Wonderful explanation of "better" vis a vis cds and LPs
viz...@bellatlantic.net
discrimination of what the word "better" means in audio - i.e. how it
applies to both the technical and subjective uses of that word.
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:07:14 GMT, Marc.He...@philips.com
(Heijligers Marc J.M.) wrote:
>When explaining people about the difference between 'better'
>in a technical sense, and better w.r.t. preference, I always
>use the following example.
>
>Supose you have a time machine, and go back to the time that
>Rembrandt was painting his famous Nachtwacht (Night watch)
>painting. Supose that you took your advanced photo camera
>with you, and were able to make a photograph of the same
>scene as Rembrandt was painting.
>
>After that, you go back to the current time, and develop and
>print your photo on the same size as the painting, with the
>latest technology available.
>
>Both the photo and the painting are a projection of the real
>scenario. From a technical point of view, your photo
>probably contains more details, and probably has a more
>honest colour balance than the paining.
>
>If you ask people which of the two they prefer (apart from
>the economical value), they probably will choose for the
>painting. You don't care that the photo might be 'more
>accurate' than the painting, because you for instance may be
>impressed by the way things are emphasized on the painting
>(one of the specialties of Rembrandt). Other people might
>prefer the photo, because they find the effects of Rembrandt
>disturbing.
>
>Nevertheless, you can't conclude that the painting or photo
>is generally 'better' than the other (or the other way
>around). That's just a matter of interpretation and
>preference.
>
>The overall conclusion is that you must just choose what you
>prefer, but refrain from telling that it is absolutely the
>best choice for all people.
>
>Marc
Tom Melanson
reasoning outlined would result in 75% of the gibberish-- I mean posts--
being eliminated. At least a dozen regulars would have nothing about which
to write.
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:4p1frs49mq2cvfd4p...@4ax.com...
Arny Krueger
the topic.
The LP is more like the Rembrandt that we see today. It has changed
since it was painted because painter's materials are not perfectly
stable. Paintings collect dirt and other contaiminants, etc.
The CD is more like the parinting that Rembrandt painted on the day
he first showed it to the public.
There is absolutely positively no reason why there can't be just as
much "art" in a CD as a LP.
Since the CD can be an *exact* representation of what the "artist"
"painted", it seems like it should be the preferred product, at least
for art lovers.
Lovers of dirt and chemical deterioration will obviously think
otherwise. Umm, its a "patina" right? ;-)
Now, as far as the personal preferences part goes, yes that is a
pretty good analysis of the situation.
I wouldn't say "boo" about the technical failings of LP if it weren't
for all these vinyl bigots stuffing their technically ignorant and
egregiously flawed false claims about LP versus CD down my throat day
after day after day on RAO and RAHE.
That, and the superficial listeners who can only conceive of the
advantages of CD in terms of convenience and durability.
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:4p1frs49mq2cvfd4p...@4ax.com...
> This was posted on R.A.H.E and seems to me to be a compelling
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
digital photo. Digital photos are getting very very good now. They now
can rival film. LP is like film, or tape. They have faults, but the
overall result is smooth and pleasing. The digital pictures of just a few
years ago did not measure up to film very well. Now they do. Just like
the new digital mediums are now truly competing with analog tape and lp.
I heard sacd, and it sounds great to me. I have a dvd player, and it
sounds very good. I think cd's are like the first digital cameras. They
just were not there yet. But there will always be people who prefer film,
just like there will be those who prefer to work with analog tape. But
16/ 44 cd's are just not right.Never have been. Never will be. IMHO. Ken
Arny Krueger
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:nq7frscfabn23235o...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 12:43:57 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >IMO, a grossly flawed metaphor reflecting a very shallow approach
to
> >the topic.
>
> post suggests you had no idea of the meaning of what you were
> reading.?
In your biased opinion, Mr. Shain. ;-(
> >The LP is more like the Rembrandt that we see today. It has
changed
> >since it was painted because painter's materials are not perfectly
> >stable. Paintings collect dirt and other contaiminants, etc.
> ??????
How could you possibly know one way or the other since your response
suggests you had no idea of the meaning of what you were reading,
Mr. Shain?
> Are we speaking the same language here? You have missed the
> point completely (literally).
In your biased opinion, Mr. Shain. ;-(
> >The CD is more like the parinting that Rembrandt painted on the
day
> >he first showed it to the public.
>
> >There is absolutely positively no reason why there can't be just
as
> >much "art" in a CD as a LP.
> No, there isn't, and this has to do with the price of eggs how,
exactly?
OK, I'll work at the reading comprehension level that even an
overbearing posturing, bonbastic, outlandishly bigoted person might
understand.
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:07:14 GMT, Marc.He...@philips.com
(Heijligers Marc J.M.) wrote:
"Both the photo and the painting are a projection of the real
scenario. From a technical point of view, your photo probably
contains more details, and probably has a more honest colour balance
than the painting."
Obviously, the metaphor suggests that a CD (From a technical point of
view, probably contains more details, and probably has a more honest
sonic balance) is like a photograph. Furthermore, it suggests ( for
instance may be impressed by the way things are emphasized on the LP)
that an LP is like a photograph.
Mr. Shain you even agreed with this when you just said:
"To the author of the post, the cd is better technically because it
contains more of the original event in a more
faithful representation of the actual event."
In fact, whether that is true is up to the people who make the CD. A
more correct interpretation is that people should think of a CD as
being an art form with less contstraints. Think of a LP as being an
art form that forces every artist to use poster paint, no matter what
he wants to use. Think of the CD as being as an art form that lets
every artist pick and choose from an extremely wide range of paints
paints and techniques.
> >Since the CD can be an *exact* representation of what the "artist"
> >"painted", it seems like it should be the preferred product, at
least
> >for art lovers.
> Perhaps to you.
Mr. Shain, are you going to tell me that you have no understanding of
the the degradation involved in the LP process, or the degree to
which the limitations of the LP force artists into literal artistic
strait-jackets? If so, then that is very sad.
> To the author of the post, the cd is better
> technically because it contains more of the original event in a
more
> faithful representation of the actual event. That is not the same
> thing as saying it is better (or worse) subjectively.
False claim. I suggest you get your head out of the classical and
jazz bins down at your favorite record store and move over to the
alternative and rock sections. Listen to some of the newer stuff,
perhaps "Californication" by the RHCP, or "Astro Lounge" by Smash
Mouth or "The Madding Crowd" by Nine Days. Now tell me that these
albums can be rated as faithful representations of any live musical
event.
> The Rembrandt is a subjective representation of any actual
> event/subject. As such it interprets and places greater priority on
> some elements at the expense of others. Hence, some may like it and
> some may not.
AFAIK "Californication" by the RHCP, or "Astro Lounge" by Smash Mouth
or "The Madding Crowd" by Nine Days exactly fit that bill as they are
distributed on CDs.
> The discussion is NOT about which is "better" but what the
> word "better" means when applied in technical terms contrasted with
> the meaning when applied subjectively.
Exactly. The interesting part of the story is that none of the three
albums I mentioned would have the same subjective consequences if
played off LP because a LP can't technically handle what these CDs
have on them. IOW, the LP "tells" the artist: "What you do has to
meet these technical limiations which are in fact quite audible." CD
"tells" the artist: "Do what you like because whatever you feed to
the speakers you monitor your work with, can be exactly delivered to
the customer's home."
> Get it now?
Been there, done and and long ago learned better.
> >Lovers of dirt and chemical deterioration will obviously think
> >otherwise. Umm, its a "patina" right? ;-)
> I don't know how to explain this to you, Arnold. (literally)
> The explanation had to do with what the word "better" means when
> applied technically as against when applied with reference to
> "preference."
No, as you admitted quite clearly Mr. Shain:
"To the author of the post, the cd is better technically because it
contains more of the original event in a more
faithful representation of the actual event."
In fact, the CD is better not because it allows the listener to hear
an actual event but whatever art that the musicans wish to have
delivered to the listener's home.
If an artist wants to deliver a LP-bound artistic event, he always
has the option of recording something on a LP, playing it back, and
digitizing it. Interestingly enough this (or simulations of it) is
actually done. Are you up on your Lauryn Hill, Mr. Shain?
> It has nothing to do with how much "art" is contained within a cd
or an LP.
Sure it does. As soon as the metaphor compared a photograph with a
Rembrandt painting, has agenda-driven cat was out of the bag. Had he
compared a Rembrandt to a Picasso (and clearly labelled the LP as
being the Picasso) I would not have written what I wrote.
> >Now, as far as the personal preferences part goes, yes that is a
> >pretty good analysis of the situation.
> Gee, how fair of you.
Yes. This of course makes this current rant of yours look even more
foolish because I agreed with what you claimed I didn't get.
> >I wouldn't say "boo" about the technical failings of LP if it
weren't
> >for all these vinyl bigots stuffing their technically ignorant and
> >egregiously flawed false claims about LP versus CD down my throat
day
> >after day after day on RAO and RAHE.
> Why are you responding to this, then? The post is NOT about
> the technical failings OR superiority of either medium.
LOL. It mentions them and you admitted it.
> >That, and the superficial listeners who can only conceive of the
> >advantages of CD in terms of convenience and durability.
> Superficial?????????
Exactly.
> This, by you, is acceptance of preference, right?
If you prefer to read it that way, then yes. If you think otherwise,
then no. I think I was pretty clear: My comment was about a flawed
metaphor.
What is unclear to you about the words "Flawed Metaphor", Mr. Shain?
They are in fact the 4th and 5th words of the post that you are
objecting to.
Mr. Shain, why don't you stop digging your little hole deeper and
call up Mr. Middius for some "counseling". I sure he will be able to
come up with some new forms of the word "feces" for his reponses and
that will make you feel all better. ;-(
Arny Krueger
"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39b7ad3d.128409557@news...
to
> >the topic.
>
> >
> >The LP is more like the Rembrandt that we see today. It has
changed
> >since it was painted because painter's materials are not perfectly
> >stable. Paintings collect dirt and other contaiminants, etc.
> >
> >The CD is more like the parinting that Rembrandt painted on the
day
> >he first showed it to the public.
>
For you the individual, the one you prefer.
> Also, a reproduction might be "technically superior" to both. The
> lighting on the original is a "producer's judgement" (the museum.)
> There is no absolute standard, unless you wish to duplicate the
> original lighting the the painting was shown (and of course, this
can
> be duplicated through image enhancement.) But does that make it
> "better"? Maybe. Or maybe not, depending on how much you value the
> "texture" of the painting, a "texture" that just can't be
reproduced.
Whatever.
> The other problem with the "perfect version" - if there is such a
> thing - is reproducing the scope of the painting. At the limits of
our
> crrent technology, you'd probably have to reproduce it as seen from
> about 30 feet without impacting on the "absolute quality" of the
> resolution. And of course, there is no perfect distance from which
to
> view this wall-sized painting. Get close enough to see the
extremely
> fine details and you lose the totality (and of course the reverse
is
> true.) Personally I found that the perfect compromise (and that's
all
> it was) was viewing at about 15 feet.
In the original metaphor, its not the reproduction of the painting,
it is the painting itself.
> >There is absolutely positively no reason why there can't be just
as
> >much "art" in a CD as a LP.
> I don't disagree with this. What I disagree with is the implication
> that the LP can't offer a superior reproduction of music to the CD
> (mastering problems notwithstanding.)
I think a large part of the answer to that challenge lies in the art,
not the science.
>Even the high specification
> standards of the CD is a compromise when it comes to the
reproduction
> of "real music."
As usual, you want to hang all the problems of microphones and
speakers on the CD medium.
>Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to tell the
> difference between a CD and live music, and you obviously can (even
> though I admit that the other parts of the reproduction chain
> contribute to this.)
As usual, you want to hang all the problems of microphones and
speakers on the CD medium.
> >Since the CD can be an *exact* representation of what the "artist"
> >"painted", it seems like it should be the preferred product, at
least
> >for art lovers.
> >Lovers of dirt and chemical deterioration will obviously think
> >otherwise. Umm, its a "patina" right? ;-)
> Actually, you're quite right. That's why more and more people are
> mixing in a "patina" when they record. That's because The Night
Watch
> shiny and new *might not* be better than The Night Watch today.
Even
> Rembrandt might prefer it after some time. Remember, he painted as
if
> there was already a patina present.
That means that he thought that more patina would be a bad idea,
right?
> >Now, as far as the personal preferences part goes, yes that is a
> >pretty good analysis of the situation.
> >I wouldn't say "boo" about the technical failings of LP if it
weren't
> >for all these vinyl bigots stuffing their technically ignorant and
> >egregiously flawed false claims about LP versus CD down my throat
day
> >after day after day on RAO and RAHE.
> Surprised you haven't choked on it.
Why choke? I'm experienced with this sort of thing.
> >That, and the superficial listeners who can only conceive of the
> >advantages of CD in terms of convenience and durability.
> That, and the superficial listeners who haven't listened to a
high-end
> vinyl rig and who can only hear skips and pops and don't listen
past
> that.
I'd be happy do so if it were reasonably convenient to do, and if I
could bring my digital recorder along and hook it up and record while
the music was playing.
mcn...@my-deja.com
Kenneth Kirkpatrick <ken...@gte.net> wrote:
> I think the closer analogy is comparing a chemical photograph to a
> digital photo. Digital photos are getting very very good now. They now
> can rival film. LP is like film, or tape. They have faults, but the
> overall result is smooth and pleasing. The digital pictures of just a few
> years ago did not measure up to film very well. Now they do. Just like
> the new digital mediums are now truly competing with analog tape and lp.
> I heard sacd, and it sounds great to me. I have a dvd player, and it
> sounds very good. I think cd's are like the first digital cameras. They
> just were not there yet. But there will always be people who prefer film,
> just like there will be those who prefer to work with analog tape.
A key question is, why do some people prefer film? Is it because they
find that it presents a more accurate representation, or is it because
they like the characteristics of film that make it less than accurate?
(Personally, I prefer b&w to color, but I'd never claim it's more
accurate.) That seems to me to be what the LP vs. CD debate is about.
bob
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dave weil
wrote:
Can't you read? That's what I'm talking about - a reproduction vs. the
real painting.
>
>> >There is absolutely positively no reason why there can't be just
>as
>> >much "art" in a CD as a LP.
>
>> I don't disagree with this. What I disagree with is the implication
>> that the LP can't offer a superior reproduction of music to the CD
>> (mastering problems notwithstanding.)
>
>I think a large part of the answer to that challenge lies in the art,
>not the science.
Quite right. This is a great admission on your part.
>
>>Even the high specification
>> standards of the CD is a compromise when it comes to the
>reproduction
>> of "real music."
>
>As usual, you want to hang all the problems of microphones and
>speakers on the CD medium.
Nope. I alluded to this already.
>
>>Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to tell the
>> difference between a CD and live music, and you obviously can (even
>> though I admit that the other parts of the reproduction chain
>> contribute to this.)
>
>As usual, you want to hang all the problems of microphones and
>speakers on the CD medium.
Nope. Can't you read? As usual you want to absolve the CD of *any*
blame.
>
>
>> >Since the CD can be an *exact* representation of what the "artist"
>> >"painted", it seems like it should be the preferred product, at
>least
>> >for art lovers.
>
>> >Lovers of dirt and chemical deterioration will obviously think
>> >otherwise. Umm, its a "patina" right? ;-)
>
>> Actually, you're quite right. That's why more and more people are
>> mixing in a "patina" when they record. That's because The Night
>Watch
>> shiny and new *might not* be better than The Night Watch today.
>Even
>> Rembrandt might prefer it after some time. Remember, he painted as
>if
>> there was already a patina present.
>
>That means that he thought that more patina would be a bad idea,
>right?
Not necessarily. He might have liked the result, not knowing how his
particular painting would age. BTW, much of the "patina" is
periodically removed anyway. Plus he'd have no way of knowing how the
painting would look under modern lighting.
>
>> >Now, as far as the personal preferences part goes, yes that is a
>> >pretty good analysis of the situation.
>
>> >I wouldn't say "boo" about the technical failings of LP if it
>weren't
>> >for all these vinyl bigots stuffing their technically ignorant and
>> >egregiously flawed false claims about LP versus CD down my throat
>day
>> >after day after day on RAO and RAHE.
>
>> Surprised you haven't choked on it.
>
>Why choke? I'm experienced with this sort of thing.
Experienced in choking? Good for you. Perhaps you should go from ham
and swiss to tofu.
>
>> >That, and the superficial listeners who can only conceive of the
>> >advantages of CD in terms of convenience and durability.
>
>> That, and the superficial listeners who haven't listened to a
>high-end
>> vinyl rig and who can only hear skips and pops and don't listen
>past
>> that.
>
>I'd be happy do so if it were reasonably convenient to do,
Has *everybody* in your "society" given up on vinyl? Apparently they
haven't all given up on tubes.
> and if I
>could bring my digital recorder along and hook it up and record while
>the music was playing.
If this would make you feel batter about what you're listening to,
then feel free. Whatever floats your boat I suppose.
Arny Krueger
>
> Has *everybody* in your "society" given up on vinyl? Apparently
they
> haven't all given up on tubes.
Umm you said something about "SOTA"?
> > and if I
> >could bring my digital recorder along and hook it up and record
while
> >the music was playing.
> If this would make you feel batter about what you're listening to,
then feel free.
Sue me for wanting to share the wealth.
>Whatever floats your boat I suppose.
Sharing useful information is good, right?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> This was posted on R.A.H.E and seems to me to be a compelling
>discrimination of what the word "better" means in audio - i.e. how it
>applies to both the technical and subjective uses of that word.
>
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2000, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:39b7b839.131221860@news...
>>
>> Has *everybody* in your "society" given up on vinyl? Apparently
>they
>> haven't all given up on tubes.
>
>Umm you said something about "SOTA"?
OK, given up on "quality vinyl playback." You can get damn good sound
on less than "SOTA" gear, although if you really want to push the
envelope, "SOTA" gear, as opposed to SOTA Turntables, can really open
your eyes.
>
>> > and if I
>> >could bring my digital recorder along and hook it up and record
>while
>> >the music was playing.
>
>> If this would make you feel batter about what you're listening to,
>then feel free.
>
>Sue me for wanting to share the wealth.
I thought that you were using it as a security blanket. A ritual to
make you feel better.
>
>>Whatever floats your boat I suppose.
>
>Sharing useful information is good, right?
McCarty would want to make sure that you're complying with all
applicable copyrights.
dave weil
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <4p1frs49mq2cvfd4p...@4ax.com>,
> <viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>> This was posted on R.A.H.E and seems to me to be a compelling
>>discrimination of what the word "better" means in audio - i.e. how it
>>applies to both the technical and subjective uses of that word.
>>
>
>And it ought to go in the FAQ.
Not with the current slant to the FAQ. It'd never make the cut.
And I'm not talking about the very detailed FAQ that gets updated
periodically but that heavily biased RAO FAQ.
Oh, you *were* talking about the "Audio-Video" FAQ, or whatever it's
called.
Sorry.
dave weil
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <B3Mt5.563$u95.1...@news.ntplx.net>,
>Tom Melanson <win...@ntplx.net> wrote:
>>Nah. It's much better to argue endlessly. Besides, following the
>>reasoning outlined would result in 75% of the gibberish-- I mean posts--
>>being eliminated. At least a dozen regulars would have nothing about which
>>to write.
>
>Maybe 95% from my viewpoint.
As one who contributes to a lot of the noise on RAO, might I modestly
state that some of that noise actually generated useful info?
For instance, we've had Ferstler admit that he holds little importance
to music as an arbiter of final sound quality of a system. He's
admitted under pressure that he hasn't listened to much of the
technology that he routinely trashes. He has shown himself to be
inconsistant when it comes to the importance of "the sweet spot." We
have Arny admitting that LPs might not be so bad after all. We also
have Arny admitting that abx tests on the website have been conducted
in variance with one of the principal guidelines of dbts (that is that
the subject should be able to choose his or her switching points.)
This wasn't made clear in the documentation.
There's plenty more of those "uncovered facts" that could be
referenced.
And yes, I've shown that I'm not particularly savvy when it comes to
discussing technical "facts."
Arny Krueger
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 16:13:25 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:39b7b839.131221860@news...
> >>
> >> Has *everybody* in your "society" given up on vinyl? Apparently
> >they
> >> haven't all given up on tubes.
> >
> >Umm you said something about "SOTA"?
>
> OK, given up on "quality vinyl playback." You can get damn good
sound
> on less than "SOTA" gear, although if you really want to push the
> envelope, "SOTA" gear, as opposed to SOTA Turntables, can really
open
> your eyes.
Well here is the bind. I go to all the trouble to listen and/or
analyze to a XYZ phono playback system.
As soon as I post any kind of analysis of what happened. people start
ranting that the XYZ phono playback system was not SOTA enough and my
analysis is egregiously flawed.
I've lived and learned.
I'm not going to waste even one more second listening to any more
vinyl until I get certification from the usual list of RAO and RAHE
vinyl bigots that the system I propose to listen to is SOTA enough
for them.
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:39b7c77e.135130875@news...
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 16:13:25 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
>> >news:39b7b839.131221860@news...
>> >>
>> >> Has *everybody* in your "society" given up on vinyl? Apparently
>> >they
>> >> haven't all given up on tubes.
>> >
>> >Umm you said something about "SOTA"?
>>
>> OK, given up on "quality vinyl playback." You can get damn good
>sound
>> on less than "SOTA" gear, although if you really want to push the
>> envelope, "SOTA" gear, as opposed to SOTA Turntables, can really
>open
>> your eyes.
>
>Well here is the bind. I go to all the trouble to listen and/or
>analyze to a XYZ phono playback system.
>
>As soon as I post any kind of analysis of what happened. people start
>ranting that the XYZ phono playback system was not SOTA enough and my
>analysis is egregiously flawed.
>
>I've lived and learned.
Since when has that ever stopped you before?
Might you detail what systems you've talked about in the past?
I would suggest that you would have the high ground if you, for
instance, chose the Rega since it's highly thought of as an
inexpensive SOTA rig. It should be easy to find one of those. However,
if you pair it up with a Pioneer receiver, you'll probably still get
flak so make sure that it's properly set up and run through a system
capable of proper fidelity (yes, I know that this is a loaded term.)
Feel free to pick some of the more popular components mentioned with
fondness regularly on this forum.
You could even stack the deck by asking some of the more vociferous
posters what they would consider a "minimum" for quality reproduction.
But don't ask me because my standards aren't that particularly high.
After all, my current turntable/arm/cartridge combo is a modest
Thorens 321/Mayware Formula V/Blue Point Special. Zip will tell you
that the arm is atrocious, the cartridge bright and brittle and the
turntable mediocre. But ya know what? I find it quite satifying, if
not even close to the VPI TNT Mk3/JMW Memorial Arm/Symphonic Line that
I had in my house for a while. Acclimation is a beautiful thing <g>.
Perhaps you could struggle up a VPI TNT or other such megabuck
turntable also. There are certain brands that you well know are
thought of across the board as "SOTA" units.
>
>I'm not going to waste even one more second listening to any more
>vinyl until I get certification from the usual list of RAO and RAHE
>vinyl bigots that the system I propose to listen to is SOTA enough
>for them.
I don't see you forwarding any requests ;-).
At least I think that you'd have the stomach to actually follow
though, unlike Howard Ferstler, who refuses to listen to *any* high
end stuff (out of fear of damage to his paradigm I think.)
Just remember, just as *you* nitpick people's observations, so will
you have *your* observations picked apart. It's part of the game...
dave weil
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <39b7c8a1.135422028@news>, dave weil <ddw...@home.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:29:54 GMT, j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon
>>and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>>As one who contributes to a lot of the noise on RAO, might I modestly
>>state that some of that noise actually generated useful info?
>
>Well, it wasn't you who came to mind, let's say.
I don't know why not. <g>
Maybe I'm falling down on the job <sigh>.
Arny Krueger
> We have Arny admitting that LPs might not be so bad after all.
Mr. Weil, I'm sorry to rock your cradle. How bad did I say LPs were?
Did I ever say that I would never willingly listen to them? ;-)
>We also have Arny admitting that abx tests on the website have been
conducted
> in variance with one of the principal guidelines of dbts (that is
that
> the subject should be able to choose his or her switching points.)
Given that these are legacy tests, where's the beef?
When many of those tests were done documents like RECOMMENDATION
ITU-R BS.1116-1 was like 16 years in the future. BTW BS.1116-1 goes
so far as to say:
4.2
...
"For the most critical assessments, one subject should be processed
at a time."
(1) This standard did not exist until 1994. ABX goes back to 1977-78.
(2) The standard does not say "must" it says "should".
(3) The standard does not say for "For all assessments", it says "For
all critical assessments"
In short, we find Mr. Weil making up HIS OWN standard and then
claiming that all all ABX experiments should meet HIS standard.
AFAIK, PCABX as it exists today conforms to all relevant portions of
BS.1116-1.
> This wasn't made clear in the documentation.
Nothing's perfect. ;-)
Mr. Weil, there is a simple fact of life that you seem to
misunderstand:
Improvement over a period of time is not the same as inconsistency at
some particular time.
IMO, the sensitivity of the testing methodology implemented at
www.pcabx.com is considerably more sensitive and reliable than many
"legacy" ABX tests. The difference might even be large enough to
reverse some of the outcomes. That is the result of improvements that
have taken place over a period of 22+ years.
OTOH, Even the "legacy" ABX tests are considerably more reliable and
unbiased than contemporanious and sequel listening tests that are
used to this day by RAO & RAHE "subjectists", the specialty audio
ragazines and manufacturers, virtually all dealers of any ilk, etc.,
etc..
Arny Krueger
Stopped me from what?
> Might you detail what systems you've talked about in the past?
No, my memory isn't that good and the research will not be adequately
rewarded.
> I would suggest that you would have the high ground if you, for
> instance, chose the Rega since it's highly thought of as an
> inexpensive SOTA rig.
What is unclear about the following?
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:03:26 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
wrote:
"I'm not going to waste even one more second listening to any more
vinyl until I get certification from the usual list of RAO and RAHE
vinyl bigots that the system I propose to listen to is SOTA enough
for them."
Mr. Weil, when you can speak for *all* of them, please come back!
viz...@bellatlantic.net
wrote:
>
><viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
>news:nq7frscfabn23235o...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 12:43:57 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >IMO, a grossly flawed metaphor reflecting a very shallow approach
>to
>> >the topic.
>>
>> How could you possibly know one way or the other since your
>> post suggests you had no idea of the meaning of what you were
>> reading.?
>
>In your biased opinion, Mr. Shain. ;-(
Yes. Precisely. IMO.
>
>
>> >The LP is more like the Rembrandt that we see today. It has
>changed
>> >since it was painted because painter's materials are not perfectly
>> >stable. Paintings collect dirt and other contaiminants, etc.
>
>> ??????
>
>How could you possibly know one way or the other since your response
>suggests you had no idea of the meaning of what you were reading,
>Mr. Shain?
I see. You're stuck for a response.
>
>> Are we speaking the same language here? You have missed the
>> point completely (literally).
>
>In your biased opinion, Mr. Shain. ;-(
Er........perhaps somewhat stronger than that. Why not ask and
see if *anyone* agrees with your interpretation?
>
>> >The CD is more like the parinting that Rembrandt painted on the
>day
>> >he first showed it to the public.
>>
>> >There is absolutely positively no reason why there can't be just
>as
>> >much "art" in a CD as a LP.
>
>> No, there isn't, and this has to do with the price of eggs how,
>exactly?
>
>OK, I'll work at the reading comprehension level that even an
>overbearing posturing, bonbastic, outlandishly bigoted person might
>understand.
>
>On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:07:14 GMT, Marc.He...@philips.com
>(Heijligers Marc J.M.) wrote:
>
>"Both the photo and the painting are a projection of the real
>scenario. From a technical point of view, your photo probably
>contains more details, and probably has a more honest colour balance
>than the painting."
>
>Obviously, the metaphor suggests that a CD (From a technical point of
>view, probably contains more details, and probably has a more honest
>sonic balance) is like a photograph. Furthermore, it suggests ( for
>instance may be impressed by the way things are emphasized on the LP)
>that an LP is like a photograph.
????
Huh?
"( for instance may be impressed by the way things are
emphasized on the LP) that an LP is like a photograph." means what,
exactly? He is *not* saying that "an LP is like a photograph." You're
the one saying that.
If that's where you're going to go, the comparison should be
between photos of different resolutions of the same event taken
simultaneously and from exactly the same vantage point.
He is comparing the notion of "better" as it relates
technically against the notion of "better" as it relates to
preference.
It hasn't a damn thing to do with LP vs. CD.
>
>Mr. Shain you even agreed with this when you just said:
>
>"To the author of the post, the cd is better technically because it
>contains more of the original event in a more
>faithful representation of the actual event."
Yes. So what?
>
>In fact, whether that is true is up to the people who make the CD.
No, my dear retarded gerbil. You miss the point once again.
You are conflating a technical notion of "better" with a subjective
notion of "better."
A
>more correct interpretation is that people should think of a CD as
>being an art form with less contstraints.
You can't read, can you?
> Think of a LP as being an
>art form that forces every artist to use poster paint, no matter what
>he wants to use. Think of the CD as being as an art form that lets
>every artist pick and choose from an extremely wide range of paints
>paints and techniques.
You are now trying to argue that CDs are better subjectively,
which is not what the post is about.
>
>> >Since the CD can be an *exact* representation of what the "artist"
>> >"painted", it seems like it should be the preferred product, at
>least
>> >for art lovers.
>
>> Perhaps to you.
>
>Mr. Shain, are you going to tell me that you have no understanding of
>the the degradation involved in the LP process, or the degree to
>which the limitations of the LP force artists into literal artistic
>strait-jackets? If so, then that is very sad.
Can't you get it through what passes for your brain that
you're the only one trying to discuss which is better subjectively?
Amazing how you trash every damned thread you enter.........
>
>> To the author of the post, the cd is better
>> technically because it contains more of the original event in a
>more
>> faithful representation of the actual event. That is not the same
>> thing as saying it is better (or worse) subjectively.
>
>False claim.
False claim? Are you sure you're not from Mars?
> I suggest you get your head out of the classical and
>jazz bins down at your favorite record store and move over to the
>alternative and rock sections. Listen to some of the newer stuff,
>perhaps "Californication" by the RHCP, or "Astro Lounge" by Smash
>Mouth or "The Madding Crowd" by Nine Days. Now tell me that these
>albums can be rated as faithful representations of any live musical
>event.
Missing the point again. EVEN if these things are pure
studio-fabricated events, they exist as a discrete "something" once on
a master.
How did you survive into adulthood being this concrete?
>
>> The Rembrandt is a subjective representation of any actual
>> event/subject. As such it interprets and places greater priority on
>> some elements at the expense of others. Hence, some may like it and
>> some may not.
>
>AFAIK "Californication" by the RHCP, or "Astro Lounge" by Smash Mouth
>or "The Madding Crowd" by Nine Days exactly fit that bill as they are
>distributed on CDs.
>
>> The discussion is NOT about which is "better" but what the
>> word "better" means when applied in technical terms contrasted with
>> the meaning when applied subjectively.
>
>Exactly. The interesting part of the story is that none of the three
>albums I mentioned would have the same subjective consequences if
>played off LP because a LP can't technically handle what these CDs
>have on them. IOW, the LP "tells" the artist: "What you do has to
>meet these technical limiations which are in fact quite audible." CD
>"tells" the artist: "Do what you like because whatever you feed to
>the speakers you monitor your work with, can be exactly delivered to
>the customer's home."
So what? Start a new thread, if you must. You're just howling
in the wind. No one, AFAIK, has ever said that one medium or the other
is *always* better subjectively.
>
>> Get it now?
>
>Been there, done and and long ago learned better.
You've learned nothing, as far as I can tell.
{snipped}
>
>In fact, the CD is better not because it allows the listener to hear
>an actual event but whatever art that the musicans wish to have
>delivered to the listener's home.
Snore. You haven't a clue, do you?
>
>If an artist wants to deliver a LP-bound artistic event, he always
>has the option of recording something on a LP, playing it back, and
>digitizing it. Interestingly enough this (or simulations of it) is
>actually done. Are you up on your Lauryn Hill, Mr. Shain?
>
>> It has nothing to do with how much "art" is contained within a cd
>or an LP.
>
>Sure it does. As soon as the metaphor compared a photograph with a
>Rembrandt painting, has agenda-driven cat was out of the bag. Had he
>compared a Rembrandt to a Picasso (and clearly labelled the LP as
>being the Picasso) I would not have written what I wrote.
I realize this is difficult, Mr. Krueger, but his post had to
do with context and terms of reference.
>Mr. Shain, why don't you stop digging your little hole deeper and
>call up Mr. Middius for some "counseling". I sure he will be able to
>come up with some new forms of the word "feces" for his reponses and
>that will make you feel all better. ;-(
George has had you accurately pegged from day one, Kroogs.
Ed
>
dave weil
wrote:
Nice dodge Arny. I guess then we can throw out your potential false
claim.
>
>> I would suggest that you would have the high ground if you, for
>> instance, chose the Rega since it's highly thought of as an
>> inexpensive SOTA rig.
>
>What is unclear about the following?
>
>On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:03:26 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
>wrote:
>
>"I'm not going to waste even one more second listening to any more
>vinyl until I get certification from the usual list of RAO and RAHE
>vinyl bigots that the system I propose to listen to is SOTA enough
>for them."
>
>Mr. Weil, when you can speak for *all* of them, please come back!
Nice dodge Arny.
SdW
>You can't read, can you?
Is the pope a catholic?
--
SdW- "Garbage in, garbage out. And blurping inbetween."
Arny Krueger
Arny wrote:
> > How bad did I say LPs were?
> Pretty bad. At least that's the impression that you usually give.
No that is the impression you made up for yourself, Mr. Weil.
> >>We also have Arny admitting that abx tests on the website have
been conducted
> >> in variance with one of the principal guidelines of dbts (that
is >that
> >> the subject should be able to choose his or her switching
points.)
> >Given that these are legacy tests, where's the beef?
> What difference does "legacy tests" make? If a test is flawed, it's
flawed, right?
As I subsequently show, those tests are not flawed by modern
guidelines.
> >When many of those tests were done documents like RECOMMENDATION
> >ITU-R BS.1116-1 was like 16 years in the future.
> Then older flawed results shouldn't be pointed to for reference.
As I subsequently show, those tests are not flawed by modern
guidelines.
> > BTW BS.1116-1 goes so far as to say:
> >4.2
> >...
> >"For the most critical assessments, one subject should be
processed
> >at a time."
> Agreed.
> >(1) This RECOMMENDATION did not exist until 1994. ABX goes back to
1977-78.
> Then those tests houldn't be quoted as "proper" dbts.
As I subsequently show, those tests are not flawed by modern
guidelines.
> >(2) The standard does not say "must" it says "should".
> Should meaning that you'll get the best and most accurate result
that way.
Not necessarily. At worst it means that you might have to go that far
to get the best and most accurate result.
If the best and most accurate result is no audible difference due to
psychoacoustics, well then all "no difference" reports are in some
sense equal, no?
> >(3) The standard does not say for "For all assessments", it says
"For
> >all critical assessments"
> So the test that you're fond of qouting isn't a "critical" test.
Which test might that be?
> Thanks for admitting that. I think it's important to know that when
> evaluating the validity of the results.
Which results might that be?
> >In short, we find Mr. Weil making up HIS OWN standard
> Nope, just quoting the "accepted" standards.
Mr. Weil, prove that you had ever seen the ITU-R BS.1116-1 before I
started quoting it on RAHE in the past few days. You can't quote
documents you don't have proper access to unless you are psychic,
right?
>What we have is Mr. Krueger deciding which of the standards he
wishes to employ.
False claim as I will shortly show.
> > and then >claiming that all all ABX experiments should meet HIS
standard.
> They should at least meet the "dbt standards" wouldn't you say?
AFAIK there is no such thing as a DBT standard. There is the BS
1116-1 guideline.
> >AFAIK, PCABX as it exists today conforms to all relevant portions
of BS.1116-1.
This falsifies Mr. Weil's claim: "Mr. Krueger (is) deciding which of
the standards he wishes to employ."
> >> This wasn't made clear in the documentation.
> >Nothing's perfect. ;-)
> Nope. That's why it takes gadflies such as me to point out
> inconsistancies in the testing protocol. I'm just playing by *your*
> rules.
Nope, I showed that you made up the rules you applied. Besides BS
1116-1 is a guideline, not a rule book.
> >Mr. Weil, there is a simple fact of life that you seem to
misunderstand:
> >Improvement over a period of time is not the same as inconsistency
at some particular time.
> We threw out the old "Earth is the center of the universe." Are you
> arguing that just because we didn't know any better that that
> viewpoint should be pointed to as some sort of "proof?"
You are making a a mountain out of a molehill. The difference is just
not that great if it exists at all, as I have already shown.
> >IMO, the sensitivity of the testing methodology implemented at
> >www.pcabx.com is considerably more sensitive and reliable than
many
> >"legacy" ABX tests. The difference might even be large enough to
> >reverse some of the outcomes. That is the result of improvements
that
> >have taken place over a period of 22+ years.
> Then don't point to old outdated, possibly misleading tests as you
are often want to do.
I never have pointed to possibly misleading tests. I think the tests
Ive cited recently are good as far as they go.
> And I'd maintain that the way that you structure samples also goes
> against the principal that we're talking about. It's analogous to
> giving you an LP that is stuck and contantly repeats a segment over
> and over.
Mr. Weil, I provide one sample on numerous pages in both a "long" and
"short" form. Please demonstrate that you can obtain more sensitive
reliable results with the "long" form sample.
>The only difference is that there's no audible "click" when
> the ABX sample loops. Would you not consider that to be a major
flaw
> is such an LP were used in an ABX test?
In fact, depending on your sound card, etc., there may be a "click"
at the repeat point with some if not all of the PCABX samples. I've
even put a click or two into samples to attract the listener's
attention to a nearby artifact. Obviously one does this carefully to
avoid masking the artifact with the click.
> >OTOH, Even the "legacy" ABX tests are considerably more reliable
and
> >unbiased than contemporanious and sequel listening tests that are
> >used to this day by RAO & RAHE "subjectists", the specialty audio
> >ragazines and manufacturers, virtually all dealers of any ilk,
etc.,
> >etc..
> I think you're wrong. <shrug>
Mr. Weil, I think you are unqualified and unprepared to make a
reliable, credible judgement in this matter.
Arny Krueger
> Nice dodge Arny.
Nope, write it up to my lack of desire to waste my time trying get an
agreement out of a band of thugs. I think we need someone from the LA
police gang squad to try to get all the warring LP factions to agree
on what is "SOTA" in vinyl. Of course many of us know the right
answer: *nothing*.
mdryoon
>
> This was posted on R.A.H.E and seems to me to be a compelling
> discrimination of what the word "better" means in audio - i.e. how it
> applies to both the technical and subjective uses of that word.
To me, it's an interesting analogy, but it isn't compelling. This is
just the transference of the "musical" v. "accurate" arguments that
we've heard in debates about LPs v. CDs and tubes v. solid state onto
another medium.
As for Marc's last paragraph about preferences, only the extremely
dogmatic would disagree with that.
Richard Yoon
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:39b7d810.139373244@news...
>
>Arny wrote:
>
>> > How bad did I say LPs were?
>
>> Pretty bad. At least that's the impression that you usually give.
>
>No that is the impression you made up for yourself, Mr. Weil.
Ask just about anybody.
>
>> >>We also have Arny admitting that abx tests on the website have
>been conducted
>> >> in variance with one of the principal guidelines of dbts (that
>is >that
>> >> the subject should be able to choose his or her switching
>points.)
>
>> >Given that these are legacy tests, where's the beef?
>
>> What difference does "legacy tests" make? If a test is flawed, it's
>flawed, right?
>
>As I subsequently show, those tests are not flawed by modern
>guidelines.
Yes they are.
>
>> >When many of those tests were done documents like RECOMMENDATION
>> >ITU-R BS.1116-1 was like 16 years in the future.
>
>> Then older flawed results shouldn't be pointed to for reference.
>
>As I subsequently show, those tests are not flawed by modern
>guidelines.
Yes they are.
>
>> > BTW BS.1116-1 goes so far as to say:
>
>> >4.2
>> >...
>> >"For the most critical assessments, one subject should be
>processed
>> >at a time."
>
>> Agreed.
FLAW.
>
>> >(1) This RECOMMENDATION did not exist until 1994. ABX goes back to
>1977-78.
>
>> Then those tests houldn't be quoted as "proper" dbts.
>
>As I subsequently show, those tests are not flawed by modern
>guidelines.
Yes they are. See above.
>
>> >(2) The standard does not say "must" it says "should".
>
>> Should meaning that you'll get the best and most accurate result
>that way.
>
>Not necessarily. At worst it means that you might have to go that far
>to get the best and most accurate result.
Wrong.
>
>If the best and most accurate result is no audible difference due to
>psychoacoustics, well then all "no difference" reports are in some
>sense equal, no?
No. Howard's no difference reports aren't done to a dbt standard. Does
that makie them the same as the ones that you and Nousaine have done?
I didn't think so.
>
>> >(3) The standard does not say for "For all assessments", it says
>"For
>> >all critical assessments"
>
>> So the test that you're fond of qouting isn't a "critical" test.
>
>Which test might that be?
Please try to follow along. The only test that I have commented on -
one done on a Sat. afternoon where you shoehorned 12 people into a
studio on a cattle call.
>
>> Thanks for admitting that. I think it's important to know that when
>> evaluating the validity of the results.
>
>Which results might that be?
Please try to follow along. The results of the above test.
>
>> >In short, we find Mr. Weil making up HIS OWN standard
>
>> Nope, just quoting the "accepted" standards.
>
>Mr. Weil, prove that you had ever seen the ITU-R BS.1116-1 before I
>started quoting it on RAHE in the past few days. You can't quote
>documents you don't have proper access to unless you are psychic,
>right?
Nope. These are guidelines that you have mentioned in the past when
defending the effacy of dbts. Sorry. You lose.
>
>>What we have is Mr. Krueger deciding which of the standards he
>wishes to employ.
>
>False claim as I will shortly show.
Wrong.
>
>> > and then >claiming that all all ABX experiments should meet HIS
>standard.
>
>> They should at least meet the "dbt standards" wouldn't you say?
>
>AFAIK there is no such thing as a DBT standard. There is the BS
>1116-1 guideline.
Whatever you want to call them. Perhaps dbts have *no* standard. Then
I'd suggest that it's a flawed protocol. But I don't think you're
arguing that. If you want to argue semantics, fine. It's your usual
obsfucation tactic. Divert, divert, divert!
>
>> >AFAIK, PCABX as it exists today conforms to all relevant portions
>of BS.1116-1.
>
>This falsifies Mr. Weil's claim: "Mr. Krueger (is) deciding which of
>the standards he wishes to employ."
Nope. Did you not quote the "standard" regarding the best way to
assure a clean result?
Sorry. You lose. Again.
>
>
>
>
>> >> This wasn't made clear in the documentation.
>
>> >Nothing's perfect. ;-)
>
>> Nope. That's why it takes gadflies such as me to point out
>> inconsistancies in the testing protocol. I'm just playing by *your*
>> rules.
>
>Nope, I showed that you made up the rules you applied. Besides BS
>1116-1 is a guideline, not a rule book.
Then there *are* no standards. I think that other authorities in the
field might be pissed at you for deciding that you can do whatever is
convenient to achieve the results that you are seeking, instead of
trying to achieve the results that result (how's *that* for Krueglish?
Did I do well master?)
>
>> >Mr. Weil, there is a simple fact of life that you seem to
>misunderstand:
>
>> >Improvement over a period of time is not the same as inconsistency
>at some particular time.
>
>> We threw out the old "Earth is the center of the universe." Are you
>> arguing that just because we didn't know any better that that
>> viewpoint should be pointed to as some sort of "proof?"
>
>You are making a a mountain out of a molehill.
Score!
Now it's a mountain out of a molehill. I can trot out articles from
the 30s that set out "guidelines" about proper sound reproduction. Do
you think that would be relevant?
> The difference is just
>not that great if it exists at all, as I have already shown.
You haven't shown *anything* of the sort, except perhaps in your
deluded mind.
>
>> >IMO, the sensitivity of the testing methodology implemented at
>> >www.pcabx.com is considerably more sensitive and reliable than
>many
>> >"legacy" ABX tests. The difference might even be large enough to
>> >reverse some of the outcomes. That is the result of improvements
>that
>> >have taken place over a period of 22+ years.
>
>> Then don't point to old outdated, possibly misleading tests as you
>are often want to do.
>
>I never have pointed to possibly misleading tests. I think the tests
>Ive cited recently are good as far as they go.
Possibly misleading tests. Tests that don't follow the accepted
"standard" for dbts. I think that jj (an acknowledged expert) would
tend to back me up. In fact, I think he *has* in this forum.
>
>> And I'd maintain that the way that you structure samples also goes
>> against the principal that we're talking about. It's analogous to
>> giving you an LP that is stuck and contantly repeats a segment over
>> and over.
>
>Mr. Weil, I provide one sample on numerous pages in both a "long" and
>"short" form. Please demonstrate that you can obtain more sensitive
>reliable results with the "long" form sample.
See below. And how long is the "long" sample?
>
>>The only difference is that there's no audible "click" when
>> the ABX sample loops. Would you not consider that to be a major
>flaw
>> is such an LP were used in an ABX test?
>
>In fact, depending on your sound card, etc., there may be a "click"
>at the repeat point with some if not all of the PCABX samples. I've
>even put a click or two into samples to attract the listener's
>attention to a nearby artifact. Obviously one does this carefully to
>avoid masking the artifact with the click.
So tell me how these situations *aren't* analogous. Would you find a
repeating skip detrimental to the reproduction of music?
>
>> >OTOH, Even the "legacy" ABX tests are considerably more reliable
>and
>> >unbiased than contemporanious and sequel listening tests that are
>> >used to this day by RAO & RAHE "subjectists", the specialty audio
>> >ragazines and manufacturers, virtually all dealers of any ilk,
>etc.,
>> >etc..
>
>> I think you're wrong. <shrug>
>
>Mr. Weil, I think you are unqualified and unprepared to make a
>reliable, credible judgement in this matter.
I think that you're wrong <shrug>.
Arny Krueger
"SdW" <ab...@citroen.demon.com> wrote in message
news:39b7dff5...@news.demon.nl...
I was wondering if I could squeeze one more demonstration of
"overbearing, posturing, bombastic, outlandishly bigoted person"
out of Mr. Shain.
He did not disappoint! ;-)
Marc Phillips
>> Has *everybody* in your "society" given up on vinyl? Apparently
>they
>> haven't all given up on tubes.
>
>Umm you said something about "SOTA"?
The Rockport Sirius III is the SOTA in audio right now. I'd like to see either
you or Howard disprove that, but there's a bigger chance of you two tag-teaming
on Catherine Zeta-Jones than to get near one of those wonderful machines.
Boon
Arny Krueger
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20000907155626...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> Arny said:
> >> Has *everybody* in your "society" given up on vinyl? Apparently
they
> >> haven't all given up on tubes.
> >Umm you said something about "SOTA"?
> The Rockport Sirius III is the SOTA in audio right now.
Just get all the vinyl bigots on RAO & RAHE to agree with you...
> I'd like to see either you or Howard disprove that...
Why would I want to do such a thing?
>but there's a bigger chance of you two tag-teaming
> on Catherine Zeta-Jones than to get near one of those wonderful
machines.
Ms Zeta-Jones would appear to be in that phase of a woman's life
where being with her might not be the sort of satisfying experience
that one might hope for at other times.
Marc Phillips
>> >> Has *everybody* in your "society" given up on vinyl? Apparently
>they
>> >> haven't all given up on tubes.
>
>> >Umm you said something about "SOTA"?
>
>> The Rockport Sirius III is the SOTA in audio right now.
>
>Just get all the vinyl bigots on RAO & RAHE to agree with you...
Why? And are we supposed to take offense at that rather lame term?
>
>> I'd like to see either you or Howard disprove that...
>
>Why would I want to do such a thing?
Why would you want to have hands-on experience with what is supposed to be the
finest piece of playback equipment ever manufactured? I don't know,
assclown...maybe it has something to do with participating on a forum entitled
rec.audio.opinion. But no one has never really understood why you are here,
since you know so little about audio.
>
>>but there's a bigger chance of you two tag-teaming
>> on Catherine Zeta-Jones than to get near one of those wonderful
>machines.
>
>Ms Zeta-Jones would appear to be in that phase of a woman's life
>where being with her might not be the sort of satisfying experience
>that one might hope for at other times.
How would you know?
Typical statement from the assclown.
Boon
George M. Middius
meltdown, blaming everyone else for your shittiness, or lying.
> Just get all the vinyl bigots on RAO & RAHE to agree with you...
Here is the question:
Do you understand why the phrase "vinyl bigots" sounds derogatory
or snotty?
George M. Middius
Arny Krueger
"George M. Middius" <glan...@ipo.net> wrote in message
news:930grs8r0igjf36so...@4ax.com...
> Here is the question:
Absolutely.
Regrettably, the shoe often fits.
At this point I'd be willing to give Mr. Kirkpatric a pass... ;-)
Marc Phillips
>Apparently
>> >they
>> >> >> haven't all given up on tubes.
>> >
>> >> >Umm you said something about "SOTA"?
>> >
>> >> The Rockport Sirius III is the SOTA in audio right now.
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >> I'd like to see either you or Howard disprove that...
>> >
>> >Why would I want to do such a thing?
>>
>> Why would you want to have hands-on experience with what is
>supposed to be the
>> finest piece of playback equipment ever manufactured?
>
You tell me.
>
>> But no one has never really understood why you are here,
>> since you know so little about audio.
>
>Really? Prove it!
You're doing a much better job of proving it than I ever could.
>
>> >>but there's a bigger chance of you two tag-teaming
>> >> on Catherine Zeta-Jones than to get near one of those wonderful
>> >machines.
> >
>> >Ms Zeta-Jones would appear to be in that phase of a woman's life
>> >where being with her might not be the sort of satisfying
>experience
>> >that one might hope for at other times.
>
>> How would you know?
>
>You claim you've been married. Ever had a pregnant wife? Care to
>comment on what sex is like +/- 1 month of delivery?
>
>
You're supposed to wait at least six weeks, assclown. No wonder you were
disappointed...LOL!
Boon
viz...@bellatlantic.net
wrote:
>
><viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
>news:0ojfrs4in7p8vi1tu...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 15:09:26 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
>>
>> George has had you accurately pegged from day one, Kroogs.
>
>
>No Mr. Shain, you just swallowed his "line", including the hook,
>lure, sinker, pole and reel...
>
>It is interesting the large number of people who have told me the
>same thing over the years.
>
>George has proven to be quite an effective "front man" for me! ;-)
>
>But then you have this need to be told "how to think", don't you Mr.
>Shain?
::wheeze::
You don't give yourself enough credit, Mr. Krueger. You make
it easy for us to come to our judgements about you all on our own.
Ed
Arny Krueger
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:p22grsk55pqfkphjp...@4ax.com...
> ><viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> >news:0ojfrs4in7p8vi1tu...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 15:09:26 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
<ar...@flash.net>
>
> >> George has had you accurately pegged from day one, Kroogs.
> >No Mr. Shain, you just swallowed his "line", including the hook,
> >lure, sinker, pole and reel...
> >It is interesting the large number of people who have told me the
> >same thing over the years.
> >George has proven to be quite an effective "front man" for me! ;-)
> >But then you have this need to be told "how to think", don't you
Mr.
> >Shain?
> ::wheeze::
Whatever.
> You don't give yourself enough credit, Mr. Krueger. You make it
easy for us to come to our judgements about you all on our own.
As do you, Mr, Shain. I had you figured for what you turned out to
be, from the onset, well over a year ago.
Now who is this "us" Mr. Shain? Would that be you and all the others
who have been programmed by Mr. Middius?
Mr. Shain, you seem to be have little effective working familiarity
with the term "self-fulfilling prophecy". If you do, you haven't
figured out how to avoid being worked into one.
But Mr. Shain you've never claimed to be skeptical or a careful
critical analyst, now have you?
Arny Krueger
> > > >> George has had you accurately pegged from day one, Kroogs.
> > > >No Mr. Shain, you just swallowed his "line", including the
hook, lure, sinker, pole and reel...
> FECES, your imperviousness to reality is often truly shocking.
What is reality Mr. Middius? Is it an individual experience or a
shared experience?
> > > >It is interesting the large number of people who have told me
the same thing over the years.
> If that's the case, why do you pretend I had to whisper in
intelligent individuals' ears?
Because they've told me so. Or, are you calling them liars?
> > > >George has proven to be quite an effective "front man" for me!
;-)
> You really can't get through an exchange without descending into
> your dorky Krooglish garbage, can you?
IOW you have nothing relevant to say.
> > > >But then you have this need to be told "how to think", don't
you Mr.
> > > >Shain?
> To all those who have been asking Krootard whether he can
> actually read (three people in the past 24 hours), it looks like
> the answer is "primitively at best".
Interesting how none of them can read one sentence I wrote.
> > > You don't give yourself enough credit, Mr. Krueger. You make
it
> > easy for us to come to our judgements about you all on our own.
> > As do you, Mr, Shain. I had you figured for what you turned out
to
> > be, from the onset, well over a year ago.
> How do you explain that Ed posted only occasionally during his
> first year or so on RAO, and only subsequently realized how
> impossible it is to have a conversation with you?
I'm counting the "onset" from the time when he started posting far
more regularly. He made the same claim to me, back in the days when
DN was reliable. I checked it out. You are right. For about a year he
hardly posted at all. But its been about a year an a half maybe tow
since then, right?
> It just goes to show that you are the only RAOer who thinks Ed is
irrational. Case proven.
Mr. Middius you obviously think you are perfectly rational.
Therefore, you aren't a reliable judge of rationality. You think that
Mr. Shain is prefectly rational. But your beliefs about your own
rationality discredit Mr. Shain as well.
Anybody with a brain who sees all the fulminating foolishness that
Mr. Shain posts will suspect that a few face cards are missing from
his deck.
> > Now who is this "us" Mr. Shain? Would that be you and all the
others
> > who have been programmed by Mr. Middius?
> Your paranoaT is dominating your pathetic little "mind," you
disgusting sack of shit.
So which is it? Am I right or all the people who told me that you
programmed them to hate me liars?
> > Mr. Shain, you seem to be have little effective working
familiarity
> > with the term "self-fulfilling prophecy". If you do, you haven't
> > figured out how to avoid being worked into one.
> > But Mr. Shain you've never claimed to be skeptical or a careful
> > critical analyst, now have you?
> The obligatory nonsequitur into the twisted byways of Krooger's
fucked-up psyche.
It follows quite nicely. Ed is a fish for overpriced HiFi gear and
he's a fish for your lies and distortions, Mr Middius.
<5 more days until I can talk about minnesota snake oil!>
> Call up Phoebe and ask why he killfiled you. That'll keep you busy
for a while.
As usual you are out of touch with reality. About a dozen people on
RAO should know better.
Joe Duffy
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> This was posted on R.A.H.E and seems to me to be a compelling
>discrimination of what the word "better" means in audio - i.e. how it
>applies to both the technical and subjective uses of that word.
>
>
>
>
No one would choose a two
dimensional representation that
lacks texture.
The painting itself is
more accurate, by
definition.
Bzzzt. Bad analogy. Try
again later.
Joe
Fred
> This was posted on R.A.H.E and seems to me to be a compelling
>discrimination of what the word "better" means in audio - i.e. how it
>applies to both the technical and subjective uses of that word.
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:07:14 GMT, Marc.He...@philips.com
>(Heijligers Marc J.M.) wrote:
>
>>When explaining people about the difference between 'better'
>>in a technical sense, and better w.r.t. preference, I always
>>use the following example.
>>
>>Supose you have a time machine, and go back to the time that
>>Rembrandt was painting his famous Nachtwacht (Night watch)
>>painting. Supose that you took your advanced photo camera
>>with you, and were able to make a photograph of the same
>>scene as Rembrandt was painting.
>>
A flawed analogy to put it mildly. Paintings are interpretations of
what an artist sees. Obviously a photograph will be more accurate but
it is not about that. The art is in the artists interpretation. A
record may sound differen't than a CD but I don't think a obsolete
mechanical contraption is capable of artistically interpreting the
sound. There is nothing artful or creative about less detail and
artificially added distortion. I don't think a turntable is any more
capable of creativity than a lousy camera that leaves color
distortions or blurry pictures. Maybe a person prefers those lousy
photos but it is a preference not based on artistic methods.
>>After that, you go back to the current time, and develop and
>>print your photo on the same size as the painting, with the
>>latest technology available.
>>
>>Both the photo and the painting are a projection of the real
>>scenario. From a technical point of view, your photo
>>probably contains more details, and probably has a more
>>honest colour balance than the paining.
>>
However in this case we are talking about copies of the original.
When one buys they are not buying the orginal painting or recording.
Digital copies are indistinguishable from one another. I may want a
nice print of a rembrandt because obviously I won't be getting the
original. However I want the copy I am buying to be as close to the
orginal as possible. I want the technology to be transparent. I
don't want the technologies interpretation of the painting in the
copy.
Two records of the same recording can sound very differen't due to
wear etc. When they are first made records will not be identical. I
suppose someone can prefer less accurate or faithful sound but why
don't they admit it? I don't see any openly admitted pursuit than
that of accurate faithful to the original sound. I don't see anyone
saying they buy equalizers, turntables, and colored cables because
they prefer the way they sound and who cares if its less accurate.
They want it both ways. That they prefer the sound of vinyl and that
it is technically superior than CDs.
>>If you ask people which of the two they prefer (apart from
>>the economical value), they probably will choose for the
>>painting.
I am sure if they had a copy of the painting they would want it to be
as close to the orginal as possible. Anything in the copy that is
artificial, distorted etc by the technology involved in the process I
am quite sure is not welcomed.
>You don't care that the photo might be 'more
>>accurate' than the painting, because you for instance may be
>>impressed by the way things are emphasized on the painting
>>(one of the specialties of Rembrandt). Other people might
>>prefer the photo, because they find the effects of Rembrandt
>>disturbing.
>>
I don't think the turntable is the equivalent of Rembrandt in the
interpretation of sound.
>>Nevertheless, you can't conclude that the painting or photo
>>is generally 'better' than the other (or the other way
>>around). That's just a matter of interpretation and
>>preference.
>>
A photo is real life and painting is art. The sound of automobiles,
trains, garage doors is real life. Music is art and I want to hear
the message that the artist is conveying in its original form. I
don't believe for a second that a turntable is capable of improving
the musicians message it is only distracting me from it and moving me
farther away.
viz...@bellatlantic.net
>On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 12:28:06 GMT, viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
>> This was posted on R.A.H.E and seems to me to be a compelling
>>discrimination of what the word "better" means in audio - i.e. how it
>>applies to both the technical and subjective uses of that word.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:07:14 GMT, Marc.He...@philips.com
>>(Heijligers Marc J.M.) wrote:
>>
>>>When explaining people about the difference between 'better'
>>>in a technical sense, and better w.r.t. preference, I always
>>>use the following example.
>>>
>>>Supose you have a time machine, and go back to the time that
>>>Rembrandt was painting his famous Nachtwacht (Night watch)
>>>painting. Supose that you took your advanced photo camera
>>>with you, and were able to make a photograph of the same
>>>scene as Rembrandt was painting.
>>>
>A flawed analogy to put it mildly. Paintings are interpretations of
>what an artist sees. Obviously a photograph will be more accurate but
>it is not about that. The art is in the artists interpretation.
Be careful here. The point lies not in whether a given thing
is more artful, but how the word "better" changes meaning and
implication depending on whether one is discussing technical merit or
one is using it within a discussion about preference.
His point about paintings is that they are like all
preference: a subjective interpretation of what in another context is
simply a real event.
A
>record may sound differen't than a CD but I don't think a obsolete
>mechanical contraption is capable of artistically interpreting the
>sound. There is nothing artful or creative about less detail and
>artificially added distortion. I don't think a turntable is any more
>capable of creativity than a lousy camera that leaves color
>distortions or blurry pictures. Maybe a person prefers those lousy
>photos but it is a preference not based on artistic methods.
Fine. The discussion is actually not about turntables as "art"
or cds as art, or even photos as art. It's that "better" means
something quite different when using it to compare technical merit
then when used to discuss preference.
One is about measurement along established criteria, the other
is about *interpretation.*
What I do find interesting is that people seem to have run
right past the author's point. He is not arguing whether one thing is
more artistic than the other. He is pointing out the semantic pitfalls
when using the word "better."
Ed
mdryoon
>
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 12:28:06 GMT, viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
> > This was posted on R.A.H.E and seems to me to be a compelling
> >discrimination of what the word "better" means in audio - i.e. how it
> >applies to both the technical and subjective uses of that word.
> >
> >On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:07:14 GMT, Marc.He...@philips.com
> >(Heijligers Marc J.M.) wrote:
> >
> >>When explaining people about the difference between 'better'
> >>in a technical sense, and better w.r.t. preference, I always
> >>use the following example.
<snip example>
> A flawed analogy to put it mildly. Paintings are interpretations of
> what an artist sees. Obviously a photograph will be more accurate but
> it is not about that.
Not necessarily. Photos can be "interpretations of what an artist
sees." Paintings can be made to look like what a painter actually
saw.
> The art is in the artists interpretation. A
> record may sound differen't than a CD but I don't think a obsolete
> mechanical contraption is capable of artistically interpreting the
> sound.
Many disagree with you. Classic tube sound is described by quite a
few as an "artistic interpretation" of sound reproduction.
> There is nothing artful or creative about less detail and
> artificially added distortion.
You're starting to sound dogmatic here. The value of something as
art is subjective.
> I don't think a turntable is any more
> capable of creativity than a lousy camera that leaves color
> distortions or blurry pictures. Maybe a person prefers those lousy
> photos but it is a preference not based on artistic methods.
Messiness is sometimes be used as an artistic statement.
> >>If you ask people which of the two they prefer (apart from
> >>the economical value), they probably will choose for the
> >>painting.
>
> I am sure if they had a copy of the painting they would want it to be
> as close to the orginal as possible. Anything in the copy that is
> artificial, distorted etc by the technology involved in the process I
> am quite sure is not welcomed.
I guess you don't like lithographs.
> A photo is real life and painting is art.
Neither is real life. Both can be used as art.
> The sound of automobiles,
> trains, garage doors is real life. Music is art and I want to hear
> the message that the artist is conveying in its original form.
Then go to a live performance.
> I
> don't believe for a second that a turntable is capable of improving
> the musicians message it is only distracting me from it and moving me
> farther away.
That's your preference. Your preference isn't always shared by
others.
Richard Yoon
George M. Middius
> Paintings can be made to look like what a painter actually saw.
What did Leonardo actually see, Pandaschlub?
George M. Middius
Fred
wrote:
>
>> The sound of automobiles,
>> trains, garage doors is real life. Music is art and I want to hear
>> the message that the artist is conveying in its original form.
>
>Then go to a live performance.
>
I do whenever time and circumstances allow. Obviously home systems
are a compromise for when your favorite music in not being performed
live in a nearby venue. However when I listen at home I want it to be
as if it were live and that is my preference.
Fred
>>
>>Since the CD can be an *exact* representation of what the "artist"
>>"painted", it seems like it should be the preferred product, at least
>>for art lovers.
>
> Perhaps to you. To the author of the post, the cd is better
>technically because it contains more of the original event in a more
>faithful representation of the actual event. That is not the same
>thing as saying it is better (or worse) subjectively.
>
> The Rembrandt is a subjective representation of any actual
>event/subject. As such it interprets and places greater priority on
>some elements at the expense of others. Hence, some may like it and
>some may not.
Well I suppose an equalizer would fall into this category if you want
to over emphasize or place less emphasis on what is actually heard in
reality. However turntables really only eliminate things entirely
from what would be heard in reality and only add what could only be
described as unmusical garbage in the form of surface noises and other
distortions. I am not saying one can not prefer such things. However
I think a Rembrandt or other artist does a better job at emphasizing
elements or adding elements than a turntable which only adds
uninspired distortion. However if this custom made sound is what
floats your boat than just buy an equalizer or one of the many
software programs that simulates the distortion of what is heard on
vinyl. I suppose it won't be real as the actual distortion but its
certainly cheaper and less hassle than buying a analog rig.
>
> The discussion is NOT about which is "better" but what the
>word "better" means when applied in technical terms contrasted with
>the meaning when applied subjectively.
>
I usually don't use the word better. When I talk about CDs and Vinyl
I say CDs are more accurate at sound reproduction than vinyl.
Obviously not everyone prefers accurate sound. This is obvious with
people still listening to vinyl and tubes. However the people who
prefer to listen to the music and prefer to have their equipment
transparent are in the majority. However there is a minority who like
to hear their equipment at the expense of the music.
Stephen McElroy
viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> What I do find interesting is that people seem to have run
> right past the author's point. He is not arguing whether one thing is
> more artistic than the other. He is pointing out the semantic pitfalls
> when using the word "better."
We're right back to the "Life of Brian" version of the Sermon on the Mount...
Stephen
Stewart Pinkerton
>On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 20:12:38 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
>>news:20000907155626...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
>>> Arny said:
>>
>>> >> Has *everybody* in your "society" given up on vinyl? Apparently
>>they
>>> >> haven't all given up on tubes.
>>
>>> >Umm you said something about "SOTA"?
>>
>>> The Rockport Sirius III is the SOTA in audio right now.
>>
>>Just get all the vinyl bigots on RAO & RAHE to agree with you...
>
>Find me *one* "vinyl bigot" that *wouldn't* call it SOTA. You'll be
>here a thousand years...
I thought SOTA went bust.........
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Arny Krueger
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:9eggrs0vosqgdmduk...@4ax.com...
Still having problems with the term "flawed metaphor" Mr. Shain?
What "flawed metaphor" means is that the metaphor included several
different issues, some of which distracted from each other.
Furthermore, the writer imposed his own misunderstandings of the
science and art of photography on his story:
Marc.He...@philips.com (Heijligers Marc J.M.) wrote:
"Both the photo and the painting are a projection of the real
scenario.
Yes, they are both 2D representations of the same scene, but even the
business of merely projecting 3D on 2D can include art. However, the
art of photography is more than just projection. Of course painting
is also more than just projection.
Marc.He...@philips.com (Heijligers Marc J.M.) wrote:
> From a technical point of view, your photo probably contains more
details, and probably has a more honest colour balance than the
paining.
This is also far from being a "given". For example, for most
combinations of lens openings and and focal length, a camera is going
to reproduce part of the scene in focus and part of the scene out of
focus. A hyper-realistic painter has no such limitations. This is
called depth of field, and for cameras it can be highly limited. That
can be part of the art of photography. However, a human painter is
not limited that way. Therefore, the painting can easily have more
details.
There is a companion issue relating to color and light intensity.
Differences in this area are one of the primary reasons why digital
photography and film photography usually look so different.
Electronic imaging has a certain kind of mapping of intensity and
color into finished picture, and film photography generally has a
vastly different one. However, the painter's eye is not limited to
either of these technologies. He can map what he sees (even at
different times) into one picture. Thus the painting can easily have
a more "natural" mapping of colors.
But the major flaw, IMO is in the following two sentences from the
same paragraph:
Marc.He...@philips.com (Heijligers Marc J.M.) wrote:
>If you ask people which of the two they prefer (apart from the
economical value), they probably will choose for the painting.
Of course, "purpose" has something to do with preference, and the
author obviously does not consider "purpose". IOW the metaphor
presumes that functional considerations are irrelevant. Back in the
real world purpose is important, and it often can cause dramatic
changes in preference. On a nice sunny day with light traffic and a
short distance to travel, I prefer a bicycle or for longer trips a
motorcycle. However if the weather is not so nice, or I have to
travel 600 miles in a day, then the car would be my preference.
Marc.He...@philips.com (Heijligers Marc J.M.) wrote:
> You don't care that the photo might be 'more accurate' than the
painting, because you for instance may be impressed by the way things
are emphasized on the painting (one of the specialties of Rembrandt).
The author presumes that accuracy might be an issue, but forgot about
"purpose". In fact it is far from a given that either the painting or
the photograph is more accurate.
> His point about paintings is that they are like all
> preference: a subjective interpretation of what in another context
is
> simply a real event.
This is obviously an egregiously-flawed claim. in fact, both
paintings and photographs are subjective interpretations of real or
imaginary events. Even if a photograph is taken by a machine, and
developed and printed by machines the machines were chosen and set up
by people who imposed their subjective thoughts on the machines in
such a way that the result still has considerable subjective content.
> A
> >record may sound differen't than a CD but I don't think a obsolete
> >mechanical contraption is capable of artistically interpreting the
> >sound.
But, as I pointed out, a machine embodies interpretations.
> >There is nothing artful or creative about less detail and
artificially added distortion.
In fact managing, not necessarily minimizing those issues just might
be the heart and soul of both photography and painting.
> > I don't think a turntable is any more
> >capable of creativity than a lousy camera that leaves color
> >distortions or blurry pictures.
There are currently-popular best-selling CDs where a considerable and
obvious effort was expended to simulate or use vinyl artifacts to
create a certain artistic effect. The art of photography is using
color transformations and variations in focus from optimal in order
to create an artistic effect.
> >Maybe a person prefers those lousy photos but it is a preference
not based on artistic methods.
Not fine. Simply not true. One person's lousy photo can be another
person's "art". We've been in roughly the same place with painting
since before Picasso, easily with Rembrandt, and before that.
> Fine. The discussion is actually not about turntables as "art"
> or cds as art, or even photos as art. It's that "better" means
> something quite different when using it to compare technical merit
> then when used to discuss preference.
That is in itself a fine message, but regrettably, we have two
authors who have managed to scramble the eggs before we get to this
point.
> One is about measurement along established criteria, the other is
about *interpretation.*
False claim. Both are about measurements and both are about
interpretation.
> What I do find interesting is that people seem to have run
> right past the author's point. He is not arguing whether one thing
is
> more artistic than the other. He is pointing out the semantic
pitfalls
> when using the word "better."
The problem is that the metaphor gets in the way of that message.
Therefore, we have the shared opinon that the metaphor is "flawed".
dave weil
>On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 14:12:29 GMT, viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Since the CD can be an *exact* representation of what the "artist"
>>>"painted", it seems like it should be the preferred product, at least
>>>for art lovers.
>>
>> Perhaps to you. To the author of the post, the cd is better
>>technically because it contains more of the original event in a more
>>faithful representation of the actual event. That is not the same
>>thing as saying it is better (or worse) subjectively.
>>
>> The Rembrandt is a subjective representation of any actual
>>event/subject. As such it interprets and places greater priority on
>>some elements at the expense of others. Hence, some may like it and
>>some may not.
>
>Well I suppose an equalizer would fall into this category if you want
>to over emphasize or place less emphasis on what is actually heard in
>reality. However turntables really only eliminate things entirely
>from what would be heard in reality and only add what could only be
>described as unmusical garbage
I'm afraid that your characterization of this is wrong. Arny, can you
say digital bigot?
> in the form of surface noises and other
>distortions. I am not saying one can not prefer such things. However
>I think a Rembrandt or other artist does a better job at emphasizing
>elements or adding elements than a turntable which only adds
>uninspired distortion.
OSAF.
Unless one is a photorealist, every painting is a distortion of
reality.
> However if this custom made sound is what
>floats your boat than just buy an equalizer or one of the many
>software programs that simulates the distortion of what is heard on
>vinyl. I suppose it won't be real as the actual distortion but its
>certainly cheaper and less hassle than buying a analog rig.
Well, it's cheaper and more accurate to take a photo of a ballerina.
But it's likely to be more satisfying to view Degas' take on it.
>>
>> The discussion is NOT about which is "better" but what the
>>word "better" means when applied in technical terms contrasted with
>>the meaning when applied subjectively.
>>
>I usually don't use the word better. When I talk about CDs and Vinyl
>I say CDs are more accurate at sound reproduction than vinyl.
But since it's incapable of reproducing music *exactly* as it's heard
in real life, it's innaccurate as well. Choose your poison. Warm rich
'euphonic" sound or "the other." (obviously I'm exaggerating for
effect because digital has come a long way towards being more
3-dimensional and "lifelike."
>Obviously not everyone prefers accurate sound. This is obvious with
>people still listening to vinyl and tubes. However the people who
>prefer to listen to the music and prefer to have their equipment
>transparent are in the majority. However there is a minority who like
>to hear their equipment at the expense of the music.
And of course there are those who listen to the "specs" at the expense
of the music.
dave weil
wrote:
>Fred wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 12:28:06 GMT, viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>>
>> > This was posted on R.A.H.E and seems to me to be a compelling
>> >discrimination of what the word "better" means in audio - i.e. how it
>> >applies to both the technical and subjective uses of that word.
>> >
>> >On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:07:14 GMT, Marc.He...@philips.com
>> >(Heijligers Marc J.M.) wrote:
>> >
>> >>When explaining people about the difference between 'better'
>> >>in a technical sense, and better w.r.t. preference, I always
>> >>use the following example.
>
><snip example>
>
>> A flawed analogy to put it mildly. Paintings are interpretations of
>> what an artist sees. Obviously a photograph will be more accurate but
>> it is not about that.
>
>Not necessarily. Photos can be "interpretations of what an artist
>sees." Paintings can be made to look like what a painter actually
>saw.
Or paintings can be made to look like photographs.
"Fred" actually was close when he said that "it is not about that." He
missed what the post (and the analogy) was all about.
>
>> The art is in the artists interpretation. A
>> record may sound differen't than a CD but I don't think a obsolete
>> mechanical contraption is capable of artistically interpreting the
>> sound.
>
>Many disagree with you. Classic tube sound is described by quite a
>few as an "artistic interpretation" of sound reproduction.
I would describe it that way. Of course, so is SS reproduction. It's
just a different direction.
>
>> There is nothing artful or creative about less detail and
>> artificially added distortion.
>
>You're starting to sound dogmatic here. The value of something as
>art is subjective.
Quite right. Especially in art photos, rarely is *no* distortion
employed. less detail (grainy,) blurring of the subject, manipulation
of color, line and shadow, and tinting are just a few of the
manipulations of photos used to create art. Even the fact that most
"great" art photos are black and white is a distortion in and of
ittself.
Distortions are *generally* what sets apart a Mapplethorpe or a
Sherman from a newspaper photographer (although there are a few rare
instances of them creating art.)
>
>> I don't think a turntable is any more
>> capable of creativity than a lousy camera that leaves color
>> distortions or blurry pictures. Maybe a person prefers those lousy
>> photos but it is a preference not based on artistic methods.
>
>Messiness is sometimes be used as an artistic statement.
See above. Cindy Sherman could have certain shot film that wasn't
grainy. But then she wouldn't have been much of an artist, or even
much of Cindy Sherman. Her work is balanced between "cinematic"
scenarios *and* texture, shadow, and motion.
>
>> >>If you ask people which of the two they prefer (apart from
>> >>the economical value), they probably will choose for the
>> >>painting.
>>
>> I am sure if they had a copy of the painting they would want it to be
>> as close to the orginal as possible. Anything in the copy that is
>> artificial, distorted etc by the technology involved in the process I
>> am quite sure is not welcomed.
>
>I guess you don't like lithographs.
>
>> A photo is real life and painting is art.
>
>Neither is real life. Both can be used as art.
Agreed.
And until we have a reproduction chain capable of tricking the senses
to believing that live music is being played in your room (we *do* get
fleeting and tantalizing snippets of that phenomenon now and then)
then *all* hi-fi reproduction is separate from "real life." Arny would
have you believe that digital is blameless in the transaction. I say
that there's no proof that it is capable of reproduction that can fool
somebody into believing that live music is being played. Perhaps jj
over at ATT Labs is getting closer to proving that "postulate" though.
Until then, you only have speculation since the "uncertainty"
principle prevents one from seperating digital from the system as a
whole.
>
>> The sound of automobiles,
>> trains, garage doors is real life. Music is art and I want to hear
>> the message that the artist is conveying in its original form.
>
>Then go to a live performance.
Or I'd point out the contradiction in "Fred" denying the "artful" side
of reproduction. As Howard has pointed out, a transparent system is
probably best if you want to reproduce automobiles, trains, etc. I
have no argument with that.
>
>> I
>> don't believe for a second that a turntable is capable of improving
>> the musicians message it is only distracting me from it and moving me
>> farther away.
>
>That's your preference. Your preference isn't always shared by
>others.
Again agreed. I understand "Fred's" problem. He is so wound up witth
every tic and pop that he never subliminates the noise. It's the same
with Ferstler. He's too busy focusing on that to ever hear the music.
I'm surprised that he doesn't go up to coughing people at the symphony
and slap them.
I hear the pops for a couple of seconds and then they fade to the
background. I don't do this consciously. It just happens. it becomes
like the Musak I hear in a department store. I quickly don't even hear
it.
dave weil
<Glan...@ipo.net> wrote:
>Yoon-Yoon is preaching to an empty nave.
>
>> Paintings can be made to look like what a painter actually saw.
>
>What did Leonardo actually see, Pandaschlub?
Better to ask what Chuck Close actually saw. And it was probably what
he painted.
dave weil
So tell me how Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band sounds live.
Or tell me how close you can come to reproducing the LSO in your
living room.
Arny Krueger
Read again. I didn't write the last paragraph.
However, I would be happy to change my opinons about the sonic
transparency of digital if you'd just provide a little solid
evidence.
> > in the form of surface noises and other
> >distortions. I am not saying one can not prefer such things.
However
> >I think a Rembrandt or other artist does a better job at
emphasizing
> >elements or adding elements than a turntable which only adds
> >uninspired distortion.
> OSAF.
Hardly. When it comes to art, humans working directly on the medium
with minimal tools or automation still seems to be what gives the
best art.
> Unless one is a photorealist, every painting is a distortion of
reality.
So is every photograph, or even an attempt at making an exact
duplicate from similar materials.
> > However if this custom made sound is what
> >floats your boat than just buy an equalizer or one of the many
> >software programs that simulates the distortion of what is heard
on
> >vinyl. I suppose it won't be real as the actual distortion but
its
> >certainly cheaper and less hassle than buying a analog rig.
> Well, it's cheaper and more accurate to take a photo of a
ballerina.
Not necessarily. It is generally quicker and cheaper, though.
> But it's likely to be more satisfying to view Degas' take on it.
Depends whether or not you like Degas's work. My mother would
probably prefer a black-and-white photograph, slightly grainy and
improperly exposed. Those are her preferences!
> >> The discussion is NOT about which is "better" but what the
> >>word "better" means when applied in technical terms contrasted
with
> >>the meaning when applied subjectively.
>
> >I usually don't use the word better. When I talk about CDs and
Vinyl
> >I say CDs are more accurate at sound reproduction than vinyl.
OK
> But since it's incapable of reproducing music *exactly* as it's
heard
> in real life, it's innaccurate as well.
I'll stipulate the fault you describe is present. What is its source?
>Choose your poison. Warm rich
> 'euphonic" sound or "the other." (obviously I'm exaggerating for
> effect because digital has come a long way towards being more
> 3-dimensional and "lifelike."
Personally, I find much vinyl reproduction to be "cold" because it
lacks accurate, deep bass.
> >Obviously not everyone prefers accurate sound. This is obvious
with
> >people still listening to vinyl and tubes. However the people who
> >prefer to listen to the music and prefer to have their equipment
> >transparent are in the majority. However there is a minority who
like
> >to hear their equipment at the expense of the music.
> And of course there are those who listen to the "specs" at the
expense of the music.
Let them be educated!
Arny Krueger
"Stephen McElroy" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-0709...@dial-106-17.ots.utexas.edu...
Agreed.
BTW, thanks for your comments about DBTs on RAHE.
dave weil
wrote:
>
Read again. Did I say that you did?
>
>However, I would be happy to change my opinons about the sonic
>transparency of digital if you'd just provide a little solid
>evidence.
Tell me how to prove except *very* indirectly that digital is capable
of fooling the ear into thinking that it's listening to live music.
>
>> > in the form of surface noises and other
>> >distortions. I am not saying one can not prefer such things.
>However
>> >I think a Rembrandt or other artist does a better job at
>emphasizing
>> >elements or adding elements than a turntable which only adds
>> >uninspired distortion.
>
>> OSAF.
>
>Hardly.
No. OSAF. In several areas. If you look closely you'll see the areas
that are not "facts" but opinions.
> When it comes to art, humans working directly on the medium
>with minimal tools or automation still seems to be what gives the
>best art.
Krooglish elevated to a fine art.
>
>> Unless one is a photorealist, every painting is a distortion of
>reality.
>
>So is every photograph, or even an attempt at making an exact
>duplicate from similar materials.
We're talking about degrees of interpretation here.
>
>
>> > However if this custom made sound is what
>> >floats your boat than just buy an equalizer or one of the many
>> >software programs that simulates the distortion of what is heard
>on
>> >vinyl. I suppose it won't be real as the actual distortion but
>its
>> >certainly cheaper and less hassle than buying a analog rig.
>
>> Well, it's cheaper and more accurate to take a photo of a
>ballerina.
>
>Not necessarily. It is generally quicker and cheaper, though.
>
>> But it's likely to be more satisfying to view Degas' take on it.
>
>Depends whether or not you like Degas's work. My mother would
>probably prefer a black-and-white photograph, slightly grainy and
>improperly exposed. Those are her preferences!
Which I said "likely." I'm sure that there are a few Krueger-like
people in the world.
Of course, now i see where you get your sensibilities.
Disclaimer:
This is a trashing of preference done for humorous purposes. Any
implication that if you don't like Degas you must be a Krueger, or
aligned with a Krueger, is entirely unintentional.
>
>> >> The discussion is NOT about which is "better" but what the
>> >>word "better" means when applied in technical terms contrasted
>with
>> >>the meaning when applied subjectively.
>>
>> >I usually don't use the word better. When I talk about CDs and
>Vinyl
>> >I say CDs are more accurate at sound reproduction than vinyl.
>
>OK
>
>> But since it's incapable of reproducing music *exactly* as it's
>heard
>> in real life, it's innaccurate as well.
>
>I'll stipulate the fault you describe is present. What is its source?
Well, first the word "innaccurate" is inaccurate <g>.
I don't know Arny, you tell me. Could it be not enough spacial
information? Could it be not enough definition? Could it be that *no*
reproduction source is a match for our fairly mundane hearing systems
(as compared to porposes, bats, and dogs?) Could it be that fooling
the brain is more difficult that we thought?
>
>>Choose your poison. Warm rich
>> 'euphonic" sound or "the other." (obviously I'm exaggerating for
>> effect because digital has come a long way towards being more
>> 3-dimensional and "lifelike."
>
>Personally, I find much vinyl reproduction to be "cold" because it
>lacks accurate, deep bass.
Well there you go. could it be perhaps that you are speculating based
on specs? Could it be that the playback chain wasn't capable of
reproducing the bass that most of us can achieve? Could it be that the
playback device itself wasn't capable of an meaningful bass? There are
lots of variables that I think you would question if somebody from the
other camp made the same statement about digital. And of course you'd
ask about their dbts.
Now I'm not saying that you aren't entitled to categorize the lack of
accurate, deep bass as "cold." But that wouldn't be the qualifier that
*I'd* come up with. Warm and cold usually have more to do with upper
bass/lower midrange and/or certain qualitites in the treble.
Singing ala Tim Robbins: "Young girls get wooly, oh they do get
wooly..."
>
>> >Obviously not everyone prefers accurate sound. This is obvious
>with
>> >people still listening to vinyl and tubes. However the people who
>> >prefer to listen to the music and prefer to have their equipment
>> >transparent are in the majority. However there is a minority who
>like
>> >to hear their equipment at the expense of the music.
>
>> And of course there are those who listen to the "specs" at the
>expense of the music.
>
>Let them be educated!
That's what we keep telling you and your ilk <g>.
George M. Middius
> >Yoon-Yoon is preaching to an empty nave.
> >> Paintings can be made to look like what a painter actually saw.
> >What did Leonardo actually see, Pandaschlub?
> Better to ask what Chuck Close actually saw. And it was probably what
> he painted.
Or we could guess what Marshall McLuhan thought he saw.
George M. Middius
George M. Middius
> It's the same with Ferstler. He's too busy focusing on that to ever
> hear the music. I'm surprised that he doesn't go up to coughing
> people at the symphony and slap them.
You're making a big assumption here.
George M. Middius
dave weil
A massage?
Sorry. Bad pun...
dave weil
Yeah, I suppose I *am* giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Stephen McElroy
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> > We're right back to the "Life of Brian" version of the Sermon on
> the Mount...
>
> Agreed.
>
> BTW, thanks for your comments about DBTs on RAHE.
Yep. Use the right tool for the job.
Stephen
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Eh?
>Paintings are interpretations of
>what an artist sees.
And recordings are the recording engineer's interpretation of
what he wanted the listener to hear.
What's the difference?
>Obviously a photograph will be more accurate but
>it is not about that. The art is in the artists interpretation.
What else is the recording engineer doing but interpreting a
soundfield with zillions of bits of information in two channels?
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2000, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>right past the author's point. He is not arguing whether one thing is
>more artistic than the other. He is pointing out the semantic pitfalls
>when using the word "better."
Well, Ed, you do know by now that a lot of what passes for
'audio quality' is all about preference, I think ;_)
But it seems that some large number of people are VERY uncomfortable
with this obvious fact, and prefer to think that they are chasing
"accuracy" in some sense other than their own internal one.
For some reason, when somebody says something as sensible as
MH, many people object rather strongly, and a lot of people
seem to me to want to miss the main point. I'm not sure what
happened here, but it seems obvious to me that what the recording
engineer does is intrepreting a soundfield for the listener, that's
a lot like a painter using audio signals.
I've briefly replied elsewhere to FW's article.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Stephen McElroy <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>We're right back to the "Life of Brian" version of the Sermon on the Mount...
Don't follow me, you are all individuals!
George M. Middius
> Well, Ed, you do know by now that a lot of what passes for
> 'audio quality' is all about preference, I think ;_)
Aside from Phoebe's snotty implication that she invented the
concept of preference, this statement illuminates Witchy's
anti-'borg tendences quite brightly.
> But it seems that some large number of people are VERY uncomfortable
> with this obvious fact, and prefer to think that they are chasing
> "accuracy" in some sense other than their own internal one.
Oh, the pain! (Not mine -- Arnii's, and Tommi's, and assorted
morons like Cowborg and his bovine ilk.)
George M. Middius
SdW
>Arny said:
>>At this point I'd be willing to give Mr. Kirkpatric a pass... ;-)
>Considering you can't even spell his name correctly, assclown, I'm sure he'd
>give you a pass, too. LOL!
This is nothing.
You should have seen Arny mess up a name of a certain
Microsoft employee he asked a favor!
Dumb, lazy, illiterate or all of the above?
--
SdW- "Garbage in, garbage out. And blurping inbetween."
Fred
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <r1bgrs0qp9geonbg0...@4ax.com>,
>Fred <fr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>A flawed analogy to put it mildly.
>
>Eh?
>
I am sure there are better ones. Oops can't say better there is only
preference.
>>Paintings are interpretations of
>>what an artist sees.
>
>And recordings are the recording engineer's interpretation of
>what he wanted the listener to hear.
>
>What's the difference?
>
There is the original painting which is exactly what the artists
interpretations are. I if you wanted a copy of it you could use a
black & white photocopier or something better. My opinion is the CD
copy brings one closer to the original engineer's interpretation of
George M. Middius
> > BTW, thanks for your comments about DBTs on RAHE.
> Yep. Use the right tool for the job.
What do you recommend for evaluating audio systems without the
torture element?
George M. Middius
viz...@bellatlantic.net
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <9eggrs0vosqgdmduk...@4ax.com>,
> <viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>> What I do find interesting is that people seem to have run
>>right past the author's point. He is not arguing whether one thing is
>>more artistic than the other. He is pointing out the semantic pitfalls
>>when using the word "better."
>
>Well, Ed, you do know by now that a lot of what passes for
>'audio quality' is all about preference, I think ;_)
I'm in total accord. I'm also weary of these discussions.
>
>But it seems that some large number of people are VERY uncomfortable
>with this obvious fact, and prefer to think that they are chasing
>"accuracy" in some sense other than their own internal one.
That's another term that provides nothing but one abyss after
another. Accurate to what? How is "accuracy" related to preference?
Everyone claims to have the simple answer, but after descending into
the raging inferno of preference, it appears that the one idea isn't
really related to the other.
"Accuracy," then, seems to prove totemistic reassurance in
ways that are unrelated to the literal meaning of the word.
>
>For some reason, when somebody says something as sensible as
>MH, many people object rather strongly, and a lot of people
>seem to me to want to miss the main point. I'm not sure what
>happened here, but it seems obvious to me that what the recording
>engineer does is intrepreting a soundfield for the listener, that's
>a lot like a painter using audio signals.
An excellent analogy.
>
>I've briefly replied elsewhere to FW's article.
I'll look it up.
Ed
Trotsky
viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 17:03:38 GMT, j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon
> and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>
> >In article <9eggrs0vosqgdmduk...@4ax.com>,
> > <viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> >> What I do find interesting is that people seem to have run
> >>right past the author's point. He is not arguing whether one thing is
> >>more artistic than the other. He is pointing out the semantic pitfalls
> >>when using the word "better."
> >
> >Well, Ed, you do know by now that a lot of what passes for
> >'audio quality' is all about preference, I think ;_)
>
> I'm in total accord. I'm also weary of these discussions.
> >
> >But it seems that some large number of people are VERY uncomfortable
> >with this obvious fact, and prefer to think that they are chasing
> >"accuracy" in some sense other than their own internal one.
>
> That's another term that provides nothing but one abyss after
> another. Accurate to what? How is "accuracy" related to preference?
> Everyone claims to have the simple answer, but after descending into
> the raging inferno of preference, it appears that the one idea isn't
> really related to the other.
>
> "Accuracy," then, seems to prove totemistic reassurance in
> ways that are unrelated to the literal meaning of the word.
How odd. I seem to recall having a phone conversation with you, Ed, in
which you swore up and down that the recording engineers using near
field monitors knew what was accurate because they knew when how close
the reproduction was relative to what's on the tape. I like to think I
go one further because I'm more interested in how close the sound can
come to the sound of live music. To wit, you have to be more
descriptive and determine what elements of sonic reproduction you are
referring to, as opposed to using "accuracy" as an all encompassing
term. The bottom line is that it's hard work to describe sound in a
meaningful way using words--not all that different from trying to put
into words the differences between two wines, scotches, or cognacs.
George M. Middius
> The bottom line is that it's hard work to describe sound in a
> meaningful way using words--not all that different from trying to put
> into words the differences between two wines, scotches, or cognacs.
It's so much easier to characterize RAO's other low-rung commodity,
though -- almost anyone can say how Krootard differs from Nousiane
or Steindrone.
George M. Middius
Arny Krueger
"SdW" <ab...@citroen.demon.com> wrote in message
news:39b941bb...@news.demon.nl...
> boon...@aol.comatose (Marc Phillips) said:
>
> >Arny said:
> >>At this point I'd be willing to give Mr. Kirkpatric a pass... ;-)
>
> >Considering you can't even spell his name correctly, assclown, I'm
sure he'd
> >give you a pass, too. LOL!
>
> This is nothing.
> You should have seen Arny mess up a name of a certain
> Microsoft employee he asked a favor!
> Dumb, lazy, illiterate or all of the above?
Sander, please explain the way you misspelled my name in the title
line of this post.
Sander, are you dumb, lazy, illiterate or all of the above?
George M. Middius
> > Dumb, lazy, illiterate or all of the above?
> Sander, please explain the way you misspelled my name in the title
> line of this post.
Arnii, you moronic sack of shit, it was I who started this
subthread, and I who initiated the title.
How can someone as goddamned stupid as you are get through life
from day to day?
> Sander, are you dumb, lazy, illiterate or all of the above?
How original. Would you like a pot to squat over?
George M. Middius
viz...@bellatlantic.net
<glan...@ipo.net> wrote:
>Phoebe has a potent lecture for you folks.
>
>> Well, Ed, you do know by now that a lot of what passes for
>> 'audio quality' is all about preference, I think ;_)
>
>Aside from Phoebe's snotty implication that she invented the
>concept of preference, this statement illuminates Witchy's
>anti-'borg tendences quite brightly.
Yep. Perhaps there's even a sneaking suspicion that JJ and his
ilk (other psychoacousticians) *did* invent the notion of
"preference."
>
>> But it seems that some large number of people are VERY uncomfortable
>> with this obvious fact, and prefer to think that they are chasing
>> "accuracy" in some sense other than their own internal one.
>
>Oh, the pain! (Not mine -- Arnii's, and Tommi's, and assorted
>morons like Cowborg and his bovine ilk.)
Too effing true!
Ed
viz...@bellatlantic.net
>
>>
>> "Accuracy," then, seems to prove totemistic reassurance in
>> ways that are unrelated to the literal meaning of the word.
>
>
>
>
>How odd. I seem to recall having a phone conversation with you, Ed, in
>which you swore up and down that the recording engineers using near
>field monitors knew what was accurate because they knew when how close
>the reproduction was relative to what's on the tape.
Yep. We did, but I believe what I said was that recording
engineers use near field monitors to provide the most accurate
reproduction of what was on the master as distinguished from what
might be called the most "satisfying," or "pleasurable" or even
"musical." The two things may coincide, but elements of preference
sneak in. "Accuracy" in such a context, IMO, means being able to
discriminate as cleanly as possible each of the constituate elements
as discretely and with as little distortion of any kind possible. One
isn't considering power response or dispersion, or depth of sound
field or anything else. Essentially, the monitors are working as
gigantic head phones. (definition deliberately simplified for purposes
of discussion. Power response, for example, *is* important. Pros like
it loud).
That's a little different than saying "that the recording
engineers using near field monitors knew what was accurate because
they knew when how close the reproduction was relative to what's on
the tape."
The biggest difference here is that what recording engineers
*need* to use may be quite different than what might provide the
greatest musical pleasure in a home listening environment. I don't see
the applications as being the same. There are, certainly, home users
who love near-field monitors for the same reasons pros do, but no two
or three way near field monitor will reproduce, for example, in the
same way a full range tower speaker designed for home use might.
In some mixing studios, the engineers actually have both -
i.e. a near field system and a full-range consumer set-up as well.
> I like to think I go one further because I'm more interested in how close the sound can
>come to the sound of live music. To wit, you have to be more
>descriptive and determine what elements of sonic reproduction you are
>referring to, as opposed to using "accuracy" as an all encompassing
>term. The bottom line is that it's hard work to describe sound in a
>meaningful way using words--not all that different from trying to put
>into words the differences between two wines, scotches, or cognacs.
Also agreed.
Ed
Trotsky
Well, what those "guys" found was that if you confine yourself to the
cheapest shit on the market, you don't have to bother coming up with
descriptive language to define its performance.
Trotsky
Agreed--it's a lot more words.
>
> The biggest difference here is that what recording engineers
> *need* to use may be quite different than what might provide the
> greatest musical pleasure in a home listening environment. I don't see
> the applications as being the same. There are, certainly, home users
> who love near-field monitors for the same reasons pros do, but no two
> or three way near field monitor will reproduce, for example, in the
> same way a full range tower speaker designed for home use might.
To paraphrase something I said to Atkinson once, you need to spend some
quality time with a pair of LS3/5As. In speakers, I find that bigger is
often worse, not better. Now, you could cite some JJ speak and say that
is just a matter of personal preference, but I will always think (know)
that if you listen critically enough, you get a pretty good idea of when
something is reproducing music in a credible way, and when it is less
credible. To this day I feel that there is an inherent musicality in
the best small speakers that comparable big speakers can't quite capture.
>
> In some mixing studios, the engineers actually have both -
> i.e. a near field system and a full-range consumer set-up as well.
It would sense to try and approximate how the finished product sounds on
an "average" consumer hi-fi.
SdW
>Sander, are you dumb, lazy, illiterate or all of the above?
Right now, I'm shaking my head in disbelief.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> said:
> >Sander, are you dumb, lazy, illiterate or all of the above?
> Right now, I'm shaking my head in disbelief.
Sander, as if you'd admit that it was so.
Trotsky
SdW wrote:
>
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@flash.net> said:
>
> >Sander, are you dumb, lazy, illiterate or all of the above?
>
> Right now, I'm shaking my head in disbelief.
Don't lie, Sander: there can't be any level of idiocy coming out of
Krooger that surprises you.
viz...@bellatlantic.net
>>
>> The biggest difference here is that what recording engineers
>> *need* to use may be quite different than what might provide the
>> greatest musical pleasure in a home listening environment. I don't see
>> the applications as being the same. There are, certainly, home users
>> who love near-field monitors for the same reasons pros do, but no two
>> or three way near field monitor will reproduce, for example, in the
>> same way a full range tower speaker designed for home use might.
>
>
>
>To paraphrase something I said to Atkinson once, you need to spend some
>quality time with a pair of LS3/5As. In speakers, I find that bigger is
>often worse, not better. Now, you could cite some JJ speak and say that
>is just a matter of personal preference, but I will always think (know)
>that if you listen critically enough, you get a pretty good idea of when
>something is reproducing music in a credible way, and when it is less
>credible. To this day I feel that there is an inherent musicality in
>the best small speakers that comparable big speakers can't quite capture.
I don't think we disagree, Greg. Near-field monitors are not
necessarily the same thing as a "small" speaker. They certainly
qualify as "small" but because they're meant for near-field listening
they often have dispersion characteristics and roll-offs that may or
may not be good in other applications.
IOW, they sound great at one or two meters, but less and less
good as you move further away. Large speakers have inherent advantages
in power and low note reproduction. Clearly, a lot depends on what
sort of room you're listening in. In my own room, which is large and
the listening seat fairly far away (12 feet or so) larger speakers
sound better to me (all things being equal - which, of course, is
rarely so) than smaller ones, even smaller ones with subs.
However, at 8 feet away, that situation seems to change
dramatically. At 8 feet I prefer the smaller monitors by a long shot.
YMMV. We're all stuck, of course, with the rooms we have.
It seems to me that it's always a matter of preference at some
level. How else is "musicality" defined except in subjective terms? No
matter how imaginative and descriptive one's language may be, you are
likely to describe musicality differently if you prefer jazz to rock,
or "classical" to country.
I know that in my head that my notion of "detailed" is
different in subtle ways from "clear," for example, even though I see
those terms as occasionally synonymous. The former tends towards
hardness and "etched" when out of whack, the latter towards
"muddiness." (these are my definitions, of course). Sometimes,
however, they mean pretty close to the same thing.
Monitors, IMO, tend towards the detailed side of things, good
small speakers towards the "clear." IOW, at least for me, I experience
monitors and small speakers differently.
Ed
>
>
>
>
>>
>> In some mixing studios, the engineers actually have both -
>> i.e. a near field system and a full-range consumer set-up as well.
>
>
>
>It would sense to try and approximate how the finished product sounds on
>an "average" consumer hi-fi.
One would think. At Sterling Sound here in NYC, however, the
consumer systems employed are as far from average as it is humanly
possible. One guy has ProAc 5's driven by an ARC 200, another has B&W
nautilus 801's driven by a Classe Omega amp etc. I suspect, though,
that this is not a "typical" place.
Ed
George M. Middius
> > It's so much easier to characterize RAO's other low-rung commodity,
> > though -- almost anyone can say how Krootard differs from Nousiane
> > or Steindrone.
> Well, what those "guys" found was that if you confine yourself to the
> cheapest shit on the market, you don't have to bother coming up with
> descriptive language to define its performance.
That worked out well for our pet Krooglish generator and his
sidekick, the 'borg with a 600-word vocabulary.
George M. Middius
George M. Middius
> > >Sander, are you dumb, lazy, illiterate or all of the above?
> > Right now, I'm shaking my head in disbelief.
> Sander, as if you'd admit that it was so.
Where's the apology for accusing Sander of something I did, you
disgusting sack of shit?
George M. Middius
trotsky
viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 05:20:05 -0500, Trotsky <gsi...@mc.net> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The biggest difference here is that what recording engineers
> >> *need* to use may be quite different than what might provide the
> >> greatest musical pleasure in a home listening environment. I don't see
> >> the applications as being the same. There are, certainly, home users
> >> who love near-field monitors for the same reasons pros do, but no two
> >> or three way near field monitor will reproduce, for example, in the
> >> same way a full range tower speaker designed for home use might.
> >
> >
> >
> >To paraphrase something I said to Atkinson once, you need to spend some
> >quality time with a pair of LS3/5As. In speakers, I find that bigger is
> >often worse, not better. Now, you could cite some JJ speak and say that
> >is just a matter of personal preference, but I will always think (know)
> >that if you listen critically enough, you get a pretty good idea of when
> >something is reproducing music in a credible way, and when it is less
> >credible. To this day I feel that there is an inherent musicality in
> >the best small speakers that comparable big speakers can't quite capture.
>
> I don't think we disagree, Greg. Near-field monitors are not
> necessarily the same thing as a "small" speaker. They certainly
> qualify as "small" but because they're meant for near-field listening
> they often have dispersion characteristics and roll-offs that may or
> may not be good in other applications.
Ed, for some reason, I don't feel like being all that antagonistic,
although you are starting to peg the phony meter again. Dispersion is a
non-issue for near field listening, so it should be pointed out that
although it is possible for a speaker designed specifically for near
field listening to have dispersion characteristics that are not
desirable for far field listening, I don't think the converse is *ever*
true. With all due respect (literally), since when did you declare
yourself any kind of authority on this subject? Also, it should also be
pointed out that the speaker I mentioned, the LS3/5A, began it's life as
a monitor designed for the BBC, which later found its way into hi-fi
usage due to its scrumptious sound in that application.
>
> IOW, they sound great at one or two meters, but less and less
> good as you move further away. Large speakers have inherent advantages
> in power and low note reproduction.
I disagree. On paper, they do. But again, I've seen numerous examples
in the hi-fi world where the smaller speakers in a product line
outperform the bigger speakers on a subjective basis. The robots on the
group may define "good bass" as how low a speaker will play in an
anechoic chamber, but critical listeners know that the only way to
determine when the bass is "good" (and by good I mean being most
suggestive of the actual instruments being reproduced) is by listening.
I recall a guy I used to work for telling me "Quads have the best bass",
"Quad" being the original Quad ESL, and me thinking he was daft--until I
got to spend some quality time with a pair. And they do: I have yet to
hear a speaker that has more lively or musical bass than a properly set
up pair of Quads. Tons of speakers play louder and lower, but none that
I know of play as well.
Clearly, a lot depends on what
> sort of room you're listening in. In my own room, which is large and
> the listening seat fairly far away (12 feet or so) larger speakers
> sound better to me (all things being equal - which, of course, is
> rarely so) than smaller ones, even smaller ones with subs.
Sorry, I think you might have placeboed yourself.
>
> However, at 8 feet away, that situation seems to change
> dramatically. At 8 feet I prefer the smaller monitors by a long shot.
> YMMV. We're all stuck, of course, with the rooms we have.
I haven't been in your room, but I can say that I can usually get more
out of a pair of speakers via proper positioning than most people I
know.
>
> It seems to me that it's always a matter of preference at some
> level. How else is "musicality" defined except in subjective terms? No
> matter how imaginative and descriptive one's language may be, you are
> likely to describe musicality differently if you prefer jazz to rock,
> or "classical" to country.
>
> I know that in my head that my notion of "detailed" is
> different in subtle ways from "clear," for example, even though I see
> those terms as occasionally synonymous. The former tends towards
> hardness and "etched" when out of whack, the latter towards
> "muddiness." (these are my definitions, of course). Sometimes,
> however, they mean pretty close to the same thing.
Well, those are just a few of the myriad of descriptive terms we can use
to describe audio reproduction. My original beef with your banter with
JJ was that it was some kind grand rationalization for his verbal
constipation: "Words like accurate are useless--sound quality is based
on personal preference." That's easy to say if you are too mentally
lazy to describe the various aspects of sound quality. But it is these
descriptions that give us something to talk about. Why try and dumb it
down? The only reason is that it is a lot easier than pushing the
envelope and trying to develop some commonality of language so we can
come close to being on the same page with our audio experiences, and you
are looking for the easy way out.
>
> Monitors, IMO, tend towards the detailed side of things, good
> small speakers towards the "clear." IOW, at least for me, I experience
> monitors and small speakers differently.
Like I said, you should try spending some quality time with a pair of
LS3/5As. For a shoebox sized speaker with very little power handling
and very limited bass output, they provide an astonishing glimpse into
how a recording really sounds. I think you have bought into the S'phile
mythos: bigger is better. Bigger is better for getting the money to
flow out of consumers' hands, is about the size of it.
> >>
> >> In some mixing studios, the engineers actually have both -
> >> i.e. a near field system and a full-range consumer set-up as well.
> >
> >
> >
> >It would sense to try and approximate how the finished product sounds on
> >an "average" consumer hi-fi.
>
> One would think. At Sterling Sound here in NYC, however, the
> consumer systems employed are as far from average as it is humanly
> possible. One guy has ProAc 5's driven by an ARC 200, another has B&W
> nautilus 801's driven by a Classe Omega amp etc. I suspect, though,
> that this is not a "typical" place.
>
That's why I put "average" in quotes. You speak in glowing terms as if
those set ups are somehow great. I have a feeling I would find them a
little lacking.
Bill Watkins
viz...@bellatlantic.net says...
> It seems to me that it's always a matter of preference at some
>level. How else is "musicality" defined except in subjective terms? No
>matter how imaginative and descriptive one's language may be, you are
>likely to describe musicality differently if you prefer jazz to rock,
>or "classical" to country.
>
> I know that in my head that my notion of "detailed" is
>different in subtle ways from "clear," for example, even though I see
>those terms as occasionally synonymous. The former tends towards
>hardness and "etched" when out of whack, the latter towards
>"muddiness." (these are my definitions, of course). Sometimes,
>however, they mean pretty close to the same thing.
>
> Ed
---
The "muddiness" comes from over-emphasis of response
below ~200 Hz. This emphasis, in turn comes from the
speaker designer, room placement, and listening position.
There is a happy medium, where the speaker sounds "warm"
but not muddy (bass-heavy) or thin (bass shy). Then we
have the variable of recordings - what is the "reference?
For example, comparing Orchestra Hall in Chicago, before
remodeling in the mid 60's, to Boston Symphony Hall,
BSH is about 2 to 3 dB up in the low end, giving a
warmer sound. I preferred OH, but which was "accurate",
or which to use a reference? No answer to this but
preference. Jim Mitchell, who co-wrote with me the early
"Golden Era of RCA Records" and I evaluated other halls,
including Kingsway, Walthamstow, Jesus-Christus-Kirche
(Berlin Philharmonic venue), and Sophensal (sp?) in Vienna.
Our opinion was that BSH was indeed warmer than average,
and Mitchell listened with the bass lowered a couple of
dB on BSO recordings.
Bill Watkins
SdW
>> >Sander, are you dumb, lazy, illiterate or all of the above?
>> Right now, I'm shaking my head in disbelief.
>Sander, as if you'd admit that it was so.
Dumb, maybe.
Lazy, certainly.
Illiterate: certainly not to your level.
And you?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 17:03:38 GMT, j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon
>and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>>Well, Ed, you do know by now that a lot of what passes for
>>'audio quality' is all about preference, I think ;_)
> I'm in total accord. I'm also weary of these discussions.
Quite understandable.
> That's another term that provides nothing but one abyss after
>another. Accurate to what? How is "accuracy" related to preference?
>Everyone claims to have the simple answer, but after descending into
>the raging inferno of preference, it appears that the one idea isn't
>really related to the other.
Accurate has a meaning in analytic examination. Beyond that,
we should simply avoid it, I think.
> "Accuracy," then, seems to prove totemistic reassurance in
>ways that are unrelated to the literal meaning of the word.
Yup.
To put it politely.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
<viz...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 14:47:40 -0400, George M. Middius
><glan...@ipo.net> wrote:
>>Phoebe has a potent lecture for you folks.
I won't respond in kind. My back hurts when I stoop that far.
>>> Well, Ed, you do know by now that a lot of what passes for
>>> 'audio quality' is all about preference, I think ;_)
>>Aside from Phoebe's snotty implication that she invented the
>>concept of preference, this statement illuminates Witchy's
>>anti-'borg tendences quite brightly.
Preference was around before I was born. Who's claimed
otherwise?
> Yep. Perhaps there's even a sneaking suspicion that JJ and his
>ilk (other psychoacousticians) *did* invent the notion of
>"preference."
Um, well, no, I see documentation of preference in old Greece,
and well, psychocoustics was simply not around then. What's
more, a good understanding that preference, even, was flexible
and might change over a lifetime. Du-oH.
As to Psychoacoustics,neither (as far as I know) the term, or the science.
Now, I don't know of anyone discussing auditory preference, though,
but I assume the people in the Comedies were chosen partially
for how they sounded, eh?
>>Oh, the pain! (Not mine -- Arnii's, and Tommi's, and assorted
>>morons like Cowborg and his bovine ilk.)
Well, I think the pain spreads much farther than that, given
the lectures I've gotten from some very arrogant people about
how their idea is "more accurate".
Life is like that. Extremists are extremely annoying.
George M. Middius
> >>Oh, the pain! (Not mine -- Arnii's, and Tommi's, and assorted
> >>morons like Cowborg and his bovine ilk.)
> Well, I think the pain spreads much farther than that, given
> the lectures I've gotten from some very arrogant people about
> how their idea is "more accurate".
Isn't it yucky?
> Life is like that. Extremists are extremely annoying.
Agreed.™
George M. Middius
viz...@bellatlantic.net
.
{snipped}
>>
>> I don't think we disagree, Greg. Near-field monitors are not
>> necessarily the same thing as a "small" speaker. They certainly
>> qualify as "small" but because they're meant for near-field listening
>> they often have dispersion characteristics and roll-offs that may or
>> may not be good in other applications.
>
>
>
>Ed, for some reason, I don't feel like being all that antagonistic,
>although you are starting to peg the phony meter again.
Right. I'm so glad. I realize that you feferring to me as a
phony is your way of being luxuriantly affectionate. I consider myself
honored.
> Dispersion is a non-issue for near field listening, so it should be pointed out that
>although it is possible for a speaker designed specifically for near
>field listening to have dispersion characteristics that are not
>desirable for far field listening, I don't think the converse is *ever*
>true.
The first part is true, I believe, the second seems open to
question, in part because one is designing for as full an FR as one
can get within the near-field. This means, for example, that a fairly
sharp roll-off of the highs beyond 5 or six feet is just fine in a
near-field monitor. Most folks, however, would find that unacceptable
in a good, small, home speaker.
> With all due respect (literally), since when did you declare
>yourself any kind of authority on this subject?
Er....never, Greg. However, if you don't want an exchange of
opinion, but merely wish to proclaim, feel free. I'll withdraw
immediately. One of the weird things about being in a business
devoted to such things is that one, willy-nily, picks up a few
pointers here and there. You'll have to forgive me if I actually learn
something.
> Also, it should also be pointed out that the speaker I mentioned, the LS3/5A, began it's life as
>a monitor designed for the BBC, which later found its way into hi-fi
>usage due to its scrumptious sound in that application.
OK. I don't know the box, so I can't comment one way or the
other. I'm just listening here.
>
>
>
>>
>> IOW, they sound great at one or two meters, but less and less
>> good as you move further away. Large speakers have inherent advantages
>> in power and low note reproduction.
>
>
>I disagree. On paper, they do. But again, I've seen numerous examples
>in the hi-fi world where the smaller speakers in a product line
>outperform the bigger speakers on a subjective basis.
So have I. We don't disagree that there are smaller speakers
which outperform many good larger ones. I just find that the
advantages to a large speaker are often telling oin rooms large enough
to accomodate.
> The robots on the group may define "good bass" as how low a speaker will play in an
>anechoic chamber, but critical listeners know that the only way to
>determine when the bass is "good" (and by good I mean being most
>suggestive of the actual instruments being reproduced) is by listening.
>I recall a guy I used to work for telling me "Quads have the best bass",
>"Quad" being the original Quad ESL, and me thinking he was daft--until I
>got to spend some quality time with a pair. And they do: I have yet to
>hear a speaker that has more lively or musical bass than a properly set
>up pair of Quads. Tons of speakers play louder and lower, but none that
>I know of play as well.
I hate to say it, but this *is* a matter of preference..
You're clearly saying you prefer clean, well-formed bass even at the
expense of greater frequency range and more punch (or whatever term
you prefer for volume and power). I think you fortunate to have a
clear favorite in this regard.,
It's just that there are many times when I'd just as soon
reverse things and get the depth and power. IOW, I'm keenly aware of
the compromise either way. As a result, I'll happily go along with
clean, great small speakers for months, but all of a sudden I'll get a
craving for the fullness and depth that a wider FR can bring and I'll
start wanting to switch all over again. A few months later, I'll miss
the clear, bell-like sound of a great small speaker and want to
exchange the other way.
On balance, in my large room, I prefer the larger to the
smaller. I confess that I have never satisfactorily resolved this
pushme-pullyou effect.
>
>
> Clearly, a lot depends on what
>> sort of room you're listening in. In my own room, which is large and
>> the listening seat fairly far away (12 feet or so) larger speakers
>> sound better to me (all things being equal - which, of course, is
>> rarely so) than smaller ones, even smaller ones with subs.
>
>
>
>Sorry, I think you might have placeboed yourself.
No. I haven't, nor do we share the same tastes. I respect your
judgement because you have a lot of knowledge, but that judgement
reflects what you prefer, not necessarily what I do. As a result, I
can nod my head in agreement in the sense that I think you're making
good points, yet also know that I won't respond the same way.
>
>
>
>>
>> However, at 8 feet away, that situation seems to change
>> dramatically. At 8 feet I prefer the smaller monitors by a long shot.
>> YMMV. We're all stuck, of course, with the rooms we have.
>
>
>
>I haven't been in your room, but I can say that I can usually get more
>out of a pair of speakers via proper positioning than most people I
>know.
>
I'm sure you can. I've been at it for thirty years. I can
usually get it right for my tastes. Put it this way, Greg: there are
only so many different spots one can place any speaker. It takes
thoroughness and patience, not genius.
>
>
>>
>> It seems to me that it's always a matter of preference at some
>> level. How else is "musicality" defined except in subjective terms? No
>> matter how imaginative and descriptive one's language may be, you are
>> likely to describe musicality differently if you prefer jazz to rock,
>> or "classical" to country.
>>
>> I know that in my head that my notion of "detailed" is
>> different in subtle ways from "clear," for example, even though I see
>> those terms as occasionally synonymous. The former tends towards
>> hardness and "etched" when out of whack, the latter towards
>> "muddiness." (these are my definitions, of course). Sometimes,
>> however, they mean pretty close to the same thing.
>
>
>
>Well, those are just a few of the myriad of descriptive terms we can use
>to describe audio reproduction. My original beef with your banter with
>JJ was that it was some kind grand rationalization for his verbal
>constipation: "Words like accurate are useless--sound quality is based
>on personal preference." That's easy to say if you are too mentally
>lazy to describe the various aspects of sound quality. But it is these
>descriptions that give us something to talk about. Why try and dumb it
>down? The only reason is that it is a lot easier than pushing the
>envelope and trying to develop some commonality of language so we can
>come close to being on the same page with our audio experiences, and you
>are looking for the easy way out.
You make a good point, Greg, and the response is that it *was*
laziness. At the time I responded, all I wished to do was communicate
the little I did. It seemed too much work to make a fuller response
when all I essentially wished to say was that I agreed.
>>
>> Monitors, IMO, tend towards the detailed side of things, good
>> small speakers towards the "clear." IOW, at least for me, I experience
>> monitors and small speakers differently.
>
>
>
>
>Like I said, you should try spending some quality time with a pair of
>LS3/5As. For a shoebox sized speaker with very little power handling
>and very limited bass output, they provide an astonishing glimpse into
>how a recording really sounds. I think you have bought into the S'phile
>mythos: bigger is better. Bigger is better for getting the money to
>flow out of consumers' hands, is about the size of it.
Nonsense, and you know it. All things being equal
bigger *is* better except that things are never "equal." That does
*not* mean you're wrong in your judgment of the LS3/5As. It means that
if I have a preference for lower bass even at the expense of other
things, I'll prefer something else.
The point of great gear is to reproduce faithfully every note
recorded on the source. To that extent, bigger *must* be better, but
that's too simplistic and we all know that. Power response is an
issue. Clarity is an issue. Imaging is an issue. Soundstaging is an
issue. FR is an issue. There are so many variables we all end up
choosing one set of variables over another.
That's why, in the end, it's all about preference. Your
conception of musicality, for example, may require great clarity. Some
one else may require great dynamics etc.
>
>
>
>
>> >>
>> >> In some mixing studios, the engineers actually have both -
>> >> i.e. a near field system and a full-range consumer set-up as well.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >It would sense to try and approximate how the finished product sounds on
>> >an "average" consumer hi-fi.
>>
>> One would think. At Sterling Sound here in NYC, however, the
>> consumer systems employed are as far from average as it is humanly
>> possible. One guy has ProAc 5's driven by an ARC 200, another has B&W
>> nautilus 801's driven by a Classe Omega amp etc. I suspect, though,
>> that this is not a "typical" place.
>>
>
>
>
>That's why I put "average" in quotes. You speak in glowing terms as if
>those set ups are somehow great. I have a feeling I would find them a
>little lacking.
Take a look at my statement above. There are no adjectives
whatsoever related to the gear as gear, only a superlative attached to
the word "average." There's nothing "glowing" about my language. I was
referring to size and cost.
FWIW, those are not set-ups which reflect my own taste.YMMV.
Ed
trotsky
viz...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 10:55:29 -0500, trotsky <gsi...@MC.NET> wrote:
>
> {snipped}
>
>
> > The robots on the group may define "good bass" as how low a speaker will play in an
> >anechoic chamber, but critical listeners know that the only way to
> >determine when the bass is "good" (and by good I mean being most
> >suggestive of the actual instruments being reproduced) is by listening.
> >I recall a guy I used to work for telling me "Quads have the best bass",
> >"Quad" being the original Quad ESL, and me thinking he was daft--until I
> >got to spend some quality time with a pair. And they do: I have yet to
> >hear a speaker that has more lively or musical bass than a properly set
> >up pair of Quads. Tons of speakers play louder and lower, but none that
> >I know of play as well.
>
> I hate to say it, but this *is* a matter of preference..
> You're clearly saying you prefer clean, well-formed bass even at the
> expense of greater frequency range and more punch (or whatever term
> you prefer for volume and power). I think you fortunate to have a
> clear favorite in this regard.,
Nope, you can try your JJ speak all you want, but I'm just not buying
it. Sure, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but if you say that you
prefer Rosie O'Donnell's looks to Cindy Crawford's must guys will say
that you are screwed in the head. With audio, great sound is quite a
bit less obvious, but, there is a enough of a consensus that most of us
are capable of labelling disco bass for what it is. Particularly in
today's market, where the bloated mess of a powered subwoofer has become
commonplace. In fact, I will really be so much of a jerk as to say that
you don't know what you are talking about: what music is it that you are
listening to requires this monster bass?
>
> It's just that there are many times when I'd just as soon
> reverse things and get the depth and power. IOW, I'm keenly aware of
> the compromise either way. As a result, I'll happily go along with
> clean, great small speakers for months, but all of a sudden I'll get a
> craving for the fullness and depth that a wider FR can bring and I'll
> start wanting to switch all over again. A few months later, I'll miss
> the clear, bell-like sound of a great small speaker and want to
> exchange the other way.
>
> On balance, in my large room, I prefer the larger to the
> smaller. I confess that I have never satisfactorily resolved this
> pushme-pullyou effect.
Sorry, Ed, but I'm afraid you've been hanging out with automatons too
long. When I mention the LS3/5A or the Quad ESL I am talking the stuff
of audio legend, where the stars were aligned just right to produce a
speaker that is musically satisfying twenty, thirty and even forty years
later. You counter with some utilitarian bullshit about "big speakers"
and "small speakers". I'm sorry, but the it is
Krooger/Ferstler/Nousiane territory you are hanging out in. In fact,
rather than discuss the specific nuances and products that provide
supremely enjoyable audio experiences, you seem to be falling back on
vagaries: "personal preference", "what is accuracy?", "it's the room",
"I need big speakers!" This, of course, is crossing over into Phoebe
Johnston territory: "I work for AT&T and can't mention any specifics for
fear of castration." Can we can the rationalizations, please?
> > Clearly, a lot depends on what
> >> sort of room you're listening in. In my own room, which is large and
> >> the listening seat fairly far away (12 feet or so) larger speakers
> >> sound better to me (all things being equal - which, of course, is
> >> rarely so) than smaller ones, even smaller ones with subs.
> >
> >
> >
> >Sorry, I think you might have placeboed yourself.
>
> No. I haven't, nor do we share the same tastes. I respect your
> judgement because you have a lot of knowledge, but that judgement
> reflects what you prefer, not necessarily what I do. As a result, I
> can nod my head in agreement in the sense that I think you're making
> good points, yet also know that I won't respond the same way.
Well, this is a hard one to prove. I'm not going to fly over to New
York to show you how to get good sound out of a hi-fi. I'd probably
just tell you to scrap your gear anyway. But I still think it is a
rationalization to say that what I supposedly prefer is just a
preference: good sound is almost universal. And I believe I have a
pretty good idea of what sounds good.
> >>
> >> However, at 8 feet away, that situation seems to change
> >> dramatically. At 8 feet I prefer the smaller monitors by a long shot.
> >> YMMV. We're all stuck, of course, with the rooms we have.
> >
> >
> >
> >I haven't been in your room, but I can say that I can usually get more
> >out of a pair of speakers via proper positioning than most people I
> >know.
> >
>
> I'm sure you can. I've been at it for thirty years. I can
> usually get it right for my tastes. Put it this way, Greg: there are
> only so many different spots one can place any speaker. It takes
> thoroughness and patience, not genius.
Who said anything about genius? You are correct about the thoroughness,
but there is an element of critical listening involved that I find most
people just aren't very good at. I've been to lot of hi-fi stores and
lots of hi-fi shows, and the majority of time I'm shocked at how poor
the sound is, primarily because of poor set up. It's just a fact--at
lot of people are like Zipser, and couldn't hear their way out of paper
bags. We'll have to compare notes some time, Ed--you try and produce
what you feel is good sound and I'll produce the same.
<snip>
Doug Haugen
> Where's the apology for accusing Sander of something I did, you
> disgusting sack of shit?
Sander, I'm very sorry 'Lil Georgie's lower extremities are flaccid and
useless.
Nobody thinks it was your fault, either.
So who is Gindi posting as these days? Poor sex-addled fool...
Stephen McElroy
Srny:
> > Sander, please explain the way you misspelled my name in the title
> > line of this post.
>
> Arnii, you moronic sack of shit, it was I who started this
> subthread, and I who initiated the title.
Oopsie.
viz...@bellatlantic.net
I'm feeling a little mellow today so I'll keep my remarks mild
even though you seem to be your usual hostile self.
1)Berlioz, Symphony Fantastique. Bach Organ works, Wagner's
Ring Cycle, Beethoven Symphony #9, Santana's Abraxas, Let It Bleed,
Grateful Dead Without a Net. I could go on and on.
2). You're the only one speaking of disco bass. You seem
unacquainted with the usual trade-offs concerning gear. I suggest you
extend your acquaintance with other equipment. There is a vast middle
ground between small speaker clear and large speaker "disco bass."
Sometimes for someone who has good experience you seem awfully
simple, even dense. If you prefer a thin, weak sound, by all means
feel free. Far be from me to decry others' preference.
3) Some music just plain sounds better to me when the FR is
extended, even when that extension isn't perfect.I don't like boomy
bass at all, but there are times when I consider muddy bass better
than no bass at all. IME, notes gain fullness when the lower
frequencies are present. I like that fullness. Small speakers which
don't extend below 50 can't deliver that. That doesn't mean those
speakers aren't "musical." It means they have limited FR, which
affects how things sound. Most of my listening is done near-field with
our own products, which I consider seriously clear and detailed. The
term I think of is "lucid." I've come to love that sound. I look
forward to listening to music every day on those speakers.
However, I still prefer the fullness of a speaker that extends
into at least the mid 30's in a large room, even in comparison with
our own monitors. My room, after all, is 20 x 30. This seems to upset
you. Gee, Trots, I apologize for my taste. I'll try to do better in my
next life.
I haven't any idea what you're trying to argue. That the
LS3/5a is the best speaker in the world bar none? That's absurd.
That it's better than some speakers which are bigger and more
expensive? No doubt. That it's as good as comparable quality large
speakers over-all? Not in a good sized room it isn't, unless you like
thin sound, which is beginning to seem probable/
>>
>> It's just that there are many times when I'd just as soon
>> reverse things and get the depth and power. IOW, I'm keenly aware of
>> the compromise either way. As a result, I'll happily go along with
>> clean, great small speakers for months, but all of a sudden I'll get a
>> craving for the fullness and depth that a wider FR can bring and I'll
>> start wanting to switch all over again. A few months later, I'll miss
>> the clear, bell-like sound of a great small speaker and want to
>> exchange the other way.
>>
>> On balance, in my large room, I prefer the larger to the
>> smaller. I confess that I have never satisfactorily resolved this
>> pushme-pullyou effect.
>
>
>
>Sorry, Ed, but I'm afraid you've been hanging out with automatons too
>long.
Gee, Greg, I was going to say the same thing of you.
> When I mention the LS3/5A or the Quad ESL I am talking the stuff
>of audio legend, where the stars were aligned just right to produce a
>speaker that is musically satisfying twenty, thirty and even forty years
>later. You counter with some utilitarian bullshit about "big speakers"
>and "small speakers".
I didn't "counter" with anything. You seem to want to compare
taste, but I can say after trying your recommendations concerning
music that I hesitate to refer to some of your recommendations as
having any taste at all. OTOH, you probably don't get much sleep, so
firing up Suba might be a good idea.
Now, can we stop with the insults, or do we have to baptize
each other with a couple every exchange we have?
I haven't heard the LS3/5a so,as I mentioned before, I can't
comment. I have heard the Quads. Wonderful speakers. I wouldn't own
them for the world. Chacun a son gout and all that.
Big speakers I like are all over the lot. I loved my Infinity
RS1B's when I had 'em, even though they were a pain in the neck. I'm a
great fan of the Audio Physic Libra, a speaker I think does almost
everything right (though it doesn't seem to go as low as claimed). I
equally love the NHT 3.3, though for different reasons. Lastly, I am
crazy about the Joseph RM50 and the Waveform Mach 17. All of those
are, IMO, spectacular big speakers worth every penny of their asking
price. I also consider them, in my room, to be better than any small
speaker or monitor. All bets are off if I switch rooms and/or sit much
closer than where I currently do..
Each one of these speakers I've found to have wide, deep
soundstages, a clear fullness and extension without muddiness at all,
good to great imaging, and a satisfying musicality to them. I think of
the Libras as being "deft," the 3.3's as having the cleanest sound of
all of them plus, when bi-amped, astoundingly clean, deep bass), the
Joseph's as being the easiest to live with (despite their size, I
found them a pleasure to have in my room, and a greater pleasure to
listen to). I think the Mach 17 among the very best speakers I've ever
heard at any price. OTOH, they're expensive (almost 10K now) and
require tri-amplification, a real pain in the butt (IMO).
I've also heard Dunlavy IVs and Vs when I've loved 'em and
hated 'em. Clearly placement is everything there. Since I'm not a
great fan of their looks, though, I tend to leave 'em off the list.
As for smaller speakers in comparison with the larger ones I
mentioned.............well, I love our A-20s and my heart stays there.
I don't speak of it much because I detest flakking, but I haven't
heard anything I think even close at the price. The closest thing to
them I know of that I love is the Joseph RM7si. I could be very happy
with a pair of 7's (the "specials" with the metal tweeter. The regular
7's are really good, but the RM7si is special, IMO. Of course, the
A-20s are an active system and the 7si is a passive box.
I'll have to listen to the LS3/5A and see what I think.
>I'm sorry, but the it is Krooger/Ferstler/Nousiane territory you are hanging out in. In fact,
>rather than discuss the specific nuances and products that provide
>supremely enjoyable audio experiences, you seem to be falling back on
>vagaries: "personal preference", "what is accuracy?", "it's the room",
>"I need big speakers!" This, of course, is crossing over into Phoebe
>Johnston territory: "I work for AT&T and can't mention any specifics for
>fear of castration." Can we can the rationalizations, please?
Can we can the Trotskyisms, please?
It *is* preference, Greg. How can it be absolute? Speaking
only for me, there is gear I love which is precise and accurate, and
gear I love which ought to be thrown out if one pays attention to only
the specs. One of the most satisfying systems I ever heard was an
Audio physic Libra driven by a 12 wpc Audionote SET. It was, to my
ears sumptuous.
OTOH, I was equally taken by a 3.3 driven by a Bryston 4bst,
though it sounded very differently indeed, to the first system. I'm
genuinely unsure what accuracy actually means any more, other than in
the strictest metric sense. It doesn't correlate consistently with
what I find most musical and most satisfying. However, from a design
standpoint, I think accuracy (in the metric sense) hugely important.
Yes, that's a conflict. If I were only producing one piece of
gear every month or so, I might individually voice (assuming I knew
others liked the way my gear sounded) and hope for the best. As it
stands, however, I don't know how any manufacturer could maintain
consistent, reliable quality without using measurements as key
standards. It's also true that I am *not* a designer, nor will I ever
be. I could study for the next 20 years and not be as knowledgable and
talented as Ken Kantor and Jack Hidley, so take these comments with
the usual grain of salt. Gratefully, I believe they look at that
process with a lot more insight than I have.
>
>
>> > Clearly, a lot depends on what
>> >> sort of room you're listening in. In my own room, which is large and
>> >> the listening seat fairly far away (12 feet or so) larger speakers
>> >> sound better to me (all things being equal - which, of course, is
>> >> rarely so) than smaller ones, even smaller ones with subs.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Sorry, I think you might have placeboed yourself.
>>
>> No. I haven't, nor do we share the same tastes. I respect your
>> judgement because you have a lot of knowledge, but that judgement
>> reflects what you prefer, not necessarily what I do. As a result, I
>> can nod my head in agreement in the sense that I think you're making
>> good points, yet also know that I won't respond the same way.
>
>
>
>
>Well, this is a hard one to prove. I'm not going to fly over to New
>York to show you how to get good sound out of a hi-fi. I'd probably
>just tell you to scrap your gear anyway.
You might, which would only confirm how much better my taste
is than yours.
> But I still think it is a
>rationalization to say that what I supposedly prefer is just a
>preference: good sound is almost universal. And I believe I have a
>pretty good idea of what sounds good.
I accept fully that you do. However, you're excluding everyone
else's judgment here, and that strikes me as absurd. When you claim
that a small speaker is inherently more musical than a larger one of
similar quality, you are skating on very thing ice, indeed.
>
>
>
>
>> >>
>> >> However, at 8 feet away, that situation seems to change
>> >> dramatically. At 8 feet I prefer the smaller monitors by a long shot.
>> >> YMMV. We're all stuck, of course, with the rooms we have.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I haven't been in your room, but I can say that I can usually get more
>> >out of a pair of speakers via proper positioning than most people I
>> >know.
>> >
>>
>> I'm sure you can. I've been at it for thirty years. I can
>> usually get it right for my tastes. Put it this way, Greg: there are
>> only so many different spots one can place any speaker. It takes
>> thoroughness and patience, not genius.
>
>
>
>Who said anything about genius? You are correct about the thoroughness,
>but there is an element of critical listening involved that I find most
>people just aren't very good at. I've been to lot of hi-fi stores and
>lots of hi-fi shows, and the majority of time I'm shocked at how poor
>the sound is, primarily because of poor set up. It's just a fact--at
>lot of people are like Zipser, and couldn't hear their way out of paper
>bags. We'll have to compare notes some time, Ed--you try and produce
>what you feel is good sound and I'll produce the same.
I'd actually like that. I'm always happy to learn something.
Your place or mine? Incidentally, I'm a fairly uncritical listener
(meant literally). There are certain key things I listen for, and when
I have them, I'm quite happy and get lost in the music immediately.
I'm through fiddling once I've reached that point.
As soon as I think the sound develops a richness without loss
of clarity, I'm done. Others, including my wife, are far more critical
than I. After spending days in set-up (which is what always seems to
happen) the last thing I'm looking to do is fiddle some more. Of
course, if the sound seems lousy, I'll stay at it, but otherwise I
just want to sit down and listen.
A JJ story might be appropriate here.......a couple of weeks
back JJ happened to call me. As usual I was listening to music at my
work station while I worked. I picked up the phone and barely had time
to say "hi" when JJ asked me if I was listening to MP3s. I was, and I
was stunned he could pick that up over the phone. He informed me it
was a low rate MP3, and not a particularly good one, either. I checked
the bit rate and he was right. It was 128.
I'm astounded he could recognize a MP 3 from anything else
over a damned phone line. I was even more shocked he knew it for a
lower bit rate. There's no way in Hell I could ever do that. In fact,
truth be known,. I am quite happy with the quality of MP3s at my work
station. I forget after a while that it's a compressed signal, and I
get lost in the music all over again. I'm certain I could not tell a
192 or higher MP3 from the original, though I suspect that JJ can, and
perhaps you as well.
Ed
Stephen McElroy
> Stephen McElroy said:
>
> > > BTW, thanks for your comments about DBTs on RAHE.
>
> > Yep. Use the right tool for the job.
> What do you recommend for evaluating audio systems without the
> torture element?
Ears and your favorite recording.
Stephen
George M. Middius
> > What do you recommend for evaluating audio systems without the
> > torture element?
> Ears and your favorite recording.
You'll never get admitted to the Hive with that attitude, young man.
George M. Middius
Stephen McElroy
Stephen McElroy
> > > What do you recommend for evaluating audio systems without the
> > > torture element?
Stephen McElroy said:
> > Ears and your favorite recording.
> You'll never get admitted to the Hive with that attitude, young man.
Sorry, can't hear you; a record's playing...
Stephen
Paul D.
>>We're right back to the "Life of Brian" version of the Sermon on the Mount...
>
>Don't follow me, you are all individuals!
I'm not.
S i g n a l . . . . .
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Nah, it's a DVD tonight. "Wyrd Sisters" by Pratchett.
The horrid puns in the intro are more than enough to pay for
the rental, too.
Arny Krueger
"George M. Middius" <Glan...@ipo.net> wrote in message
news:9v4jrs4o76119afr0...@4ax.com...
> RetardoBorg is hurtin' bad.
>
> > > Dumb, lazy, illiterate or all of the above?
>
> > Sander, please explain the way you misspelled my name in the
title
> > line of this post.
>
> subthread, and I who initiated the title.
And Sander who, of his own free will quoted it.
Look, Sander and George I'm leaving now so you and Sander can fight
it out to see who is the bigger asshole. ;-(
Arny Krueger
> Retardoborg pinches off another quart.
>
> > > >Sander, are you dumb, lazy, illiterate or all of the above?
>
> > > Right now, I'm shaking my head in disbelief.
>
> > Sander, as if you'd admit that it was so.
>
>
Mr. Middius, I suppose you used some form of extreme duress to force
Sander to quote you?
George M. Middius
> > Arnii, you moronic sack of shit, it was I who started this
> > subthread, and I who initiated the title.
> And Sander who, of his own free will quoted it.
As did you, moron.
> Look, Sander and George I'm leaving now so you and Sander can fight
> it out to see who is the bigger asshole. ;-(
In case you haven't become aware of this during the past three years
of being trashed by 99% of RAO, Mr. Shitty, you are the definitive
Usenet dickhead, prick, and asshole rolled into one.
Have a nice day. ;-)
George M. Middius
George M. Middius
> > Where's the apology for accusing Sander of something I did,
>> you disgusting sack of shit?
> Mr. Middius, I suppose you used some form of extreme duress to force
> Sander to quote you?
Apology accepted, you disgusting sack of shit.
George M. Middius