Tom Scholz and analog tape as EE

[Ethan Winer]

there isn't anything anyone could possibly say that you would accept

That's simply not true Bob. Let me refresh your memory:

There is no evidence for ultrasonics having an affect on what we perceive. Whatever "evidence" has been put forth in the past has been thoroughly debunked since. But I'm glad to hear your evidence in case there's something new that I missed.
...
I'll be glad to entertain your evidence [that two amplifiers can measure the same yet sound different] in case I missed something.

So let's see some evidence, or even a logical explanation for both of those claims. If you can do that convincingly (or even at all), we can then move onto me changing my opinion.

who cares what you think?

Well that's just childish.

--Ethan

 

[Tim Gillett]

Well said Ethan.

Thanks for your continuing valuable input on this and other threads on the HR Forum.

For me it's like a blast of fresh air blowing through a stale old room. Most welcome.

Best wishes, Tim.

 

[GONZO-X]

listening to the remastered cd again this weekend...

don't know what he did, but whatever it was, was right.


it's really too bad, that MOST of my collection of recently-released music, doesn't sound nearly this good.

yeah, i've got to turn it up a bit.
i don't mind.

 

[miroslav]

I wish you lived near enough to me to visit, because I'm certain I could change your views in about five minutes with a few simple listening experiments.

Yeah, we talked about getting together once before...not counting the quick meet-n-greet back at 2003(?) at NYC AES.
You're not crazy-far from me, but it's always about finding the right time...and life gets in the way.

I've been sidetracked the last couple of days (getting my mother packed and on her way back to Florida)...so I didn't have a chance reply here, and only a little time to read some of your posts.
I do think this discussion/debate has really churned up way more things to talk about than originally questioned, and then each new topic and new "keyword" that was added to the discussion spun off even more side discussions.

Some folks are appreciating this discussion/debate...but apparently, there are some who may be bothered by it, and maybe think we are arguing angrily...which I know we are not.
You and I go way back from other forums, and I think we are both enjoying the debate and not taking anything in a real negative way....right?

Anyway, I would like to answer some of your latest posts, but let's first clarify that this is not an angry debate and that none of us who are actually taking part in it have a problem with it's continuation.

If it's a problem for anyone if we keep this debate going...then take a moment to say so, and we can end it as-is.

 

[Tim Gillett]

No one has yet picked up on the Benchmark reply to the man who was on the verge of throwing out his old CD's, believing the early manufactured CD's were inferior in audio quality. He wrote to Benchmark with his concerns after having read the article cited by Miroslav, "The Unique Evils of Digital..."

I think the Benchmark reply has particular relevence to Tom Scholz's expressed views on early CD's.:

"20-bit and 24-bit digital systems in the studioSubmitted by JohnSiau on Wed, 2010-09-08 15:49.

Here is my personal take on the quality of CDs produced over the past 30 years:

Pre 1991 - high probability of good quality due to direct transfer from analog master tape to digital master (Tim's emphasis).

1991 - 1997 - increasing probability of poor recordings due to proliferation of 16-bit multi-track recorders

1997 - 2002 - the dark ages of digital audio - high probability of poor recordings due to 16-bit DAWs and 16-bit recorders

2002 - present - increasing probability of freedom from digital artifacts

The above is purely based upon the equipment and procedures used by recording studios over the past 30 years. It is not based upon any evaluation of the finished product. Your CD library may roughly follow the above timeline, but excellent CDs have been made in each of the past 30 years. I would never dismiss a recording just because it was produced in a certain time period." (Tim's emphasis)

I'll only focus here on pre 1991 CD's. John Siau is saying that early CD's , from 1982 until 1991, were likely to have good quality. The limitations were not in the CD format even back then in 1982 when the CD first came on the market, and by implication neither because of limitations in the A/D converters of the day which were fine for that task. Remember, they were mixing by analog, to a high quality stereo A/D converter.

This tallies with the 1982 listening test cited by Paul Hunt where participants could not tell the difference between a high quality live analog source and a 44.1/16 copy. It also tallies with the 1982 UK listening test I cited from Gramophone journal where participants also could not tell the difference between live analog and digital copy sources.

Miroslav's reaction to the two 1982 listening tests, one cited by PR Hunt and the other by myself, was to call them "absolutely meaningless". Yet I cite a third source, from the Benchmark website, which I only found because Miroslav cited that site. The same author of "The Unique Evils of Digital..." confirms that the early CD's were fine. Any audio limitations in them were not likely to be from the CD itself, or it seems the relatively high quality converters used at that time.

So these three sources all agree that early CD's did not have the serious audio limitations they are sometimes said to have had, such as by Tom Scholz.

Miroslav, I quoted John Siau from Benchmark, author of "The Unique Evils..." Are you saying that these words from the same Benchmark man you cited favourably, are "absolutely meaningless" too?

LT Bob, do you still maintain early CD's sounded like crap, and because of crap converters ?

Tim

 

[Dogbreath]

I like the pretty blue letters.

 

[Ethan Winer]

You're not crazy-far from me

Where do you live?

let's first clarify that this is not an angry debate and that none of us who are actually taking part in it have a problem with it's continuation.

I never get angry except when people call me names after not addressing even one of my points.

People shouldn't get angry about this stuff anyway. It's just audio! Further, I'd think everyone should be interested in learning the truth about what is audible and at what levels. To me the main issue is consumerism. If a freeware plug-in really can sound as good as a $2,000 per channel tube compressor, I want to know that. And if for some reason plug-ins can't ever sound as good as analog hardware, I want to know that too.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

So these three sources all agree that early CD's did not have the serious audio limitations they are sometimes said to have had, such as by Tom Scholz.

Further, it's so trivial to test this using any source with a loop-back as I described back in my Post #4, I don't know why anyone would continue to argue.

--Ethan

 

[Tim Gillett]

Further, it's so trivial to test this using any source with a loop-back as I described back in my Post #4, I don't know why anyone would continue to argue.

--Ethan

I agree. For the same reason, it's easier to take a cheap shot at early commercially made CD's because it's harder to perform the same sort of loop back test on the pro converters used at that time. Even just a blind listening test, although like you I dont trust my ears in the highs any more.

I'm considering picking up an old Sony PCM F1 converter unit to do a proper loop back test on it and have others with younger ears listen to the results. I could also post the files as you have done with more modern converters.

Cheers Tim

 

[miroslav]

Been too busy to reply until now...
I had to relocate an entire physical ticketing system (servers/computers) for the theater my IT day gig encompases...then to make matters worse, the ISP that serves the website's front end pages, decided *WITHOUT LETTING ME KNOW* that they were moving to a different server/IP address.... DUH!!!!
So all of a sudden our pages are loading old content.
I'm still moving files over as I type this, trying to get the site back to normal.
They used some files from 3 months ago they must have pulled from an old backup they had, and right now there are three shows on sale that no one can buy tickets for.... ...so it's been a long day.
(This is the second time they swapped servers/IPs without notification....and it's going to be the last time.)

Are you saying that these words from the same Benchmark man you cited favourably, are "absolutely meaningless" too?

I'm saying it's absolutely meaningless...if it has no impact on how someone is listening.
You guys seem to think it's all about the measuring...and if that's what you want to focus on to arrive at your preferences...then it's not meaningless.
I've been saying for 4 pages that for some of folks...measuring for high fidelity isn't necessarily what makes them prefer/choose a given music playback.

Only by measuring, or doing a proper blind test, can we determine that a difference even exists.

OK...I'm not going to do a whole line-by-line quote/response thing, I'll just state a few specific things, and maybe we can pick up from there.

1.) I don't believe that I (or anyone) ever suggested that there was NO difference between analog and digital...which is why I kept saying that measuring one aspect is irrelevant in my opinion since we agree there are differences.
What's to be gained?
It appears(?) that the goal of measuring that one aspect is to prove some point of greater fidelity...but IMO, that's no different than trying to measure which time of day has more light and clarity, yet even when you measure that out, who cares about the numbers if some folks prefer when the sun is brightest while others like the very early morning or the late afternoon when it's not as bright and clear.

2.) With that in mind, I did state that the issue, and IMO the critical point, is not the actual *differences* but rather the perception and preference of those differences by each individual listener.
And that therefore again makes the need for measuring and subsequent "proof" ("which is better?")...moot.
IMO, it is correct, and should be acceptable, for each side to claim their perception and preference is better to them.

3.) The whole Tom Scholz thing (which is what started the thread), is almost pointless without Scholz here to further clarify and define his rather brief and vague comments. People continuously asking "how can he say that?" or then making assumptions about what he means by it...is totally pointless for us to try and work out here. Those questions should be for Scholz alone.

4.) I also agreed that "words" have different meanings for people. If one of the issues here is the use of certain words to mean one thing for one group, yet something different for the other group...that too will not be corrected here, but yes, it might be easier if everyone agreed on very specific definitions...though that doesn't seem to be the case when talking about rather subjective perceptions.

5.) I don't disagree that analog gear can be used to add "color"...what I am saying is that you've reduced some serious analog gear designs to "a few resistors and diodes", and that their only value is a little distortion and frequency shift.
I certainly am not in a position to technically discuss every aspect of the design purpose of say....a high-end compressor or preamp.
So my question to you was, have you ever run your "high-end analog gear is a scam/hype - just a few resistors & diodes for a little distortion & frequency shift, and nothing more" view past any top analog gear designers and users...?
Like say, over on GS or PSW, where at least you will have an opportunity to hear a direct view from people who actually design, and those who use, lots of very high-end analog gear....rather than asking me to speak in their place.
I don't design high-end analog gear nor do I have a whole lot of it to use (maybe a few nice pieces)...but having looked under the hood of every piece of gear I do own...I just can't buy that simple view.

I would love to hear THEIR responses to your statements. I checked out GS, and all I could find of your discussion there was mainly about acoustics and a bit about ultra-high sampling rates in digital audio...but nothing about your views on high-end analog gear.
Did you ever try the line "high-end analog gear is a scam/hype - just a few resistors & diodes for a little distortion & frequency shift, and nothing more" on George Massenburg, Craig "Hutch" Hutchinson, Rupert Neve (to name a few)...???

Finally...how will some "loop-back" test prove to me that my DAW mix isn't as good to my ears as my OTB mix, when I take the DAW tracks and bring them out as individual D/A channels and then sum/mix them all OTB with outboard gear....?

 

[Tim Gillett]

3.) The whole Tom Scholz thing (which is what started the thread), is almost pointless without Scholz here to further clarify and define his rather brief and vague comments. People continuously asking "how can he say that?" or then making assumptions about what he means by it...is totally pointless for us to try and work out here. Those questions should be for Scholz alone.

Emphatically not so.

Scholz knowingly said those things "on the record" in the public domain. Scholz never said those words confidentially, let alone confidentially to just Tim Gillett. If he had it would be very different.

Even if Tom Scholz meant something different from what he appears to have said back in the 2006 interview , it doesnt matter. His comments can be, as they has been on this thread, a jumping off point for us to discuss the issues which concern us. We can reframe the issues and discuss them in whichever way we like, so long as we are agreed on the terms of reference and discuss fairly.

The words of Tom Scholz then just become what kick starts the discussion.

If Scholz wanted to join in this HR discussion, assuming he even knew about it, he's most welcome, but it doesnt stop us discussing with or without him. In the end, it's the audio issues, not Tom Scholz, which we have been discussing.

Ironically, I would never have known of Tom Scholz if he hadnt been regularly held up as a kind of guru on analog vs digital issues by one poster on the HR Analog forum. And even if you're correct and Scholz isnt as hard line as apparently most here but you read him to be, at least one of his supporters reads Scholz to be taking a very hard line, which is his own hard line, Scholz or not.

So Miroslav, contrary to your nonsensical personal challenge to me, it's not up to me to contact Tom Scholz personally. It would be ridiculous and unnecessary.

Similarly, again contrary to your other bizarre personal challenge to me, it's not up to me, nor is it within my resources, to arrange international double blind listening tests.

As Ethan says, it's only audio. Anyone would think it was something really important...

Tim

 

[miroslav]

Even if Tom Scholz meant something different from what he appears to have said back in the 2006 interview , it doesn't matter. His comments can be, as they has been on this thread, a jumping off point for us to discuss the issues which concern us. We can reframe the issues and discuss them in whichever way we like, so long as we are agreed on the terms of reference and discuss fairly.

The words of Tom Scholz then just become what kick starts the discussion.

Tim

You spent a lot of posts asking a lot of questions about what Scholz meant and how could he mean that...???
You came back to his comments over and over for awhile...and that's all I'm saying WRT Scholz...if you need more details about what HE meant and why.....you have to ask HIM.

As Ethan says, it's only audio. Anyone would think it was something really important...

If you look back in the thread...you wanted to find some kind of "proof"....and you started two threads about Scholz, followed by a LOT of questions and more questions/comments on how we can find out what the truth really is....etc..etc.
Though now, you're basically taking my position throughout the whole thread....that it's only audio, so use what you think sounds best to you.
OK...great....then does that mean we don't need to do any "loop-back" tests and further scrutiny on studies done back in the early '80s...?

 

[Lt. Bob]

Though now, you're basically taking my position throughout the whole thread....that it's only audio, so use what you think sounds best to you.
OK...great....then does that mean we don't need to do any "loop-back" tests and further scrutiny on studies done back in the early '80s...?

well, anyone that wants to do any of that is more interested in having the argument than recording.
EVEN if we did tests and had some clips ...... people would still have different opinions on this.

people that want to argue simply want to argue ..... their position is right and they HAVE to convince others.
Reasonable responses and opinions never have any impact on any of these guys.
I also find it funny that most of them don't have much in the way of music they've done to demonstrate their opinions are correct.

I say there are still things about audio that we don't measure yet because we don't know they matter.
There was a time when we didn't care about slew rates in amps.
And jitter is another one ...... there are LOTS of articles and examples of the bad effect jitter can have on sound but someone like Ethan doesn't believe it can be heard.
And that's the thing ...... just as he knows electronics ..... there are people who know sound just as well and actually do have exceptional ability to hear tiny details in sound.
But he discounts that .... oh no, they just want 'euphonic distortions'.
It's not possible, according to him, that they can really tell small differences in sound and timbre and be correct.

In general I've found that the very WORST soundmen and engineers tend to be the ones who focus on the electronics and specs. They may know that the 'rules' say use a 500hz cut here or a small boost at 120 there but they don't actually know sound so they suck.
There are, of course, exceptions that know both but the very best sound I ever hear very rarely comes from someone who insists that all amps sound the same unless they're poorly designed.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I'm considering picking up an old Sony PCM F1 converter unit to do a proper loop back test on it and have others with younger ears listen to the results. I could also post the files as you have done with more modern converters.

I still have a Sony PCM-2300 DAT recorder, and its specs are pretty good:

PCM-2300 Professional DAT Recorder

--Ethan

 

[miroslav]

I say there are still things about audio that we don't measure yet because we don't know they matter.

I also feel that to be true...and yeah, some will immediately come back and say "prove that it matters/exists, otherwise it's not true"...which at this time may not be absolutely provable.

I would find it VERY, VERY odd that countless engineers and audio aficionados and so-called "golden ear" types, who say they CAN hear certain things (I know, I know---prove it with a double blind test) that others can't or that isn't at this time measurable...that they are all under the influence of some kind of analog scam/hype, and they just can't bring themselves to stop buying high-end analog audio at crazy prices???

Maybe awhile ago, one might argue that they had to "impress clients"...so that's why they talked-up and stocked their studios with racks and racks of analog gear...but let's face it, as we've agreed, digital audio and ITB has been also adopted by many top engineers and studios, so really, why would the other guys need to keep buying into the so-called scam/hype just to impress clients???
No...they buy it and use because it sounds different, and to them, better.
Then there's the hybrid guys who use analog and digital side-by-side. Why would they need to spend all that money on analog gear if they can have "identical" stuff from plug-ins???

I know...where again talking about things that are not registering on some meter or with some "loop-back" test...but then, I think about all the times I've sat and watched the Discovery or Science channels...and they're demonstrating absolutely new and totally opposite views on longstanding beliefs...thanks to new ways of measuring and new ways of thinking about the things we thought we could see and hear.
There was a time when we couldn't imagine things like "black holes"...then theories emerged....and now even though we still can't see them, new ways of measuring/viewing new data can prove that they exists and where they are located.


Yeah....I'm not sure if we'll come to any agreed-upon conclusions here.......

 

[Ethan Winer]

5.) I don't disagree that analog gear can be used to add "color"...what I am saying is that you've reduced some serious analog gear designs to "a few resistors and diodes", and that their only value is a little distortion and frequency shift.

I've asked repeatedly what else there is, and so far nobody here has listed even one thing. Can you explain what else there is to "analog color," or will you just continue with "ask people at Gearslutz" as your only argument? If you can't explain it, that's fine! But please at least have the courtesy to acknowledge that you don't know, and we can move on.

Like say, over on GS or PSW, where at least you will have an opportunity to hear a direct view from people who actually design, and those who use, lots of very high-end analog gear....rather than asking me to speak in their place.

Because you're the one arguing.

I've had these discussions in other forums and, like here, there are people who understand the science and people who don't.

I checked out GS, and all I could find of your discussion there was mainly about acoustics and a bit about ultra-high sampling rates in digital audio...but nothing about your views on high-end analog gear.

I'm banned from all forum sections at Gearslutz except acoustics. Can you guess why?

how will some "loop-back" test prove to me that my DAW mix isn't as good to my ears as my OTB mix, when I take the DAW tracks and bring them out as individual D/A channels and then

That's never been the point. Not in this thread nor any other thread I've posted to. My entire point is dispelling the myth that digital audio screws up the sound as claimed by Tom Scholz (and Neil Young and others). This is easy to disprove by measuring and null tests. Preference is impossible to prove, which is why I never bother. I hope you understand that measuring and null tests can in fact prove fidelity.

BTW, I still haven't received even one email from anyone here identifying the files in my Converter Loop-Back Tests article. And, not surprisingly, it's the same for a parallel discussion going on right now in the "high-end audio" group at LinkedIn. A bunch of people there claim that even one generation of digital recording destroys the music, but not one person has stepped up to the plate and stated which files are originals and which are copies. Why do you think that is?

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I say there are still things about audio that we don't measure yet because we don't know they matter.

This is simply wrong, and easily disproved with a null test as I've explained repeatedly. If you believe there's more to audio fidelity than what has been learned by science over more than 100 years, the burden of proof is clearly on you. Whaddya got?

there are LOTS of articles and examples of the bad effect jitter can have on sound but someone like Ethan doesn't believe it can be heard.

Again this is just wrong. All the "jitter matters" articles I've seen relate sighted anecdotal accounts instead of proper blind testing, and/or they come from companies trying to profit via scare tactics. However, there are many articles proving that in proper controlled tests nobody was able to pick out jitter unless it was far worse than occurs in normal practice. Here's one:

Eric Benjamin and Benjamin Gannon, "Theoretical and Audible Effects of Jitter on Digital Audio Quality", Preprint 4826 of the 105th AES Convention, San Francisco, September 1998

That paper concludes:

The effect of clock jitter in the digital interface was studied extensively. Measurements of the jitter spectrum of numerous digital audio sources, primarily DVD players, were conducted. A wide range of performance was found. The jitter spectrum of a typical source can be characterized as a white noise floor with one or many sinusoidal jitter components with a magnitude in the range of 10 ps to 10 ns rms. The effect of jitter induced in the interface was studied and found not to be a significant factor for short interconnection runs likely to found in a domestic environment. Several DACs and their DIRs were measured in order to characterize the sensitivity to distortion induced by jitter. These results were compared to each other and to results derived from simulations. Most DACs were found to be similar to each other and to the simulation in terms of susceptibility to jitter-induced distortion. That distortion is approximately -107+201og(F)+201og(J) dBr for sine wave signals at F kHz with J ns rms of clock jitter.

Up-Down threshold and AB comparison listening tests were conducted to determine the threshold of audibility for jitter-induced distortion. The threshold of audibility for pure tones was found to be about 10 ns rms at 20 kHz and higher at lower frequencies. For nearly all program material no audible degradation was heard for any amount of jitter added below the level at which the DIR lost lock. Certain program material was found in which an audible degradation due to jitter was heard. The threshold of audibility for these programs was generally found to be in the range of 30 ns rms to 300 ns rms for sinusoidal jitter. Finally, the audible degradation was found to correspond to measurable changes in the spectrum of the program material.

Note that jitter was audible in their tests only when it was 3 to 30 times higher than the jitter they measured from any actual gear. So yeah, jitter noise is audible if it's artificially exaggerated, but not in practice.

Here's another scientific article based on actual tests:

Detection Threshold For Jitter

From the above article's conclusion:

In order to determine the maximum acceptable size of jitter on music signals, detection thresholds for artificial random jitter were measured in a 2 alternative forced choice procedure. Audio professionals and semi-professionals participated in the experiments. They were allowed to use their own listening environments and their favorite sound materials. The results indicate that the threshold for random jitter on program materials is several hundreds ns for well-trained listeners under their preferable listening conditions. The threshold values seem to be sufficiently larger than the jitter actually observed in various consumer products.

I'm not trying to be a jerk Bob, but would you consider changing your opinion now after seeing these articles?

--Ethan

 

[miroslav]

I've asked repeatedly what else there is, and so far nobody here has listed even one thing. Can you explain what else there is to "analog color," or will you just continue with "ask people at Gearslutz" as your only argument? If you can't explain it, that's fine! But please at least have the courtesy to acknowledge that you don't know, and we can move on.

I thought I said that I was not a designer of high-end analog audio.
It would make much more sense for someone with that kind of skill and knowledge to argue the value of their gear...and I would love to hear or read even one place where you've had that kind of discussion with those kind of people. Just because I can't specifically state what else is in a given analog circuit and it's effect on the signal...doesn't prove your right.

How about I turn it around for you....
Ethan...please prove where without a doubt that high-end analog audio gear is just a few resistors and diodes for the sake of a little distortion and frequency shift and anything more than that is pure hype-n-scam.

I'm banned from all forum sections at Gearslutz except acoustics. Can you guess why?

I couldn't begin to imagine.....

My entire point is dispelling the myth that digital audio screws up the sound as claimed by Tom Scholz (and Neil Young and others). This is easy to disprove by measuring and null tests. Preference is impossible to prove, which is why I never bother. I hope you understand that measuring and null tests can in fact prove fidelity.

OK...but again, that would be between you and Scholz...you putting up your proof and he putting up his. At this point, we're just talking around a couple of quote from a rather vague Scholz interview...it's not like he put up a white paper and lots of data and such....it was just a couple of questions and he said he thought 16 bit digital sucked.
Ideally...you would to have him take part in your tests, and then also present his hard evidence.
Not sure how you accomplish that here....?

 

[Lt. Bob]

I'm banned from all forum sections at Gearslutz except acoustics. Can you guess why?

At least partially because you're closed minded to anyone that doesn't agree with you.
You're dismissive and contemptuous of other opinions and give no one credit for knowing anything unless it conforms with what you believe.

I'd call you the Victory Pete of acoustics except that you do actually know a lot about the subject while he was completely ignorant of everything.
But you're still closed-minded and that's more your ego at work than your knowledge.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Tim

You spent a lot of posts asking a lot of questions about what Scholz meant and how could he mean that...???
You came back to his comments over and over for awhile...and that's all I'm saying WRT Scholz...if you need more details about what HE meant and why.....you have to ask HIM.





If you look back in the thread...you wanted to find some kind of "proof"....and you started two threads about Scholz, followed by a LOT of questions and more questions/comments on how we can find out what the truth really is....etc..etc.
Though now, you're basically taking my position throughout the whole thread....that it's only audio, so use what you think sounds best to you.
OK...great....then does that mean we don't need to do any "loop-back" tests and further scrutiny on studies done back in the early '80s...?

1. Miroslav, earlier on, you, not I, muddied the waters by asking in effect "Did Scholz really say that? Did he really mean that?" You even selectively quoted his words so as to make him seem to be just expressing a personal listening preference when he was clearly going further than that, saying that analog tape recording is much closer to live than digital - and probably always will be.

Why would you feel it necessary to ignore his strongest words and only refer to his innocuous words if you thought his comments were already vague and ambiguous? Normally it's the opponents who selectively quote someone, not their supporters. Supporters usually say "he has been taken out of context" and they provide that context. You supported him and took him out of context. I wonder what Tom Scholz would think of your "support" for him...

But even if I were mistaken on that (but I dont think I am. Farview and Ethan, without any prompting, also took Scholz to be saying exactly what I took him to be saying) we can still have our own discussion here without reference to Tom Scholz.

I dont need more details about what Tom Scholz said because in the end it's not about him, but certain ideas and assertions about audio recording.

You raised doubts about what Tom Scholz said -nobody else did - and now you accuse me of merely addressing the doubts which you raised. It was your point, not mine. Would you have preferred I had pretended you had not raised those doubts?

It seems I'm damned if I do respond to your false assertions, and damned if I dont.

2. In saying "It's only audio" I meant "why act as if one's life depended on the outcome of the discussion?"

I wasnt saying "therefore use what audio gear you think sounds best to you". That's a given. People will do that anyway and they should be perfectly free to do so, but for the 100th time, personal preference is not what we were discussing.

3. Miroslav, you and Bob asserted that early CD's were crap sounding, as if it is obvious and no one could possibly disagree with that assertion. You raised it. Now you take me to task for addressing your own point, as if I must humbly bow down and agree without question that early CD's were crap sounding.

You said a while back you were not going to continue discussing with me here, and here you are doing just that, going in just as hard as before.

Once again, who has been trying to shut the discussion down unless people agree with your assertions without question?

And why?

Tim