===================================================
= NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please =
= be more selective when quoting text =
===================================================
> >> >I never said ATRAC degraded anything people can hear
> >>
> >> You never said that, but it's true (at least for some people).
> >
> >I will never believe this until someone proves it and more than a few have
> >tried, come on over to Oak Harbor WA and try.... I'll offer 100.00 to
> >anyone who can come tell me the difference in my studio; but if you loose we
> >go to the Outback (A HIGH END restuarant, LOL) on your bill.....
>
> If I lived a little closer, Larry ;-)
If your speaking about me, Larry Sherry, I never made any statement about ATRAC
causing very noticeable (if any) dedication in sound quality. I'm still the
schmuck that thinks that even the original sony ATRAC version one isn't bad
(STOP!!!! I know that everyone thinks I'm deaf for saying this but you have to
understand that I never play MD through a, what you'd you call it (Pioneer 100
watt per channel dolby prologic etc.-I'll discuss my front speakers at a later
time) medium end?? system.
I consider low end something like a 400.00 + Aiwa system. although, even with
their plastic speakers, some of them have "not that poor" sound quality.
> >> Most serious audio people would not consider Onkyo or HK to be "high end"
> >> -- there is little difference in audio quality between a good JVC CD
> >> player and a good HK CD player.
> >
> >Anyone who knows audio equipment or who has ever sold audio equipment
> >knows better than this. While not the highest end Onkyo & HK are high
> >end consumer versions whereas JVC is NOT.. But you are right, there
> >is little difference in the sound quality which is what I tried to
> >explain all along. SO little and subtle you can only notice it at
> >very low volume.
>
> I would disagree, Larry,
Wow!! again, this isn't my statement!!! I think that you may have take a thread
from a previous e mail and confused it with me!!! I really don't think that I
wrote that. I don't agree with the statements, so i don't think I wrote them.
> about HK vs. Onkyo vs. JVC, and I would consider
> myself someone who "knows audio" pretty well. Harmon-Kardon and Onkyo are
> *marketed* as "high-end consumer" but in reality (as you yourself wrote)
> they don't really sound any better than JVC. In fact, if I recall
> correctly, neither Onkyo nor HK ever had a CD player listed in
> Stereophile's recommended components, while JVC has had at least two --
> one of their consumer CD players was listed as a Class C transport for
> several years. While some people don't give Stereophile much credence (I
> personally admit that I think a lot of their "tweaks" are hokey and some
> of their "subtle differences" are there because they want them to be
> there), I think that more than any of the other audio magazines,
> Stereophile at least does a good job of differentiating between what does
> and doesn't reproduce good sound.
>
> >What do you consider high end by the way??
>
> I think for CD players you have to at least get up to NAD, Adcom and the
> like before you can really say you're approaching "high-end." That said,
> there are CD players from "high-end" manufacturers that aren't that good,
> and CD players from "consumer" companies (like the JVC unit mentioned
> above) that are. And as I've said before, many people don't have "high
> end" components, and are perfectly happy with them -- I know you and I
> agree here, Larry, but I just want to reiterate that there is nothing
> that says you have to have "high-end" stuff to enjoy your music.
>
> >> That's where I disagree. While the average consumer doesn't care, you
> >> don't have to spend obscene amounts of money just to get a "high-end"
> >> system that can reveal the differences.
> >
this is NOT Larry Sherry!!
>
> >I can agree on most of what you are saying but Again, I am very curious what
> >you consider "high end"; if JVC decks are equal to Onkyo then are radio
> >shack speakers in the same group as Klipsch??
>
Not me. I usually don't even consider jvc when I think of any kind of quality
audio!
>
> Well, not anywhere near usually, but Radio Shack distributes an
> Optimus-branded speaker made by Linnaeus that is probably in that range.
> The rest of Radio Shack's stuff is pretty poor ;-) Along those lines, for
> years, many people in audio considered the Optimus 3400 to be the best
> portable CD player on the market, but who would have guessed. Kind of
> what I mentioned above -- even the bad companies get it right on occasion
> <g>
>
> >How about +/- .0001 db; think you can hear that difference?? Or how
> >about 5hz, think you can hear that? Have you ever had a hearing test?
> >If equipment can't outperform the human ear then how would we ever
> >measure human hearing? We do it every 3 months in the aviation world.
> >This statement is simply not true but it does "sound" good, LOL.
>
> and, similarly, "J. Coon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I am an engineer, and I think that if we can hear something, there has
> >to be a way to measure it. THis is science , not hokus pokus.
>
> If you're talking about measuring test tones, dB, frequency response, you
> (and Jim) are entirely correct. However, my point was that musical
> reproduction isn't about simply reproducing test tones, certain sound
> levels, and the "best" flat frequency response. If it was, we would have
> had perfect audio reproduction years and years ago. While equipment can
> measure those things, it can't tell you whether or not a certain stereo
> system sounds more (or less) like the original performance. In terms of
> hearing music and the spacial, directional, and, some argue, emotional
> cues within it, the human ear is much more sensitive than any equipment.
> Two speakers that are measured by equipment to have the exact same
> specifications can sound remarkably different to human ears, even in
> controlled, double-blind testing. That's why audio magazines don't just
> publish measurements, and why we don't buy stereos by spec sheets.
>
> I actually think we're on the same page here, Larry, no?
>
> And finally, while this isn't completely on the same topic, you also
> wrote:
>
> >What is also important for me to make clear is that the person that
> >can not tell the difference doesn't have to have poorer hearing then
> >the excited person (by the standard means use to test a persons
> >hearing). He/she hears perfectly fine. Maybe even better then the
> >exited person, as far as testing goes. But their thought processes
> >are not able to comprehend the difference.
that IS Larry!!
> Exactly (IMHO, of course <g>)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
> "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
