Frequency response of the ear
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote


I don't do arrogance (or hubris either)

No? then someone else writes your posts for you.


OK. If you see arrogance in my posts there is no point in continuing with
them, is there?

Frequency response of the ear
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
scribeth thus

"Arny Krueger" wrote


AK's own peculiar brand of Usenet claptrap snipped


What concert hall comes with built-in LP tics?


OK, another *Tip For Life* specially for Arny:

If all you hear are 'tics' when you play a record then you had better give
up and settle for the best you can get off a CD....

And then a question for all:

Has anyone ever been to concert hall that was anything like *silent*
throughout the performance (coughing tsunami at the end of every movement
not included)

Yeabut thats part of the live experience;)

And seeing that concert goer's are getting older its likely to get
worse;(..


or even heard a concert on the radio without that silly bitch
(it's the same one every time) coughing *without restraint* at the
midpoint
of the most important General Pause in the whole piece, every single
time...??


Don't they have cough keys on modern desks?...



Don't know, but the key I used for the Lead In on this piece:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/LeadIn.mp3

had the label rubbed off it...

???

:-)

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote


AK's own peculiar brand of Usenet claptrap snipped


What concert hall comes with built-in LP tics?

OK, another *Tip For Life* specially for Arny:

If all you hear are 'tics'

Never said that, Keith.

Here's a tip for life Keith:

If you want to seem to be honest and sincere, try not
putting words in other people's mouth and then putting
them down for saying them. You're just making yourself look both
dishonest and
foolish. I'll bet this trick works well in the pubs that you are
often found in, though.

If you want to seem to be honest and sincere, try not
printing blatant lies about them - you're just making
yourself look both dishonest and foolish.

Lame IKWYABWAI noted.

I don't drink more than a couple of beers a *year* and I
think it's been 10 years or more since I was in a pub for
a meal - not that I expect the truth or *accuracy* of any
kind to be of any interest to you....

How lame does someone have to be to take something prefaced with "I'll
bet..." as a claimed statement of fact.

Frequency response of the ear
 

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

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote


AK's own peculiar brand of Usenet claptrap snipped


What concert hall comes with built-in LP tics?

OK, another *Tip For Life* specially for Arny:

If all you hear are 'tics'

Never said that, Keith.

Here's a tip for life Keith:

If you want to seem to be honest and sincere, try not
putting words in other people's mouth and then putting
them down for saying them. You're just making yourself look both
dishonest and
foolish. I'll bet this trick works well in the pubs that you are
often found in, though.

If you want to seem to be honest and sincere, try not
printing blatant lies about them - you're just making
yourself look both dishonest and foolish.

Lame IKWYABWAI noted.


Barking....



I don't drink more than a couple of beers a *year* and I
think it's been 10 years or more since I was in a pub for
a meal - not that I expect the truth or *accuracy* of any
kind to be of any interest to you....

How lame does someone have to be to take something prefaced with "I'll
bet..." as a claimed statement of fact.


You said 'lame' twice....

Frequency response of the ear
 

Arny Krueger wrote:


snip

By what means does adding randomly-selected noise and distortion to a
recording improve its ability to create an illusion of reality?


The thing is - and I know audio 'purists' don't hold with this - tone
controls have been a round for a long time and do just that. Think about
a loudness control - love or loathe, its job is to create that illusion
by (as you seem to enjoy putting it) distortion.

I think that's what you don't follow in this discussion - you're not
*creating* anything - it's laways going to be an approximate copy.

Rob

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
Rob wrote:
By what means does adding randomly-selected noise and distortion to a
recording improve its ability to create an illusion of reality?


The thing is - and I know audio 'purists' don't hold with this - tone
controls have been a round for a long time and do just that. Think about
a loudness control - love or loathe, its job is to create that illusion
by (as you seem to enjoy putting it) distortion.

I doubt altering the frequency response is what is meant by adding 'random
noise and distortion'. Although filtering the HF was often used in an
attempt to reduce the 2nd harmonic from vinyl. Before of course some
people came to like that as being 'natural'.

I think that's what you don't follow in this discussion - you're not
*creating* anything - it's laways going to be an approximate copy.

You can get what amounts to an exact copy of an audio signal with good
digital. You can't with analogue. Especially vinyl.

--
*A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory *

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

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Rob" wrote in message
m
Arny Krueger wrote:


snip

By what means does adding randomly-selected noise and
distortion to a recording improve its ability to create
an illusion of reality?

The thing is - and I know audio 'purists' don't hold with
this - tone controls have been a round for a long time
and do just that.


Wrong.

(1) Tone controls don't generally add noise on the same large scale as the
LP format does.
(2) Tone controls are adjusted by the user. Whetever they do, they do at the
option of the listener. They are therefore not random.

Think about a loudness control - love
or loathe, its job is to create that illusion by (as you
seem to enjoy putting it) distortion.

But you can turn a loudness control on or off. The random tone varations you
get from a SET or the LP format are there, take it or leave them.

I think that's what you don't follow in this discussion -
you're not *creating* anything - it's laways going to be
an approximate copy.

I have no problems with that. I do have problems with solved technical
problems being pushed down my throat as the next great thing in audio.

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


Straw man argument. An audio system has to be really bad to confuse a
knowlegable person that a violin is a viola and vice versa.

If you include the source material as part of the "audio system", I
would agree. I've heard several systems where folks could confuse viola
(from low G up, of course) with violin.

Frequency response of the ear
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
By what means does adding randomly-selected noise and distortion to a
recording improve its ability to create an illusion of reality?


The thing is - and I know audio 'purists' don't hold with this - tone
controls have been a round for a long time and do just that. Think about
a loudness control - love or loathe, its job is to create that illusion
by (as you seem to enjoy putting it) distortion.

I doubt altering the frequency response is what is meant by adding 'random
noise and distortion'. Although filtering the HF was often used in an
attempt to reduce the 2nd harmonic from vinyl. Before of course some
people came to like that as being 'natural'.


They're both routes to the same thing - creating a pleasing and perhaps
realistic and natural sound. Arny's just using 'distortion' as a
catch-all pejorative. I'm using the word in a different way.

I think that's what you don't follow in this discussion - you're not
*creating* anything - it's laways going to be an approximate copy.

You can get what amounts to an exact copy of an audio signal with good
digital. You can't with analogue. Especially vinyl.


Is an exact copy of an audio signal equivalent to the sound you might
expect and/or enjoy? And that's without getting in to the whole
speaker/room effect thing.

Rob

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Rob wrote:

I think that's what you don't follow in this discussion - you're not
*creating* anything - it's laways going to be an approximate copy.

You can get what amounts to an exact copy of an audio signal with good
digital. You can't with analogue. Especially vinyl.


Before the war the BBC used to get complaints from quality-conscious
listeners if they pre-recorded programmes, because the sound quality was
audibly inferior to "live", but once they had access to tape-recorders this
problem went away, it was no longer possible to distinguish between live and
pre-recorded programmes simply from the sound quality. In effect the
recording process had become transparent.

Digital recording gives a similar advantage to the recording industry, it is
not possible to distinguish simply by listening whether a digital recording
stage (assuming linear PCM of adequate sample rate and bit depth, -
44.1kHz/16bit is "adequate") has, or has not, been included in the
transmission path. The recording process has become "transparent" as far as
the listener is concerned in a way that traditional records never could.

That doesn't, of course, mean that the reproduced sound heard in the
listening room is anything other than an approximate copy of the "live"
sound (if indeed there is one), but the reasons for that need no longer
include the recording system.

David.


..