 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.99.71.139
In Reply to: Y'all got some proof about this "fairy tale" thing y'all said? posted by Silver Eared John on November 27, 2005 at 17:33:23:
bright and distorted either?GMAFB
rw
Follow Ups:
I could make the same observation about y'all, I'm sure, but I won't.
you insult the engineers who have improved the DACs immensely by chiming in with the ridiculous notion that all the early digital problems were caused by someone turning up the treble.Amazing. Go back to sleep, y'all.
rw
I said that early digital problems were caused in part by the use of master tapes that had some EQ intended for vinyl on them.It's only your own rush to lie about people that leads you to conclude that anything else was excluded. Y'all do that pretty often. Maybe y'all just think that if it's not all white, it must be black, eh?
Next time, y'all try to be more convincing when when you lie about what I said, ok?
Liar.
Why do I bother wasting my time? Oh, well.Specifically what you said was: I've heard this from people what cut the CD's. Improper use of case and apostrophe yours.
So what is this ? Let's revisit Klaus' comments, shall we?
What had happened was that recording companies were rushing to get CDs to the market. So what did they do: they used the mastertapes that they possessed, which were intended to be used for vinyl. In those days they applied HF boost (brighter microphones, corrective feedback) in order to compensate for the HF losses that inevitably occured in the processing of the recorded signal. The result of that post-processing was the so called EQ-ed master, approved by the artist. On vinyl that HF boost had disappeared, on CD, of course, IT HAD NOT. That boost was responsible for the edged, harsh, or whatever you call it, sound.
Read it again. There is *no* qualification like you just added "caused in part" .
I'll continue to be amused by Klaus' conclusion. And sentence him to life listening to my dreadful sounding first generation Magnavox CDP with or without a treble control.
rw
ps: For gosh sakes, it you continue to be a Rhett Butler wannabe, at least use the correct Southernism (I've lived in the South most of my life). "Y'all" is the second person plural reference.
Yes, that's what I've heard from some of the people what cut the CD's.This, of course, denies NOTHING else I might or might not have heard, experienced, seen, measured, or otherwise be aware of.
The problem is in your head, slick. Y'all have a completely unreasonable, not to say immoral, need to make things up to attack with.
This one IS all in your haid.
I just quoted what you said. Maybe that's not what you meant. Do you need to add any more qualifiers? Whatever.rw
ps: it's people who cut the CDs, not people what cut the CD's.
Y'all the one that made it up. Y'all cope.If you haven't heard it before, I would suggest y'all look up the "excluded middle". It's a common mistake. The first time you did it, I suppose it might have been a mistake, but now you're just standing behind a lie.
Rather than using non-specific terms like "this" and "it" without an antecedent where the only reference that others can draw is that which you have previously stated in the thread (which I have followed verbatim), you might try expanding your thoughts a bit.So, do you agree with Klaus that THE ONLY REASON first generation players sounded bad was because they had a BOOSTED TREBLE?
rw
You may have a minor point with KlausR's post, but the decent, honorable approach would have been to point out that while using the cutting masters for the CD was one reason, that there are others. You, among others, chose another course.Now, when you try to tie SEJ on this, I'm afraid nothing he said remotely indicated that was the only reason some early CDs sounded bad. Indeed, had you bothered to look, you would have seen that SEJ has already explicitly denied that.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Try again Pat.
But SEJ pointed out that quite a number of things can be done wrong with CDPs and digital recordings. One link is below. You haven't shown any contradiction.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Your reference is from two weeks ago. I don't profess to be omniscient.He agreed without qualification on his first post to this thread (at least until later during the backpeddling) to Klaus' single minded assertion.
rw
First of all, where is the general proposition that SEJ stated without any qualification in the first place? If it wasn't general, then it's already qualified.You should take account of what SEJ says, whether two weeks ago or not, as he knows what he is talking about. You might learn something.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
...he's SEJJ's lap dog who lives inside his purse and just sticks his head out to bark in his defense.
Apparently the best you can do.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
.
but here goes.Klaus sez:
That boost was responsible for the edged, harsh, or whatever you call it, sound.
Let me explain that to you if you don't understand the language.
THIS IS THE REASON WHY FIRST GEN CD SOUNDS BAD.
Our faux Southerner who doesn't have a clue as to the proper use of the term "y'all" chimes in:
I've heard this from people what cut the CD's.
Let me explain that to you if you don't understand the language.
I AGREE. THIS IS THE REASON WHY FIRST GEN CD SOUNDS BAD.
What our Clown Southern Price should have said was:
I've heard that is a contributing factor....
OR
I think that is one of the causes....
OR
Yes, that is among the reasons why....
OR
As I've said before, this is one of many factors...
Do you understand, Pat?rw
I cannot find a continuous thread between the quotes from KlausR and SEJ. You have taken little snippets here and there and created a collage out of your own imagination.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Only defense he's got. Make it all up.
...like this below you made up about me:> He obviously don't get nothing about sampling, or how digital recordings work, at least in any great degree,>
Which you never showed any postings or other evidence to justify...
...nor did you apologize for making up lies.
And we should care what you have to say...
..or believe any of it?
I quoted you. Too bad you don't like what it showed.
> I quoted you>You didn't.
Not possible because I never posted on those issues.
Show me.
Or apologize for lying...
You simply wish to ignore the effect that your actions had, and continue to have.Y'all irresponsibly foster many quacked ideas in the area of audio, some directly, by falsely asserting that DBT's are bad, and some indirectly, by joining in to hoot derision at people who are attempting to correct an elementary, freshman-level mistake in the inane assertions of someone else about basic audio technology. We have two choices in your behavior, either you do not know you're implicitly supporting elementary mistakes, or you do know, and you're supporting them anyhow. I have taken the less insulting path, and presumed ignorance, rather than malice. I am I wrong? If you admit to malice, I'll be glad to change my accusation to malice.
How about it? Which is it?
You have been caught, tried, and conviced in the court of evidence already. The evidence is fully in front of you in the other thread, and your responses and evasions in that thread make it clear that you have examined the proof yourself, and attempted to evade the facts.
Your claim here that I have shown you no quote is just like your denial that DBT's work in the circumstances (which vary as a matter of argumentitive convenience when you discuss the issue) that you wish to deny they work in. You simply make a claim, in complete controversion to the data at hand, and then claim there is no data.
...you make up a lie about me.You can show no post of mine or evidence to back it up.
Then you lie again and say you showed the post to me (where is it?). That's not possible because there was NO post.
Lies upon lies...
Where does it stop?
Just like you lie about showing me any evidence that DBTs have been validated with audio equipment and music (not with codec artifacts).
Have you ever told the truth about anything?
Y'all deal with it just like y'all deal with the massive evidence around DBT's.What's the air down there in the sand where your head is?
...your saying it over and over doesn't make it true.Where's the post?
Y'all responded to it. Hence, all complaints on your part are shown to be crap.
Nice try at evasion. Y'all can just mosey back up this thread for a clear statement. Y'all tried the classic fallacy of the excluded middle, and y'all got caught. No more, no less.I bet you follow garden hoses up the hill out of the stream, too, don't ye?
that you agree that the unqualified statement voiced by Klaus that:
That boost was responsible for the edged, harsh, or whatever you call it, sound.
is ludicrous.
Progress is being made, if not slowly. One day, you might actually start using the "y'all" term correctly. :D
rw
And y'all can't do anything but try to put someone else's words in my mouth.Give it up, y'all, its perfectly obvious that y'all just looking for an excuse to attack.
(nt)
When you have something positive to add, warn us all, so we don't faint with shock.
How come every thread you get involved in becomes a contentious arguement with you calling people names?Just a coincidence, perhaps.
Or something YOU cause...
Think about it.
comments on the internet frequently lack details that are germane to the poster's feelings. We (including me) sometimes forget to mention them since naturally, we know what we mean!Unlike Klaus, it now appears that SEJ only agrees with a part of the sentiment expressed in the original post. Fine. I think SEJ didn't realize exactly the lone contention he was defending given the quantity of lawyer-like subsequent qualifications.
I do read quite well thank you very much, but do not claim to read minds.
rw
...too much benefit of the doubt - in your hospitible Southern tradition - which he doesn't deserve.After all, he called you a "liar".
Many people are able to communicate just fine here without reading minds.
Some of them even provide justification for their positions.
And some even admit it when they make mistakes...
Ready to prove it?
jj, it is a shame that you could never use your ears to determine whether something sounds OK or not. Too much education, I guess,as you are now effectively left brain controlled, unlike the rest of us. Yes, most of us have retained some of our right brain. It is useful in determining audio differences.
And deal with what I say?How "using your ears" got into this one is beyond me, and how y'all get to saying "shame you could never use your ears" is a heap of crap.
Would you like to apologize for making that up, now, sport?
.
What goes around, comes around....
I don't make anything up, Dorky!
OK, I'll use SEJ instead, if that will make you more comfortable. I just like to make it simple and accurate.
First y'all insist I'm jj, then y'all insist that I don't use my ears.I have heard, clearly, jj say in a talk that "THD is mostly useless". He went on to make a joke about the same way as "mostly harmless"
When asked how to test codecs, he said "subjective tests".
Now, y'all want to reconcile your various fantasies, Mr. Curl?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
