James Randi Takes On The Audiophiles and Stereophile Magazine
mark
Written by James Randi
Thursday, 03 March 2011 11:50
We’re always hoping at JREF that the folks known as “audiophiles” – as
a sector of our modern community – would decide to get smart and use
common sense in their spending decisions. I’ve pretty well had to
conclude that they value name and appearance more than practicality;
they need well-advertised names on all their displayed equipment so
that their visitors and other similarly-afflicted persons will be
impressed. Whether the “tweaks” they purchase are worth anything at
all, seems unimportant to them.
I’ve just completed the entry in my next book – A Magician in the
Laboratory – on my battle with Stereophile Magazine, who agreed to
take the test for the JREF million-dollar prize, then backed out. My
differences with them concerned the ridiculous prices of loudspeaker
cables for sound systems, when tests have shown that ordinary hardware-
store 110-volt zip cord – in most cases, is indistinguishable from the
products advertised in the magazine. Now I’ve received a notice that
took me to http://www.stereophile.com/writer/119?page=3 where I found
that it’s even worse than I previously thought…
Examples: Kimber Kable offers speaker cables at $550 to $2,350 per
foot, depending on what you can afford. It’s available in either all-
copper, copper-silver hybrid, or full silver configurations and
features a new multi-layer braid that combines stranded and solid core
conduct. Wow! Kimber proudly tell us that with this product, they’re “…
mixing different conductor shapes to best convey the whole range of
bass sound.” Well, I should hope so. They believe, you see, that a
large solid conductor is great for low bass, a flat conductor is best
for mid bass, and a polymer coated Litz works best for highs and
transients. “Litz” wire, you should know, is designed to reduce “skin
effect” and “proximity effect” losses in conductors used at
frequencies up to one million cycles a second [Hertz]. No sound
systems I can imagine would benefit the human listener, whose upper
limit of frequency is about 20,000 Hertz. And the XLO folks, who make
110-volt power cords to plug into the wall and lead into your stereo
system, have introduced the 6-foot Purple Rush power cord, at $1,167
per foot. [see photo] That’s for a power cord, folks – which you can
buy at Home Depot for 30¢ per foot...! The XLO company tells us they
took eight years to develop – and “refine” – this wonder, which
certainly makes me wonder. Furutech power cord prices start at $31/
foot and go up up to $200/ft, and their speaker cables go for $308/ft.
JPS Labs Superconductor Q USB fetches $120/ft. and Superconductor 3
USB, $240/ft. Both boast a “precision twisted-quad design with dual
shields and gold-plated connectors.” That’s the least we could expect,
at that price. Cardas’ Clear Light Speaker Cable is priced at $160/
ft., and that’s the “lower end of the Clear speaker cable line.” And
it goes on…
And as if to get in on the audiophiles-are-suckers discovery, San
Francisco Symphony's general manager John Kieser has turned out 22 new
LPs – remember them? – of their Mahler series as a complete set on
vinyl. I can expect that before long we’ll see some opportunist
advertising 78 r.p.m shellac/paper/powdered-slate discs, to return to
the “good old days.” And yes, I assure you, the audiophiles will reach
for their wallets…
Matthew B. Tepper
in their original package, and asked if they could be used for anything.
"Did you keep the receipt?" I asked. Not because they're *bad* in any way,
but if one were to turn them in for a refund, and then buy cables from
Monoprice.com, one could get something nice with the difference.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Oscar
>
> Barnum Underestimated The Birth Rate Of Suckers
> Written by James Randi
> Thursday, 03 March 2011 11:50
The cables debate is nothing new. Paying $750 for a set of LP's
mastered from 24/96 hi-rez digital files (I wrote the San Francisco
Symphony and confirmed this) is ridiculous.
William Sommerwerck
founded by a man who had little patience with such shenanigans. (JGH once
published an article on the likelihood of whether certain audio myths were
true. He generally came down on the side of "unlikely" or "not true".)
I use Acoustic Research Master cables, which have most of the features
considered desirable in an audiophile cable * -- and currently sell for $15
for a 3' pair. I've compared them with much-more expensive cables, and there
is little if any audible difference.
One way to check such things is to put different cables on each channel, and
see whether it disrupts the image or relative tonal balance.
* Separate shield connected at only one end; oxygen-free wire; Teflon
insulation; connectors with high-quality gold plating
Ed Romans
wrote:
>
> * Separate shield connected at only one end; oxygen-free wire; Teflon
> insulation; connectors with high-quality gold plating
what effect do any of these have on the audio signal being fed into a
high input impedence of a typical audio amplifer?
Ed
William Sommerwerck
>> Teflon insulation; connectors with high-quality gold plating
> What effect do any of these have on the audio signal being fed
> into a high input impedence of a typical audio amplifer?
I didn't say they had any effect on anything -- though if they did, it would
be some interaction with the driving circuit, not the load.
I still have a Barker interconnect I bought over 50 years ago. One of these
days I'll stick it in the system and see if it's audible.
Peter Greenstein
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ikov4i$npb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
That sounds like an excellent way to test or compare cables. Someday I'll
have to give that a try.
Some cd players have two sets of outputs. Mine is an Arcam. So another test
is to compare cables by switching back and forth between amplifier inputs
with a remote control. Some years ago I compared some very expensive cables
on loan and highly recommended by a local high-end store with some $4 Radio
Shack patch cords. The pricey ones might have been Transparent Audio.
To my ear there was either no difference or it was so small as to not be
worth any difference in cost. I just couldn't tell the store that I had
compared their cables to crummy Radio Shack cables, but I did describe my
test to the store manager. He said that such A/B switching back and forth
is really not the best way to listen. He said I should just listen to each
set of cables for an extended period of time and then I would start to hear
the differences.
I ended up just sticking with my old set of Monster Cable Interconnects from
1980.
peter
rje
> Barnum Underestimated The Birth Rate Of Suckers
> Written by James Randi
> Thursday, 03 March 2011 11:50
>
> We’re always hoping at JREF that the folks known as “audiophiles” – as
> a sector of our modern community – would decide to get smart and use
> common sense in their spending decisions. I’ve pretty well had to
> conclude that they value name and appearance more than practicality;
> they need well-advertised names on all their displayed equipment so
> that their visitors and other similarly-afflicted persons will be
> impressed. Whether the “tweaks” they purchase are worth anything at
> all, seems unimportant to them.
>
> I’ve just completed the entry in my next book – A Magician in the
> Laboratory – on my battle with Stereophile Magazine, who agreed to
> take the test for the JREF million-dollar prize, then backed out. My
> differences with them concerned the ridiculous prices of loudspeaker
> cables for sound systems, when tests have shown that ordinary hardware-
> store 110-volt zip cord – in most cases, is indistinguishable from the
> products advertised in the magazine. Now I’ve received a notice that
Some words of wisdom from "The Audio Critic" magazine.
http://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/critic1.htm
Paste This in Your Hat!
What Every Audiophile Should Know and Never Forget
By Peter Aczel
Editor and Publisher
If you don't know the ground rules--and you won't find them in the
tweako magazines, you'll play a losing game.
All of the following could be proved in court before a jury of degreed
professionals--Physicists, Electrical Engineers, Acousticians,
University Professors, Researchers in major electronics laboratories.
What is the number one determinant of sound quality in an audio
system?
The recording you are playing, without the slightest doubt. The
recording microphones, acoustical conditions, and engineering
decisions at the recording site introduce much greater sonic
variability than any hardware component in a half decent playback
system. Buy well-recorded CDs.
What is the number two determinant?
The speaker system, again without the slightest doubt. Even the finest
loudspeakers exhibit small irregularities in frequency response, the
smaller the better but always audible. Significant differences in f³
(bass cutoff frequency), efficiency, power handling, distortion, wave
launch geometry, and other characteristics result in easily
distinguishable sonic signatures from model to model. This is a
subject worth studying.
What is next in importance?
The listening room. So important, in fact, that it is hardly
distinguishable from the quality of the speaker system itself. It
would probably be more accurate to say that the speakers, the room,
and the placement of the speakers within the room constitute a single
system second in importance only to the program material.
What about the amplifier?
Vastly exaggerated in importance by the audiophile press and high-end
audio dealers. In controlled double-blind listening tests, no one has
ever (yes, ever!) heard a difference between two amplifiers with high
input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion,
and low noise, when operated at precisely matched levels (±0.1 dB) and
not clipped. Of course, the larger your room and the less efficient
your speakers, the more watts you need to avoid clipping.
What about the preamp, CD player, and other line-level electronics?
As long as they meet the fairly exacting specifications expected these
days--and most of them do--they will sound the same, regardless of
price. That does not mean, of course, that some are not far superior
in measured performance (well below the threshold of audibility) and
construction quality.
How important are wires and cables?
No more important than the wiring inside your electronics and
speakers, over which you have absolutely no control. Speaker cables
and interconnects that cost thousands of dollars are a shameless
fraud. Radio Shack's reasonably priced top-of-the-line cables are good
enough for anyone.
Where do vacuum tubes come in?
Nowhere, unless you are a tweako cultist. There is nothing in audio
electronics that cannot be done better with solid-state devices than
vacuum tubes. (Maybe--just maybe--the RF stage of an FM tuner is an
exception.) Yes, there exists some very nice tube equipment, but the
solid-state stuff is better, cheaper, and more reliable. As someone on
the Internet said, 'tubes are for boobs'.
@thumppunktorg Neil
>
>Where do vacuum tubes come in?
>Nowhere, unless you are a tweako cultist. There is nothing in audio
>electronics that cannot be done better with solid-state devices than
>vacuum tubes
Tubes sounds completely different to solid state.
herman
>
> What about the preamp, CD player, and other line-level electronics?
> As long as they meet the fairly exacting specifications expected these
> days--and most of them do--they will sound the same, regardless of
> price. That does not mean, of course, that some are not far superior
> in measured performance (well below the threshold of audibility) and
> construction quality.
>
This is a joke. Different preamps and cd players produce a different
kind of sound.
Nick Sun
With all the euphonic distortions, albeit the even ordered the
ones. :-)
Ed Romans
> This is a joke. Different preamps and cd players produce a different
> kind of sound.
so how do CD players do that if they have a flat frequency responses
over the range of human hearing plus v. low distortion and noise
floor?
Ed
Ed Romans
wrote:
-- though if they did, it would
> be some interaction with the driving circuit, not the load.
>
how so? (given the driving circuit "sees" the low impedance of the
cable in series with the high input impedance of the amplifier, and
thus the cable is irrelevant)
Ed
Romy the Cat
Ed, you have very primitive view on the subject. Frequency responses
is an indication of max amplitude at a given frequency. I am sure you
can make let say Callas and Tebaldi to sing at the same max amplitude,
would it make those two sopranos to be similar? Let do not go to
distortion and noise floor, to understand trios ideas properly you
need to know a LOT and his subject is more complex in a way then
subject of music itself. You need to comfort that no one insist you to
use a “better” CD player. I however, do agree that most of the Morons
out there do use “better” CD players for wrong reasons.
William Sommerwerck
Vastly exaggerated in importance by the audiophile press and high-end
audio dealers. In controlled double-blind listening tests, no one has
ever (yes, ever!) heard a difference between two amplifiers with high
input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion,
not clipped.
There are amplifiers that measure well, but are so awful-sounding, you can
hear the difference without comparing them with anything else. And even
well-designed amplifiers sound different.
Where do vacuum tubes come in?
Nowhere, unless you are a tweako cultist. There is nothing in audio
electronics that cannot be done better with solid-state devices than
vacuum tubes. (Maybe--just maybe--the RF stage of an FM tuner is an
exception.) Yes, there exists some very nice tube equipment, but the
solid-state stuff is better, cheaper, and more reliable. As someone on
the Internet said, 'tubes are for boobs'.
Vacuum tubes are inherently more-linear than junction transistors.
Unfortunately, tubes have all sorts of problems that limit the ability to
make a really good amplifier with them.
William Sommerwerck
>> be some interaction with the driving circuit, not the load.
> how so? (given the driving circuit "sees" the low impedance
> of the cable in series with the high input impedance of the
> amplifier, and thus the cable is irrelevant)
The output "sees" the cable's inductance in series with the input, the
capacitance in parallel.
Ed Romans
wrote:
>
>
> The output "sees" the cable's inductance in series with the input, the
> capacitance in parallel.
Well the resistance plus inductance in series, but I take you point.
Sorry for going on - but it isn't quite clear to me if you are giving
your opinion or whether you are just reporting what audiophiles
believe.
Ed
Ed Romans
> Ed, you have very primitive view on the subject.
Thanks! I better throw away my PhD in physics then, and stop teaching
this sort of stuff at university level.
>Frequency responses
> is an indication of max amplitude at a given frequency.
No it isn't. It's the ratio of *any* output amplitude to the input
amplitude at a given frequency for a linear device.
I am sure you
> can make let say Callas and Tebaldi to sing at the same max amplitude,
> would it make those two sopranos to be similar?
No because their voices contain slightly different harmonics which is
why they sound different. If a device has a flat frequency response
then the harmonics will be reproduced correctly.
Ed
Abbeddrose Bierce
<cab...@strath.ac.uk> wrote:
>Thanks! I better throw away my PhD in physics then, and stop teaching
>this sort of stuff at university level.
Yes-leave academia and join the real world
Abbedd
Kevin N
> On Mar 4, 2:01 pm, Romy the Cat <R...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote:
>
> > Ed, you have very primitive view on the subject.
>
> Thanks! I better throw away my PhD in physics then, and stop teaching
> this sort of stuff at university level.
If you really believe different CD players produce identical sound
(assuming they are not defective, and all other equipment and settings
in the playback is identical) perhaps you should. I sure can tell the
difference between some mid-level player (e.g Cambridge Audio Azur
640c) and some cheap multi-disc changer blindfolded, as I'm sure most
others here can as well.
> over the range of human hearing plus v. low distortion and noise
> floor?
Romy the Cat
> On Mar 4, 2:01 pm, Romy the Cat <R...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote:
>
> > Ed, you have very primitive view on the subject.
>
> Thanks! I better throw away my PhD in physics then, and stop teaching
> this sort of stuff at university level.
Ed, I am not kidding, if with your PhD in physics you indicate such
ignorance on the subject then you need to review how you apply
yourself, from a different perspective – it is internet and any Moron
could claim that they are holders of advance qualifications. Also, the
PhD in physics does not truly give you a lot of leverage to handle the
questions that you are trying to handle.
> No it isn't. It's the ratio of *any* output amplitude to the input
> amplitude at a given frequency for a linear device.
And what would be in your case the input amplitude? Why do you think
that a CD player renders just amplitude? What is frequency response –
a mathematical approximation of reality that you feel conformance to
measure? I fish is 12” lonf but 12” distance on ruler does not
describe what fish is.
> No because their voices contain slightly different harmonics which is
> why they sound different. If a device has a flat frequency response
> then the harmonics will be reproduced correctly.
First of all I did not see two audio devises that has identical
harmonics structure but harmonic sonly very beginning of conversation
about “differences”. Again, you, Ed, have very simplistic view or
harmonics. If you view frequency response and a summation of harmonics
then you forget that it would be correct only for static and
differentiation situation.
William Sommerwerck
>> the capacitance in parallel.
> Well the resistance plus inductance in series, but I take your point.
> Sorry for going on -- but it isn't quite clear to me if you are giving
> your opinion or whether you are just reporting what audiophiles
> believe.
Both, actually. I'm a degreed EE, and believe there are certain things that
"make sense" in designing a cable. Whether they actually improve the sound,
I don't know. But "good" cables don't have to be horribly expensive.
This weekend I'm going to repeat an experiment I last performed in 1992.
herman
wrote:
>
> This weekend I'm going to repeat an experiment I last performed in 1992.
Please, no anatomical details!
Kevin N
Kevin N
And you should just stay in your fantasy world, since you're an abject
failure in the real world (of which academia is part).
Nick Sun
wrote:
> What about the amplifier?
> Vastly exaggerated in importance by the audiophile press and high-end
> audio dealers. In controlled double-blind listening tests, no one has
> ever (yes, ever!) heard a difference between two amplifiers with high
> input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion,
> not clipped.
>
> There are amplifiers that measure well, but are so awful-sounding, you can
> hear the difference without comparing them with anything else. And even
> well-designed amplifiers sound different.
>
> Where do vacuum tubes come in?
> Nowhere, unless you are a tweako cultist. There is nothing in audio
> electronics that cannot be done better with solid-state devices than
> vacuum tubes. (Maybe--just maybe--the RF stage of an FM tuner is an
> exception.) Yes, there exists some very nice tube equipment, but the
> solid-state stuff is better, cheaper, and more reliable. As someone on
> the Internet said, 'tubes are for boobs'.
>
> Vacuum tubes are inherently more-linear than junction transistors.
> Unfortunately, tubes have all sorts of problems that limit the ability to
> make a really good amplifier with them.
Vacuum tubes are inherently more-linear than junction transistors?
I am pretty sure anyone well educated enough will also question this
blind statement. :-) But we have too many technically challenged
dilettantes here for us even to dig into devices equations and circuit
models and analysis to make it worth. After all, those who like the
extra added even order harmonics even though the original signal
hadn't provided, would still prefer to have some kind of euphonic
distortions. :-)
William Sommerwerck
>> Unfortunately, tubes have all sorts of problems that limit the ability
>> to make a really good amplifier with them.
> Vacuum tubes are inherently more-linear than junction transistors?
Yup. Why do you think early transistor tuners had such poor RF performance?
Junction transistors have an exponential transfer characteristic -- which
doesn't lend itself to audio design.
> I am pretty sure anyone well educated enough will also question this
> blind statement. :-)
Don't make any bets on it.
I'd suggest you do a little research.
By the way, my system is wholly transistor -- except for the driver tubes in
my headphone amp.
Nick Sun
wrote:
But BJT's and FET's are still different species, are they not? So they
can not be simply categorized as one. BTW, I majored in both physics
and EE too. Device physics and modeling happen to be one of my
strength. But of course I am doing IC design now which helps to pay
the bills, recordings as well as concert tickets. :-)
Abbeddrose Bierce
wrote:
Nut my success in the real world of Music makes your theory specious
Abbedd
Dave Cook
> It's ironic that Randi is attacking "Stereophile", because the magazine was
> founded by a man who had little patience with such shenanigans.
JGH's strong opinions on this issue seem to have been pretty much
ignored by the present editor of Stereophile, which seriously
entertains plenty of such shenanigans. In fact, I would say that
JGH's opinions on this subject have been pretty much ignored by the
whole audiophile community.
(I should give the disclaimer that I'm a "tube boob" myself, though
I've been able to resist expensive cables so far.)
Dave Cook
GP49
The late J. Gordon Holt pretty much broke with the current management
and editorial staff at Stereophile, several years ago.
As for audiophoolery, there is another level to it that hasn't even
been BREACHED yet in this thread.
The "Teleportation Tweak" is supposed to work wonders for transparency
in audio and video reproduction alike:
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina60.htm
Be sure and click on the link to comments about the Teleportation
Tweak to get customers' honest and unbiased opinions (as long as they
are blood relatives of the company's owner).
A participant on an audio board who was willing to sacrifice sixty
bucks in the name of research, reported that he paid for the
Teleportation Tweak and made the phone call. What he heard, sounded
like "someone beating an aluminum pie pan with a dinner fork." He
then exercised his "30-Day Money Back Guarantee", upon which the
guarantee was dropped. I see it's back again. YIPPEE!
Let's see...I want to make my system sound better. I'll have my wife
call me and have her beat an aluminum pan with a dinner fork, into the
phone. That should do it.
Ed Romans
> As long as they use their on-board DACs, there has to be a difference.
In the sense that it could be measured with lab equipment, but as rje
has pointed out you are unlikely to be able to hear this difference.
Ed Romans
>I sure can tell the
> difference between some mid-level player (e.g Cambridge Audio Azur
> 640c) and some cheap multi-disc changer blindfolded, as I'm sure most
> others here can as well.
I have both a 640c and a 20 year old cheap midi system CD player. They
have approximately 10% different output level (which is a big issue
when it comes to saying which is better). No-one I've ever
demonstrated them blind with the levels matched has ever been able to
tell them apart.
Ed
Ed Romans
> On Mar 4, 10:39 am, Ed Romans <cab...@strath.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 2:01 pm, Romy the Cat <R...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ed, you have very primitive view on the subject.
>
> > Thanks! I better throw away my PhD in physics then, and stop teaching
> > this sort of stuff at university level.
>
> Ed, I am not kidding, if with your PhD in physics you indicate such
> ignorance on the subject then you need to review how you apply
> yourself, from a different perspective – it is internet and any Moron
> could claim that they are holders of advance qualifications. Also, the
> PhD in physics does not truly give you a lot of leverage to handle the
> questions that you are trying to handle.
>
> > No it isn't. It's the ratio of *any* output amplitude to the input
> > amplitude at a given frequency for a linear device.
>
> And what would be in your case the input amplitude?
The digital word read off the disc and presented to the input of the
DAC.
> Why do you think
> that a CD player renders just amplitude?
errr what else does it render? The smell of the artist's perfume?
> First of all I did not see two audio devises that has identical
> harmonics structure but harmonic sonly very beginning of conversation
> about “differences”. Again, you, Ed, have very simplistic view or
> harmonics. If you view frequency response and a summation of harmonics
> then you forget that it would be correct only for static and
> differentiation situation.
Sorry cannot understand your English.
Ed
rje
Stereophile realized that they had to take the snake-oil purveyors
seriously and review their products, otherwise they would loose half
of their advertisers.
Ray
Kevin N
With all due respect, your subjects must be hearing impaired.
Ed Romans
> With all due respect, your subjects must be hearing impaired.
What do you think is inside the 640c which makes it better?
The laser is a cheap Sony ($10) component found in many cheap CD
players (and from some photos I once saw may be an even cheaper
nameless Chinese version in later models). The servo controller is
(IIRC) a standard Toshiba chip. The DAC is a little more expensive and
better on paper that in some cheaper models but the differerences are
not likely to be audible. Despite the blurb in their marketing
literature, the implementation of the DAC (power supply, filtering) is
all done in accordance with the DAC manufacturers spec sheet. The
output stage just uses standard op-amp circuitry. What I'm getting at
is that the people at Cambridge Audio don't have some kind of "audio
magic" skills. All they have is general competancy in systems
engineering and are good at designing the nice packaging and case.
Ed
William Sommerwerck
news:31316284-bb4b-453c...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 4, 2:10 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> >> Vacuum tubes are inherently more-linear than junction transistors.
> >> Unfortunately, tubes have all sorts of problems that limit the ability
> >> to make a really good amplifier with them.
>> Vacuum tubes are inherently more-linear than junction transistors?
> Yup. Why do you think early transistor tuners had such poor
> RF performance?
> Junction transistors have an exponential transfer characteristic --
> which doesn't lend itself to audio design.
>> I am pretty sure anyone well educated enough will also question
>> this blind statement. :-)
> Don't make any bets on it.
> I'd suggest you do a little research.
> But BJT's and FET's are still different species, are they not?
Yes. That's why I SPECIFICALLY STATED junction transistors. SEE ABOVE.
a_a_a
>>> Ed, you have very primitive view on the subject.
>>
>> Thanks! I better throw away my PhD in physics then, and stop teaching
>> this sort of stuff at university level.
>
> Ed, I am not kidding, if with your PhD in physics you indicate such
> ignorance on the subject then you need to review how you apply
> yourself, from a different perspective – it is internet and any Moron
> could claim that they are holders of advance qualifications. Also, the
> PhD in physics does not truly give you a lot of leverage to handle the
> questions that you are trying to handle.
Well, Romy the Cat, your evident understanding of physics would not get
you a kindergarten qualification. What you said about the meaning of
frequency response shows you don't even understand the most elementary
concepts.
Matthew B. Tepper
typed in news:ced8d47e-8453-4637-a3ba-750cbd4bfa04
@v11g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> The "Teleportation Tweak" is supposed to work wonders for transparency
> in audio and video reproduction alike:
>
> http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina60.htm
Appropriately, the illustration is the cover of the May 1943 issue of Amazing
Stories. The magazine was practically unreadable between 1940 and 1953.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Romy the Cat
> Well, Romy the Cat, your evident understanding of physics would not get
> you a kindergarten qualification. What you said about the meaning of
> frequency response shows you don't even understand the most elementary
> concepts.
….or juts an indication that I do not have interests to explain to you
more advance things then you feel comfortable to consider. I do not
try to convene you in anything. I have no problems nether with CD
players, nor with Sound, nor with understanding how my believes relay
with my quite advance auditable results. I wish you the same.
a_a_a
You are insane, and illiterate as well.
Romy the Cat
…. and you, literate, can go fuck yourself.
William Sommerwerck
more advance things then you feel comfortable to consider. I do not
try to convene you in anything. I have no problems nether with CD
players, nor with Sound, nor with understanding how my believes relay
with my quite advance auditable results. I wish you the same.
Maybe he could get a job writing e-mail for those Nigerian scammers...
bassppn
wrote:
maybe this guy is not an native English speking person?
AB
Gerard
Are you quoting some one? Who?
William Sommerwerck
The Cat!
herman
It's pretty clear that Romy is not a native speaker.
John Wiser
> maybe this guy is not an native English speking person?
maybe you is not an native English speling person?
JDW
William Sommerwerck
> of LP's mastered from 24/96 hi-rez digital files (I wrote the
> San Francisco Symphony and confirmed this) is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous if you think digital sounds unnatural -- or you prefer
LP colorations. I don't. Some of the multi-ch SACDs from this series have
superb -- ie, highly realistic -- sound.
M forever
wrote:
You can also get "LP colorations" by ripping the SACD and processing
it, adding the typical distortion of LPs and maybe a little bit of
crackling and rumbling, too. Tests have been made in which people were
played LPs, LPs transferred to CDs, and CDs processed to make them
sound more like LPs, with or without distortion, sometimes with a
little crackling. In one setup they were asked to compare CD and LP.
In both cases, the testers played only the CD. Except that they had
ripped the CD and added some crackling and rumbling and played it
against the untreated, crackle-free CD - and a number of self-
appointed audiophile experts declared that the treated CD sounded "so
much better and more natural" - because they thought they were
listening to an LP.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Matthew B. Tepper
typed in news:9855d364-6fce-449b-be2c-04366ca72322
@p24g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> It's pretty clear that Romy is not a native speaker.
Nor, I fear, would he be a finalist in the "Mr. Congeniality" competition.
shane....@swcs.us
What are these studies people keep giving the results of?
Where was this LP coloration study done?
It's interesting and I'd love to read about the methodology and such.
shane....@swcs.us
If not, prove it by posting a link to or a citation for this particular study.
shane....@swcs.us
Doesn't really sound like good evidence to me, but whatever proves your point.
Ed Romans
> Are you seriously calling people into your office, and saying "here, listen to these CD players and tell me if you hear a difference", then tracking the results? Doesn't really sound like good evidence to me, but whatever proves your point.
Ed