Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: keeping the 16bit scans

Frank, like it or not, they are ON the mark.  Although its a red
herring, most audiophiles "dream" the difference in sound content they
think they hear. I'd really love to have the facility to do some good
double blind experiments.  The few I have seen reported on certainly
support what I wrote.

The arguments Don made mainly are either no longer correct due to
technological changes, are overstated, are incomplete in that they do
not provide enough information to evaluate why what he stated is so, or
the impact of it, or do not have any direct relevance to the type of
equipment that was in discussion.

Rather than get stuck on what I think about the elitism of audiophiles,
(and I have known more than my share) would you actually like to address
why my statements were "off the mark" exactly?


Frank Paris wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
>>[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
>>Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 1:41 AM
>>To: frankparis@comcast.net
>>Subject: [filmscanners] Re: keeping the 16bit scans
>>It's not moot at all, and Don's post is full of miscues,
>>which I have addressed.
> They were so off the mark they didn't even merit a reply, especially the
> one that depended on your distaste for audiophiles. Totally ad hominem.
> Frank Paris
> frankparis@comcast.net

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.