"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Keith G" wrote in message


(Most vinylists I'm aware of go on to *process* the
sound further with their own kit selection and
tweakery - not everyone simply slaps it down on a
cheap plank deck and starts bitching about *rumble*
and *bearing noise*....!! ;-)

Agreed that turntable rumble and bearing noise are not
characteristic of quality LP playback equipment. But
also noted that "grain noise" added during the
production process gets more and more audible, the
higher the quality of the LP playback equipment.


Grain....???


Gotcha Keith. One of the complaints you hear from guys
who really learned vinyl inside and out from the days
when vinyl was practially all that we had, is that you
don't know vinyl technology well. Well, read this and learn:
http://eil.com/explore/guide/vinyl_making.asp Grain noise was a low
almsot rumble-like noise that was
due to hasty nickel plating.


Gawd...

Stoppit FFS! I only play the damn things - I don't
*manufacture* them!! (Although, if wuz younger....)

Information like this was frequently published in consumer audio magazines
back in the day.


No idea. I had a lot better things to do than read magazines, back in 'the
day'....

.....now I'm feeling real bad about the time I spend on this bloody
newsgroup....

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:

(redundant bull**** from a chronic underachiever snipped)

Arny, you are just a troll. It is the best you can do in
life. That is sad. I know we are not supposed to feed
trolls but sometimes you are just too funny not to toy
with. But alas, in the long run you are boring. Same old
crap day in and day out for years. Years from now, if you
are still alive, I could check in and with out a doubt
see you saying the same crap. I am done toying with you
for now. This your cue to declare victory and do your
Usenet loser victory dance. Seriously, if I were you I'd
think about putting a bullet through my head. I shudder
to think what it must be like to have your ego and be a
life time under achiever.

Scott's obviously out of his league - his posts are either peppered with
insults or just plain insulting.

Here's some helpful advice Scott - find a good newsgroup about some area
where you have some expertise in, like makeup.



???

'his posts are either peppered with
insults or just plain insulting.'

**** me! The *hypocrisy* of it....???

(Surely it's not just me that sees it....???)

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com

Scott makes up a straw man argument:

One would think from your post that one's ability to
solder has something to do with one's ability to make
aesthetic judgements. Do I hve to tell you just how
stupid that idea is?

No Scott, you told us how stupid that idea is when you
made it up.
Engineers do the work the hobbyists
consume it.

Scott might have us believe that all engineers:

(1) never make aesthetic judgements.

(2) have no interest in aesthetics

One does not need to know anything about
engineering to evaluate the results.

Simply not true. It takes technical knowlege to properly
evaluate a technological product.



Utter ********, consumers are the best evaluators of
*any* product -

Speaks to your ignorance of modern product evaluation, Keith.

Product evaluation takes place on many levels and involves many different
people with various skills.

Consumers are the *final* evaluators of any product.

However, products get evaluated many times during their development.

Particularly in the earlier stages, skilled evaluators are invaluable.

every crock produced since the Beginning
Of Time has been graded/passed as 'OK' by someone, for
some reason or other...

In many cases, the people who graded the subsequently failing product as
being OK were themselves consumers.

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Mr.T wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Whatever - if you did start such a thread in a car group you'd also get
shot down unless you heavily qualified your opinion. Which is what
happens
here to all those who constantly harp on about how marvellous vinyl is
while knocking digital.

You have it back to front. I can't remember the last time anyone STARTED a
thread bashing vinyl, rather than simply responding to the ill informed.

Who was it that said I don't get irony? Don Plowman? Dick Pearce? You
can't remember this thread while you were posting to it?

Scott, Dick Pierce and Don Pearce are two different people.

Funny thing about the meter reders, they actualy do all sound th same.

Yet I can easily tell the difference between them...I guess my ears are better than
yours.


Both are capable of laying your arguments to waste,


So they choose to make asses of themselves instead? Odd choice.

Neither have done that...you, on the other hand, are making *quite* the
spectacle of yourself.


so perhaps
that's what's confused you.


I wasn't confused. Thank you for finally taking the bait. I had all but
given up on my punchline about all meter readers sounding the same.

Ah, you weren't confused...you *meant it all along*. You were just trolling,
then.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:
snip

If the vinyl lovers wish to enjoy their personal choice without
disparaging remarks, all they need do is stop claiming to the world that
it is better than CD. Seems simple enough to me.

Indeed.

I haven't noticed many remarks that state in absolute terms that 'vinyl
is better than CD'. I read most of the remarks as 'I prefer the sound
produced from vinyl'. So perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you pair
believe ... :-)

It rarely stops there...

But it has on this thread. Disappointed I bet. So gosh, if you can't
get someone to say what you want so you can attack it best thing to do
is just say it yourself and then attack it.



it's usually followed by some rather technically
dubious claims about analog and digital....often phrased as a report of
hearing things that digital 'can't do'. Originally it was digital, period,
but in the past half decade or so the scripture has been amended to allow
that 'hi rez' digital might, on a good day, sound as good as vinyl, but
16/44.1, heavens no, it can't sound as good as 'the best' vinyl played on
'SOTA' gear to 'golden ears', even if it's a CD transfer of an LP. Which
brings us back to this thread.


aw, c'mon you could do better than that can't you?






For myself, I'm more interested in audio than vinyl. I think it's nice
if people can make up their own mind about vinyl by listening, using and
taking on board the technical arguments. The UK audio group tends to
provide a good blend of things I'm interested in.

I think it's nice if people understand the well-documented limitations of
'listening' as it is generally done..

"The limitations of listening." Good one. Thanks for a nother laugh.

A psychoacoustics or sensory psychology textbook shoudl have you in *stitches*,
then.

Yeah if the meter readers can't corilate the numbers to the aesthetic
experience there must be something wrong with the aesthetic expeience.

Hmm...did anyone *here* say that? Don't think so.

That's about as backassward as it gets. in the world of meter readers
the perception must bend to meet the expectations given to them by the
measurements.

Well, correlation of objective reality to subjective reality has its merits.
It allowed the creation of things like audio gear and recordings.

yet many vinylphiles seem less
interested in that than in promoting what they believe (often without basis)
are audible limitations of digital.


Maybe they are just looking for an explination for what they hear?

Oh, you mean, an objective correlate of their subjective experience? I thought that
was a nonstarter for you?

if that is so terrible but attacking the perceptions as wrong because
they don't fit the meter reader's formulas is completely reasonable.


What's usually wrong is not the effort, but the execution. Vinylphile 'explanations' of
digital tend to be laughable nonsense.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com

Scott makes up a straw man argument:

One would think from your post that one's ability to
solder has something to do with one's ability to make
aesthetic judgements. Do I hve to tell you just how
stupid that idea is?

No Scott, you told us how stupid that idea is when you
made it up.
Engineers do the work the hobbyists
consume it.

Scott might have us believe that all engineers:

(1) never make aesthetic judgements.

(2) have no interest in aesthetics

One does not need to know anything about
engineering to evaluate the results.

Simply not true. It takes technical knowlege to properly
evaluate a technological product.



Utter ********, consumers are the best evaluators of
*any* product -

Speaks to your ignorance of modern product evaluation, Keith.

Product evaluation takes place on many levels and involves many different
people with various skills.

Consumers are the *final* evaluators of any product.

However, products get evaluated many times during their development.

Particularly in the earlier stages, skilled evaluators are invaluable.


Don't be pedantic - you know what I meant. The final product is all we're
interested in here - if a crappy product got through all the process and
development evaluation you have listed above and *then* gets ****ed off by
the (consumer) public, it's so much the *worse*...



every crock produced since the Beginning
Of Time has been graded/passed as 'OK' by someone, for
some reason or other...

In many cases, the people who graded the subsequently failing product as
being OK were themselves consumers.


Sure, your own Abe Lincoln had that more or less pretty well covered.....

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
We have *hundreds* of bloody CDs here and maybe more than a dozen
different gadgets that can play them. Once in a while I'll put one of a
very small, select few on (no LP equivalents) and, sure as eggs, I'll
wander off after a while and quite simply *not hear* the rest of it. I
can't recall the last time I was ever able to sit through an entire CD
- it must be *years* ago now!!

LPs? One after the other, usually - sometimes 'til the wee small hours,
unable to stop slapping them on to the turntable!!

Get the idea? No-one to impress, no-one taking note.....

Thought you only listened to music, not equipment.

--
*Never test the depth of the water with both feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com


Well, we disagree about the transarency of 16/44.1

That's due to your religious belief that there's something that still
needs to be fixed with the CD format to make it as accurate as LPs.


Accurate? Do you mean as in *lifelike*....???

Try all it likes, CD will never beat a good LP for a sense of *realism*.....

Achieved via introduction of distortions that some find pleasing.

I think thre is something to this claim. I remember a mastering
engineer, I think it was Stan Ricker, saying that he often found the
LPs he mastered often sounded more lifelike than the original master
tapes even when he did a flat transfer with no processing. It stands to
reason that it would be the introduction of colorations that lead to
that effect. Now while the idea of distortion may bother the meter
readers because it makes for uglier numbers, for those who ar
interested in sound quality this shouldn't create a philisophical
dilema. Sounds better is better. It's a simple and pure philosophy.


Now, there's that nasty objective correlate to subjective impression
thing again -- finding *reasons* for what is heard. Those colorations, btw
are not a mystery....I'm sure you've seen them listed on rahe at least once
or twice.

But let's never speak of it again. It ruins the listening experience.
It's like a sausage. Best not to know what goes into it.


Others might prefer to add such distortions or not, as an
*option*, not an inherent quality of the system.

I think that is great idea. Do you know of a program that does this
digitally?

No, but transferring an LP to digital is easy enough. Remember, one impetus
of digital was to get *around* the inherent artifacts of analog.

I would suggest you lobby one of the 'high end' boutique businesses to
design a box that recreates LP distortion.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Keith G wrote:

You seem angry. Also, you're missing the point of this thread..which is that
a CD transfer of an LP could well capture all that 'realism' you like.
If you claim it *can't ever* do that, then it's time to explain why that
could be so.

No, no one is required to have an explination for their perceptions.
You see that is part of the bull**** game. You demand an explination
for peoples' perceptions and when they offer a wild guess that has
obvious technical flaws you attack the whole claim via the explination.
It's ****ing shell game with you dorks. You don't like the aesthetic
perceptions when they don't line up with the technogeek meter readers
true love, the numbers.


Heavens, you do seem upset.

If you don't like having your statements subjected to scrutiny, best not to post
to a public forum.

I wonder how the *science* part of audio and electronics (it's all that nasty stuff in the
background that you really don't want to know about) would have progressed if
we never questioned what lies behind 'aesthetic perceptions'.


And you are in the best position to comment. But might your technical
certainties twist your listening experience? Because you know that CD must
be better, do your prophecies self-fulfill?

I used to think the CD bigots bashed vinyl out of jealousy, having got rid
of their vinyl (like so many did), but so many of them claim to still own
many LPs - presumably for the opposite purpose of digging out the occasional
LP just to prove they still don't like 'em...???

Cover art, mainly. And a few that have never come out on CD, I've transferred
from LP. But all of them reside in the attic.


There you go. And you have no excuse Sully. You know that mastering is
an overriding factor.

Yes, I do. And that relates to all of this, how, exactly? What am I supposed to have
an 'excuse' for?

I'm sure lots of vinylphiles own a CD or two, too.

Or several hundred.

Shameful.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

In rec.audio.tech "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
I think thre is something to this claim. I remember a mastering
engineer, I think it was Stan Ricker, saying that he often found the
LPs he mastered often sounded more lifelike than the original master
tapes even when he did a flat transfer with no processing.

Says it all about some mastering people. "My job is to improve the master"

Well, sometimes the master comes with instructions for 'improving' it -- or
at least making it sound presentable on vinyl. (That's what mastering
was originally for -- to smooth the passage from tape to vinyl)

One could argue that CD listeners of a certain age expect to hear
the music sound like it did on their moldy old LPs...'only better'.
That could involve jiggering the master to get it to sound like it
had passed through a cutting lathe etc. I've read several old-time CD
mastering engineers who in the 80's were trying to 'match' the sound of
the LP. Pristine LPs are still used today as 'references' for digital
remastering projects (e.g., the Rolling Stones' SACD reissues)

And sometimes masters were recorded in , er, interesting circumstances
(like, maybe the monitor speakers weren't so hot at bass, so the engineer
jacked that up on the master...).

And lastly, badly stored old tapes may need some TLC to bring them back to
what they were.

THose are 'improvements' that even a purist could love...as opposed to
the arbitrary 'improvements' that much mastering involves.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason