From: gpz750@bnr.ca (Dave Dal Farra)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Preamp and Amp
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:59:35 GMT
Organization: BNR Ltd.
X-Xxdate: Mon, 25 Jan 93 16:09:05 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9

In article <185107@pyramid.pyramid.com> Lon Stowell,
lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com writes:

>   Whoopee.  I have a similar background, with a bit of added
>   emphasis on psychology, perception, and classical music training.
>   This makes me capable of understanding how much I DON'T know and
>   thus very likely to listen to the folks like Bill V., jj, Max,
>   Dick Pierce, who are obviously pro's far beyond my background.

Ya, big deal.  Well, I've only been involved in audio professionally for 4
years, but my background in audio goes back at least 15 yrs.  I've conducted
and been a part of many controled (by Phd psychologists) subjective tests
over the past years, have read every AES journal back to about '72, read
Beranek and Olson when I was 15 and basically lived and breathed audio
since I was 10, including electronic design.  If this is tootin' my own
horn, tough shit.  My point is that you tend to listen not just to
professionals, but pro's you agree with.  And I agree, I too am always hungry
for knowledge and realize that there is much to learn from the others on 
the Net.

>For your benefit I will define LP Bigot.
>
>    It is someone who, preferring the sound of LP, goes off the deep
>    end and starts claiming superior technical performance in the
>    areas of separation, bandwidth, or dynamic range.  

Great, that counts me out!

You just ain't listening, bub.   I've said a zillion times that LP repro
is inferior to CD repro in terms of MEASURED seperation,
and dynamic range and MOST other quantifiable objective measurements.  
It is NOT inferior in terms of bandwidth.  Granted,  arriving at low
distortion and wide dynamic range below 40 Hz is extremely difficult, but
the bandwidth is not limited to below 22 kHz as per CD.  Remember
the days of SQ4?  Here was an example of an LP encoded with info
well above 20 kHz.  Of course the quad systems sounded like crap at
the time, but this just highlights LP's availability to record/replay info
up to 40 kHz.  An article was published by the AES recently concerning the
perceptual clues offered by audio repro info above 20 kHz.  Apparently,
they found some significance.  Sounds interesting, but
I've yet to read it.

>    And your supercilious statements that anyone who doesn't agree
>    with your conclusions and preferences is automatically assumed
>    to have inferior equipment sounds more like "stylus envy" to me.

Couldn't give a rat's ass what anyone's equipment is.  People who envy
or brag about anything monetary or material are plain suckers.  I'm
just surprised that your ears lead you to arrive at the conclusions 
they have.  I'm not doubting your ears, so I doubted either your
equipment or your criteria in judging what you here.

>    Or that anyone capable of acknowledgeing the technical faults
>    of LP must be listening to inferior equipment.   

Earth to Lon.  I've acknowledged the technical faults of LP repro
a few hundred times now.  My point has been that the measurements
don't tell the full story and never will.  LP repro sounds
more life-like to many folks for reasons they can't explain.  You
state that it is due to the euphonic colourations we are hearing.  I don't
buy this.  If these colourations are the only reason that a system
sounds more life-like, then there is something seriously wrong with
the way the industry objectively specifies performance.  The goal is
life-like reproduction, and only that.  I think a LOT more work
is required in the area of defining accurate controlled subjective tests 
for audio to try and uncover these differences.  A/B'ing is a waste for
anything but glaring differences.
 
>    I totally fail to understand your attitude toward LP.  It seems
>    that you must convince yourself and the world that LP is totally
>    without technical faults in order to like it.

I can't understand your inability to seperate the discussion of how
a unit sounds subjectively, from the specs. Julian Hirsch would
be proud.

LP has many technical faults versus CD but for some reason I and MANY
others find it to sound more life-like.  To damn with the euphonic
colourations crap.   My yard-stick is LIFELIKE SOUND.  NOT SPECS.  What's
your hang-up with the spec's?

Dave Dal Farra
BNR Ottawa
Audio and Acoustics Group