"Keith G" wrote in message



You're all over the place Arny - really not very much
worth reading at all. A mildly psychotic and complex
little smokescreen at best - puts me in mind of a corny
courtroom scene in a cheesy Yank B movie....
I think it's time....

(I've been very patient....)

Oops, here it goes!!

**splash**

:-)

Aaah, *that's* better......

:-)

LOL!!

Jokes on you, Keith. It's really nice for me when the guy I've been using
for a punching bag decides to blindfold himself. Now, I don't have to worry
about him even seeing me when I hit him.

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message


What kills me is these clowns don't seem to realise
there is no small degree of *engineering* in vinyl and
vinyl playback systems...

The opposite is true. I know from personal experience a
great deal about the engineering that is required in
vinyl production and playback systems. It's all a kluge
with obvious limitations in terms of noise and
distortion.

Do tell us about your experience with actually recording
and mastering LPs.

According to you Scott, this is entirely uncessary.

"Keith G" wrote


Not one of them has the balls to speak plainly for themselves - I still
wonder what it is they are all so *scared* of...???

Can't be my ****ter 'cos most of 'em are already in it...!!??

(Glad I paid extra for the 'Tardis' model....!! :-)


Thought of a *lost pun opportunity* - 'Turdis'....!!??

Googled it (just in case)...

Clicked on the first entry.....

***WARNING - unsavoury site***

(Don't click on it and come whining to me if you are offended/disgusted by
it!)

http://www.poopreport.com/Stories/Content/turdis.html

Scrolled down (fairly rapidly) with those mixed feelings of mild disbelief
and morbid curiosity, as you do....

....and found the 'Highest User' table down on the right.

Look who's top of the list!! :-)

LOL

No, I mean *really* FLOL!!!

:-))

wrote in message
oups.com...

Now where is your proof to the contrary?

I see no proof in the link you have quoted?

It's an email address Einstien not a link. wow.

And you can't tell when someone is being facetious, no surprise there!

MrT.

wrote in message
ups.com...
At least Arny has some idea of what the "tech" in rec.audio.tech stands
for.


Dude, I am posting on uk.rec.audio. Guess the idea of cross posting is
also beyond you.

You are crossposting to rec.audio.tech. Guess the idea of where you are
cross posting to is
beyond you.

MrT.

wrote in message
ups.com...
You seem to be confused Arny. Mr.T claimed the following.
"All we need to know now is whether you think you can hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave or so, where
vinyl fails miserably. After all the only other difference for 24/96
over CD is dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)"

His claim his burden of proof.

Happy to oblige if :

1. There was the slightest chance you would accept scientific facts.
2. There was the slightest chance you could understand them.
3. You tell us what DNR *you* think vinyl is capable of, and provide ANY
supporting evidence that it is more than CD is capable of, either wideband
OR narrow band.
(it's absolutely impossible of course, so I won't hold my breathe :-)

MrT.

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:

I found the spec sheet for the TDA1540 and SAA 7030 online, and can
confirm that noise shaping is done in the SAA 7030.

The TDA 1540 spec sheet was found at the Signetics web site.

BTW the speced dynamic range of the TDA 1540 is 85 dB.

Not read the data sheets. However I've now had a chance to re-read the
special issue of Philips Tech Rev that includes

Digital-to-analog conversion in playing a Compact Disc.
Goedhart, et al.
Philips Tech Rev V40(6) 1982 pages 174-9

This paper outlines how the SAA7030 and TDA1540 operate as part of the
conversion system.

This confirms the noise shaping, essentially by the method of taking the
LSB portion of the 28 bit accumulator and employing it as a carry forwards
to combine with the next filter-computed oversample.

Although the dynamic range is around 85dB this is essentially for the x4
bandwidth, and the paper explains that the result should end up being more
like 97dB if the devices operate as intended.

Two reasons for this.

1) Even with a 'white' quantisation noise spectrum the final bandwidth only
covers a quarter of the oversampled rate bandwidth, so this would give a
6dB improvement.

2) The noise shaping actually generates a noise spectrum which rises with
frequency, thus the 85dB noise is predominantly above 22kHz. This improves
the result according to their analysis by another 7dB or so over what you'd
get for 'white' noise.

The results are broadly in line with the use of noise shaping in other,
more modern, oversampling systems that use lower bit-depths than the input
data.

Given that this was the first system Philips used, it still looks
remarkably 'fresh' in concept. Hardly surprising that some marketing types
and journalists have had to use the term 'upsampled' more recently to try
and pretend they have come up with a new idea, when this may not always be
so. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In rec.audio.tech "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? He loves to
build kit and is the vinyl disciple to end all disciples.

I'm getting the sense that Scott doesn't understand the meaning of the
phrase 'mutually exclusive' -- unless he really means that if you can
solder, you can't judge beauty.

Or perhaps it's another one of his exquisite jokes.



___
-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:

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?

Not that I'm aware of...why would you think so, from the above
excerpt?

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.

The idea is that human 'hearing' has well-known confounding factors to accuracy which create a
significant risk of 'hearing' differences that are purely imaginary, or misconstruing the
actual source of the difference. The other idea is that human hearing has natural limits in
terms of measurable quantities -- frequency, for example.

The most glaring, most prevalent, and most regularly-occuring 'misapplications' of these ideas
are, of course, found in the audiophile press and subjectivist audio forums, which tend to
ignore the consequences of the first idea , and always give secondary status to the latter
one, in favor of hypothetical factors which await scientific discovery.

So once again, your ire is grossly misplaced, if it's the misapplication of science
in the audio hobby that vexes you.

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.

You first.

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?

Well for starters, Edison did these things called...*experiments*. If they didn't work, his
subjective wish that they did, wasn't an overriding factor.

Btw, are you aware that audio technology has advanced a bit since Edison's day?
Though of course, the sound of wax cylinders probably has its advocates even today.


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.

Oh, snap, you got me again. I just don't get this sarcasm thing at all.


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."


Scott, your defense of 'they' against mean old 'me' was that maybe 'they' were looking for an
explanation of what 'they' hear. All I did was point out the oddity that 'you'
would offer 'that' as a defense of 'them', since 'you' had already 'pretty much' claimed that
looking for explanations for what 'one' hears, is a chump's game.

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.

Well, since you ask....

You embarrass yourself by losing your **** in public so floridly and often, when you aren't
muzzled by moderators. You embarrass yourself with your silly challenges and call-outs and
pathetic attempts to get people to play your word games. You embarrass yourself with your
often wince-making command of spelling and grammar, which simply can't be attributed to typos,
even as you're calling someone else a dumbass. You embarrass yourself by claiming to be
deeply amused (it comes off as angry, btw) by the misuse of science yet spending hardly a
titter on the jaw-dropping excesses of the audiophile press , manufacturers, and hobbyists in
that area. You embarrass yourself by presenting false choices as the only choices, because of
need to use words like *only*, such as when you wrote, in this thread:

"That is true if one of the following circumstances exist.
1. Your TT gear sucks
2. You are near deaf
3. You are so consumed by anti analog biases that it takes over your
judgement. "


But most of all you embarrass yourself the way all such as you do: by not realizing what a
train wreck you appear to be.



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.

Brilliantly observed. Next time, consider trying 'it is what it is'.

I've never really spent any time trying to study the
connection. But we aren't talking about that.

And there's the switch...you do that when you're on the ropes. But let's consider: how did we
get here? I'm pretty sure I was replying to *something* you wrote. If you're going to say
'you might be right, I don't know', you might at least include what I was *possibly
correcting* you about. I have a feeling it was something about the utility of explanations.


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 can reflect *on* the claims of aesthetic experience, certainly. What do you make of the
courtiers' oohs and aahs over the beauty of the Emperor's new clothes?

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

How did I back track?

It's pretty obvious in the original post. You really should consider including context.


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 *in excelsis*.


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

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

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.

But that is not what 'mutually exclusive' means at all, Scott.



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