Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.

Anoyed.



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


You call this scrutiny? You don't see the bull****? You really are lost
then.



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'.

"We?" Dude give me a break. The meter reader geeks on Usenet have
contributed nothing to the advancement of audio. OTOH the heretical
designers of high end equipment have been on the cutting edge pushing
the envelope. Where would we be if the meter readers had their way?
Maybe listening to undithered CDs mastered on first generation A/D
converters on 14 bit players. Hey, the meter readers said right out of
the gate none of that stuff mattered. I shudder to think where audio
would be today if the Usenet dorks had their way. I am thankful that
you guys are on the sideline whining and bitching about high end rather
than actually influencing it.




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?

Um gosh maybe if yo wee paying attention. Just reread the thread from
the begining. If you still don't get it I'll hold your hand and point
you to the specifics.


What am I supposed to have
an 'excuse' for?

I suppose defending the dorks that claim there is no reason to transfer
LPs to digital because the CDs all sound better. did you miss that?




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

Or several hundred.

Shameful.


So are you going to get the MoFi Fragile?


Scott

wrote in message
ps.com

"We?" Dude give me a break. The meter reader geeks on
Usenet have contributed nothing to the advancement of
audio.

That would include John Atkinson, of course, well-known for his use of test
equipment to characterize the performance of audio equipment, and long-time
poster on various Usenet audio groups.

Wow Scott, I didn't know that you had it in for John!

OTOH the heretical designers of high end equipment
have been on the cutting edge pushing the envelope.

As in receiving lots of paper cuts from pushing envelopes? ;-)

Where would we be if the meter readers had their way?

Pretty much wherever mainstream technology is today. Correct me if I'm wrong
but audio's subjectivism uber alles high priests have contributed *nothing*
to mainstream audio technology.

Maybe listening to undithered CDs mastered on first generation
A/D converters on 14 bit players.

Every card-carrying meter reader I know of believes in using dither. A CD or
two might have fallen through the cracks, but the meter-reader's rule books
say use dither or don't do digital.

AFAIK the few known examples of quantization failure on CD did not happen by
design, but by accident. They were the result of equipment that was prone to
being sensitive to adjustement and a tad drifty. Absense of dither was not
the problem.


the meter readers said right out of the gate none of that stuff mattered.

Speaks to Scott's lack of proper information about the state of digital
audio technology at the time. Does Scott know how to spell Nyquist and
Shannon? There's no evidence he has ever read their work, or has a clue
what they wrote, or when.

I shudder to think where audio would be today if the Usenet
dorks had their way.

Pretty much where it is. We abandoned vinyl as a mainstream format some
decades ago. Tubes were abandoned a decade or more before that. So much for
the parts of your listening room that you brag most about, Scott.