by "ignorant taste in *music*"?
>> This music is pap.
> Based on what criteria? Let me have some of your own music to compare
> it with. Or are you one of these gobshites who passes comment on
> something they couldn't manage in a month of sundays (sic)?
Speaking of Kurt, the unspeakably stoopid people who passes comment on
something that they couldn't manage in a month of Sundays, let's talk about
your analysis of this recording, versus mine.
> Obviously the above comment displays the reason you spend all your
> time measuring because you obviously know fuck all about music.
Kurt, if you think that this elevator music is the artistic triumph of the
previous century, who am I to disagree?
LOL!
>>>>> or are you just spouting shit again?
>>>> Again would indicate that I had already done such a thing before,
>>>> making the question irrelevant.
>>> But very perceptive.
>> Not hardly Kurt. Check out my analysis and come back when someone
>> else finally steps up to the job of educating you!
> Your analysis was non-objective, biased and was rejected virtually
> immediately.
Shows how stoopid and self-contradictory you are Kurt, given that you just
claimed that I spend all my time doing objective tests. BTW, just for your
future reference Kurt, I presented a combination of relevant objective and
reliable subjective tests.
I'm out of this discussion because Kurt has become so illogical and
self-contradictory with his claims. The poor boy has obviously become
totally flustered and confused. It would be good to give him some time to
come to his senses. Will do!
Paul D.
>I trust science and my own ears.
That's false. If you really trusted your own ears you wouldn't need
tests to support your conclusions. You only partly trust your ears,
then you switch to crutches - religion and DBT tests. And hate. As
usual, you have omitted the most important variable, the brain. Is
that because you haven't got one? Let's assume for arguments sake that
you do have a pea sized brain, or smaller. Well, it can be concluded
that you do not trust it. In fact, you are so terrified of the 'gray
areas' of perception that dominate your pathetic neural landscape that
you now rely on a crappy visual basic computer program to weed out
your human characteristics. Perhaps some day you will go full circle
and become human again, in the meantime please continue emulating an
automaton.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>
>> I trust science and my own ears.
> That's false. If you really trusted your own ears you wouldn't need
> tests to support your conclusions.
You can't read very well can you Dormer?
Just to review your recent demonstration of illiteracy, Dormer: I said "I
trust science and my own ears.". I didn't say "I trust just my ears". Got it
this time, fool?
Dormer my little manic child, now that I've given you a proper lesson in
reading do you care to respond to my statement or not?
<delete irrelevant moronic manic rant by Dormer>
Paul D.
>You
I've done with you for today. Thanks!
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>
>> You
>
> I've done with you for today. Thanks!
Far be it from you to take responsibility for what you've written, eh
Dormer?
All to typical...
dave weil
wrote:
>"Paul D." <sig...@lineout.net> wrote in message
Shame that spell-checkers don't help situations like this...