AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense - Page 17

post #481 of 604
3/21/12 at 1:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

And for f*ck's sake, anyone who thinks a 'hi rez' consumer format is a safeguard against reduced-dynamic-range mastering, is sadly mistaken. I provided evidence of that years ago right here on AVSF:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ghlight=purple

Good job!

Now, if we could just educate Amir to understand that equalizers, compressors and limiter operate very nicely on hi-rez tracks.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #482 of 604
3/21/12 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

We are saying that comparison is moot.

Umm, we? Have you obtained a clone, Amir? Or, do you have a situation with MPD that you are hiding from us? ;-)

Are you getting tired of fighting all of these battles all by yourself, so you've invented a group of imaginary friends to help you? ;-)

Cool!

Quote:


High-res music already exists and in all cases it is equal or better than the CD.

Except for that little peoblem with actually sounding better which it doesn't, all other things being equal.

Actual sound quality doesn't matter according to you, right Amir? If one MP3 song is 0.0003 dB louder than another, it was made by a better coder according to you, right?
Reply
Reply
post #483 of 604
3/21/12 at 1:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

all other things being equal.

he has no idea what that means
Reply
Reply
post #484 of 604
3/21/12 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

What's an example from Fiedler of a live recording that has 122-124 dynamic range? Was it done by close mic'ing or what?

I know of three JAES papers from Fielder wherein he reports or summarizes his own measurements (as well as those of others,e.g. Sivian et al. 1959). I have them in front of me right now.

In the first ("Dynamic-Range Requirement for Subjectively Noise-Free Reproduction of Music", 1982) the highest SPLs measured by Fielder were 124 and 122 db , for amplified live country music measured from " middle of the crowd" and for classical percussion music measured from "front row center", respectively. He notes that others have measured SPLs of as high as 139 dB when drums are close-miked.

In the second ("Pre- and PostemphasisTechniques as Applied to Audio Recording Systems", 1985) he measured peak acoustic levels of a wide variety of musical performances, styles and locations, both acoustic and amplified, but always from an audience location and always with the attempt to use the 'best' listening location there. He reports (in Fig. 5) 15 cases where peak levels were between 120 and 129 dB (all but one of these were rock or jazz shows,and the other was non-classical; however, he attributes those peaks as 'probably' due to the drums rather than any amplification). In the context of the paper he argues that application of preemphasis reduces the range requirement to 116dB at most, which however is still beyond 16bit PCM capability at the time.


The third ("Dynamic-Range Issues in the Modern Digital Audio Environment", 1995) does not report new measurements by Fielder, but again shows a table where the peak measured SPL is 129dB (for an amplified rock concert)... these are the same data as paper #2, so the measuring conditions were the same as reported there. Taking JND noise levels at the other end of the scale into account, he proposes that between 122-124dB are required for reproduction, depending on number of channels (mono to 5 channel). Further reductions in the required DR derive from the limitations of microphones (effective dynamic range tops out at 115dB) and consumer loudspeakers (116dB), reducing the effective 'required' dynamic range to 115dB, if home playback is the end use. 16-bit digital with noise shaping is shown to offer a dynamic range of up to...115dB.
Reply
Reply
post #485 of 604
3/21/12 at 1:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

The other day a fellow forum participant at my "home forum" presented measurements of a 101 year old recording that had been carefully pulled from an eddisson phonograph. The bizzare thing he pointed out was that it completely OBLITERATES most CDs released today when it comes to dynamic range (crest factor of over 19 dB)!

Yeah, but the noise floor is probably rather high

Crest factor is average-to-peak level comparison so it doesn't give the whole dynamic range story, though it's usually a good approximation.

That aside, I totally concur with the rest -- optional, consumer-end application of dynamic range reduction, or 'loudness', is the way to go. Producers and artists and engineers need to stop 'hard coding' it into the audio.
Reply
Reply
post #486 of 604
3/21/12 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Did you not accuse him of lying and fabricating reports there? Do you have something to say other than LOL now that you know you were unfair, wrong and spiteful in your accusation there?

I guess Amir you don't get that the phrase "I'm wondering" means that I am uncertain, and in fact am in fact well, wondering. ;-)

In short, it is not an accusation no matter how much you want to spin it until it is.[/quote]

I'm sorry, I read "So, I'm now wondering where Fielder gets off representing . . ." as disrespectful. You basically accused him of misrepresenting facts. It also assume the peer review process was somehow inept.
Reply
Reply
post #487 of 604
3/21/12 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

Sure
Previously you told me not to read those papers in a condescending tone because I was not "educated" enough, now you are telling me I should. Which?


FWIW, Meyer and Moran's DSD-to-Redbook paper was a direct response to Bob Stuart's paper. Indeed, IIRC, Stuart's paper in JAES provoked an interesting critical letter to the editor signed by some pretty high-powered AEs. The problem is that when you read Stuart's paper carefully, you find he cites no credible experimental evidence for audibility of 'high rez' under normal conditions.
Reply
Reply
post #488 of 604
3/21/12 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Further reductions in the required DR derive from the limitations of microphones (effective dynamic range tops out at 115dB) and consumer loudspeakers (116dB), reducing the effective 'required' dynamic range to 115dB, if home playback is the end use. 16-bit digital with noise shaping is shown to offer a dynamic range of up to...115dB.

Indeed with noise shaping 16 bits is enough, even Stuart's article states that. Your basically looking at 20 bit without noise shaping.
Reply
Reply
post #489 of 604
3/21/12 at 2:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

FWIW, Meyer and Moran's DSD-to-Redbook paper was a direct response to Bob Stuart's paper. Indeed, IIRC, Stuart's paper in JAES provoked an interesting critical letter to the editor signed by some pretty high-powered AEs. The problem is that when you read Stuart's paper carefully, you find he cites no credible experimental evidence for audibility of 'high rez' under normal conditions.

The comment he makes about some people can hear to 24KHz is pretty much laughable for his intended market of over 30'ish year old, high income men.
Reply
Reply
post #490 of 604
3/21/12 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

I know of three JAES papers from Fielder wherein he reports or summarizes his own measurements (as well as those of others,e.g. Sivian et al. 1959). I have them in front of me right now.

In the first ("Dynamic-Range Requirement for Subjectively Noise-Free Reproduction of Music", 1982) the highest SPLs measured by Fielder were 124 and 122 db , for amplified live country music measured from " middle of the crowd" and for classical percussion music measured from "front row center", respectively. He notes that others have measured SPLs of as high as 139 dB when drums are close-miked.

In the second ("Pre- and PostemphasisTechniques as Applied to Audio Recording Systems", 1985) he measured peak acoustic levels of a wide variety of musical performances, styles and locations, both acoustic and amplified, but always from an audience location and always with the attempt to use the 'best' listening location there. He reports (in Fig. 5) 15 cases where peak levels were between 120 and 129 dB (all but one of these were rock or jazz shows,and the other was non-classical; however, he attributes those peaks as 'probably' due to the drums rather than any amplification). In the context of the paper he argues that application of preemphasis reduces the range requirement to 116dB at most, which however is still beyond 16bit PCM capability at the time.


The third ("Dynamic-Range Issues in the Modern Digital Audio Environment", 1995) does not report new measurements by Fielder, but again shows a table where the peak measured SPL is 129dB (for an amplified rock concert)... these are the same data as paper #2, so the measuring conditions were the same as reported there. Taking JND noise levels at the other end of the scale into account, he proposes that between 122-124dB are required for reproduction, depending on number of channels (mono to 5 channel). Further reductions in the required DR derive from the limitations of microphones (effective dynamic range tops out at 115dB) and consumer loudspeakers (116dB), reducing the effective 'required' dynamic range to 115dB, if home playback is the end use. 16-bit digital with noise shaping is shown to offer a dynamic range of up to...115dB.

It would seem to me that there must be some people who go to these performances and wear ear plugs. Further, once you've been getting your eardrums blasted with 124 dB levels, what happens when there's a quiet passage. Must take some time for the ear to recover, right? Maybe just record a bit further away and make it listenable.
Reply
Reply
post #491 of 604
3/21/12 at 2:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

It would seem to me that there must be some people who go to these performances and wear ear plugs. Further, once you've been getting your eardrums blasted with 124 dB levels, what happens when there's a quiet passage. Must take some time for the ear to recover, right? Maybe just record a bit further away and make it listenable.

"the best sound balance is usually to be heard from within large concrete bunkers some thirty-seven miles away from the stage"
Reply
Reply
post #492 of 604
3/21/12 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Further, once you've been getting your eardrums blasted with 124 dB levels, what happens when there's a quiet passage.

Tinnitus?
Reply
Reply
post #493 of 604
3/21/12 at 3:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

The comment he makes about some people can hear to 24KHz is pretty much laughable for his intended market of over 30'ish year old, high income men.

There has been an informal test on AVS for the last year or so for this. It goes up to 22 Khz. Surprisingly some are reporting 22K or thereabouts despite their age. Here is Mark (Rogo) at 43 hearing 21 and maybe 22:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

So when I put on my Bose QC3 headphones, I could hear 21 kHz in either ear, but 22 kHz was perhaps too faint to make out much of. When I used the built-in speakers, I maxed out around 18 kHz.

I'm 43 and have had good hearing as long as I can remember. I'm a bit skeptical of the scientific value of this, but based on the reports from people, we are seeing high-frequency roll off in older folks as expected. At least anecdotally and observing I'm something of an exception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by googlegod View Post

I hear the 22k tone clearly, both ears, on cheap Koss TD/60 and Sony MDR v600 headphones with a Turtle Beach Riviera Sound Card. I am amazed at my age 50 with a long history of loud music, loud cars and guns. Volume is at max.


Quote:
Originally Posted by oplompolom View Post

I can hear 22khz easily.

Hyperacusis is not what I would call a welcome gift however. I was tested at the High Wycombe hopsital (England, UK), and my hearing was evaluated at the level of a 7 year old.

22khz is actually painful for me to hear.

21khz is no different.

15, 16, and 17khz is incredibly painful to hear. It's like a drill that is under my tongue but without all the jarring vibration.

12khz and 8khz nearly made me tear the headphones off.

10khz was very comfortable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger View Post

21k at 45 next month. Neighbors laugh when I wear ear plugs to mow lawn. But that's OK,. Was 22k a decade ago but I see it's began to decline and I can not hear that tone. I keep a jar of ear plugs. I used ear buds. With the lap top speakers I could only hear to 14k.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

21 kHz age 40...although my cat heard the higher 22kHz and freaked and ran out of the room.


Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshoppers View Post

21 kHz at age 53, couldn't hear anything at 22. I feel lucky

Quote:
Originally Posted by aidoroboo View Post

Left: 21 kHz
Right 22 kHz

age: 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero.exe View Post

im 24 and heard 22Khz

I will stop here but note that this being a male oriented forum, I think they are all lying through their teeth. But that is just me.
Reply
Reply
post #494 of 604
3/21/12 at 3:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

And for f*ck's sake, anyone who thinks a 'hi rez' consumer format is a safeguard against reduced-dynamic-range mastering, is sadly mistaken. I provided evidence of that years ago right here on AVSF:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ghlight=purple

Well, that was an interesting thread. I noticed that Dreams from the Fleetwood Mac Rumours DVD-A looked pretty bad, but I didn't see the CD for comparison purposes. Then I remembered that I had both on my hard drive, so I thought I'd post them.

Here is an Audacity capture of Dreams from the DVD-A:



and here is Dreams from the CD:




LOL! But they loved the DVD-A over at The Computer Audiophile!
Reply
Reply
post #495 of 604
3/21/12 at 3:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Umm, we? Have you obtained a clone, Amir? Or, do you have a situation with MPD that you are hiding from us? ;-)

No, I am just wondering why I have to keep repeating the same quotes over and over again:

"The Loudness War is Over
Feb 8, 2011 2:22 PM, By Greg Reierson

Making loud CDs will become just a bad memory.

I was at the AES show in San Francisco last November and I came back with renewed hope for the future of the music industry—not just from a business perspective, but from a recording-quality perspective as well. Besides the usual discussions about gear and recording techniques, there was a lot of talk about high resolution digital downloads surpassing CDs as the dominant delivery format within the next few years. Optimism is growing as more and more engineers are seeing a way to finally get past the loudness war.

Greg Reierson is the owner/chief engineer at Rare Form Mastering in Minneapolis. Visit him at www.rareformmastering.com. "

The "we" is Greg and all the others he mentions in the above report.

Quote:


Are you getting tired of fighting all of these battles all by yourself, so you've invented a group of imaginary friends to help you? ;-)

You have your herd of people who want to dumb down audio, I have my group above who strive for excellence.

Quote:


Except for that little peoblem with actually sounding better which it doesn't, all other things being equal.

All things are not equal. How many times must we repeat this same dance Arny? You do not have the choice of how you get your 16/44.1. It always comes with a ton of gravy whether it is fish or beef. The only way you get back your choice is to get the copy before the gravy was put on it. Then you can choose how you want to consume it. How hard is is to to accept and understand this simple logic and not keep imagining consumer offers which don't exist?

Quote:


Actual sound quality doesn't matter according to you, right Amir? If one MP3 song is 0.0003 dB louder than another, it was made by a better coder according to you, right?

No. You have lost the plot Arny. Jpco put up visuals from Audacity that showed clipping. That display is not an indication of "better" or worse but rather, simply what the level is. I wanted to rule out variables such as decoder differences.

I did share however that we had to reduce our S/N ratio *using our critical test vectors* by some 15 db from ideal to get some of our WMA implementations to pass our certification. So if you think the difference between decoders is just .0003 db, you show that you don't understand this field. Remember, if you know the algorithm, you can create test vectors that zoom in on true differences. Random music clips don't necessarily show such problems. And at any rate, as I have repeatedly shown, even in that test, there was a statement that some decoders showed completely different outputs, not just off by one sample.

You are not going let go of this rat hole, are you Arny?
Reply
Reply
post #496 of 604
3/21/12 at 3:15pm
Without naming names. Does any of the key posters on this thread actually enjoy listening to music anymore? 17 pages and counting no doubt.
Reply
Reply
post #497 of 604
3/21/12 at 3:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

I know of three JAES papers from Fielder wherein he reports or summarizes his own measurements (as well as those of others,e.g. Sivian et al. 1959). I have them in front of me right now.

In the first ("Dynamic-Range Requirement for Subjectively Noise-Free Reproduction of Music", 1982) the highest SPLs measured by Fielder were 124 and 122 db , for amplified live country music measured from " middle of the crowd" and for classical percussion music measured from "front row center", respectively. He notes that others have measured SPLs of as high as 139 dB when drums are close-miked.

In the second ("Pre- and PostemphasisTechniques as Applied to Audio Recording Systems", 1985) he measured peak acoustic levels of a wide variety of musical performances, styles and locations, both acoustic and amplified, but always from an audience location and always with the attempt to use the 'best' listening location there. He reports (in Fig. 5) 15 cases where peak levels were between 120 and 129 dB (all but one of these were rock or jazz shows,and the other was non-classical; however, he attributes those peaks as 'probably' due to the drums rather than any amplification). In the context of the paper he argues that application of preemphasis reduces the range requirement to 116dB at most, which however is still beyond 16bit PCM capability at the time.


The third ("Dynamic-Range Issues in the Modern Digital Audio Environment", 1995) does not report new measurements by Fielder, but again shows a table where the peak measured SPL is 129dB (for an amplified rock concert)... these are the same data as paper #2, so the measuring conditions were the same as reported there. Taking JND noise levels at the other end of the scale into account, he proposes that between 122-124dB are required for reproduction, depending on number of channels (mono to 5 channel). Further reductions in the required DR derive from the limitations of microphones (effective dynamic range tops out at 115dB) and consumer loudspeakers (116dB), reducing the effective 'required' dynamic range to 115dB, if home playback is the end use. 16-bit digital with noise shaping is shown to offer a dynamic range of up to...115dB.

Measuring a SPL of xxx dB is far from measuring a dynamic range (DR) of xxx dB. What's the residual noise level at that site before the band starts playing? Based on personal experience, maybe 40-50 dB. That puts the SNR at xxx-40-50 dB, and DR is either that or even worse.

Things get worse if you go on stage or just off stange where you'd put your mics for a live recording. You've got stacks of MI amps and monitors that would set the residual noise level of any live recording you made.
Reply
Reply
post #498 of 604
3/21/12 at 3:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar02 View Post

Without naming names. Does any of the key posters on this thread actually enjoy listening to music anymore? 17 pages and counting no doubt.

I'm heading out right now to do tech for a rehearsal of a small church orchestra/band. Yes, I enjoy listening to them play & sing.
Reply
Reply
post #499 of 604
3/21/12 at 3:30pm
Quote:


That aside, I totally concur with the rest -- optional, consumer-end application of dynamic range reduction, or 'loudness', is the way to go. Producers and artists and engineers need to stop 'hard coding' it into the audio.

The problem with this is that the average consumer doesn't understand the issues surrounding dynamic range compression and probably would forget or wouldn't know how to activate the circuit that accomplishes that reduction. So while your approach would be a boon to the small number of us who care about this, it would frustrate the much larger segment who would suffer poorer sound through their earbuds or on their car stereos.

A second-best solution would be to produce both mass-market and audiophile versions of recordings, with higher dynamic range on the latter. Unfortunately, the audiophile market, schooled by glossy magazines and shysters who sell overpriced gear to rich suckers, has been conditioned to demand alternative formats offering little or no real sonic improvement, rather than well-made Redbook CDs and download equivalents.
Reply
Reply
post #500 of 604
3/21/12 at 3:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar02 View Post

Without naming names. Does any of the key posters on this thread actually enjoy listening to music anymore? 17 pages and counting no doubt.

Yes. Bought two albums this week alone:

Ingrid Michaelson:

Lovely as always but more mature than past albums.

Maria Mena:


Discovered Maria in one of our WBF music forums. Lovely innocent voice. Second album I have purchased of her.

Have been listening to both and enjoying them immensely.

A couple of week or so ago got the new Cranberries Rose album which I sadly reported as having some of the worst sound qualities in a long time. So not sure I recommend it but the two above are definitely keepers. Earlier Japco and I talked about Adele's live at Royal Albert Hall Blu-ray. It also comes with a CD but I would pass on that and listen to the BD.



That was also a discovery on whatsbestforum with one of our resident mods who collects concert BDs posting very positive remarks about the BD.
Reply
Reply
post #501 of 604
3/21/12 at 3:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

All things are not equal. How many times must we repeat this same dance Arny? You do not have the choice of how you get your 16/44.1. It always comes with a ton of gravy whether it is fish or beef. The only way you get back your choice is to get the copy before the gravy was put on it. Then you can choose how you want to consume it. How hard is is to to accept and understand this simple logic and not keep imagining consumer offers which don't exist?

They are actually. You already admitted to me that even when recording quality is equal, you believed hi-rez would sound better. So there is no reason why we can not ignore recording quality as a factor since you believe that identical recordings will sound better in hi-rez. See below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

How about this scenario? Say I downloaded a hi-rez tune from HD-tracks and downsampled it 16/44 with no other change. Do you agree 2 versions will sound identical or not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

No I don't agree and neither does Bob Stuart is his AES paper. You really need to read that before rehashing these topics. For now, if they sound the same to you, that's cool. You can convert yours and I can stay with the original. I assume it is not your mission to tell me I have to eat hot dogs instead of steaks because you choose to do that for the same price
Reply
Reply
post #502 of 604
3/21/12 at 3:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Earlier Japco and I talked about Adele's live at Royal Albert Hall Blu-ray. It also comes with a CD but I would pass on that and listen to the BD.

Did you listen to the CD version? I am pleasently surprised by its quality.
Reply
Reply
post #503 of 604
3/21/12 at 3:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

Did you listen to the CD version?

No. I just looked at it and decided what quality it had .

Quote:


I am pleasently surprised by its quality.

Proof that we all have different standards . Do you have the BD?
Reply
Reply
post #504 of 604
3/21/12 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

No. I just looked at it and decided what quality it had .


Proof that we all have different standards . Do you have the BD?

Well if you mentioned you liked it then I must have missed it in your long post. I thought you assumed blu-ray was better and skipped CD.

No I don't have BD. CD sounds pretty good to me and I listen it via a revealing headphone system after converting into apple lossless format. Not all CDs have poor recordings.

But you are right about different standards. Not only different standards, different imagination skills too
Reply
Reply
post #505 of 604
3/21/12 at 4:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

Previously you told me not to read those papers in a condescending tone because I was not "educated" enough, now you are telling me I should. Which?

If you have such meek motivation to learn by reading as to expect a warm invitation and red carpet roll to do so, I think you missed some key life lessons along the way. So no, don't go and read anything on my account. But please don't keep responding to me either if you can't be bothered to read research on your own.

Reply
Reply
post #506 of 604
3/21/12 at 4:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

If you have such meek motivation to learn by reading as to expect a warm invitation and red carpet roll to do so, I think you missed some key life lessons along the way. So no, don't go and read anything on my account. But please don't keep responding to me either if you can't be bothered to read research on your own.


Well I read, you object. I don't read, you object.
Reply
Reply
post #507 of 604
3/21/12 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

The problem with this is that the average consumer doesn't understand the issues surrounding dynamic range compression and probably would forget or wouldn't know how to activate the circuit that accomplishes that reduction. So while your approach would be a boon to the small number of us who care about this, it would frustrate the much larger segment who would suffer poorer sound through their earbuds or on their car stereos.

Average consumers are already being asked to tackle this, though. Modern car radios typically feature an option to automatically raise or lower volume in response to road noise (not sure if it's a simple level adjuster, or if its a compressor/eq adjuster). And modern AVRs and DVRs typically have some sort of DR adjustment option, e.g 'wide', 'medium', 'narrow', to suit a variety of ambient noise contexts.
Reply
Reply
post #508 of 604
3/21/12 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar02 View Post

Without naming names. Does any of the key posters on this thread actually enjoy listening to music anymore? 17 pages and counting no doubt.


I believe they does.
Reply
Reply
post #509 of 604
3/21/12 at 4:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


[quoye=arny]
So, I'm now wondering where Fielder gets off representing a near-threshold line as being representative of BBC standards when actual BBC official documents put those lines 10 to 20 dB higher.



Did you not accuse him of lying and fabricating reports there? Do you have something to say other than LOL now that you know you were unfair, wrong and spiteful in your accusation there?

I guess Amir you don't get that the phrase "I'm wondering" means that I am uncertain, and in fact am in fact well, wondering. ;-)

In short, it is not an accusation no matter how much you want to spin it until it is.

Pathetic. And you keep trying these word games when you have no idea.

"So, I'm now wondering where Fielder gets off " is the same to you as "So, I'm now wondering if Fielder gets off" is it?

Don't let the fact that when the full sentence is taken it is basically impossible to get your attempted (backpedalling) spin.

IF you did not mean to demean the guy as you claim, just say 'oops, sorry, poor wording on my part'. It's pretty easy to do...well depending on the personality that is.

You*just*simply*cannot*do*it*can*you*arny. Can't say 'ooh, I got something (anything) wrong'.
Reply
Reply
post #510 of 604
3/21/12 at 4:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

I believe they does.

I would tend to believe so but struggle to understand where they get the time. . I meant no disrespect in my observation. Just wonder if science and talk sometimes masks the end result of just listening for pure enjoyment.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense