[None]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Quite why themoron @ gmail thinks this needs discussing here is
beyond me, too.

He thinks it proves that he's right and everyone here on r.a.p. is
wrong, and the article is proof. And "take it up with these guys" is
his boast that he won't be able to argue his point (appeal to
authority fallacy, among others) because he's really not able to
understand all the technical talk and numbers. As always, utter
failure, as the Krissie Koaster derails again. He thinks that the VU
scale can be unambiguously referenced to any other measure of loudness
or signal strength. He refuses to accept that he's just wrong. He's
unable to grasp even the simplest technical reasons that he's wrong;
it's all gibberish to him.

Full scale, dBFS, dBu, peak, dBv, dBSPL, average, dB, volts, VU, PPM,
bits, compression, dynamic range, watts, noise floor, clipping,
loudness, RMS; they all mean pretty much the same thing to him.
They're all incomprehensible numbers, and they're the way those evil
mastering engineers assault him by ruining the imaginary pristine
uncompressed (hehe) audio perfection of his old Badfinger and Led
Zeppelin LPs. And boy, is he ****ed off about it! When he drools about
it, Gearslutz just wipes his post away with toilet paper and flushes
it. So he comes here. The word isn't used much lately, having been
supplanted by terms like "kook", "obsessive", and "nutjob", but he's a
perfect fit for the traditional definition of "crank".