In rec.audio.tech wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.

Um yeah that must be it. Couldn't have been well set up joke or
anything like that.


You do much better at generating laughs, when you don't try.

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.

Sure. yeah. uh huh.

Another well set up joke, no doubt.

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.

Are you feeling used? So sorry. But yes I was poking fun by mixing up
their names. I guess you missed me calling Dave Plowman Don Plowman. Oh
well.

That name stuff is gold, *gold*.


___
-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 wrote:


Not at all. But then maybe iIm actually understanding what I read.

But not the parts about the limits of human hearing, or the sources of errors
in interpreting what is heard. These are what I was referring to as 'the
well-documented limitations of listening'.

You should read up on them, they're *gold*.


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?

Pretty much.

Don't think so.

Even you are subject to Bias stevie. You se what you want to see.

I see what you want to see, too. It's quite obvious.


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.

It did? I had no idea Edison was relying on that.

Well, maybe you should do some reading on his work, too, then.


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?

Maybe you are struggling with pronouns. When I say "they" i don't mean
"me."


Ah, you mean people like Keith, my reply to whom set you off on this latest tirade.

Pretty basic English don't you think? "I" don't worry so much
about explinations unless I think they can narrow the scope of things I
look out for when making purchases. "My" focus is on thr results not
the explanations for those results.

Scott, you'd do best not to chastise others for their command of English.
You've embarrassed yourself enough as is.

But you have hit on a wonderful example of the usefulness of explanations:
they help you evaluate the claims of advertisers and manufacturers. If the explanation is
technically or logically dubious, there's a good chance the claim is too.

It's funny that having hit upon this, you backtracked immediately from it.


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.

But you love that don't you? makes you feel better about your faith in
the almighty meter.


Vinylphile stereotypes of the reality-based population tend to be laughable
nonsense too.





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

In article . com,
wrote:
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? Engineers do the
work the hobbyists consume it.

So they're mutually exclusive?

The ability to solder and the ability to make aestheic judgemens? Yes
they are.

Wonder what your only 'supporter' Mr G will make of that? He loves to
build kit and is the vinyl disciple to end all disciples.

Isn't that a tad pompous?


No, it is a very stupid to thnk they are in any way related.

I'd guess you haven't understood plain English - again. Perhaps because
there aren't any curses in it.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

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

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

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


Not at all. But then maybe iIm actually understanding what I read.

But not the parts about the limits of human hearing, or the sources of errors
in interpreting what is heard. These are what I was referring to as 'the
well-documented limitations of listening'.


Suffering from an identity crisis?



You should read up on them, they're *gold*.


I have actually. that is one of the many reasons I get such a laugh at
the idiots on Usenet and their complete misapplication and
misinerpretation of psychoacoustics. The idea that human hearing is
wrong while technical measurements are right when it comes to this
hobby is a prime example of that misapplication.




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?

Pretty much.

Don't think so.

Even you are subject to Bias stevie. You se what you want to see.

I see what you want to see, too. It's quite obvious.

Do tell. What is it I want to to see? Share with us your insight.





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.

It did? I had no idea Edison was relying on that.

Well, maybe you should do some reading on his work, too, then.


How about filling us in?





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?

Maybe you are struggling with pronouns. When I say "they" i don't mean
"me."


Ah, you mean people like Keith,

No i don't.

my reply to whom set you off on this latest tirade.

tirade? Suffering from hypersensitivity? Did it really bother you that
much to be the sucker who set up my joke about meter readers all
sounding the same? It was just a poke.




Pretty basic English don't you think? "I" don't worry so much
about explinations unless I think they can narrow the scope of things I
look out for when making purchases. "My" focus is on thr results not
the explanations for those results.

Scott, you'd do best not to chastise others for their command of English.
You've embarrassed yourself enough as is.


Big difference between speeling errors and mistakes like confusing
"they" with" I." But really I don't think it was as much a language
problem with you as it was the trappings of your prejudices. Like I
said, you see what you want to see, not what I actually write. You talk
about me embarrassing myself. OK put up or shut up. Without taking
something out of context cite one thing that I have said about the
subject of LPs v. Cds on this thread that you think was embarrassingly
wrong. only rules are it has to be about the subject, I had to actually
say it and you have to leave it in the context inwhich it was said.




But you have hit on a wonderful example of the usefulness of explanations:
they help you evaluate the claims of advertisers and manufacturers. If the explanation is
technically or logically dubious, there's a good chance the claim is too.

That may or may not be. never really spent any time trying to study the
connection. But we aren't talking about that. Would you say the same is
true of audiophiles? Would you say the claims of cause offered by
audiophiles in any way reflects the claims of theaesthetic experiences
that spawn those explanations?



It's funny that having hit upon this, you backtracked immediately from it.

How did I back track?




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.

But you love that don't you? makes you feel better about your faith in
the almighty meter.


Vinylphile stereotypes of the reality-based population tend to be laughable
nonsense too.


IOW yes.


Scott

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
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? Engineers do the
work the hobbyists consume it.

So they're mutually exclusive?

The ability to solder and the ability to make aestheic judgemens? Yes
they are.

Wonder what your only 'supporter' Mr G will make of that?

I'll bet he agrees. I think he is smart enough to know his soldering
skills are independent of his listening skills.

He loves to
build kit


Yes I have noticed that. I have yet to see him claim that his skills at
building has any impact on his listening skills.

and is the vinyl disciple to end all disciples.


Disciple? I know he generally prefers LPs over CDs. I guess you can't
wrap your punny brain around that so you have to attack it. sad



Scott

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I seem to recall that Scott claims to have heard
differences due to cables, in a single-blind test.

More likely in a sighted test, like all the rest of
his listening "tests".

We call "single blind" tests "Egregiously flawed double
blind tests". ;-)

Yes, but what do you call sighted "tests" then :-)

They aren't tests at all.

That's why I put the word in inverted commas.

It wasn't reproduced that way in OE.


Funny, it's still showing them in my copy of OE6.
Not that it's important.


MrT.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Mr.T used quotation marks which aren't top set characters so may or may
not come out correctly on your reader depending on a number of things.
Same as the pound sign "£" (that could be fun) so should called gbp on
newsnet. For this reason most use inverted commas rather than quotation
marks as these are top set characters.

I see the confusion now, thanks for the tip.

MrT.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Now where's the specs on the cutting lathe though :-(

The cutting lathe probably performs better than the
user's cartridge, etc.

I'm not so sure about that myself. I'm sure there were
worse cutting heads than my Shure V15VMR, and there are
FAR more expensive cartridges available.

Or there were and probably still are some bad cutting heads, but most that
were used to produce most records were pretty good.

Yes, and $1,000 cartridges are pretty good. The question is HOW good at the
time they are used.
It was my experience that they were not always replaced as often as they
should be. Trying to reduce costs is not a new concept.
A more common problem was trying to make each stamper last far longer than
optimum though. And using crappy vinyl compounds, and a hundred other
problems some seem capable of forgetting.

In fact half
speed mastering was to reduce the deficiencies of the
cutting lathes,

Sort of. Half speed mastering mostly addressed HF losses and excess
heating
in the cutting heads.

Sort of? Aren't those deficiencies?
BTW there are some other benefits though, such as less groove
flow/deformation around the cutter.

t a cartridge doesn't need to cut a
groove as it goes. (although some do :-)

That may seem to be intuitively clear, but there are some hidden details.
One hidden detail is that it is quite easy for a cutter to create a groove
that can't be properly tracked by *any* cartridge.

Sure, including those used to test the master. One would hope it is
rejected, but amazingly some pretty bad examples were produced in days gone
by.
Yet the vinyl brigade insists that only CD mastering is crook :-)

MrT.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Cassettes only held a certain popularity due
the player being installed in 'upmarket' car audio systems for a long time

**** EVERY car sold had a cassette player at one time.

Much of CD's success was due to the plentiful supply of reasonably-priced
hardware,

What crap, the hardware was prohibitively expensive for most at the outset.
The prices fell BECAUSE of mass production that comes AFTER public
acceptance.
The disks here in Australia were *twice* the price of the equivalent vinyl
for MANY years, and still outsold vinyl before too long.

SACD and DVD-A could have had the same success if the MI hadn't been so
greedy with the price of new releases

Actually the prices were CHEAPER (in real terms) in comparison to the
original CD players and disks. However the market was extremely limited
since not many could see the need for a format primarily designed for bats.
(actually it was *totally* designed to make more money by selling new
hardware and the same software yet again. Fortunately they failed miserably)

MrT.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
SACD and DVD-A discs are and were sold for about the same price as CDs.

Less than the original price of CD if adjusted for inflation.

When the sales failed to take off, nobody with a brain invested in more
new
titles.

Nobody *with a brain* invested in a SACD/DVDA player to begin with.

and
at least one hardware manufacturer had had the foresight
to make a DVD video player with additional 5.1 *audio
only* capability available at a reasonable price.

As a rule DVD players do just fine with 5.1 discs that are essentially
music-only.

But why would you want *music only* when you can get 5.1 DVD music video's
for less than the CD price in many cases?
You can still listen to the sound with the TV off, if you prefer.

MrT.