Re: Why "accuracy"?
Ian Iveson
> Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question
> that dare
> not speak its name.
>
> Normals and 'borgs alike would surely accept that the purpose of an
> audio
> system is to enable us to enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals
> choose
> the pieces of a system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does
> praying
> to the god of "accuracy" help attain that end?
>
> I believe I know the answer to my question, but that answer is
> bizarre.
> Rather than suggest my own answer, I ask the "accuracy" lovers to
> explain
> their choice.
Well done.
The important thing is fidelity, of course, which should be high.
You can explore an interesting and productive train of thought if you
start from the notion that your system is a musical instrument.
Consider the historical role of music and its means of distribution.
Accuracy is essential to live communication, but so too is sensitivity
to context and personal expression.
Reductionism has led precision to a dead end.
What's your "answer"? Don't be shy.
Ian
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Ian Iveson said:
> The important thing is fidelity, of course, which should be high.
There's something amiss in your newsreader's settings. Why people still use
Upchuck after all these years is beyond me.
> You can explore an interesting and productive train of thought if you
> start from the notion that your system is a musical instrument.
Paging Ferstler! Tweako-freako alert!
Ian Iveson
"George"
> Ian Iveson said:
>
>> The important thing is fidelity, of course, which should be high.
>
> There's something amiss in your newsreader's settings. Why people
> still use
> Upchuck after all these years is beyond me.
It's precisely how I like it, thanks.
>> You can explore an interesting and productive train of thought if
>> you
>> start from the notion that your system is a musical instrument.
>
> Paging Ferstler! Tweako-freako alert!
You can explore an interesting and productive train of thought if you
start from the notion that your system is a musical instrument.
Consider the historical role of music and its means of distribution.
Accuracy is essential to live communication, but so too is sensitivity
to context and personal expression.
Reductionism has led precision to a dead end.
Ian
tubegarden
wrote:
Hi RATs!
None of us are going to improve the Universe. A few of us will enjoy
some parts more than others. Many of us will simply just enjoy
spitting at anybody they see posting in such a stupid News Group ;)
Yes, one dimensional measurements will fail some of us, and honest
holographic reproduction of anything is simply beyond us, at the
moment.
I listen and fiddle and occasionally find a treat.
I never find anything important to the starving children ... I donate
to charity for them.
Communication is not all that important. We try and keep the armies
supplied, but, it ain't easy.
Accuracy is important with small weapons, like slingshots. Or mental
midgets calling their betters names ...
Sigh, the joy of the Internet meets the pathos of many people's
miserable existence.
Happy Ears!
Al
Iain Churches
"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
news:021od31bej1sm1496...@4ax.com...
> Oh, so by "accuracy" you mean to convey something as blunt as not
> substituting strings for horns. Of course we can all agree with that.
>
>> Same thing....
>
> Maybe to you....
>
George. Don't you remember the good old days when violins
used on recording sessions were fitted with horns, rather like
those found on old phonographs?
I once did an "acoustic recording" straight to wax, just as they
used to do in the 20s. I copied the studio layout from the famous
RCA photograph.
The recording machine had two horns, set 180 degrees apart,
one for the vocal one for the orchestra. You controlled the
record level and balance by carefully sliding a piece of angora
wool in the mouths of the recording horns. That may well be
the origin of the word "pad" (attenuator)
Now, that's "accuracy" :-)
Regards
Iain
Arny Krueger
"Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:TvXCi.217647$dD7....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
I wonder if George can bring himself to admit why people stopped making
recordings by purely mechanical means. Why people stopped using vinyl and
tubes in the mainstream.
Hint: it had a lot to do with a desire for greater sonic accuracy.
tubegarden
Alternate hint: CDs are cheaper to reproduce and have a much higher
"yield".
Get over it. CD companies want to make money, too.
Happy Ears!
Al
Arny Krueger
"tubegarden" <tubeg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1188868712.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> Hi RATs!
>
> Alternate hint: CDs are cheaper to reproduce and have a much higher
> "yield".
This was not true for the first 5 or more years that CDs were produced.
JBorg, Jr.
>> George M. Middius wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question
>> that dare not speak its name.
>>
>> surely accept that the purpose of an audio system is to enable us to
>> enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals choose the pieces of a
>> system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does praying to the god of
>> "accuracy" help attain that end?
>
> your black magic-subjectivism cult enjoy listening to recorded music
> because we enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or
> performed. [...]
What does black magic-subjectivism cult imply, Mr. Cate?
What does it signify? You seems bitter on something about
high-end audio in general.
> The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to
> reproduce Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to be
> performed, or to hear the Rolling Stones in a manner that
> reproduces their concerts more nearly as they were performed (more
> nearly than a small table radio, for example). [...]
Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended their
music to be heard when played in the listening room in our home?
Is there a manifest enumerating all the specific list of requirement
where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone precisely and correctly as
they intended them to be heard when performed inside our home ?
> It's because our
> listening pleasure derives from the music itself, George, not from
> distortion or manipulation of the music caused by our equipment.
Mr. Cate, are you hinting that audiophiles who listen to music
through their vinyl records derives listening pleasure from the distortion
and manipulation by their equipment, and not from the music
itself ?
> For anyone who didn't get it, the purpose of George's original post,
> as usual, was to put down anyone who doesn't accept his black-magic
> subjectivist biases. (And also, another display of his long-standing
> inferiority problems when confronting those who know something about
> the science.) It wasn't, of course, derived from an interest on his
> part in learning from contributors with various viewpoints.
>
> Jim
roughplanet
news:pn6Di.4931$JD....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
JimC wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
>>> Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question
>>> that dare not speak its name.
>>>
>>> Normals (black magic flat-earth believers) and 'borgs alike would
>>> surely accept that the purpose of an audio system is to enable us to
>>> enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals choose the pieces of a
>>> system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does praying to the god of
>>> "accuracy" help attain that end?
>> It's really rather simple, Georgie. - Those of us who are not within
>> your black magic-subjectivism cult enjoy listening to recorded music
>> because we enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or
>> performed. [...]
> What does black magic-subjectivism cult imply, Mr. Cate?
> What does it signify? You seems bitter on something about
> high-end audio in general.
'You seems bitter on something'? Poor grammar noted. What the hell do you
mean?
>> The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to reproduce Beethoven's
>> works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to be performed, or to hear
>> the Rolling >> Stones in a manner that reproduces their concerts more
>> nearly as they were performed (more nearly than a small table radio, for
>> example). [...]
'more nearly' x 3. Poor grammar noted.
> Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended their
> music to be heard when played in the listening room in our home?
The 'Rolling Stones' I think you mean. The Rolling Stone is a music industry
publication. 'intended their music to be heard'? Poor grammar noted.
> Is there a manifest enumerating all the specific list of requirement where
> we can obtain these information so that we can listen to Mr. Beethoven and
> the Rolling Stone precisely and correctly as they intended them to be
> heard when performed inside our home ?
What a load of pompous drivel, and to top it off, your knowledge of the
English language, particularly grammar, is appalling. Talk about a poseur.
>> It's because our listening pleasure derives from the music itself,
>> George, not from
>> distortion or manipulation of the music caused by our equipment.
> Mr. Cate, are you hinting that audiophiles who listen to music through
> their vinyl records derives listening pleasure from the distortion and
> manipulation by their equipment, and not from the music itself ?
Mr. Borg, your misuse of the English language is laughable, especially as
you seem to be trying so hard to use it correctly. Forget about it. What
George or Jim do or don't mean by what they have posted here is of little
consequence anyway.
We audiophiles all know that it's NOT the music that matters, it's the HIGH
FIDELITY.
>> For anyone who didn't get it, the purpose of George's original post,
>> as usual, was to put down anyone who doesn't accept his black-magic
>> subjectivist biases. (And also, another display of his long-standing
>> inferiority problems when confronting those who know something about
>> the science.) It wasn't, of course, derived from an interest on his
>> part in learning from contributors with various viewpoints.
ruff
Andre Jute
> > Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question
> > that dare
[George's full post is below]
Surely the question should be, "Whose accuracy?"
The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
tape, the designer's job is done." Clearly, that puts the the
recording engineer, the master of the master tape, in charge of the
outcome.
I can name some recording engineers I have known, including some I
employed, that I would like to throw down the stairs to remove them as
carbuncles from culture. They were soulmates of the execrably smug
Pinkostinko.
However, on the whole I think most recording engineers of the kind of
music I like are cultured men who do their best to reproduce the
musicians' performance and the ambience of the environment well. It is
not their fault that a precise reproduction of their master tape (as
through a Krell and Wilson multi-cones, for instance, by the
Pinkostinko definition definitely "blameless") fails to satisfy the
hedonist's desire for closer replication of the experience of the live
event. Many of them are acutely aware that the subliminal cues
experienced in the concert hall are missing from recordings but,
again, that is an *engineering* problem with the reproduction chain
and its fixation on the long-since irrelevant reduction of THD,
presently more for the sake of more because they lack the brains to
think of something else. ("Once we have minimized THD, the
reproduction chain is perfect so WTF are you whining about? We're
giving you ever-vanishing THD!"
Of course, we all have our own version of taste. Mine is simply the
sound I heard in the room on the day, with the performers on the
recording playing live. Peter Walker's "window on the concert hall"
has legs.
My contempt for the farm machinery mechanics among the meterhead
"engineers" is matched only by my contempt for self-acclaimed golden
ears among the "audiophiles" whose only reference is other amps they
have heard, whose definition of "better" is a more stunning sound than
the last amp they heard, regardless of the intrinsic dynamics of the
performance, who never go to concerts because they already know what
they like.
Yes, Virginia, you can have it both ways. There is a sane middle road.
Andre Jute
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. --H.H.Munro
("Saki")(1870-1916)
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
John Byrns
Andre Jute <fiu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Surely the question should be, "Whose accuracy?"
>
> The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
> engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
> corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
> tape, the designer's job is done."
So why did Stewart drop out of the Usenet Groups, as indications are
that he has not departed this earth, or are the indications wrong?
Regards,
John Byrns
--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
Arny Krueger
"John Byrns" <byr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:byrnsj-23D2E2....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <1188915073....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Jute <fiu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Surely the question should be, "Whose accuracy?"
>>
>> The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
>> engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
>> corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
>> tape, the designer's job is done."
>
> So why did Stewart drop out of the Usenet Groups, as indications are
> that he has not departed this earth, or are the indications wrong?
What are the recent indications with respect to Mr. Pinkerton?
Note that JJ has also totally departed Usenet, but traces of him can still
be found elsewhere. I suspect that he may become more audible once he is out
of litigation on behalf of his employer, Microsoft.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
John Byrns said:
> > The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
> > engineering, music is art" or some such rot
> So why did Stewart drop out of the Usenet Groups, as indications are
> that he has not departed this earth, or are the indications wrong?
The one good thing you can say about Pukey is that he recognized Arnii
Krooborg for what he is.
So what are these "indications" you mention of Pukey's continuing life? I
hope you're not claiming to be his friend.
JimC
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>JimC wrote:
>>
>>>George M. Middius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question
>>>that dare not speak its name.
>>>
>>>Normals (black magic flat-earth believers) and 'borgs alike would
>>>surely accept that the purpose of an audio system is to enable us to
>>>enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals choose the pieces of a
>>>system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does praying to the god of
>>>"accuracy" help attain that end?
>>
>>It's really rather simple, Georgie. - Those of us who are not within
>>your black magic-subjectivism cult enjoy listening to recorded music
>>because we enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or
>>performed. [...]
>
>
>
>
> What does black magic-subjectivism cult imply, Mr. Cate?
> What does it signify? You seems bitter on something about
> high-end audio in general.
>
>
A more helpful line of questions would have been, what does Middius mean
by the term "borg," "normals", "Kroogism," etc.; and why has he been
spending all that time, year after year, attacking those who disagree
with him on this ng? "Black magic-subjectivism" is the philosopy Mr.
Middius adheres to and promotes. It is characterized by personal attacks
on those who introduce logic into discussions of audio matters, and in
particular, those who have some knowldge of the relevant principles of
physics.
>
>
>>The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to
>>reproduce Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to be
>>performed, or to hear the Rolling Stones in a manner that
>>reproduces their concerts more nearly as they were performed (more
>>nearly than a small table radio, for example). [...]
>
>
>
> Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended their
> music to be heard when played in the listening room in our home?
>
> Is there a manifest enumerating all the specific list of requirement
> where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
> Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone precisely and correctly as
> they intended them to be heard when performed inside our home ?
>
The point I was making (which I suspect you knew full well in the first
place) was that listening to music in on a system capable of reproducing
the music with greater fidelity to the performance (greater "accuracy")
is, for most audiophiles, more satisfying and enjoyable than listening
to the same music reproduced by a system with minimal accuracy, e.g., a
small table radio. In other words, greater "accuracy" generally provides
a more satisfying listening experience. YOUR interjection of the
suggestion that I somehow expect or require that we listen to Beethoven,
or the RSs or whoever, "precisely and correctly as they intended to be
heard" is, of course, your own invention. - I never said or implied such
a thing. - And I'm well aware that there are limits to realistic
reproduction of an orchestra or rock group in the home. My point was
that most of us generally derive greater pleasure from listening to good
music reproduced with accuracy (higher fidelity to the original
performance) than we do with less accurate reproduction, e.g., listening
to the same music reproduced by a small table radio.
>
>
>>It's because our
>>listening pleasure derives from the music itself, George, not from
>>distortion or manipulation of the music caused by our equipment.
>
>
> Mr. Cate, are you hinting that audiophiles who listen to music
> through their vinyl records derives listening pleasure from the distortion
> and manipulation by their equipment, and not from the music
> itself ?
>
Nope. I'm just saying that, in general, accuracy is in fact a useful and
desirable quality in audio, and that, in general, it results in a more
satisfying and enjoyable listening experience.
>
>>For anyone who didn't get it, the purpose of George's original post,
>>as usual, was to put down anyone who doesn't accept his black-magic
>>subjectivist biases. (And also, another display of his long-standing
>>inferiority problems when confronting those who know something about
>>the science.) It wasn't, of course, derived from an interest on his
>>part in learning from contributors with various viewpoints.
>>
>>Jim
>
Incidentally Mr. Borg, do you disagree with my contention that Geroge's
purpose for posting his original note related to a point he was trying
to make and a philosphy he was tring to push rather than intellectual
curiosity, for example, or a desire on his part to learn from
contributors with various viewpoints?
Jim
Peter Wieck
On Sep 4, 10:11 am, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Surely the question should be, "Whose accuracy?"
I think there is a fundamental issue at hand here, being the
definition of "accuracy". It is NOT precision, although far too
commonly taken as such. Analogy:
A thermometer that reads in 2-degree increments but is always as dead-
on as possible is quite accurate, but not terribly precise. A similar
unit that reads in 0.005 degree increments but is alway and randomly
2-3 degrees off is quite precise, not terribly accurate.
> The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
> engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
> corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
> tape, the designer's job is done." Clearly, that puts the the
> recording engineer, the master of the master tape, in charge of the
> outcome.
Not necessarily. Actually, not even a little bit. The _ability_ to
reproduce the "Master Tape" as it would have been heard in the studio
is merely a point-of-departure. And an "amplifier" that is capable of
doing that is only a good start. Picasso once was asked why it was
that he did such wild drawings and scupltures, the question as-asked
cast doubt on his ability to draw or form realistically. During the
conversation, he sketched on a bit of paper a near-photographic
portrait of the questioner.... and answered that by the knowledge of
what was "real", he could depart into what he saw and felt. Without
the ability to reproduce reality as-if-by-rote (per Picasso), he felt
that an artist could not *really* understand beyond that. This analogy
is quite apt for musical reproduction as well.
> I can name some recording engineers I have known, including some I
> employed, that I would like to throw down the stairs to remove them as
> carbuncles from culture. They were soulmates of the execrably smug
> Pinkostinko.
Without suggesting that the above statement is purely wishful and
quite likely utterly false, it is all according to taste. Recording
engineers, good and bad, have a real dilemma in whether they reproduce
what they hear to the extent possible, or whether they make
adjustments based on what they know will happen to what they record.
And I am sure that they would be the first to admit that they are
absolutely *NOT* photographers in the snapshot sense.
>
> However, on the whole I think most recording engineers of the kind of
> music I like are cultured men who do their best to reproduce the
> musicians' performance and the ambience of the environment well. It is
> not their fault that a precise reproduction of their master tape (as
> through a Krell and Wilson multi-cones, for instance, by the
> Pinkostinko definition definitely "blameless") fails to satisfy the
> hedonist's desire for closer replication of the experience of the live
> event. Many of them are acutely aware that the subliminal cues
> experienced in the concert hall are missing from recordings but,
> again, that is an *engineering* problem with the reproduction chain
> and its fixation on the long-since irrelevant reduction of THD,
> presently more for the sake of more because they lack the brains to
> think of something else. ("Once we have minimized THD, the
> reproduction chain is perfect so WTF are you whining about? We're
> giving you ever-vanishing THD!"
What ineffable hogwash. The recording engineer, good bad or
indifferent, if he/she is actually earning a living at it will be
absolutely aware of consequences small and large of every decision
made. That they may not be terribly good at it at every (even any)
moment of every recording does not make them less aware.
>
> Of course, we all have our own version of taste. Mine is simply the
> sound I heard in the room on the day, with the performers on the
> recording playing live. Peter Walker's "window on the concert hall"
> has legs.
The moment the playing goes into a box, what comes out of the box is
less related than first cousins... and that is at the best of times.
And why 98-44/100ths of the tripe around "fidelity" is just that.
Tripe. Spoiled as well for the most part. NO amplifier is capable of
reproducing what was recorded, as the recorder cannot even do that
much without removing or adding artifacts. So, get over it.
> My contempt for the farm machinery mechanics among the meterhead
> "engineers" is matched only by my contempt for self-acclaimed golden
> ears among the "audiophiles" whose only reference is other amps they
> have heard, whose definition of "better" is a more stunning sound than
> the last amp they heard, regardless of the intrinsic dynamics of the
> performance, who never go to concerts because they already know what
> they like.
More hogwash. If they 'know what they like', that is enough for them
leaving more room for you. But your taste in electronics vs. theirs
has not one damned thing to do with anything worthwhile for
discussion. And you both are quintessential idiots for holding your
collective and several opinions as being either more accurate, better,
or more precise than anyone else's. That it is yours is entirely
enough. Those very few that might value your opinion will respond
positively. Others will not. In either case, your opinion remains
intact - for you.
> Yes, Virginia, you can have it both ways. There is a sane middle road.
Sure there is a middle road. But it had damned well start from
equipment that *at least* can start by adding or deleting as few
additional artifacts as possible from what arrives on the recording
medium. The end-user then has the absolute right and choice to add,
delete or alter the source for their individual listening pleasure.
But if a-priori, their equipment is not capable of reproducing the
recording medium without substantial changes, then it has failed for
general purposes, however melifluous it appears to sound to the
undiscerning ear. The end-user even has the right to use equipment
that already has artifacts programmed into it by design as it is to
their taste. But they do not gain the right thereby to state, aver, or
even imply that their taste is anything other than their own - and no
more than that. And certainly said end-user has no right to foist that
equipment on others as being "high-fidelity"... it simply is not.
Again the analogy of the crippled man in the well-fitted suit comes to
mind. And for exactly the same reasons.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Queenie Catie is confused again.
> what does Middius mean by ... "Kroogism,"
My guess is that you've lost the last of your marbles.
Don't take your doctor's word for anything, Queenie. If the window is high
enough, you will be squashed into a pulpy mess.
tony sayer
>sound I heard in the room on the day, with the performers on the
>recording playing live. Peter Walker's "window on the concert hall"
>has legs.
>
>My contempt for the farm machinery mechanics among the meterhead
>"engineers" is matched only by my contempt for self-acclaimed golden
>ears among the "audiophiles" whose only reference is other amps they
>have heard, whose definition of "better" is a more stunning sound than
>the last amp they heard, regardless of the intrinsic dynamics of the
>performance, who never go to concerts because they already know what
>they like.
Yep!, it does you good to get out more .. the sounds I've heard this
Proms season bear little resemblance to what I expect to hear at home
being more distant in overall balance;)...
--
Tony Sayer
Andre Jute
> In article <1188915073.804874.23...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Surely the question should be, "Whose accuracy?"
>
> > The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
> > engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
> > corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
> > tape, the designer's job is done."
>
> So why did Stewart drop out of the Usenet Groups, as indications are
> that he has not departed this earth, or are the indications wrong?
Literary license. I wasn't suggesting that Pinko had kicked the
bucket; I imagine someone was vain as he was about his appearance will
live to be a very old, very crotchety, very boring pensioner for
several decades.
> So why did Stewart drop out of the Usenet Groups
Because Phil and I exposed his ignorance about QUAD, I imagine. How
that undermined whatever trust anyone had left in Pinko took a while
to sink in. And meanwhile you and Patrick exposed his ignorance about
some really basic elements of audio design. Then he ignominiously lost
an audio design contest against me, surely the slackest (if luckiest)
amateur on the planet. Then Arny Krueger claimed to be his friend and
"peer", the final ignominy! Hardly the sort of thing to burnish the
pride of such a constant narcissist as Pinkostinko. But, considering
how much more intelligent Pinkerton is than Pasternack, and the
relative amounts of time it took each after the exposure of his
vacuous malice to catch on that he had worn out his welcome and to bug
out, I am not surprised at Pinkerton leaving when he did, a couple of
years faster than Plodnick.
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
> --
> Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
Andre Jute
No real corpses were harmed in the assembly of my golem Worthless
Wieckless. Instead I stuffed a piece of cow-gut with offal to create
Worthless Wiecky. -- CE Statement of Conformity
JBorg, Jr.
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>> JimC wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's really rather simple, Georgie. - Those of us who are not within
>>> your black magic-subjectivism cult enjoy listening to recorded music
>>> because we enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or
>>> performed. [...]
>>
>> What does black magic-subjectivism cult imply, Mr. Cate?
>> What does it signify? You seems bitter on something about
>> high-end audio in general.
>>
>>
> A more helpful line of questions would have been, what does Middius
> mean by the term "borg," "normals", "Kroogism," etc.; and why has he
> been spending all that time, year after year, attacking those who
> disagree with him on this ng? "Black magic-subjectivism" is the
> philosopy Mr. Middius adheres to and promotes. It is characterized by
> personal attacks on those who introduce logic into discussions of
> audio matters, and in particular, those who have some knowldge of the
> relevant principles of physics.
Okey, so it's about exposing the tedious propaganda that Arny K.
and his ilk demonstrate in audio groups.
>>> The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to
>>> reproduce Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them
>>> to be performed, or to hear the Rolling Stones in a manner that
>>> reproduces their concerts more nearly as they were performed (more
>>> nearly than a small table radio, for example). [...]
>>
>> Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended their
>> music to be heard when played in the listening room in our home?
>>
>> Is there a manifest enumerating all the specific list of requirement
>> where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
>> Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone precisely and correctly as
>> they intended them to be heard when performed inside our home ?
>
>
> The point I was making (which I suspect you knew full well in the
> first place) was that listening to music in on a system capable of
> reproducing the music with greater fidelity to the performance
> (greater "accuracy") is, for most audiophiles, more satisfying and
> enjoyable than listening to the same music reproduced by a system
> with minimal accuracy, e.g., a small table radio. In other words,
> greater "accuracy" generally provides a more satisfying listening
> experience. YOUR interjection of the suggestion that I somehow expect
> or require that we listen to Beethoven, or the RSs or whoever,
> "precisely and correctly as they intended to be heard" is, of course,
> your own invention. - I never said or implied such a thing. - [...]
What you said then was unclear to me. You stated that:
***
" Those of us ... enjoy listening to recorded music because we
enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or performed."
" The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to reproduce
Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to
be performed..."
***
Is it my invention then to claim that you implied that we listen as it
was composed and/or performed by whoever in the listening room
inside our home ?
How did Beethoven intended his composition to be performed ?
How should conductor determine Beethoven's intention when
performing his composition ?
How should sound recording engineer determine Beethoven's
intention when reproducing his works ?
What would be your prescribe designation when determining
"accuracy" in these case ?
> And I'm
> well aware that there are limits to realistic reproduction of an
> orchestra or rock group in the home. My point was that most of us
> generally derive greater pleasure from listening to good music
> reproduced with accuracy (higher fidelity to the original
> performance) than we do with less accurate reproduction, e.g.,
> listening to the same music reproduced by a small table radio.
Higher fidelity ? As in higher fidelity than Beethoven intended
his composition to be performed ?
What would be your prescribe designation when determining
"accuracy" in this case ?
>>> It's because our listening pleasure derives from the music itself,
>>> George, not from distortion or manipulation of the music caused by our
>>> equipment.
>>
>>
>> Mr. Cate, are you hinting that audiophiles who listen to music
>> through their vinyl records derives listening pleasure from the
>> distortion and manipulation by their equipment, and not from the
>> music itself ?
>>
> Nope. I'm just saying that, in general, accuracy is in fact a useful
> and desirable quality in audio, and that, in general, it results in a
> more satisfying and enjoyable listening experience.
Ok.
>>>snip
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
> Incidentally Mr. Borg, do you disagree with my contention that
> Geroge's purpose for posting his original note related to a point he
> was trying to make and a philosphy he was tring to push rather than
> intellectual curiosity, for example, or a desire on his part to learn
> from contributors with various viewpoints?
>
> Jim
To agree, or disagree -- that is the question.
I shall place my answer on hold, Mr. Cate, because a missing
part of my response will be build on the answer you provide to
my questions above.
Arny Krueger
"JimC" <avo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:VTeDi.31589$RX....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> A more helpful line of questions would have been, what does Middius mean
> by the term "borg," "normals", "Kroogism," etc.;
One reason why I don't feel threatened by the Middiot is that he speaks in
code. Most newbies aren't going to take time to learn it. Therfore, he's
acting like a transmitter with no active receivers.
> and why has he been spending all that time, year after year, attacking
> those who disagree with him on this ng?
Lack of a life to keep the Middiot busy in productive tasks.
> "Black magic-subjectivism" is the philosopy Mr. Middius adheres to and
> promotes.
I don't favor sullying subjectivism by characterizing it as being relevant
to Middiot postings.
> It is characterized by personal attacks on those who introduce logic into
> discussions of audio matters, and in particular, those who have some
> knowldge of the relevant principles of physics.
In short, the Middiot attacks people who are better-educated, and think more
clearly than he does.
> The point I was making (which I suspect you knew full well in the first
> place) was that listening to music in on a system capable of reproducing
> the music with greater fidelity to the performance (greater "accuracy")
> is, for most audiophiles, more satisfying and enjoyable than listening to
> the same music reproduced by a system with minimal accuracy, e.g., a small
> table radio.
> In other words, greater "accuracy" generally provides a more satisfying
> listening experience. YOUR interjection of the suggestion that I somehow
> expect or require that we listen to Beethoven, or the RSs or whoever,
> "precisely and correctly as they intended to be heard" is, of course, your
> own invention. - I never said or implied such a thing. - And I'm well
> aware that there are limits to realistic reproduction of an orchestra or
> rock group in the home. My point was that most of us generally derive
> greater pleasure from listening to good music reproduced with accuracy
> (higher fidelity to the original performance) than we do with less
> accurate reproduction, e.g., listening to the same music reproduced by a
> small table radio.
> Nope. I'm just saying that, in general, accuracy is in fact a useful and
> desirable quality in audio, and that, in general, it results in a more
> satisfying and enjoyable listening experience.
Let's imagine an alternative universe where all audio gear is built
according to Middiot ideology. In the Middiot universe every piece of audio
gear has performance that is tailored by the chief engineer of the company
that builds it, to make all music that passes through it sound the way that
the companies' chief engineer prefers.
In the Middiot universe then, every amplifier has vastly different frequency
response. They all sound different, ironically as Borg and his posse say
they do right now.
In the Middiot universe there are no frequency response specs, no distortion
specs, no noise specs. You have to listen to every amplifier on the market
if you want to make an informed choice, and somehow have a precise memory of
how each amplifier sounds.
So, if you buy a new amplifier in the Middiot universe, your choices are
tremendously limited if you want your system to sound at all the way it did
with your old amplifier. There may be no amplifiers that you can buy without
completely changing the whole rest of your system.
In contrast, consider our present-day universe. Amplifiers tend to sound
pretty much the same within their power ratings. If your old amplifier is
not powerful enough you have a lot of choices as to what your new amplifier
will be.
I guess we can conclude that the Middiot is against people having
alternatives to choose from.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
The Krooborg takes a Kroopaganda dump.
> One reason why I don't feel threatened by the Middiot is that he speaks in
> code. Most newbies aren't going to take time to learn it. Therfore, he's
> acting like a transmitter with no active receivers.
Translation: "I, Arnii Krooborg, have such profound language disabilities
that I cannot distinguish day from night, a multiplicity from a
singularity, or a lie from an easily demonstrated fact."
> Lack of a life to keep the Middiot busy in productive tasks.
Translation: "As a born-again religionist who passes off volunteer
recordings of my church choir as 'professional recording experience', I
have shown the world my vast expertiese™ in 'productive tasks'."
> I don't favor sullying subjectivism by characterizing it as being relevant
> to Middiot postings.
Translation: "I, Arnii Krooborg, am so clueless about how Normals select
and deploy their audio equipment that I hate all women and all human beings
who are not insane like I am."
> In short, the Middiot attacks people who are better-educated, and think more
> clearly than he does.
Translation: "I, Arnii Krooborg, have falsely claimed to have earned a
B.S.E.E. degree; I am consumed with envy of successful audio designers and
publishers; and I am deeply ashamed of my continuing failure to brainwash
human beings into hating the E.H.E.E."
> Let's imagine an alternative universe where all audio gear is built
> according to Middiot ideology.
Translation: "I'm about to cum!"
> I guess we can conclude that the Middiot is against people having
> alternatives to choose from.
Translation: "Good job, Billy. Don't forget your Sunday school book. Tell
your mommy you're coming over for another 'training session' on Friday."
Dave Plowman (News)
> The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
> engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
> corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
> tape, the designer's job is done." Clearly, that puts the the
> recording engineer, the master of the master tape, in charge of the
> outcome.
> I can name some recording engineers I have known, including some I
> employed, that I would like to throw down the stairs to remove them as
> carbuncles from culture. They were soulmates of the execrably smug
> Pinkostinko.
And just what has that to do with the reproducing chain reproducing
accurately the source?
You might as well say you don't want it to reproduce Bach because you
don't like his music.
Another example of your flawed reasoning, methinks.
--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Peter Wieck
wrote:
> Much blather cut.
The only thing clear from this continued and painfully, insanely
idiotic, meaningless and entirely worthless exchange is that the
"commander" and Krueger would shrivel up and die without each other.
Their collective and several life's blood is the attention they gather
from whatever forum they visit with their inane drivel.
If they receive no attention, they are gone. Not even leaving the
presence and importance of a bad smell. Please consign them to the
same oblivion as is merited by Mr. Ludwig and the world will be
improved by their absence.
Andre Jute
<d...@davenoise.co.uk>) wrote:
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Surely the question should be, "Whose accuracy?"
> > The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
> > engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
> > corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
> > tape, the designer's job is done." Clearly, that puts the the
> > recording engineer, the master of the master tape, in charge of the
> > outcome.
> > I can name some recording engineers I have known, including some I
> > employed, that I would like to throw down the stairs to remove them as
> > carbuncles from culture. They were soulmates of the execrably smug
> > Pinkostinko.
>
> And just what has that to do with the reproducing chain reproducing
> accurately the source?
Why, Plowie, if you had read on instead of fulminating, you would have
understood, for I went on to say what you have conveniently cut:
>>>However, on the whole I think most recording engineers of the kind of
music I like are cultured men who do their best to reproduce the
musicians' performance and the ambience of the environment well. It
is
not their fault that a precise reproduction of their master tape (as
through a Krell and Wilson multi-cones, for instance, by the
Pinkostinko definition definitely "blameless") fails to satisfy the
hedonist's desire for closer replication of the experience of the
live
event. Many of them are acutely aware that the subliminal cues
experienced in the concert hall are missing from recordings but,
again, that is an *engineering* problem with the reproduction chain
and its fixation on the long-since irrelevant reduction of THD,
presently more for the sake of more because they lack the brains to
think of something else. ("Once we have minimized THD, the
reproduction chain is perfect so WTF are you whining about? We're
giving you ever-vanishing THD!" <<<
Now let's look at your insensitive question again:
> And just what has that to do with the reproducing chain reproducing
> accurately the source?
Why, everything, as I have just explained. What it comes down to, in
words of one syllable just for you, Plowie, is that one must listen to
a recording where you didn't hear the original concert with an
awareness of who the recording engineer was, whether he is a person of
trustworthy culture or a mere meterhead belonging to the Pinkostinko
tendency of pleasure-wreckers. Can you understand that in the same way
as you hate everything I say because I have stepped on the pretentions
of your profession so often and so effectively, others might regard
the product of sound engineers in the light of their express general
attitude and perceived culture? Or does it work only one way? (That
would be another telling example of the general fascist insensitivity
of engineers as a class, to which I have referred before.)
You then continue in the same dumb vein with junior school debating
tricks:
> You might as well say you don't want it to reproduce Bach because you
> don't like his music.
Crap. It is not only widely known that I think Johann Sebastian Bach
is the greatest composer who ever lived, the argument is in itself
fallacious. In any event, I answered that piece of debating trade crud
too, in another passage you conveniently cut:
>>>Of course, we all have our own version of taste. Mine is simply the
sound I heard in the room on the day, with the performers on the
recording playing live. Peter Walker's "window on the concert hall"
has legs. <<<
> Another example of your flawed reasoning, methinks.
Plowie, I don't tell you how to do your job. Why don't you pay me the
same courtesy and avoid the humiliation of having your poor reasoning
pointed out to you with turpentined stick every time you say something
as dumb as that? I give you the tip only because I know you're too
thick and too self-important and too reckless to take it.
> Another example of your flawed reasoning, methinks.
No, Plowie, you don't think. As I have demonstrated, you emote. That's
a bad thing for an engineer to do. People might start mistaking you
for a human.
Christ, I even answered your silly, untrue (on this occasion -- I
often enjoy your taglines) tagline:
> *Fax is stronger than fiction *
No, it isn't, not in audiophilia, as I pointed out in my original,
which true to form you cut:
>>>My contempt for the farm machinery mechanics among the meterhead
"engineers" is matched only by my contempt for self-acclaimed golden
ears among the "audiophiles" whose only reference is other amps they
have heard, whose definition of "better" is a more stunning sound than
the last amp they heard, regardless of the intrinsic dynamics of the
performance, who never go to concerts because they already know what
they like. <<<
If you don't think that describes people immune to the reality
contained in music, perhaps you should take remedial English
comprehension lessons at a poly near you.
What's more, your mindless wishful thinking:
> *Fax is stronger than fiction *
isn't even true in real life. The wishful thinkers have the engineers
beat on every front. I'm standing right behind you Plowie, on that one
at least, since I cannot abide loose thinking, and you're stomping my
instep. You're an ingrate.
And Plowie, you should pay attention or tomorrow you won't remember
what I said. This important message, for instance, which you also
carelessly cut:
>>>Yes, Virginia, you can have it both ways. There is a sane middle road. <<<
Finally, Plowie, if you're about to pick a fight with me, pick a more
popular subject than Pinkerton as your cause. Pinkerton was so
universally despised, you quite along today. Even my cat feels sorry
for you, and it is an animal even more insensitive than you.
Andre Jute
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. --H.H.Munro
("Saki")(1870-1916)
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
And all this important deep thought from the Commander, which the
wretched Plowie enviously cut (tsch!, tsch!):
Arny Krueger
"Peter Wieck" <pf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1188950750.0...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 4, 5:08 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
> wrote:
>
>> Much blather cut.
>
> The only thing clear from this continued and painfully, insanely
> idiotic, meaningless and entirely worthless exchange is that the
> "commander" and Krueger would shrivel up and die without each other.
Peter, your lack of historical perspective is forgiven. I posted on RAO for
many years before the Middiot showed off his butt around here. Therefore, I
have a proven track record of doing quite well without him. OTOH, the
Middiot is quite obviously obsessed with me. Since I'm quite happily
monogamously occupied, his love will go unrequited for eternity.
Peter Wieck
>Much blather dumped.
Mr. Jute:
When you learn to answer a question or join a discussion without
resorting to the fallacy of the Bellman's Proof, come back and play.
As it is clearly illustrated by your drivel and assorted blather, you
are nothing but an empty little super-annuated never-was with
pretensions of adequacy. Sorry to be so direct, but when you ally
yourself with the likes of the "commander", engage in repetitive
attempts at intimidation and display other manifestations of fear and
dementia, it is hard to be gentle.
Peter Wieck
> Peter, your lack of historical perspective is forgiven. I posted on RAO for
> many years before the Middiot showed off his butt around here. Therefore, I
> have a proven track record of doing quite well without him. OTOH, the
> Middiot is quite obviously obsessed with me. Since I'm quite happily
> monogamously occupied, his love will go unrequited for eternity.
Oh, I dunno... the last couple of threads you initiated, and the
various posts made in them make you, Middius, Jute and Ludwig a close-
run thing in terms of differentiating levels of idiocy. And most
certainly the grains of wisdom displayed in the collective product
could be fit on the cover page of a Tom Thumb paperback in 10-point
type... with the majority of the page still blank.
Not meant to be viciously insulting... that I save for Jute & Middius.
But you clearly do not read what you write, for content anyway.
Mr.T
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D2FTTSBx...@bancom.co.uk...
> Yep!, it does you good to get out more .. the sounds I've heard this
> Proms season bear little resemblance to what I expect to hear at home
> being more distant in overall balance;)...
Which of course depends hugely on where you are sitting in the concert hall
relative to the recording mics, and the acoustics of the concert hall itself
relative to your listening room. Not to mention the performance of your
speakers, and the ability of the recording engineer.
MrT.
tony sayer
<MrT@home.?> scribeth thus
And the fact that the radio broadcast mikes are slung up over the
audience where its a tad difficult to get a seat;)
I take on board what you say re location but I think that most mics are
in un-natural locations..
As witnessed occasionally, as part of the day job I have to maintain
some radio broadcast equipment at Ely Cathedral and sometimes stop for
choral evensong if its that time of the day, and its a good stress
buster too;!. That always sounds more distant then whatever I'd hear at
home no matter where I can practically sit!....
--
Tony Sayer
JBorg, Jr.
Mr. Cate, I'm not able to place my anwer because you have not
responded. All that I have learn so far in our exchanges is the
apparent evidence of myself being unfairly and falsely accused
by you of inventing and ascribing thoughts which I know I did
not do.
In lieu of these matter, I succumb to superior force and must,
therefore, disagree with your contention.
Mr.T
> As witnessed occasionally, as part of the day job I have to maintain
> some radio broadcast equipment at Ely Cathedral and sometimes stop for
> choral evensong if its that time of the day, and its a good stress
> buster too;!. That always sounds more distant then whatever I'd hear at
> home no matter where I can practically sit!....
The operative words being "where you can practically sit".
The conductor has a different perspective however.
MrT.
Arny Krueger
OK Peter, so now I can't differentiate you from Middius, Jute and Ludwig
either. Have a stroke lately? ;-(
Ian Iveson
>
> Hi RATs!
Hi Al!
> None of us are going to improve the Universe.
It was nothing without us. Now it can make music.
> A few of us will enjoy
> some parts more than others. Many of us will simply just enjoy
> spitting at anybody they see posting in such a stupid News Group ;)
>
> Yes, one dimensional measurements will fail some of us, and honest
> holographic reproduction of anything is simply beyond us, at the
> moment.
Would that be what we want? Good for an audio museum, perhaps.
> I listen and fiddle and occasionally find a treat.
>
> I never find anything important to the starving children ... I
> donate
> to charity for them.
>
> Communication is not all that important.
Most of us would die quite soon without it.
> We try and keep the armies supplied, but, it ain't easy.
> Accuracy is important with small weapons, like slingshots. Or mental
> midgets calling their betters names ...
>
> Sigh, the joy of the Internet meets the pathos of many people's
> miserable existence.
Grumpy old bugger...
Ian
Music is engineering.
Steven Sullivan
> On Sep 4, 8:05 am, John Byrns <byr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > In article <1188915073.804874.23...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Surely the question should be, "Whose accuracy?"
> >
> > > The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
> > > engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
> > > corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
> > > tape, the designer's job is done."
> >
> > So why did Stewart drop out of the Usenet Groups, as indications are
> > that he has not departed this earth, or are the indications wrong?
> Literary license. I wasn't suggesting that Pinko had kicked the
> bucket; I imagine someone was vain as he was about his appearance will
> live to be a very old, very crotchety, very boring pensioner for
> several decades.
And I imagine a bitter RAO nutcake like yourself will come to inhabit
many a killfile...or mine at the very least.
*plonk*
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Stupey Sillybot gets shown up again.
> > Literary license. I wasn't suggesting that Pinko had kicked the
> > bucket; I imagine someone was vain as he was about his appearance will
> > live to be a very old, very crotchety, very boring pensioner for
> > several decades.
> And I imagine a bitter RAO[sic] nutcake like yourself will come to inhabit
> many a killfile...or mine at the very least.
Don't fret about offending Stupey, Andre. He's a major Kroopologist and a
gigantic hypocrite. Just ask him about his own process for selecting home
audio kit.
JimC
So that a cello (violin, organ, drums, piano) would, in general, have
the characteristics of the particular instrument, etc. Not perfectly,
not with the same acoustics heard in the hall itself, but with greater
accuracy, for example, than a small table radio.
No, it was your invention to imply that I suggested that we need to
have an exact reproduction in our homes of the original performance. -
You stated:
.....the specific list of requirement
where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone PRECISELY and CORRECTLY as
THEY INTENDED them to be heard WHEN PERFORMED INSIDE OUR HOME.
By posting an exaggerated caricature of my response (to the effect that
I expect the actual performance to be reproduced in our home PRECISELY
as Beethoven intended it to be heard IN OUR HOME), you mock and dismiss
out of hand the underlying meaning of my note. In other words, you
don't want to discuss the underlying intent of my note. - Rather, you
want to pick it apart.
> How did Beethoven intended his composition to be performed ?
>
In general, he intended it to be performed as indicated in his scores.
With cellos, violins, horns, bass drums, etc., played at appropriate
times in the manner indicated in the score. Obviously, one can always
question details of particular stanzas (and I never used the terms
"precisely" or "exactly,"). In general, however, his music is intended
to be performed in the style of the Classical period, occurring prior to
the Romantic period.
> How should conductor determine Beethoven's intention when
> performing his composition ?
By obtaining an extensive music education in which he becomes familiar
with music from the various periods, with Beethoven's various works and
style, with the classical period in particular. By interpreting
Beethoven's score for the particular piece in light of all the above.
> How should sound recording engineer determine Beethoven's
> intention when reproducing his works ?
By having a general knowledge of classical music, as indicated above.
>
> What would be your prescribe designation when determining
> "accuracy" in these case ?
>
What the hell does this sentence mean? Is it intended to be in English?
>
>
>>And I'm
>>well aware that there are limits to realistic reproduction of an
>>orchestra or rock group in the home. My point was that most of us
>>generally derive greater pleasure from listening to good music
>>reproduced with accuracy (higher fidelity to the original
>>performance) than we do with less accurate reproduction, e.g.,
>>listening to the same music reproduced by a small table radio.
>
>
>
> Higher fidelity ? As in higher fidelity than Beethoven intended
> his composition to be performed ?
Nope. As in the fact that most audiophiles listen to music reproduced by
a system that reproduces recorded music with higher fidelity than a
small table radio.
>
> What would be your prescribe designation when determining
> "accuracy" in this case ?
>
Again, write your questions in english and I'll try to answer them.
>
>
>
>>>>It's because our listening pleasure derives from the music itself,
>>>>George, not from distortion or manipulation of the music caused by our
>>>>equipment.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mr. Cate, are you hinting that audiophiles who listen to music
>>>through their vinyl records derives listening pleasure from the
>>>distortion and manipulation by their equipment, and not from the
>>>music itself ?
>>>
>>
>>Nope. I'm just saying that, in general, accuracy is in fact a useful
>>and desirable quality in audio, and that, in general, it results in a
>>more satisfying and enjoyable listening experience.
>
>
> Ok.
>
>
>
>>>>snip
>>>>
>>>>Jim
>>>
>>Incidentally Mr. Borg, do you disagree with my contention that
>>Geroge's purpose for posting his original note related to a point he
>>was trying to make and a philosphy he was tring to push rather than
>>intellectual curiosity, for example, or a desire on his part to learn
>>from contributors with various viewpoints?
>>
>>Jim
>
>
>
>
> To agree, or disagree -- that is the question.
>
>
> I shall place my answer on hold, Mr. Cate, because a missing
> part of my response will be build on the answer you provide to
> my questions above.
>
What do my answers to your questions (all intended to pick apart my
original note), have to do with your answering this question?
The really unfortunate conclusion of the matter, Mr. Borg, is that
"normals"??? like you and Mr. Middius aren't willing to acknowledge
that the enjoyment of great music available to all of us today is to a
large extent made possible by the work of engineers and scientists
(borgs?) who over the years worked to design and produce audio equipment
capable of recording and accurately reproducing great music. - Instead
of being thankful for the beautiful music available to them through the
dedicated work of the "borgs", the subjectivists ("normals"??) spit in
their face.
Jim
tony sayer
<MrT@home.?> scribeth thus
>
Not with choral music or rather a typical liturgical setting....
--
Tony Sayer
Clyde Slick
>
> One reason why I don't feel threatened by the Middiot is that he speaks in
> code.
It's called "English".
>
> I guess we can conclude that the Middiot is against people having
> alternatives to choose from.
You aren't exactly a world champion guesser.
Peter Wieck
Sure. Words gathered at random from the English Language, rarely
assembled in a superficially clever way entirely irrespective of
meaning or content.
As to Arny's ability to "guess", I would expect from his manner that
he leaves nothing to guesswork, only certainty. The sign of a closed
mind if nothing else.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Arny Krueger
Musta been a mini-stroke that has left your mind in such a confused state,
Peter.
I'm well known among my friends for both my careful work and out-of-the box
thinking. Its an effective pairing - think outside the box and then test
well to know for sure whether the new idea actually works.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Arnii "Shit for Dinner" Krooger lashes out at the foolish yob who tries to
befriend him.
> Musta been a mini-stroke that has left your mind in such a confused state,
> Peter.
Arnii, what would happen if you actually accepted a human being's
friendship? Would your implanted nanites start to decay? Would your cranial
superstructure start leaking acid? Would your caches of preserved feces
start to decompose?
John Atkinson
> I'm well known among my friends for both my careful work
> and out-of-the box thinking.
Snort! Now I've got coffee coming out my nose! The last time
your name came up in conversation with someone you have
referred to on this newsgroup as a "friend," Mr. Krueger, that
wasn't exactly how he characterised your behavior! :-)
But thank you for allowing me to end the day on an upbeat note.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
John Atkinson said:
> > I'm well known among my friends for both my careful work
> > and out-of-the box thinking.
> Snort! Now I've got coffee coming out my nose! The last time
> your name came up in conversation with someone you have
> referred to on this newsgroup as a "friend," Mr. Krueger, that
> wasn't exactly how he characterised your behavior! :-)
I'm surprised you didn't know that in automotive circles, "box" is
synonymous with "ashtray".
> But thank you for allowing me to end the day on an upbeat note.
Arnii is perversely proud of the "fact" that the E.H.E.E. has expended so
much time and effort on shutting him up, with the evil Stereophile serving
as their principal anti-Kroo weapon. How can you sleep at night, John?
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
dickless malecrapski digs his stubby fingers into his own flesh.
> Idiot.
dickie, who's keeping track of all the "idiots" you've pegged? if you're
trying to equal the krooborg's list of "liars", you should take a deep
breath before you go all out. krooger has identified more than 3,000
"liars" on usenet.
btw, does deborah know you're out of jail again?
JBorg, Jr.
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>> JimC wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>>>> JimC wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> reproduce Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to
>>>>> be performed, or to hear the Rolling Stones in a manner that
>>>>> reproduces their concerts more nearly as they were performed (more
>>>>> nearly than a small table radio, for example). [...]
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended
>>>> their music to be heard when played in the listening room in our
>>>> home?
>
>
> So that a cello (violin, organ, drums, piano) would, in general, have
> the characteristics of the particular instrument, etc. Not perfectly,
> not with the same acoustics heard in the hall itself, but with greater
> accuracy, for example, than a small table radio.
In general ? And not perfectly !
Facts only please, Mr. Cate, with verifiable evidence confirmed with
firsthand testimony supported with proof and genuine documents,
free of your opinion and reference to small table radios.
But you said "as intended." What did you mean by "as intended",
Mr. Cate?
Did you mean as intended, but not when we're listening (at home or
elsewhere?).
> By posting an exaggerated caricature of my response (to the effect
> that I expect the actual performance to be reproduced in our home
> PRECISELY as Beethoven intended it to be heard IN OUR HOME), you mock and
> dismiss out of hand the underlying meaning of my note.
It is you who's making nebulous and fuzzy underlying meaning to
your notes.
> In other words, you don't want to discuss the underlying intent of my
> note. - Rather, you want to pick it apart.
I am trying to understand you notes, Mr. Cate.
>> How did Beethoven intended his composition to be performed ?
>>
>
> In general, he intended it to be performed as indicated in his scores.
> With cellos, violins, horns, bass drums, etc., played at appropriate
> times in the manner indicated in the score. Obviously, one can always
> question details of particular stanzas (and I never used the terms
> "precisely" or "exactly,"). In general, however, his music is
> intended to be performed in the style of the Classical period,
> occurring prior to the Romantic period.
In general again? That's rather generous of you Mr. Cate.
>> How should conductor determine Beethoven's intention when
>> performing his composition ?
>
> By obtaining an extensive music education [...]
[Hmm, Arny ?]
> in which he becomes familiar
> with music from the various periods, with Beethoven's various works
> and style, with the classical period in particular. By interpreting
> Beethoven's score for the particular piece in light of all the above.
>
>
>> How should sound recording engineer determine Beethoven's
>> intention when reproducing his works ?
>
> By having a general knowledge of classical music, as indicated above.
[Hmm, Arny?]
>> What would be your prescribe designation when determining
>> "accuracy" in these case ?
>>
>
> What the hell does this sentence mean? Is it intended to be in
> English?
What I meant was how would you know that the intended rendition
of Beethoven's composition by the conductor and recording engineer
met the required accuracy as approved by Mr. Beethoven himself,
Mr. Cate?
>>> And I'm
>>> well aware that there are limits to realistic reproduction of an
>>> orchestra or rock group in the home. My point was that most of us
>>> generally derive greater pleasure from listening to good music
>>> reproduced with accuracy (higher fidelity to the original
>>> performance) than we do with less accurate reproduction, e.g.,
>>> listening to the same music reproduced by a small table radio.
>>
>> Higher fidelity ? As in higher fidelity than Beethoven intended
>> his composition to be performed ?
>
> Nope. As in the fact that most audiophiles listen to music reproduced
> by a system that reproduces recorded music with higher fidelity than a
> small table radio.
OK
>> What would be your prescribe designation when determining
>> "accuracy" in this case ?
>>
> Again, write your questions in english and I'll try to answer them.
>
>
>>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Incidentally Mr. Borg, do you disagree with my contention that
>>> Geroge's purpose for posting his original note related to a point he
>>> was trying to make and a philosphy he was tring to push rather than
>>> intellectual curiosity, for example, or a desire on his part to
>>> learn from contributors with various viewpoints?
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> To agree, or disagree -- that is the question.
>>
>> I shall place my answer on hold, Mr. Cate, because a missing
>> part of my response will be build on the answer you provide to
>> my questions above.
>
> What do my answers to your questions (all intended to pick apart my
> original note), have to do with your answering this question?
Because your question regards contention of whether the original intent
of the post in this thread concern the philosophy that, as you have said,
characterized by personal attacks to those who introduce logic into
audio discussions.
The paragraph below demonstrate "one" example.
Peter Wieck
wrote:
> But thank you for allowing me to end the day on an upbeat note.
Mpfff... Arny has all the single-minded and largely ignorant arrogance
of Mr. Jute without even a scintilla of the latter's entertainment
value. The "commander" is the hagfish that sucks on both of them and
would be inert without them.
http://www.seasky.org/monsters/sea7a1q.html
Just a brief perusal makes the connection clear.
That Arny could be entertaining would only be by accident, never
design.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Arny Krueger
> That Arny could be entertaining would only be by accident, never
> design.
Many have told me that what I did to Mr. Atkinson at HE2005 was quite
amusing to them.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
The Krooborg tries yet again to revise history.
> Many have told me that what I did to Mr. Atkinson at HE2005 was quite
> amusing to them.
A human being would never say something so blatantly wrongheaded. Therefore
we know for certain that you, Arnii Krooborg, are not human.
BTW, Turdy, we all heard the recording. Humor was the furthest thing from
your "mind".
Clyde Slick
wrote:
> John Atkinson said:
>
> > > I'm well known among my friends for both my careful work
> > > and out-of-the box thinking.
> > Snort! Now I've got coffee coming out my nose! The last time
> > your name came up in conversation with someone you have
> > referred to on this newsgroup as a "friend," Mr. Krueger, that
> > wasn't exactly how he characterised your behavior! :-)
>
> I'm surprised you didn't know that in automotive circles, "box" is
> synonymous with "ashtray".
>
I just assumed he finally brought his head out of
the abx box.
Clyde Slick
> "Peter Wieck" <p...@aol.com> wrote in message
Rod
However, in this context of "live", the room has a considerable effect on
the overall sound.
Rod
> --
> Tony Sayer
>
>
John Atkinson
wrote:
> The Krooborg tries yet again to revise history.
> > Many have told me that what I did to Mr. Atkinson at HE2005
> > was quite amusing to them.
>
The recording of the "Great Debate" can be heard at
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ .
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Peter Wieck
wrote:
Read a bit, listened a bit. Gagged early on.
The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
general idiocy.
Why isn't this obvious enough to get the keepers of said beliefs (all
sides as there are many more than two) to simpy shut up and enjoy
themselves? The single alternative is continued rancor. And while
invective is good fun it accomplishes little.
Sadly such debates gather hagfish, remora and other bottom feeders
about the combatants searching for cuts to infect and bits of flesh
and blood in the water. Hence we have the likes of the "commander" and
others.
The lot of you, in the words of Howland Owl ought to stick your
collective and several heads in a bucket of water three times, but
pull it out twice.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338
Arny Krueger
"roughplanet" <rough...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:46dfa613$0$13999$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> C'mon Arnie; that square head (box) of yours never lets a single idea
> escape, be it muse, reverie or lateral logic, much less test it for
> accuracy.
Rough, I have to admit that it really makes me chuckle when a know-nothing
like you tries to lecture me about having creative thoughts or sharing
ideas. Other than repackaging poetic prose cribbed from high end ragazines,
what creative thought have you ever expressed on Usenet?
Laurence Payne
>The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
>may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
>as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
>views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
>other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
>general idiocy.
The trouble is, magic power cables just DON'T do anything. And the
pricing shouts "Scam!" to a market that WANTS to be scammed. It
makes it difficult to take further opinions seriously from a believer.
Arny Krueger
> The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
> may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
> as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
> views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
> other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
> general idiocy.
The "Here we go again" thread was based on a published falsification of what
is to those of us who are reasonably well-informed, a well-established fact.
As a property manager, concepts like dynamic range and information theory
may seem to be so abstract to you, that anything related to them is just
someone's opinion. That's your problem if you keep your head in the sand
and refuse to learn.
Fact is, dynamic range and information theory are about as basic and
generally accepted in the science and art of audio as compound interest and
present value are to property management. I suspect you know your business
well enough to know when someone is handing you smoke when they present the
results of those kinds of analysis. So it is with many of us and audio.
As far as the impact of all these seemingly endless arguments about audio
goes, they do have consequences. Ten years ago very few people here would
recognize that the Krakow article is a POS. Today, it is a relatively easy
target. Note that Atkinson won't weigh in on its accuracy, probably because
he's afraid to look bad by criticizing a colleague of sorts in public, no
matter how wrong John knows that Gary really is. John knows, or I've vastly
overestimated his intelligence.
keithr
Couldn't be bothered to listen to an hour of it, but the article is
interesting. Anybody who can hear a significant improvement in the sound of
a system by replacing the power cable is either seriously deluded or in
possession of a complete piece of crap as a system.
Owning a $2.5K power cable is indicative of two things, an excess of money
and a lack of brains.
Keith
Peter Wieck
wrote:
> The trouble is, magic power cables just DON'T do anything. And the
> pricing shouts "Scam!" to a market that WANTS to be scammed. It
> makes it difficult to take further opinions seriously from a believer.
So don't. Maintain your own, enjoy what you enjoy and let the devil
take the hindermost. I have quite a number of strongly held opinions
none of which I require to be held or even entertained by others. And
I quite enjoy a full-and-free-exchange-of-ideas with no expectations
whatsoever of converting anyone. Nor do I expect to be converted. At
that level, things remain in good fun and even get a bit serious. But
there is no blood on the floor afterwards nor bridges burnt. Good LORD
would a vanilla world be utterly boring. Or even one entirely butter-
pecan.
Arny Krueger
> On Sep 6, 8:24 am, Laurence Payne <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The trouble is, magic power cables just DON'T do anything. And the
>> pricing shouts "Scam!" to a market that WANTS to be scammed. It
>> makes it difficult to take further opinions seriously from a believer.
>
> So don't.
So Peter, don't start tossing gratuitous rocks on people who want to share
and comment on opinions.
> Maintain your own, enjoy what you enjoy and let the devil
> take the hindermost.
You ain't doing that Peter, so why should I listen to your advice in that
regard?
> I have quite a number of strongly held opinions
> none of which I require to be held or even entertained by others.
That's your business, Peter. But trying to force others into your code of
silence is not reasonble.
> And
> I quite enjoy a full-and-free-exchange-of-ideas with no expectations
> whatsoever of converting anyone. Nor do I expect to be converted. At
> that level, things remain in good fun and even get a bit serious. But
> there is no blood on the floor afterwards nor bridges burnt.
You have burned your bridge with me Peter, so why should I listen to your
advice in that regard?
> Good LORD
> would a vanilla world be utterly boring. Or even one entirely butter-
> pecan.
So why attack people who are doing some flavor tasting?
Peter Wieck
> "Peter Wieck" <p...@aol.com> wrote in message
God Help You Arnie! For ENTIRELY Missing The Point....
Those who accept science as their sole and only means of viewing the
world will inevitably abrade those who choose (and value) other means
and vice-versa. This happens most especially when the one camp
*demands* that the other camp convert, claims that their means-and-
methods are not only paramount but singular, and then denegrates all
other necessarily-wrong beliefs. That would be you. Though that
condition is certainly not limited to you.
As I suggested earlier: you are as arrogant as Mr. Jute and about as
credible for it. Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
contemptible.
Peter Wieck
> So why attack people who are doing some flavor tasting?
For the sake of absolute clarity, as I perceive you, you are not
"flavor tasting" but rather demanding that all accept your singular
flavor. That you mostly interact with those similarly afflicted does
not change the primary condition.
Arny Krueger
Nope, I know gratuitous personal attacks when I see them.
> Those who accept science as their sole and only means of viewing the
> world will inevitably abrade those who choose (and value) other means
> and vice-versa.
Straw man argument.
> This happens most especially when the one camp
> *demands* that the other camp convert, claims that their means-and-
> methods are not only paramount but singular, and then denegrates all
> other necessarily-wrong beliefs.
You mean like Krakow did.
> That would be you.
That would be your parania speaking, Peter. Remember, you cast the first
stone here.
> Though that condition is certainly not limited to you.
So did an engineer scare your mother while you were pregnant, Peter? ;-)
> As I suggested earlier: you are as arrogant as Mr. Jute and about as
> credible for it.
As I suspected Peter, you hold facts and fantasy as having equal value.
> Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
> remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
> contemptible.
Especially true for people who see fanatics under many beds and wish to seek
them out and destory them.
Arny Krueger
> On Sep 6, 9:36 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> So why attack people who are doing some flavor tasting?
> For the sake of absolute clarity, as I perceive you, you are not
> "flavor tasting" but rather demanding that all accept your singular
> flavor.
The very idea that a demand can be credibly presented on a Usenet newsgroup
is ludicrous enough to justify complete dismissal of such comments as are
made by anybody who would be so silly as to suggest that it could be true.
Peter Wieck
> As I suspected Peter, you hold facts and fantasy as having equal value.
>
> > Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
> > remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
> > contemptible.
>
> Especially true for people who see fanatics under many beds and wish to seek
> them out and destory them.
No, I have long-since removed the legs from my bed so as to preclude
monsters and fanatics. I would also change that "destroy" to "expose".
Fruits, nuts, fanatics and clowns are best kept in the open where they
may be alternately amusing or object lessons as the case merits.
As to "facts" and "fantasy", whose would they be? That is the problem
with closely held beliefs and those who hold them. The "facts" are
filtered, acquired, massaged, altered to fit the peculiar need.
Bluntly, I hold all *opinions* other than mine as equally important to
their holder as mine might be to me. I have my array of facts another
has their array. In a debate between us, we *may* influence others or
each other to further investigation by arranging said facts most
prettily so as to dazzle. But merely to accept an opinion without
independent research and verification makes the listener/viewer not
much more than a sheep... with all the respect attributable thereto.
And damn me if I choose to perceive others as sheep to be converted to
my way of thinking... as comfortable a thought as that might be.
It was not P.T. Barnum that said it, but the sentiment still rings
true (and very seldom fully quoted): There's a sucker (sheep) born
every minute... and two to take 'em.
Arny Krueger
> On Sep 6, 9:57 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> As I suspected Peter, you hold facts and fantasy as having equal value.
>>
>> > Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
>> > remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
>> > contemptible.
>>
>> Especially true for people who see fanatics under many beds and wish to
>> seek
>> them out and destory them.
>
> No, I have long-since removed the legs from my bed so as to preclude
> monsters and fanatics. I would also change that "destroy" to "expose".
> Fruits, nuts, fanatics and clowns are best kept in the open where they
> may be alternately amusing or object lessons as the case merits.
> As to "facts" and "fantasy", whose would they be?
The fact would be the widely-accepted Information Theory.
The fantasy would be the stated notion that medium V delivers more
information then medium C, when Information Theory says the reverse.
> That is the problem with closely held beliefs and those who hold them.
I'm used to this sort of rhetoric being thrown up in the face of widely
accepted technology and art, plus minus a 2pid or two, and a Krooborg or
three.
> The "facts" are
> filtered, acquired, massaged, altered to fit the peculiar need.
That happens. If you can rationally argue that in this specific case, be my
guest.
> Bluntly, I hold all *opinions* other than mine as equally important to
> their holder as mine might be to me.
So where's the beef?
> I have my array of facts another has their array.
Trouble is, not all facts are reliable facts.
> In a debate between us, we *may* influence others or
> each other to further investigation by arranging said facts most
> prettily so as to dazzle.
Or rationally convince, YMMV.
> But merely to accept an opinion without
> independent research and verification makes the listener/viewer not
> much more than a sheep... with all the respect attributable thereto.
Which applies to this situation how?
> And damn me if I choose to perceive others as sheep to be converted to
> my way of thinking... as comfortable a thought as that might be.
Which applies to this sitaution how?
> It was not P.T. Barnum that said it, but the sentiment still rings
> true (and very seldom fully quoted): There's a sucker (sheep) born
> every minute... and two to take 'em.
Seems like you're trying to gather a few suckers with these irrelevant
accusations, Peter.
Peter Wieck
OK.... you may as well have my *opinion* on Blind Testing vs. Sighted
Testing in all its permutations and combinations:
ANY testing under other-than-home-conditions is equally valid inasmuch
as it serves only to separate the wheat from the chaff such that a
given item makes it 'home'. A very crude screen as it were.
After which ultimate satisfaction (or not) depends on much longer term
testing with the intervals being from hours to weeks. Only then will
subtle influences become sufficiently manifest for a listener to form
a considered opinion. And said listener must have the constitutional
fortitude to admit to a possibly-wrong short-term decision... and then
act upon the admission.
And at the end of whatever process is chosen, the listener can state
with personal comfort that he/she likes what is heard... that is
entirely enough. Whatever claptrap surrounds, leads up to, colors or
influences that final decision is meaningless if the final comfort
exists.
So the number of numbers, angels, THD, IMD or decibels as might be
dancing on the head of that pin, blind or sighted, is meaningless in
the face of an honest listener. Less than honest listeners will be
snookered or convince themselves of their righteousness in direct
proportion to their dishonesty. 'Twas ever thus. All the "industry"
does is provide opportunities. No more.
tony sayer
<rodl...@yahoo.com> scribeth thus
>
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:hxmrimB+...@bancom.co.uk...
>> In article <46de8eaa$0$13888$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Mr.T
>> <MrT@home.?> scribeth thus
>>>
>>>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:FZvi4YBY...@bancom.co.uk...
>>>> As witnessed occasionally, as part of the day job I have to maintain
>>>> some radio broadcast equipment at Ely Cathedral and sometimes stop for
>>>> choral evensong if its that time of the day, and its a good stress
>>>> buster too;!. That always sounds more distant then whatever I'd hear at
>>>> home no matter where I can practically sit!....
>>>
>>>The operative words being "where you can practically sit".
>>>The conductor has a different perspective however.
>>>
>>>MrT.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not with choral music or rather a typical liturgical setting....
>
>However, in this context of "live", the room has a considerable effect on
>the overall sound.
>
Not really .. thats fixed in its "aspect" even sounds that way on
phones..
--
Tony Sayer
Steven Sullivan
This is what I ask of everyone who offers these lofty pseudo-sociological
arguments (adjusted to suit the rhetoric you've used):
Are there *any* 'means' that you consider 'abradable', in *any* situation? Or do you accept
every 'means' as being equally good in every situation?
I would suggest the answer to the latter is no, from your posts on, say, rec.audio.high-end,
which leads me to think that you believe that some things really are more likely to be true,
than some other things.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Steven Sullivan
> > As I suspected Peter, you hold facts and fantasy as having equal value.
> >
> > > Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
> > > remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
> > > contemptible.
> >
> > Especially true for people who see fanatics under many beds and wish to seek
> > them out and destory them.
> No, I have long-since removed the legs from my bed so as to preclude
> monsters and fanatics. I would also change that "destroy" to "expose".
> Fruits, nuts, fanatics and clowns are best kept in the open where they
> may be alternately amusing or object lessons as the case merits.
> As to "facts" and "fantasy", whose would they be? That is the problem
> with closely held beliefs and those who hold them.
And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?
Steven Sullivan
> OK.... you may as well have my *opinion* on Blind Testing vs. Sighted
> Testing in all its permutations and combinations:
> ANY testing under other-than-home-conditions is equally valid inasmuch
> as it serves only to separate the wheat from the chaff such that a
> given item makes it 'home'. A very crude screen as it were.
> After which ultimate satisfaction (or not) depends on much longer term
> testing with the intervals being from hours to weeks. Only then will
> subtle influences become sufficiently manifest for a listener to form
> a considered opinion. And said listener must have the constitutional
> fortitude to admit to a possibly-wrong short-term decision... and then
> act upon the admission.
Actually, said listener 'must' (is that a closely held belief?) also have the
the constitutional fortitude to admit the possibility of being wrong even
after the long term...especially when the evaluations remain wholly sighted.
> And at the end of whatever process is chosen, the listener can state
> with personal comfort that he/she likes what is heard... that is
> entirely enough. Whatever claptrap surrounds, leads up to, colors or
> influences that final decision is meaningless if the final comfort
> exists.
Unless and until said listener declaims on a public forum that X sounds
better/worse/different than Y because of Z. Then that becomes a claim
of causes and effects.
Peter Wieck
> And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have you simply defined
> 'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?
Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ. I am glad to express my
beliefs, again as mine alone. And even give what evidence I have to
support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
again, as Holy Writ.
Opinionated individuals who act on their opinions despite Writ,
Received Wisdom and Rumors to the Contrary are responsible for much
progress in this world. Individuals who espouse Holy Writ are
responsible for much pain in this world. I claim neither aptitude, but
I try not to espouse Writ... other than in humor... such as "Common
Sense Isn't" and similar aphorisms.
And on more than a few occasions, I have to re-arrange my beliefs
based on new, additional, or better information. As it applies to
Audio and audio equipment, I very much enjoy learning about new (to
me) ways of doing things. Much of what I learn fails when actually put
to the test, but does not make the test any less enjoyable. And those
few things that really do make me perk up and take notice are well
worth the failures. And I am perfectly able to hold two (by the
standards of many) mutually exclusive opinions in my mind at exactly
the same time: Tube Equipment can sound very nice. Solid-State
Equipment can sound very nice. I own both in small quantity.
I also have equipment that I can differentiate blind with a bad cold
and dual ear-infections, that I also like but for different reasons.
And I would be the first to admit that sighted testing has problems as
does blind testing. Neither is entirely satisfactory as neither can
account for the effects of long-term listening in the "home" or
whatever is the final target environment.
This ain't nohow religion. It is a hobby to be enjoyed. I choose to do
it from the perspective of a bottom-feeder hunting crumbs and bits,
restoring cast-off crumbs and bits, or even finding the occasional
flawed gem and working around the flaw. So, the Scott LK-150 that I
came across by pure blind luck (thank you Keith!) will be pried from
my cold dead fingers, as will the Revox A720. The fancy interconnects
that I got as part of an auction Box-Lot (Kimber) for $5.00 did
nothing for me, nor for what I can hear. So, they went away in trade
for something that did. But Kimber has its place in the Choir, even if
I do not sing to that tune. Others do, so they should have the
opportunity.
In the words of Pogo (first, Howland Owl, now Pogo): We live in a
country where a man is free - even to make an idiot of himself.
But if one suggests that I *must* sing to a certain tune, or my not
singing to that tune makes me wrong... that raises my ire.
Full, free, pointed and vigorous debate is worthwhile. Opposing points
of view are necessary for any progress of any nature. If we all agreed
on everything the world would be Vanilla with all the consequential
dullness. Striking sparks while debating can be, mostly is, a
necessary and good result on any issue of substance. But a level of
mutual respect for those in the fray is also required. And ultimately
a failure to convert the other side must be accepted... without losing
respect.
Let me put it in context when it comes to Mr. Krueger in particular:
It is not that I necessarily disagree with anything or everything he
has to write. I do disagree with what I perceive as his pontifical
fanaticism in presenting it. "My" fanatics are just as dangerous,
poisonous, pitiable and contemptible as "your" fanatics.
As to "cause and effect"... how would you perceive these statements
that I have made as a claim on more than a few occasions:
a) I find that the Sylvania Mil.Spec. 5751 blows the socks off of even
smooth-plate Telefunken 12AX7s.
b) I have found that replacing low-value electrolytic caps (2uF or
less) in most audio circuits with film caps improves the sound, both
in solid-state and tube circuits.
They are based on my experiences and experiments. No more.
Arny Krueger
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fbpilj$kah$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have
> you simply defined
> 'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?
I admit it, I have a long list of closely-held beliefs. For example I
believe that there is a moon that circulates around the earth about every 28
days.
I'll even go far as to admit that I believe that several US astronauts
walked around on the surface of that moon, err many moons ago. ;-)
I get this impression that Peter thinks that believing in stuff like
Information Theory is some kind of leap of faith.
I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical of
highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff like
Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.
Peter Wieck
> I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical of
> highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff like
> Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.
Mpfffff..... Good KEERist...
Information Theory speaks to the understandability and clarity of the
message over noise. No leap of faith required there.
It says nothing at all about the validity and/or quality and/or
importance of the message conveyed. I believe my difficulties are with
the quality of the message at hand, not its clarity. You are the one
leaping in this case, but to conclusions, not faith.
Arny Krueger
> On Sep 6, 4:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical of
>> highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff
>> like
>> Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.
> Mpfffff..... Good KEERist...
If irony killed! - Read on!
> Information Theory speaks to the understandability and clarity of the
> message over noise.
Wrong. Definately not about understandability. That's called articulation.
Information theory is far, far general than that.
> No leap of faith required there.
Peter, it would take a leap of (misplaced) faith to accept your ideas about
Information Theory!
> It says nothing at all about the validity and/or quality and/or
> importance of the message conveyed.
Wrong again. Information Theory includes the concept of the entropy of the
signal which is exactly about validity and quality.
> I believe my difficulties are with
> the quality of the message at hand, not its clarity. You are the one
> leaping in this case, but to conclusions, not faith.
Thanks for proving my point Peter - your understanding of Information Theory
is such that it would take a leap of faith to rely on it. And BTW, I'm not
being mean or evasive, you just plain blew it.
Peter Wieck
> Thanks for proving my point Peter - your understanding of Information Theory
> is such that it would take a leap of faith to rely on it. And BTW, I'm not
> being mean or evasive, you just plain blew it.
Mpfffffffff... KEERIST on a CRUTCH.
Lemme see:
The sky is up. If transferred and understood at the other end is
clear.
All cats are blue. If transferred and understood at the other end is
also clear.
But the latter statement is also false. Invalid. Of poor quality. Also
unimportant.
Does that clarify? Transferring data accurately through/over/despite
noise is one thing. That the data is worth the effort is entirely
else.
Rod
That's exactly my point. In a choral/cathedral situation both live and
recorded the room has a considerable effect on the sound of unamplified
voice, and even amplified voice if the PA has not been designed properly.
With RT60 readings in the 5-15 second region the sound of the space adds
considerable energy at any listening position, and so any recording attempt
except for very close miking will always pick up the room sound. This will
be translated into the recording you hear at home, regardless of whether you
use headphones or not.
Rod
>
> --
> Tony Sayer
roughplanet
news:13e21n3...@corp.supernews.com...
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2Ya+ohJy...@bancom.co.uk...
In article <46de8eaa$0$13888$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Mr.T
<MrT@home.?> scribeth thus...
>>>>>> As witnessed occasionally, as part of the day job I have to maintain
>>>>>> some radio broadcast equipment at Ely Cathedral and sometimes stop
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> choral evensong if its that time of the day, and its a good stress
>>>>>> buster too;!. That always sounds more distant then whatever I'd hear
>>>>>> at home no matter where I can practically sit!....
>>>>>The operative words being "where you can practically sit".
>>>>>The conductor has a different perspective however.
>>>> Not with choral music or rather a typical liturgical setting....
>>>However, in this context of "live", the room has a considerable effect on
>>>the overall sound.
>> Not really .. thats fixed in its "aspect" even sounds that way on
>> phones..
> That's exactly my point. In a choral/cathedral situation both live and
> recorded the room has a considerable effect on the sound of unamplified
> voice, and even amplified voice if the PA has not been designed properly.
> With RT60 readings in the 5-15 second region the sound of the space adds
> considerable energy at any listening position, and so any recording
> attempt except for very close miking will always pick up the room sound.
> This will be translated into the recording you hear at home, regardless of
> whether you use headphones or not.
Which is why certain churches are used quite a lot as 'recording studios',
and not just for liturgical works either. Perhaps one of the best known of
these is Arne Domnerus/Gustaf Sjokvist's 'Antiphone Blues', which was
recorded in 1974 at Spanga Church, Sweden.
Ry Cooder also uses several churches in the US for recording purposes, as do
many other artists. This 'room sound' is on the recording no matter where
you listen to it, or whatever equipment you use to do so.
Where does 'accuracy' fit into all this? Obviously, it doesn't.
ruff
Keith G
And because they got dirt girt organs in them...
Arny Krueger
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
news:6au0e3lv3fs12ggeh...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:43:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Wieck" <pf...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:1189110861.2...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Sep 6, 4:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical
>>>> of
>>>> highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff
>>>> like
>>>> Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.
>>
>>> Mpfffff..... Good KEERist...
>>
>>If irony killed! - Read on!
>
> than understanding and illumination.
You mean like you're doing, Flipper?
>>> Information Theory speaks to the understandability and clarity of the
>>> message over noise.
>
>>Wrong.
> Depends on what he meant.
If he meant something other than the clear meaning of the words, yes.
>> Definately not about understandability.
> If he meant the ability of a decoder to recover ('understand')
> transmitted information then he's essentially correct.
Pretzel logic noted. Intent is obvious - browbeat and humiliate.
>> That's called articulation.
> If by "articulation" you're referring to speech recognition then
> you're talking about a subjective 'decoder' (I.E. a human listener)
> that uses a host of non random predictive processes in deciphering the
> 'meaning' and that's a 'content' different than simply the 'raw
> information' transmitted.
Doooh!
> Information theory would deal with that as entropy, mutual
> information, self information, et al, but it's a moot point because
> all of the discussion in here about bandwidth and S/N ratios presume
> raw random bits, which may not be 100% applicable with a
> 'predictive/subjective decoder' (I.E. human perception)..
Wrong again flipper - the proper terms are bandwidth and dynamic range.
It's a common mistake to confuse dynamic range and SNR, but they are indeed
distinct.
>>Information theory is far, far general than that.
> Not sure how you're defining 'general' nor whether that's 'good or
> bad' to the purpose of a specific process: 'music' reproduction that
> will be perceived by a 'human'.
Your lack of assuredness no doubt comes from lack of knowlege, Flipper.
You're over your head.
>>> No leap of faith required there.
>>
>>Peter, it would take a leap of (misplaced) faith to accept your ideas
>>about
>>Information Theory!
> Then why don't you try some illumination rather than ad hominems?
There was no personal attack, rather a criticism of wrong-headed ideas. Do
try to understand the meanings of the words you use, Flipper.
> Speaking of which, you 'talk' a lot about information theory but I
> can't recall seeing any illumination as to which equations you're
> using or how you arrive at the conclusions made.
I feel no need to rewrite standard texts.
> For example, you once made a comparison with a 10dB difference and
> said something like that being an order of magnitude bandwidth
> difference but if you're using the standard Shannon channel capacity
> equation (presuming white Gaussian noise ) then I don't think your
> math adds up. Could be wrong, of course, because you never say how you
> get there.
I'm afraid that I have no recollection of what you are talking about here.
Do try to find a quote, if you want me to defend something that I actually
wrote.
>>> It says nothing at all about the validity and/or quality and/or
>>> importance of the message conveyed.
>>
>>Wrong again. Information Theory includes the concept of the entropy of the
>>signal which is exactly about validity and quality.
> Shannon entropy is about the randomness of the information bits. I.E.
> If the information is perfectly predicable then the entropy is 0
> because you don't really need to transmit anything. It's 'uncertainty'
> is 0.
Doooh!
> That says nothing about any self information, however. For example
> SOS(pause)SOS(pause)SOS
> and
> BOB(pause)BOB(pause)BOB
> have the same entropy but a subjective decoder (I.E. human) interprets
> them differently.
And your point is?
> This gets back to the earlier comment about the 'specific process'
> (and your "far, far general") because both have exactly the same
> SN/bandwidth requirements but result in different 'perceptions'.
Note the repeated confusion of SNR and dynamic range.
>>> I believe my difficulties are with
>>> the quality of the message at hand, not its clarity. You are the one
>>> leaping in this case, but to conclusions, not faith.
>>Thanks for proving my point Peter - your understanding of Information
>>Theory
>>is such that it would take a leap of faith to rely on it. And BTW, I'm
>>not
>>being mean or evasive, you just plain blew it.
As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter how
hard you try.
Peter Wieck
> As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter how
> hard you try.
Arny:
Ain't none of us ever going to expect that of you no way, no how. Your
head is impenetrable to anything other than your closely held beliefs
and the noise that supports them.
But it is fascinating to watch you sitting on the outboard side of the
limb and sawing briskly. In your world, as in any cartoon world, the
tree *might* fall with the limb remaining suspended... but that is
unlikely in this one.
Arny Krueger
> On Sep 7, 7:16 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter
>> how
>> hard you try.
>
> Arny:
>
> Ain't none of us ever going to expect that of you no way, no how. Your
> head is impenetrable to anything other than your closely held beliefs
> and the noise that supports them.
Externalization on this level is pitiful to see. I really had a lot more
repesct for you than that, Peter.
> But it is fascinating to watch you sitting on the outboard side of the
> limb and sawing briskly. In your world, as in any cartoon world, the
> tree *might* fall with the limb remaining suspended... but that is
> unlikely in this one.
Obviously Peter, when you embarrass and humiliate yourself in public, you
lash out at the people who you blame for your self-humiliation. You're the
guy who threw the first, second, third, and fourth stones. I simply ran out
of cheeks to turn. I recommend something long, tall and cool and maybe a
week away from Usenet, until you can settle down.
Clyde Slick
You're not going to get my head today, no matter how
> hard you try.
Maybe George wants it!
Clyde Slick
> "
> You're the
> guy who threw the first, second, third, and fourth stones. I simply ran out
> of cheeks to turn.
that's right, you have four of them.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
The Krooborg spews some therapy-babble.
> Obviously Peter, when you embarrass and humiliate yourself in public, you
> lash out at the people who you blame for your self-humiliation.
Arnii, does your therapist know about that study that chilled Dr. Melfi?
Steven Sullivan
> > And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have you simply defined
> > 'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?
> Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
> minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
> to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ.
Again, this is more rhetoric than substance. How do you distinguish 'Holy Writ'
from other modes of rhetoric? Is stating an accepted scientific fact 'foisting
Holy Writ'? Where is the line drawn for you?
> I am glad to express my
> beliefs, again as mine alone.
Are you 'closely held beliefs' peculiar to you, or are any of them closely held
by others too?
> And even give what evidence I have to
> support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
> disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
> again, as Holy Writ.
So, would you say it come down to *attitude*, rather than facts behind
the argument? (personally, I find arguments that employ Capitals
for Emphasis to be rather Off-Putting and Pretentious)
> I also have equipment that I can differentiate blind with a bad cold
> and dual ear-infections, that I also like but for different reasons.
> And I would be the first to admit that sighted testing has problems as
> does blind testing. Neither is entirely satisfactory as neither can
> account for the effects of long-term listening in the "home" or
> whatever is the final target environment.
And what makes you think blind testing *can't* do that? If long-term
listening in the target environment is required to 'imprint' the *real*
audibole differences on a person -- which is waht you seem to imply -
what 'problems' does a blind test done *after the imprinting has occurred*
have?
> This ain't nohow religion. It is a hobby to be enjoyed.
It is a hobby with a notably technical underpinning. That may be why
subjective preferences so often bleed into technical claims, in the hobby.
> for something that did. But Kimber has its place in the Choir, even if
> I do not sing to that tune. Others do, so they should have the
> opportunity.
Are the cable faithful really being denied opportunity to sing hosanna?
Seems to me it's *objectivists* who are in teh minority, in the usual audio
forums. They're the 'atheists', after all. The mainstream is 'religious',
in audiophile cutlure as in wider culture.
> In the words of Pogo (first, Howland Owl, now Pogo): We live in a
> country where a man is free - even to make an idiot of himself.
> But if one suggests that I *must* sing to a certain tune, or my not
> singing to that tune makes me wrong... that raises my ire.
No one can 'make' you sing any of these tunes, so your fears seem
more than a bit overblown.
> Full, free, pointed and vigorous debate is worthwhile. Opposing points
> of view are necessary for any progress of any nature. If we all agreed
> on everything the world would be Vanilla with all the consequential
> dullness. Striking sparks while debating can be, mostly is, a
> necessary and good result on any issue of substance. But a level of
> mutual respect for those in the fray is also required. And ultimately
> a failure to convert the other side must be accepted... without losing
> respect.
And to trot out another cliche, there's no need to reinvent the wheel.
Some things really *don't* need to be argued about.
> Let me put it in context when it comes to Mr. Krueger in particular:
> It is not that I necessarily disagree with anything or everything he
> has to write. I do disagree with what I perceive as his pontifical
> fanaticism in presenting it. "My" fanatics are just as dangerous,
> poisonous, pitiable and contemptible as "your" fanatics.
Again, you disagree with attitude and rhetoric.
> As to "cause and effect"... how would you perceive these statements
> that I have made as a claim on more than a few occasions:
> a) I find that the Sylvania Mil.Spec. 5751 blows the socks off of even
> smooth-plate Telefunken 12AX7s.
> b) I have found that replacing low-value electrolytic caps (2uF or
> less) in most audio circuits with film caps improves the sound, both
> in solid-state and tube circuits.
> They are based on my experiences and experiments. No more.
As stated, I would find them both merely anecdotal, with all that implies.
Were you to expand on the nature of the 'experiments', and bring in other
facts to bear, I might 'upgrade' them.
Here's a claim of mine: people tend to overestimate their ability accurately establish cause
and effect.
Steven Sullivan
> > I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical of
> > highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff like
> > Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.
> Mpfffff..... Good KEERist...
> Information Theory speaks to the understandability and clarity of the
> message over noise. No leap of faith required there.
Audio forum evidence strongly suggests that many an 'audiophile' has found the Nyquist-Shannon
theorem and its consequences for audio, to be anything but intuitive, clear , or
understandable.
Steven Sullivan
> > As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter how
> > hard you try.
> Arny:
> Ain't none of us ever going to expect that of you no way, no how. Your
> head is impenetrable to anything other than your closely held beliefs
> and the noise that supports them.
hmmm...that sounds like a closely-held belief of yours.
Why not admit you have them, and aren't particularly afraid of voicing them?
Arny Krueger
> On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have
>> you simply defined
>> 'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?
>
> Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
> minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
> to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ. I am glad to express my
> beliefs, again as mine alone. And even give what evidence I have to
> support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
> disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
> again, as Holy Writ.
So Peter, do you consider say, Newton's laws of motion to be "Holy Writ"?
> Opinionated individuals who act on their opinions despite Writ,
> Received Wisdom and Rumors to the Contrary are responsible for much
> progress in this world.
All progress in this world is so dependent on the basic laws and principles
of science and technology that anybody who acts on their opinions in
violation of them is doomed to failure.
> Individuals who espouse Holy Writ are
> responsible for much pain in this world.
People who act in contradiction with the basic laws and principles of
science would be responsible for far more pain, were not the basic laws and
principles to stop them in their tracks.
> I claim neither aptitude, but
> I try not to espouse Writ... other than in humor... such as "Common
> Sense Isn't" and similar aphorisms.
So Peter you want us to believe that Shannon's Information theory is an
example of Holy Writ, and in in fact a mere aphorism?
> And on more than a few occasions, I have to re-arrange my beliefs
> based on new, additional, or better information.
Apparently not often enough Peter, or you wouldn't be the center of this
public debacle you've gotten yourself into.
> As it applies to
> Audio and audio equipment, I very much enjoy learning about new (to
> me) ways of doing things.
Apparently Peter, you don't learn well enough! Your recent bogus musings
about Information Theory being a case in point.
Arny Krueger
> In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck <pf...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 7:16 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> > As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter
>> > how
>> > hard you try.
>
>> Arny:
>
>> Ain't none of us ever going to expect that of you no way, no how. Your
>> head is impenetrable to anything other than your closely held beliefs
>> and the noise that supports them.
>
> hmmm...that sounds like a closely-held belief of yours.
>
> Why not admit you have them, and aren't particularly afraid of voicing
> them?
>
In fact there is nothing at all wrong with closely-held beliefs, as long as
they are correct and you apply them correctly.
I've got Peter pegged for someone who would rather be right than correct.
tony sayer
>>>> Not with choral music or rather a typical liturgical setting....
>>>
>>>However, in this context of "live", the room has a considerable effect on
>>>the overall sound.
>>>
>>
>> Not really .. thats fixed in its "aspect" even sounds that way on
>> phones..
>
>That's exactly my point. In a choral/cathedral situation both live and
>recorded the room has a considerable effect on the sound of unamplified
>voice, and even amplified voice if the PA has not been designed properly.
>With RT60 readings in the 5-15 second region the sound of the space adds
>considerable energy at any listening position, and so any recording attempt
>except for very close miking will always pick up the room sound. This will
>be translated into the recording you hear at home, regardless of whether you
>use headphones or not.
>
Yes I think we were coming at that from different directions .. well
sort of!..
--
Tony Sayer
Peter Wieck
> Here's a claim of mine: people tend to overestimate their ability accurately
> establish cause and effect.
Damned straight.
There is the anecdote of the sweet little old lady on the Titanic who
pushed the Call Purser button at the same moment the ship hit the
iceberg. Many years later, she still believed she hit the Emergency
Brake by accident.
As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.
Of course, when I replaced the new electrolytics with new film caps,
it tightened right up to sound identical to the previously modified
unit. So, it was not 'other causes'. It is remarkable how well those
AR amps can sound when the factory errors and/or deteriorated parts
are replaced and the bias is done properly.
Same general experiment with other tube equipment yielded the same
general results. It was an oddball that I used as my base, I am
trying to remember if it was a Fisher or a Kenwood... goes back a few
years and they do run together. It did surprise me that there would
even be electrolytics of that low value in a tube circuit in those
functions.
Wheel invention... have you ever been a parent? Could anyone tell you
anything in the beginning? Books on the psychology of parenting are a
20th century phenomenon. Human nature is to gather theory from books
and general learning and practical experience from direct
participation. Example: Can you walk away from a "Wet Paint" sign
without checking?
Capitals: Holy Writ is not equal to holy writ. Much as Catholic is not
equal to catholic. And Proper Names of objects whether animate or not
demand capitals to be set off from generics.
Attitude: Yes, I find attitude to be an issue. And I find facts to be
quite lovely with or without a leavening of attitude. But I find that
using facts as a D9 high-wheel to bulldoze preference to be poisonous.
Example: I am quite aware of the limitations and imperfections of
vinyl. And tape. And badly handled CDs for that matter. But that does
not mean that I cannot and do not choose to listen to vinyl sometimes
with great pleasure. Or tape. Somehow badly handled CDs sound to me
like nails on a blackboard, so those get short shrift... as would any
similar medium causing the same reaction. But CDs *seem* to be more-so
that way.
Facts and Technical Underpinning:
There was a school of scientists who used Fetal Recapitulation as
proof positive that there was no Creation in the biblical sense and no
God. Another school offered it exactly as absolute proof as only God
could create so elegant a process. And as a funny aside, neither
school addressed the place of recapitulation as it applies (might
apply) to evolutionary theory. In either case, the facts of
recapitulation were not at issue. What they meant were.
Objectivists and Subjectivists:
If (you may choose not to accept this analogy, of course) Human Beings
are omniverous hunter-gatherers, consider Hunters and Gatherers.
Hunters spend much of their time focused on the north end of a south-
bound deer in order to kill it and eat it. Success is measured by the
size of the belly just now. Gatherers tend to have relationships with
their food in order to learn its habits, behaviors, locations, uses,
dangers... Success is measured by the number of days survival is
assured. Does that look even a little bit like the relationship
between Objectivists and Subjectivists?
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> I've got Peter pegged for someone who would rather be right than correct.
.
Peter Wieck
> "Peter Wieck" <p...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1189108140....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have
> >> you simply defined
> >> 'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?
>
> > Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
> > minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
> > to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ. I am glad to express my
> > beliefs, again as mine alone. And even give what evidence I have to
> > support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
> > disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
> > again, as Holy Writ.
>
> So Peter, do you consider say, Newton's laws of motion to be "Holy Writ"?
Do you need a definition of Holy Writ? It is received wisdom taken
without question or test because it must be. Newton's laws may be
tested (as far as they go) and proven (again as far as they go). And
then tested again, and again, and... HEY, it ain't necessarily so!!!
Were they _always_ taken as Writ, Einstein would have been dead in the
water, amongst others.
> > Opinionated individuals who act on their opinions despite Writ,
> > Received Wisdom and Rumors to the Contrary are responsible for much
> > progress in this world.
>
> All progress in this world is so dependent on the basic laws and principles
> of science and technology that anybody who acts on their opinions in
> violation of them is doomed to failure.
Evidently you are not familiar with Clarke's Laws.
> > Individuals who espouse Holy Writ are
> > responsible for much pain in this world.
>
> People who act in contradiction with the basic laws and principles of
> science would be responsible for far more pain, were not the basic laws and
> principles to stop them in their tracks.
>
> > I claim neither aptitude, but
> > I try not to espouse Writ... other than in humor... such as "Common
> > Sense Isn't" and similar aphorisms.
>
> So Peter you want us to believe that Shannon's Information theory is an
> example of Holy Writ, and in in fact a mere aphorism?
Where would you get this? Again, it may be tested and proven. As many
times as one would like until... maybe something new is discovered out
of it. And, then, perhaps one day expanded as Newton was expanded.
> > And on more than a few occasions, I have to re-arrange my beliefs
> > based on new, additional, or better information.
>
> Apparently not often enough Peter, or you wouldn't be the center of this
> public debacle you've gotten yourself into.
>
> > As it applies to
> > Audio and audio equipment, I very much enjoy learning about new (to
> > me) ways of doing things.
>
> Apparently Peter, you don't learn well enough! Your recent bogus musings
> about Information Theory being a case in point.
Arny: You will have it your way ever and always. And that is your
privilege.
Jenn
George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:
> Jenn quoted TurdBorg thusly:
>
> > > I've got Peter pegged for someone who would rather be right than correct.
>
> Krooglish is a nasty business, or was your point something else?
I was biting my tongue.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Jenn said:
> > Jenn quoted TurdBorg thusly:
> > > > I've got Peter pegged for someone who would rather be right than correct.
> > Krooglish is a nasty business, or was your point something else?
> I was biting my tongue.
Arnii used to boast about being a hypocrite. He bought into the delusion
that hanging around a church on Sundays washed away his shittiness.