I agree with a caveat, the disagreements come in the realm of the minor change, not the big stuff. If one changes the volume setting on your amp, everyone always hears a change. It is real, quantifiable and immediate. If one changes a cable, one either gets a similiar result for the vast majority of folk listening or they don't. The change really become one of perception when the majorty of folk do not hear any difference unless someone else, a third party, tells them what to hear. Then we are into the herd mentality where no one wants to be considered an idiot by the 'experts' so they tend to also claim a change. The third type of change is the imaginary one where 9 out of ten folk will hear nothing on their gear, no veils lifted, no fog removed, nothing at all, unless told what they are supposed to hear. I find this sort of change bordering on snake oil.

For hundreds of our years of history patent medicine folk made a living traveling around the country claiming amazing cures from simply taking their product. They sold a lot of the stuff and a whole lot of folk claimed to have had their health improved. Today we know that the vast majority of effect of those products was due simply to the high alcohol content in the 'medicine'. Todays snake oil salesmen are found in abundance in high end audio. The placebo effect coupled with mass hypnosis does produce a lot of claims of audible improvements that might just not really be there.

If one needs to study and listen in a special way to hear a change, is the change there? If a tree falls in the forest and an audiophile is not present, did God get the 'timber 'right?

Quote:
If one needs to study and listen in a special way to hear a change, is the change there?

Yes!

You have never had an experience in which a pre-existing difference was found out and then you could not help but notice that difference thereafter?

Happens in all of life's venues. Hi Fi is no different.

Sort of like listening to an unscripted Obama speach wondering what all the fuss is about and then being told by one of the high priests of the old media what brilliance one is listening to...yep, I understand the concept

Sometimes snake oil IS snake oil

Quote:

Quote:
Jan Vigne:

No one wants to admit what they can't hear.

Exactly!

This is true at both ends of the spectrum.

Just as it is possible that someone can't hear the differences, it is also possible that others are self deluded about what they hear. But, nobody seems really interested in exploring the possibility of being wrong. "Non-hearers" won't try what they expect not to hear, and "hearers" refuse to explore the possibility that what they "hear" may be internally generated.

We end up with opposing camps based on people unable to hear a difference, even when it's there vs. the people who are unable not to hear a difference, even when it isn't there.

Are you human being..or a cow? That's what it comes down to.

IMHO, in audio, the biggest problem is one of limited experience or capacity..within the realm of truly understanding what, how, and why a given signal may be 'reproduced'..and how to correlate that to an expected comparative form to the 'real deal'..and then this inexperienced or 'aurally compromised or limited skill set/experience' then attempting..in their IGNORANCE..to tell everyone and anyone what 'God's Own Audio Truth' actually IS.

This happens at all levels. 1 year into the hobby...or 20 years of journalism or electronics background..or 20 years of audio design.... it most clearly and pointedly happens at all levels.

The reality is..that the subject is incredibly complex, at best.

Just like all areas of endeavor. History, for example is an incredibly complex issue, with regards to it's composition and public face. Layers within layers. science, physics, etc-same same-but worse. All of these subject, for example, also contain the human element, it's frailties and how that intrudes at the attempt to encircle, ensnare, and emulate the idea of logic.

High end audio? Even more so!

One must remember, or be made aware of comments like this. Now read this comment on audio, and remember it for the rest of your life. It is critical to understand what it means, when it comes to folks in any endeavor, and specifically this one, high end audio. I'm paraphrasing here:

John Dunleavy (Duntech and Dunleavy speakers) was asked..why, after about 30 years in extreme forms of electronics and physics work, (about 30 patents, some of them 'black projects', ie patents that are still 'sealed')..and multiple degrees, etc:

"Why the hell would he get into 'loudspeaker design?"

Answer: " Because it is the most complex and difficult subject I am aware of."

And he STILL didn't get it right. I've tried to fix one of his messes, re crossover design and implementation.

Loudspeaker design, for example, goes from simple arithmetic, all the way into multiple considerations of chaos theory and the cutting edge of the sciences involving concepts of reality and human form-function. It involves about 7 different branches of physics, to even begin to attempt to get it right.

Amplifier and audio electronics design are are arguably at the same level of complexity.

Granted, one can make a simple circuit from the parts that are available now. yes.

And then one can call themselves an 'audio designer'. Hey! I went to a 'linear thinking zipperhead' read-it-out-of-an-engineering-textbook reality expression' school. Hell, I know everything! etc. cutting edge explorers are not taught in schools. Either they have it---or they don't. It's attitude and core development, it's not even remotely a taught/schooled thing, but a good prof or two can eck it out of a given person. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of schooling is designed to drum that capacity for expression OUT of a given person.

I could go on,and on and on..but the essential point is that..only those who already know what I speak of... will actually 'get' what I'm talking about.

It comes down to an repeat of my point when I got into an argument with someone early in my beginnings on this forum.

My reply to their statement was along the lines of explaining that there are, about 8 to 10 levels of 'credulity' that can generally be expressed as 'points' in the 'levels' that humanity, in general and the specific individual..that the given individual cannot pass beyond..without radical and severe changes in their base psychology, in order to accept that paradigm or 'state of reality and knowing'. That change, in the mind..in order to accept and then understand..these changes are real and require a true metaphysical and psychological death in the mind, and a rebirth.

It starts out near the beer/pizza/football level of 'reality acceptance' and ends... near the idea of multiple dimensions, and human existence in multiple layers and expressions of conceptual/extant reality that are emphatically real..but beyond that which the 'masses' will accept.

This sort of layering..well..few pass beyond their initial starting layers that came to be as a solid shape in their minds as children, as a chemical/psychological death, is as real to the mind/body as anything else and thus the individual rejects it..vehemently and with extreme prejudice. Dying is never fun. The monkey hindbrain rules..and therein lies their internal fault, 'hoisted by their own petards', if you will.

Engineers, linear thinkers to almost a person..are particularly sensitive to this situation with regards to being blindsided by their own stubborn ignorance..and the 'Bavarian/German school of thought' with regards to how teaching and learning is administered..is what rules today in education and it's expected outcomes. This particular method and way..while rampant in the westernized world..is part of and largely is the singular fault that has held back innovation in mankind. Newton promoted this sort of thing as well, with his desire to place math written above 'conceptual thinking' as a method of pre-defining experimental pathways - then proofs based on experimentation. This last point was the original consideration of 'scientific method. And it works WELL. dammed good in fact. And far better than the existing methods. But don't get caught using it!

Newton. A great man. An innovator. But in the 300 year long analysis and modern result... he invariably stuck a stake in the heart of the scientific method and stifled innovation. How? By making the math rule to the human mind as an unbreakable chain that cannot be circumvented, even though his own history was full of exactly that. Even there, his own 'monkey hindbrain' was calling the shots. The most important thing to come away with here, is that that There are no fucking laws in reality or physics. Over time, every single one of them has been broken, history shows that - and in the future, all known theories of physics will be surpassed, altered, or be utterly obliterated. end of discussion.

But..we have this argument and situation specifically due to that emotional monkey that sits in your mind an rules it, completely. No matter HOW logical you may think you are.

Modern Schooling and the elevation of linear thinkers in society in general..it touts them as 'experts'. people that the general masses must trust and believe in. utter Crap. In reality, overall..it ends up promoting blindsided linear thinking and 'route memory skills' as a passage of rite' in order to be degreed and considered an 'expert' in a subject. It actually leaves no room for individualism and creative thought. It promotes things like rote memory skills above all else. Ie, a person with perfect memory, eidetic recall, can get near 100% scores and perfect marks and earn multiple degrees. Even if this is their only skill.

So we have a schooling system that promotes ignorance and crushes innovation. What a fucking world.

What does this all have to do with the subject at hand?

Everything!

Just like it always does.

But you can't get past it - to see it.

Understand? Not bloody likely.

So when I come to these boards, i feel like a psychiatrist some times. Wah! Wah! wah! Let it out. Grow up, please! Get some real learnin' in yah.

No more of this pedantic shit, please!

But..then again..going through all of this is part of the process.

One tends to have to exhaust all avenues..to the point of actual death..before they will even begin to look inside. Thus the curse of man is extant..and on display, here..every day...for those who know how to see it for what it is.

You guys argue audio.

I tell you to, "Get thee to a fucking nunnery"....

You go, "Huh?"

I say, 'My point exactly."

There are some that definitley annoy me, but the main problem IMO is this: almost every cliche has it's origins in some truth, sometimes it's mostly true. But cliche is a truth overused and wrung out to the ooint it not longer is helpful, clarifying or "true" for teh intended audience. After a while if there are so many of the same descriptors for widely varying designs and equipment I don't know anymore what I'm reading.

As much as I like Sam Tellig, he can get a bit like that. SO many products he reviews seem to be a giant killer, best buy, paradigm changing bargain I just can't get a handle on what's what. Is he just easy to please, or do we really have a tidal wave of inexpensive jewels just flooding the market? Often it hard to tell. I like hearing about some of the cool stuff he uncovers, but it's not easy to know where they fit in as far as more objective reviews.

I especially hate, as was already mentioned, the reviewers who love to trot out those absurdly obscure composers and pieces as a reference. No- I sure don't want everyone to only use a handfull of "aaproved" albums, but still... Love the Xylophone symphony!

Quote:
I especially hate, as was already mentioned, the reviewers who love to trot out those absurdly obscure composers and pieces as a reference. No- I sure don't want everyone to only use a handfull of "aaproved" albums, but still... Love the Xylophone symphony

Got to agree...unlike modern art, the more obscure the piece the less relevance it has to the music and review as no one other than the reviewer knows what the devil he is trying to say. Hint...Beethoven wrote 9 symphonies. Somewere in that mass there must be something most folk have heard and can relate to.

I am reminded why audiophile record labels have problems. Recording dross perfectly is not a money maker.

A proof of what I say?

Ok. An easy task.

IF..IF... logic was all it was cracked up to be..then Waterboarding ...would not work. At all.

All Scientists, Thinkers, Engineers, Profs..and 'people of logic' would be able to withstand Waterboarding for minutes, hours, days..weeks....months on end.

Yet..for the record..not one person has lasted more than 1 minute and 30 seconds.

You tell me you are a logical thinker? That your hindbrain does NOT rule the formation and shaping of your thoughts? That you can think...clearly?

Utter bullshit.

That's the western world (and way) for you.

Quote:
I find such claims similar to the car salesman telling one that this particular blue car, painted in wonder paint, will produce a subtle but real change in gas mileage compared to the red car with identical setup next to the car so the blue comes with a $1000 premium.

I will repeat for you how I feel about your statements, "From what you have posted I can only conclude you really have no idea how this works."

I cannot carry on discussion with someone who has not so much as a fleeting grasp on the reality of the world of audio. When everything that comes from you is a gross, silly exaggeration and a ridiculous situation, there is no way to confront that level of ... ignorance. It borders on "all (members of a specific race) smell bad" or "you can't teach a (member of another ethnicity) anything 'cause genetically they are mutated with a missing gene that accounts for their tiny brain".

I cannot discuss sweeping generalities which have no basis in fact and exist only in a fervent desire to make small all that disagrees with your point of view. That was the point of my earlier post and yet you came right back with more of the same.

I suggest you strongly consider your point of view as partisan to the maximum and rethink all you believe. When you can view a single event as such or a specific product as not representative of all you believe is evil in this world, then possibly we can talk. As of now? No. I simply wil not participate in your surreal fantasies.

Quote:

Quote:
I find such claims similar to the car salesman telling one that this particular blue car, painted in wonder paint, will produce a subtle but real change in gas mileage compared to the red car with identical setup next to the car so the blue comes with a $1000 premium.

I will repeat for you how I feel about your statements, "From what you have posted I can only conclude you really have no idea how this works."

I cannot carry on discussion with someone who has not so much as a fleeting grasp on the reality of the world of audio. When everything that comes from you is a gross, silly exaggeration and a ridiculous situation, there is no way to confront that level of ... ignorance. It borders on "all (members of a specific race) smell bad" or "you can't teach a (member of another ethnicity) anything 'cause genetically they are mutated with a missing gene that accounts for their tiny brain".

I cannot discuss sweeping generalities which have no basis in fact and exist only in a fervent desire to make small all that disagrees with your point of view. That was the point of my earlier post and yet you came right back with more of the same.

I suggest you strongly consider your point of view as partisan to the maximum and rethink all you believe. When you can view a single event as such or a specific product as not representative of all you believe is evil in this world, then possibly we can talk. As of now? No. I simply wil not participate in your surreal fantasies.

Just as I cannot debate the new pop religion of Global Warming with its devotes, I cannot discuss real or imagined changes to an audio experience with someone who believes in magic, pixies, and odd tweaks that one has to be 'educated' to hear. Like faith, you either believe in what cannot be quantified, seen or heard, or you don't. I need the experience to be repeatable, you take its effect on faith. That is fine.

I think you misstate this a bit "From what you have posted I can only conclude you really have no idea how this works."

Like the patent medicine drummer, it is not that I do not understand how the game is played. I perhaps understand it to well. My problem is that I write about how the game is played, warts and all, and you do not like the result.

Quote:
I don't think that this thread as evolved in quite the way that the OP may have envisioned.

Possibly not but few threads actually do survive with the op's intent on this forum. What this thread has represented is a cliched approach to how this forum operates.

Quote:
So far this thread has over 80 posts and the vast majority of those posts are about PRaT, whatever the hell that means, since by simply reading the posts one comes away with absolutely no idea of what the hell is going on.

Then you have not been paying attention or you have intentionally ignored the information provided on this thread. You've been provided an explanation of how the term PRaT came about, how it should be applied and what it means both technically and in audio shorthand. You have been given a link to ten pages of information and opinion about PRaT. Others have found those things in this thread.

And yet you "come away with absolutely no idea of what the hell is going on." How is that possible other than through shear energetic determination on your part?

Quote:
I still have absolutely no idea how the term PRaT can be used to describe the functioning of an audio system. Sorry call me dense or, much more likely, an audio heretic.

One of those two must surely apply.

Quote:
This is true at both ends of the spectrum.

Yada, yada ...

Buddha, please read my post about gross generalities and apply it as a response to your post.

Quote:
Instead it has turned into a classic example of why non-audiophiles think that audiophiles are a bunch of self professed golden eared nut jobs.

Quote:
I suggest that everyone reread this thread just to get a handle on what being an audiophile can do to one's ability to use reason,logic and well established scientific principles.

Quote:
Therefore, I motion that if and when this thread finally dies down the thread be made into a "sticky" thread and placed at the very top of the "General Rants'n'Raves" section as a constant reminder of just why the term "audiophile" leaves such a bad taste in so many peoples' mouths.

Quote:
Do you really believe the nonsense that you write or are you just playing devil's advocate to liven things up?

If you really do believe such things then you are the epitome of all the things that are so very wrong with audiophiles. Not only are you the Anti-DUP but you are also the poster boy for all things audiophile.

Dear boy, I never lie. You can take that to the bank.

My question to all of you who feel "audiophile" is a bad word or measurements tell all, cables are snake oil and lots o' watts is the only answer that counts, why the hell are you here? And where do you think you are?

Why read Stereophile if you don't believe in what it represents? In case you do not realize it, Stereophile is a subjective review magazine. Numbers support the subjective opinion but the reviewer's subjective opinion that such things matter is the prevailing view of Stereophile. It was started to give voice to those who felt the exact opposite to those opinions I listed above. In the beginning there were no measurements in Stereophile and for good reason. I suggest you find you what that reason was?

Why bother with something that you so strongly disagree with? Why read articles that provide no useable information and can only stir discontent in your bowels?

Why get on this forum? This is the Stereophile forum, you know? Why spend time denying all that this forum should be discussing? And doing so repeatedly when you have no point of view other than "Nope!" Your presence on this forum is like an Amish getting on the Car and Driver forum. The attitude displayed above is not that far from a Hamas member spewing their venom on the Anti-Defamation League's forum pages.

Why?

This is hardly a music only magazine and certainly not a music mostly forum, so why be here if that's what you want?

Here's something I received in a PM not too long ago, "When I first joined the forum I was astonished by the objectivist viewpoint ... " That viewpoint certainly dominates this forum from the attitude of one flatulent member to the majority on this thread.

Why? Why be here? Why not go where you are in agreement with others? What information can you find here when the prevailing end to almost every thread which represent the interests of Stereophile readers will be "Nope"? What enjoyment do you get from that?

Quote:
My problem is that I write about how the game is played, warts and all, and you do not like the result.

Oh, well, yes! Now that you put it that way, of course you are right. That is one of your problems.

I've tried reading through this thread to discern what the positions are, and I'm lost - especially as to what the argument is about.

I'm an inactive musician (trained in music from a young age, play multiple instruments, and have played in several bands - both concert, big band, and rock), but very new to the hi-fi world and terminology.

If I see the phrase "Pace, Rhythm, and Timing" I think:
Pace = Speed (mostly)
Rhythm = pattern of beats
Timing = The regulation of pace

If any of these are off, it's bad. If my TT is too slow, or it flutters, this can be thrown off.

Dooes anyone materially disagree with this? I'm sure someone could refine the definitions, but, roughly?

Assuming that is correct, how could an audio cable throw off pace, rhythm, or timing? I guess if it was incredibly faulty it could drop sections of music.

But I'll accept that some equipment may, for example, make beats more identifiable and thus make the pace, rhythm, and timing more noticeable. As an extreme example I'm pretty sure the pace, rhythm, and timing of any piece of music will be more identifiable in a CD or LP than in, say, a badly compressed 10khz Mp3 file. Then it just becomes another (and more confusing) way of saying that music sounds better with one piece of equipment vis a vis another piece of equipment.

Have you read the Martin Colloms article linked to in this thread?

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

Quote:
If my TT is too slow, or it flutters, this can be thrown off.

The smallest, immeasurable amount of what would be known as "flutter" can affect the PRaT of the music played on that table. That is the point of the somewhat elaborate power supplies accompanying many high end tables today. We are beyond the measurement stage of flutter and into the listener's perceptive response to micro-flutter of the most subtle variety. It's very real but not to a measurements-are-all thinker.

Quote:
Once again we come to the point where you not hearing does not mean it is not a fact.

Or that those that claim that hear it have convinced themselves of something that does not exist.

Quote:
I and literally hundreds of thousands of others will believe what we hear . . .

If a thousand men say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing.

Quote:
Have you read the Martin Colloms article linked to in this thread?

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

Quote:
If my TT is too slow, or it flutters, this can be thrown off.

The smallest, immeasurable amount of what would be known as "flutter" can affect the PRaT of the music played on that table. That is the point of the somewhat elaborate power supplies accompanying many high end tables today. We are beyond the measurement stage of flutter and into the listener's perceptive response to micro-flutter of the most subtle variety. It's very real but not to a measurements-are-all thinker.

One of the problems with these discussions is that many times, people's opinions on the same issue change from post to post.

On page one of the thread, Jan says, "I can listen to my 78's on what would be considered a low fidelity playback system and they are swingin' with PRaT! Do you have any idea why that is?"

Then, later, he tells us about the significance of micro-flutter of the "most subtle variety," and how that kills PRaT and requires dedicated power supplies, etc...

Those 78's were made on rigs with loads of wow and flutter that occurred during the recording process, the translation to disc, and then played back on rigs with macro flutter and wow...yet they are given as examples of well preserved PRaT.

Jan, how were those 78's played back on low fidelity systems able to overcome "micro-flutter" in order to deliver the PRaT that higher quality systems lack?

Jan has PRaT COMA, he is delusional and might have a high fever. He caught PRat from his 78's played back on 5" super system. Can you possibly sumise the fidelity of a 78 played on 35W 3% THD tubes out of a 5" speaker system. Is this 1929? Then he says those super duper DD TT's with enourmous power supplies, still don't play right cus' of those imeasurable flutter specs.....You are right Buddha, Jan must be having fever induced halucinations. 78's didn't have any sound worth listening too when they where NEW, what a RETARD!!! Full Retard. And he can make pronouncments about hi fidelity on any order is like Michael Jackson setting up standards at the local day care center.... Jan needs a BIG BIG amplifier and speakers to cleanse his PRaT infected mind.

Quote:
Or that those that claim that hear it have convinced themselves of something that does not exist.

Did you have someone else on this forum post that for you?

Please see my response above to Buddha and the guy with his own problems that I disapprove of. This is still at the level of "all (ethnic minority of your choice) smell bad". If that's your best defense, then you have no defense.

Quote:
Jan, how were those 78's played back on low fidelity systems able to overcome "micro-flutter" in order to deliver the PRaT that higher quality systems lack?

I am amazed at the stretch of logic you will go through in a weak kneed attempt to trip me up on "micro-flutter".

I'm not going to go through how things work for your benefit, Budhha. Nor will I explain the difference between "improved", "damaged" and "non-existent". You're so smart in the first place you can figure all that stuff out, right?

Do some research on your own if you wish to find out how all of this works. If you don't wish to find out, then remain in the dark like the rest of the people who will not seek out any information that does not already correspond to what they have decided is true.

Let me take you back to two earlier posts I made on his thread that are quite relevant to your question.

Quote:
That doesn't stop it from making you tap your fingers in time to the music, does it? Not if it's in the source it won't.

Quote:
... with vacuum tubes (possibly even single ended) and a single high impedance, full range driver - more than likely (it) did serve the music well even if not with complete accuracy.

There's your answer, now you just have to figure it out. And remember - source first in system heirarchy.

Good luck.

Anyone willing to take on post #47384?

Just trying to keep it straight, Jan.

On the one hand, a low fi system with gross macro wow and flutter has PRaT, but a system with much lower PRaT fails due to "immeasurable" micro flutter.

The two statements seem conradictory in the context of discussing wow and flutter.

When faced with an auto-pedant, I feel behooved to reconcile such 180 degree claims.

If we consider the source first, then the 78's should lack PRaT utterly.

If we consider the same music played back on low fidelity vs high fidelity systems, do we lose PRaT due to micro-flutter on the high end system, but have it kept at bay by the macro-flutter of low fi playback?

Not going for 'weak kneed,' Jan, trying to get your statements to match up.

Then just keep it straight, Buddha. Think long enough and hard enough and you'll see the two statements are not self exclusive. Stop making assumptions about "gross macro wow and flutter" and you'll get closer to the idea of how things work.

Do you really think all 78's and all turntables that play 78's are gross wow and flutter machines? You obviously have not played many 78's on anything worth owning.

Do you really not believe in the benefits of a sophisticated power supply for a high end turntable? Among all the other things you don't believe possible that others recognize constantly, you don't belieive in power supplies and high end turntables?

This naysayer persona of yours is being stretched to the limit, Buddha.

There's nothing else to discuss on this topic unless you can figure out how things work. So far, you are only reading what you want to read and concluding without thinking. That puts us back to gross exaggerations made solely for the purpose of exaggeration and not discussion.

When you wish to discuss something, we may talk. As long as you wish to play silly games, you can find another partner. I am not going to respond to comments about make believe cables that cost over $5k, gross exaggerations on the order of "everyone does this or doesn't know that", any statement that is simply a lie or any misconstrued conclusion that is the result of either simple laziness or an inability to grasp basic concepts provided for you in writing.

To do so would be like addressing the "Sons of Strom Thurman" on the sociological benefits of school bussing.

When you are prepared to discuss something with an open mind, let me know. Till then, keep it to yourself. I am not interested.

Hey, are you saying "THEY" don't all SMELL bad? So you can't SMELL or HEAR!!!! PRaT Pretty Rank Arm Tulips.

"Then just keep it straight, Buddha. Think long enough and hard enough and you'll see the two statements are not self exclusive. Stop making assumptions about "gross macro wow and flutter" and you'll get closer to the idea of how things work.

Do you really think all 78's and all turntables that play 78's are gross wow and flutter machines? You obviously have not played many 78's on anything worth owning."

Examples, por favor? I'd like to see which units you have found that are "low fi," by your identification, yet still maintain PRaT.

You have an obvious level of expertise with 78's, so I'd like to see what gear you've used to achieve low fi PRaT that high end gear can't match.

Do you really not believe in the benefits of a sophisticated power supply for a high end turntable? Among all the other things you don't believe possible that others recognize constantly, you don't belieive in power supplies and high end turntables?

Did I say any such thing? I think not. I use an indpendent power supply for my own turntable. What I don't 'believe' is your claim that there are low fi 78 players that have less trouble with 'immeasurable micro flutter' than high end tables.

You made the claim about low fi 78 players with great PRaT, then made the comment about micro-flutter being the PRaT bandit for record playback.

This naysayer persona of yours is being stretched to the limit, Buddha.

I'm not a naysayer. I'm trying to get you to correlate how the two comments about PRaT you made match up. Calling you on your bullshit doesn't make me a naysayer for the topic, just a naysayer for your pretzel style logic.

There's nothing else to discuss on this topic unless you can figure out how things work. So far, you are only reading what you want to read and concluding without thinking. That puts us back to gross exaggerations made solely for the purpose of exaggeration and not discussion.

Exactly, I was calling you on your gross exaggerations made soley for the purpose of exaggeration. Good moment of self insight, Jan.

When you wish to discuss something, we may talk. As long as you wish to play silly games, you can find another partner. I am not going to respond to comments about make believe cables that cost over $5k, gross exaggerations on the order of "everyone does this or doesn't know that", any statement that is simply a lie or any misconstrued conclusion that is the result of either simple laziness or an inability to grasp basic concepts provided for you in writing.

I missed the part where I made any claims about cable. Let's stick to the PRaT of those 78's that somehow overcome 'immeasurable micro-flutter' problems, shall we?

To do so would be like addressing the "Sons of Strom Thurman" on the sociological benefits of school bussing.

When you are prepared to discuss something with an open mind, let me know. Till then, keep it to yourself. I am not interested.

I'm just hoping you'll organize your bullshit in such a way as to keep your crap-spewing consistent from one page to another.

What really happened was you forgot the crap you posted about low fi 78 players and then decided to spew more crap about micro-flutter on the same thread.

Oops.

Now you are embarrassed and acting up in order to try and distract people from the fact that you got caught making up yet more Jan-stuff.

Maybe you could make some spreadsheets to keep yourself consistent.

Quote:
This is still at the level of "all (ethnic minority of your choice) smell bad".

Huh?

Buddha, you're so good at this you should change your username to "Matlock". "Buddha" no longer fits.

PRaT notwithstanding, 78's sound terrible, when compared from memory with the live event. I don't care if rumble, mumble, or stumble is responsible. They sound terrible. They are honky, rolled off in the highs, and on and on and on -- they sound worse than AM radio. Again, compared to memories of the live experience. There is no glory in them. Just honking.

Look. I have some Toscanini and Walter 78's. I can't even listen through to the conductors' nuances, these frisbees are so bad.

Recording a full symphony orchestra is tricky business. Some of it is fidelity, some of it is trickery in the interests of fidelity.

They just didn't have the technological know-how to do it in the days of 78's.

I even dislike more modern (say, 1950's) mono recordings. I have a couple of jazz mono recordings that sound great (Analogue Production re-issues), but only because they were miked so close, and because the small size of the jazz combo allowed that.

I have both the mono and stero recordings of Sviatoslov Richter doing the Beethoven 1st Piano concerto ( along with the Opus 54 Sonata). There is no comparison. The stereo version is infinitely better. When attempting to depict a full symphony orchestra, mono recordings not only sound dull, flat, and 2 dimensional, but the tonal balance is affected. Again, the sound is like an AM radio. The stereo version is infinitely more realistic. Massed violins have sheen and sparkle, and fill all the spaces. The mono version is jammed into the middle and honks.

Look. I am old and nostalgic. I grew up on all this shit. But I also want something close to my memories of the live events. 78's are ludicrous, against that standard. And, yes, I have heard them played through $3000 mono cartridges and $15,000 turntable/arm combinations. Mono isn't THAT bad, but, with the exception of a few recordings of solo instruments and small combos, not even mono can approach the illusion of stereo.

And, yes, it IS an illusion. Any time you can get a simulation of 120 musicians into your 15' X 25' X 9' living room, close your eyes, and imaginatively become convinced you are hearing close to the live experience, IT IS AN ILLUSION. HELLO. THE REAL ORCHESTRA WON'T FIT.

I always opt for the most convincing illusion. And many attempts are pretty damned convincing. But I DO know real from simulated. Anybody who goes to live symphonic concerts would never be fooled.

78's and mono, in general, fool you the least. Great stereo is the most convincing. Multi channel is a step backwards. Sorry. Show me oscilloscope traces and ramble on about PRaT, blather about capacitors, and extol the beauty of digital, but your ears know.

Hey. When I'm listening to my stereo, the recorded music I love, I KNOW the sordid truth. I am NOT listening to live music. But, I still wouldn't mind being fooled. And, with great stereo recordings (and a few Martinis), I often am. It is like fucking. Just don't interrupt the illusion until after I'm sober. Then, the whole world goes mono and gray. Then, I'm ready for the cold truth. But, there is a time for everything...

Happy tunes. Mozart and Brendel beckon. I expect a pretty good illusion, and (from experience) I know I'll get it. At 33 and 1/3, in stereo.

Listening to 78's and most mono is like what I imagine humping a rubber doll must be like -- too fake to get excited. IMAGINE, dammit!

This is not directed at anyone, just an observation.

When it comes to hearing ability, life experience, education, etc we are everyone of us at different stages of development/capability. I rarely hear all the things that some of these reviewers write about in the manner they describe them. Could it possibly be that I don't hear as well as a professionally trained musician? Could years of working around loud machinery, live firing ranges, and motorcycles have an impact on how I hear and percieve music? My son is a musician. We listen to a lot of music together and hear different things as we listen. Same music, same system, same time, same room. Which of us is wrong? I can accept on faith that most of you have a degree of personal integrity in your attempts to communicate your own thoughts and experience. That doesn't mean that I always understand what you are talking about, or agree with what you say. Nor do I expect everyone to understand me 100%, or agree when they do. That doesn't make us enemys.
I hear valid points being made by most people here to some degree or another. What I don't hear is much introspection. Try it, you'll like it. It will make this a little friendlier place if we do, and also leave some room for everyone to be themselves while benefitting from this forum.

Thoughtful post, Shade.

Clifton, "the next time someone tells me that they know that the realistic reproduction of music in the home requires 1) 24-bit/192kHz (or whatever), 2) perfectly flat frequency response, 3) bass down to 20Hz, 4) 5.1 channels

hahahahahaha, yeah, that's realism. BLOSE sells well also.......

Quote:
We listen to a lot of music together and hear different things as we listen. Same music, same system, same time, same room. Which of us is wrong?

I would say there is the possibility one of you might be less right. Possibly. But the question, IMO, should be, is either of you being inconsistent? If you both know what it is you're listening for and you know how to find it in any recording or through any reasonably good component, then you are on the right course even if that course is not the same as the one taken by someone else. When you become so supercilious as to tell everyone what they cannot hear, what they cannot believe, what they cannot purchase or what they cannot enjoy, then you have driven yourself into the very same ditch where many members of this forum sit and spin their wheels.

And just in time to prove my point ...

Quote:
*** You are ignoring this user ***

But I'm sure it was brilliant, just brilliant.

And relevant too!

What was it? I? IV? Or V?

Can't spin wheels without POWER.....and if the wheels are too small, they sink into the mud, like 5" midranges do, all mud, no sonics. Jan has rea done physics, long wavelength can be reproduced on tiny drivers, maybe his 5" move 1-2 inches in and out with no distortion? Bet ya they don't.....78 are hi fi PRaT. 78's!!!! 21st century, and he listens to 78's!!! And thinks they sound good!!!! I think it's all a goof, has to be.

The questions remain unanswered.

Quote:
My question to all of you who feel "audiophile" is a bad word or measurements tell all, cables are snake oil and lots o' watts is the only answer that counts, why the hell are you here? And where do you think you are?

Why read Stereophile if you don't believe in what it represents? In case you do not realize it, Stereophile is a subjective review magazine. Numbers support the subjective opinion but the reviewer's subjective opinion that such things matter is the prevailing view of Stereophile. It was started to give voice to those who felt the exact opposite to those opinions I listed above. In the beginning there were no measurements in Stereophile and for good reason. I suggest you find you what that reason was.

Why bother with something that you so strongly disagree with? Why read articles that provide no useable information and can only stir discontent in your bowels?

Why get on this forum?

Do you realize this is the Stereophile forum?

Why spend time denying all that this forum should be discussing? And doing so repeatedly when you have no point of view other than "Nope!" Your presence on this forum is like an Amish getting on the Car and Driver forum. The attitude displayed above is not that far from a Hamas member spewing their venom on the Anti-Defamation League's forum pages.

Why?

This is hardly a music only magazine and certainly not a music mostly forum, so why be here if that's what you want?

Here's something I received in a PM not too long ago, "When I first joined the forum I was astonished by the objectivist viewpoint ... " That viewpoint certainly dominates this forum from the attitude of one flatulent member to the majority on this thread.

Why? Why be here? Why not go where you are in agreement with others? What information can you find here when the prevailing end to almost every thread which represent the interests of Stereophile readers will be "Nope"? What possible enjoyment do you get from that? Or are you all just trolls looking to spoil a forum for others?

Quote:
The questions remain unanswered.

Quote:
My question to all of you who feel "audiophile" is a bad word or measurements tell all, cables are snake oil and lots o' watts is the only answer that counts, why the hell are you here? And where do you think you are?...

Excepting DUP, I don't think there's anyone in this thread that believes as your retorical question asks. Hence, no replies.

You ask a stupid question that implies weakness in anyone that would answer, then you get indignant when no one responds.

I'd like to meet you in person. Don't you live in the Dallas area? Will you be at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest? Maybe I could buy you a cup of coffee or a beer. Surely you're not as arrogant and obnoxious as you come off here. I'd love to have you show me some PRaT.

Dave

Get the T shirts made up for the show...Show me your PRaT......

Quote:
Excepting DUP, I don't think there's anyone in this thread that believes as your retorical question asks.

I would say you have not been paying attention to the threads, even the ones you have particpated in. Did you miss the numerous quotes I placed on this thread which berated and denigrated all audiophiles who do not believe exactly as some would have them think? Have you not seen the innumerable comments regarding the snake oil charlatans selling any number of equipment and accessories? If you didn't fall exacty into a slot I described above, there are quite a few who did or else can easily find their own similar hole.

Quote:
You ask a stupid question that implies weakness in anyone that would answer, then you get indignant when no one responds.

Given what I and others see as the prevailing attitude on this forum I think "stupid question" would be in the eye of the reader and not in the question itself. I and others see the forum attitude as one that insists most things "audiophile" are not to be believed, instead they should be viewed as marketing schemes. In other words, Stereophile is one large advertisement that should be ignored and in many cases ridiculed. Another viewpoint expressed loudly and repeatedly on this forum would be that measurements are of the highest priority and must exist before anything can occur no matter how many people report hearing something not aligned to measurements. That science must be what you believe and it must be capable of explaining everything. At best this is at the very fringe of Sterophile's beginnings. Mostly the prevailing opinion is that there is only one right answer.

Other than the last, I don't consider these viewpoints to be a sign of weakness. Why do you?

And I am not indignant. It would seem it is up to you to view someone as indignant when there is no basis for your conclusion. I'm asking questions. That's what happens on a forum.

I feel you are entitled to your opinion even if I strongly disagree with many of your opinions. I would appreciate it when I have asked you to justify your opinion - such as what "everyone knows" - that you would go ahead and justify your opinion and not start slinging insults. If you don't know what "everyone knows" just say so. But discussion of even that simplicity rarely takes place on this forum.

So that is my question, why? Why come here if you aren't prepared to discuss what Stereophile writes about? And Stereophile writes about $5k cables that make significant improvements. And they use the term PRaT. And they present the idea that high quality audio components are all different and you should find what you believe to be true but not at the exclusion of others.

Sam Tellig writes about the many products he finds of merit, from a Tivoli radio to a Klipsch LaScala. If you pay attention Sam's reviews are all over the board just as are the tastes of the entire audiophile community. He doesn't exclude anyone but instead writes of the many products available which might appeal to the wide range of tastes that exist within the music lover's preferences, even those who like 78's and original Dixieland Jazz performed in its original format.

There are other venues for measurement types or those who feel salespeople shouldn't be trusted. If you think all cables are just wires, there are forums for that too. But that's hardly what Stereophile represents.

So why come here just to shout down someone with whom you disagree? And why stay?

Quote:
Maybe I could buy you a cup of coffee or a beer. Surely you're not as arrogant and obnoxious as you come off here. I'd love to have you show me some PRaT.

Despite your charming invitation, I doubt our communal beverage break would last for long. And, if you are so adamant PRaT does not exist unless the record speeds up, I doubt I could show you that it does in fact exist and at the same speed as always. You can't beat sense into a mule.

Quote:
"So that is my question, why? Why come here if you aren't prepared to discuss what Stereophile writes about?"

Sometimes, people only drink some of the Kool Aid - is it required that an audiophile believe everything printed in Stereophile in order to be an audiophile in good standing?

If you believe everything they say, then why come here as well? If that were the case, we could one forum and one thread, titled, "What he said!"

If I believed Mike Fremer, I'd have to believe that a broken CD player and interconnects that are so bad, they actually measure as defective, are all the best products going.

Do you take issue with JA's disdain/lack of enthusiasm for things Belt? Is he allowed to come here?

It's ridiculous to think that every person here has to toe some sort of Stereophile line in order to remain an audiophile.

Quote:
You can't beat sense into a mule.

Is that like saying...all(insert sexist slur)have personality and acceptance issues?

RG

Anyone want to discuss audio?

Please?

Quote:
It's ridiculous to think that every person here has to toe some sort of Stereophile line in order to remain an audiophile.

You are distorting the question. It is not whether or not you are a "true believer". I don't know what a true believer would be since that would to some extent be determined by your buying power and your experience. Do I believe a $120k turntable can be superior to a $50k table? Yes, but that's not the point I am making. Do I believe ultra-expensive cables are capable of providing higher levels of satisifaction in music playback? Yes, just as I believe driving a million dollar car riding on $10k worth of tires down an open course is going to be more enjoyable than driving a $50k vehicle through traffic. But I won't experience any of those things as I suspect most of us here will not either.

And yet they are ridiculed with regularity on this forum by those with no experience of such things. It's not about drinking the KoolAid. I'm not certain where it comes from, but the prevailing attitude of this forum has nothing to do with "belief" in any good sense of the word.

Quote:
Do you take issue with JA's disdain/lack of enthusiasm for things Belt? Is he allowed to come here?

I guess I missed John being disdainful of Belt and certainly of May Belt. Where did you find that?

I believe he stated something to the effect that consistent perception is ultimately what is important to the listener. That sounds like something Belt might agree with. And that hardly sounds disdainful to me. Does he lack enthusiasm for Belt products? I don't know that either. I've never heard him say one way or the other. How do you know he has such an attitude? Because you do and it would be comforting to think you are in sync with him on this topic?

Whatever John's real opinion of Belt products might be, he is welcome to his reasoned opinion. I suspect John has done some amount of consideration regarding the Belt products before coming to a conclusion just as he must have come to some conclusions before he permanently attached any discs to his fairly expensive loudspeakers. He has stated plainly that he is divided in his opinion of items such as the Mpingo discs because he has heard their effect on several ocassions but he himself cannot explain exactly how that effect is achieved. I don't know, does that sound "disdainful" to you? Where has John printed a disdainful word about any of these products?

What I do see from JA that I find lacking in many people on this forum is a deep regard for what is possible even when he does not fully understand the process by which the improvements could be evinced. And I get the feeling John is someone who would like to find out why and how things work but why and how are not superior to simply enjoying the benefits. So, yes, I find that attitude to be far more inviting to discussion than that of the naysayers and those who rely on science as they understand it and wish to use it in service to their own opinions. I would rather converse with someone who is willing to listen to my views and discuss where we differ in opinion than with someone who is here because they do not believe what I understand to be real and will have no discussion of anything they do not believe in. In effect those people do not believe what Stereophile is saying - that everyone gets to make up their own mind about any part of this. That the listener who enjoys his LaScalas or Sonus Fabers is just as welcome as the listener who still feels his LS3/5a's are the best speaker they could ever own.

I don't think you need to buy into everything Stereophile prints but I do feel you should at least accept their basic premise for existence. If not, why be here?

Quote:
If you believe everything they say, then why come here as well? If that were the case, we could one forum and one thread, titled, "What he said!"

I come here because I believe in what Stereophile professes to be about and I thought I would be able to discuss those things on this forum. In that regard I have been sorely disappointed.

You still haven't said why you come here.

As to the one thread - we have that already. It's on a loop of I-IV-V.

Quote:
Anyone want to discuss audio?

Elk, there are at least a half dozen other threads running. Is no one discussing audio?

I am shocked! Shocked, I say!

Quote:

Quote:
Maybe I could buy you a cup of coffee or a beer. Surely you're not as arrogant and obnoxious as you come off here. I'd love to have you show me some PRaT.

Despite your charming invitation, I doubt our communal beverage break would last for long. And, if you are so adamant PRaT does not exist unless the record speeds up, I doubt I could show you that it does in fact exist and at the same speed as always. You can't beat sense into a mule.

I never said that PRaT doesn't exist, I said that PRaT is a misnomer, having nothing to do with actual Pace or Rhyhthm. JA linked to an article describing Pace, Rhythm and Dynamics (PRaD???). That acronymn is only a little more descriptive of what's actually happening.

When anyone says PRaT, I know what they're talking about. It just disturbs me that they're using a misnomer cliche' in a potentially misleading way. Interestingly, every musician that responded to this thread agreed with me that PRaT is not describing anything to do with actual Pace or Rhythm.

Oh well, as someone said, "You can't beat sense into a mule."

BTW, how old are you? I'm 60. I'm thinking you're about 17 and hold the alternate's slot on the debating team, hoping to hone your skills here, but making little to no progress.

Dave

Quote:
I never said that PRaT doesn't exist, I said that PRaT is a misnomer, having nothing to do with actual Pace or Rhyhthm.

And you are wrong, on several issues.

Quote:
Interestingly, every musician that responded to this thread agreed with me that PRaT is not describing anything to do with actual Pace or Rhythm.

Really?! You know that for a fact? Because I didn't include that information in my profile. I didn't think I had to prove I can read music to be on this forum.

Quote:
BTW, how old are you? I'm 60. I'm thinking you're about 17 and hold the alternate's slot on the debating team, hoping to hone your skills here, but making little to no progress.

Really?! You're almost 60 and you still behave like this? Go to the home and tell your mother you are disappointed she did not do a better job raising her child. How tall are you? I'm guessing not very.

Want to keep this up?

As a musician I would have to agree with Dave.

Prat must be a term dreamed up by an audiophile with no advanced music training.
There is quite a developed music language that far more accurately can describe what is or is not happening.

Quote:

Quote:
Interestingly, every musician that responded to this thread agreed with me that PRaT is not describing anything to do with actual Pace or Rhythm.

Really?! You know that for a fact? Because I didn't include that information in my profile. I didn't think I had to prove I can read music to be on this forum.

You seem to have no musical skills and you never talk about it, despite all your other PRaTtle. Go on, surprise me, what do you play? If you sing, go ahead and tell us and don't fear, I'll resist any chick singer barbs.

Interestingly, I must have pegged your age exactly, because rather than reveal it you went on about my mother. I also suspect that my arrow hit the mark about your position on the high school debating team also.

Man, you're funny. Come on, let's get together the next time I'm in Dallas. They'll have to drop the drinking age before I'll buy you a beer, but coffee, Mountain Dew or Red Bull might work for you.

Dave

Quote:
Anyone want to discuss audio?

Please?

Ok, I just received my first NEW, as in not used, record in over 30 years. I am savoring the pre-audition period, will watch the news and see if Obama has picked Babbling Joe, read my local paper, and then move onto more sublime things.