Re: OT:Experiment

"John Atkinson" <stereoeditor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:44a246be-5c72-45e9-ba4d-b6968850ed89@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 2, 7:15 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"John Atkinson" <stereoedi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:a591d3a0-a36d-4010-a0ca-b89189959f2f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 1, 4:06 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"John Atkinson" <stereoedi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:338683c3-2c6b-4f7c-bd48-b9611f035c67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You are welcome to download it also, Mr. Krueger:
http://idisk.mac.com/jennconducts-Public.

This recording seems to have more than enough
background noise to be truncated down to 12 or 13 bits
without
added dither and without any correlated quantization
error.

And now you are just making things up, Mr. Krueger.
First, this is a 320kbps AAC file, so the noisefloor is
set by the lossy compression, not by the acoustic or
electrical noise.

That turns out to not be true. Check out the clip very
carefully. An AAC file with that bitrate has a noise
floor that is about 80 dB down, but the noise floor of
the actual performance part of the file is far worse
than that.

It was either the late Raymnd Cooke of Kef or Laurie
Fincham,
I forget which, who said back in the 1970s that the most
dangerous person in audio was a fool with a voltmeter.

Apparently your management never listened John, because they gave you a
voltmeter in spades in the form of the AP toys you play with.

He is using spectral analysis of a _lossy-compressed_ file
to make definitive statements about the nature of the
background noise.

So what? If you know what you are doing...

Even worse, he is doing such an
analysis on a section of the file -- "the actual
performance part" -- where there is musical content! As I
said, Mr. Krueger, all you are doing is looking at the
artefacts of the lossy encoding.

Spare me the lecture John. If you want to shed some light on this matter,
send me a .wav file. If you want to posture, well then be my guest.

Of course, if he were less "dangerous," Mr. Krueger
would try to analyze the noise floor when there wasn't
music playing.

Which is in essence what I did.


I think you ought to check your work, John.

I do, Mr. Krueger. Perhaps that contributes the fact that
listeners mostly like the sound of my recordings. One of
them, in fact, got through to the second round of voting
for engineering excellence in the 2000 Grammies. How
many of your "professional" recordings have done
likewise? Oh sorry, I forgot. Not one of your recordings
has ever been commercially released. :-)

Gee John, you mean that the Grammy committee look over issues like the one
you are obfuscating now?

No, I didn't think so. You're slinging trash as you are prone to do.

The background noise on the 24-bit files is
predominantly low-frequency in spectral nature, mainly
from a distant sewage pumping station that we didn't
think we could persuade the city of Goshen to turn off
:-)

It's noise, John.

Yes, but as the graph I posted demonstrates it is
noise with a specific spectral content. It is heavily
weighted toward the low-frequency end of the spectrum.
All components above 65Hz are below -80dBFS (the
piano level was set to peak at exactly 0dBFS), all
components above 2kHz are below -120dBFS. This
is a very quiet recording. More importantly, with a
noise spectrum this "red," it will not self-dither when
truncated. I know, I have tried it..

Gee John, your evaluation procedure was, let me guess, sighted evaluation?

LOL!

Spectral noise components in the midrange and above
are extremely low in level. To back up what I say, I'll
post a 65,536-point FFT image in the photo gallery at
www.stereophile.com.

Too bad we can't be sure you won't cook the books, John.

You can always tell when Arny Krueger is getting
"despirate"
as he starts with the "debating trade" schtick like this,
as well as claiming to be speaking for others.
(Presumably his royal "we" refers to the mouse he is
fingering in his pocket.) No, Mr. Krueger, you can't be
"sure" I am not cooking the books.


On the other hands, as
you don't have the balls to
post excerpts of your own recordings or even FFT analyses
of their noise floors, who knows what the reality is
regarding your efforts as a claimed "professional
recording engineer."

John, why should I post anything to help educate a Grammy-award winning
engineer such as yourself?

You have so far this week criticized recordings posted by
Jenn and myself, but have carefully refrained from
letting anyone listen to examples of your own work. Even
of recorded silent passages, where your "I can't do it
because I don't own the copyright" argument becomes
irrelevant.

If you want me to post the room tone from my church's sanctuary, I'd be
happy to do that. Is that what you want?

The Usenet record still has those despirate posts you
made
the last time you tried to keep me from evidence in a
situation like this.

Ha :-) I assume you are referring to the time when, after
I had made you a gift of some Stereophile CDs, you
demanded I send you the high-resolution master files,
without even a "please."

Wasn't the title of one of the relevant threads: "John Atkinson, please
explain."

I wasn't "despirate," Mr.
Krueger, I simply refused, particularly as you refused
even to reimburse me for what would have
been my shipping expense.

Gosh, at the postal rates of the day, that would have bankrupted Stereophile
for sure. ;-)

Then there was that nasty matter of your expert witness
who
peed on himself by claiming that self-dither doesn't
work.

"Nasty"? Only if it was your ox that was being gored, Mr.
Krueger. And I thought that Glenn Zelniker did a
particularly fine job of dismembering your ox, Mr.
Krueger. Especially
as you ducked out of the thread when his technical
questioning started to reveal gaps in your knowledge of
digital theory. There's that "fool with a voltmeter"
thing again :-)

Actually, Zelnicker ran away before things got interesting. And today,
self-dither is generally accepted.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Low Frequency Mains Noise
    ... The only pro gear from the 50s with regulated power supplies that comes quickly to mind were Ampex tape recorders, where controlling parameters like bias despite variations in power line voltage was almost mandatory. ... that use unregulated supplies. ... recordings that still sound good, but in general, it ... The big change was multi-tracking and noise reduction. ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
  • Re: OT:Experiment
    ... noise to be truncated down to 12 or 13 bits without ... And now you are just making things up, Mr. Krueger. ... listeners mostly like the sound of my recordings. ... weighted toward the low-frequency end of the spectrum. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: WHICH PROGRAM IS BEST FOR DIGITALIZING OLD 78 RECORDS
    ... which will make editing back into the waveform very difficult. ... The Mousetrap does a similar job to the Packburn ... then let the postprocessing worry about the noise. ... case of spoken word recordings, ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: OT:Experiment
    ... Indeed I am, Mr. Krueger, having now heard from ... my recent piano recording that Jenn kindly hosted ... noise to be truncated down to 12 or 13 bits without ... I think you ought to check your work, John. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: newbie - ion usb turntable - 78s to MP3 - stacking
    ... I have a small collection of 78 rpm records bought second ... I have a mission to save old 78 recordings, ... That is intelligently adding the signals ... Not the same thing for a turntable, since the noise source is ...
    (rec.audio.pro)