dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:53:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:33:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 05:41:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Hmmmmm, I guess that 3rd row Grateful Dead show last year was
just like hearing a boombox, especially during the
infrasonic-drenched Mickey hart drum solo.

Thanks Weil for admtting that you can't hear the difference
between a high end audio system and a rock-and-roll sound
reinforcment system. You subsequently admit how this sad
situation came to pass.

Here's the part that Arnold deceptively snipped:

"Obviously Weil, you've never really been around when a large
system does its stuff".

Nothing about a "high end audio system".

Don't blame me for your missteps, Weil.

The context of this discussion should be obvious to anybody with a
brain, Weil. Sorry to apparently leave you out.

It wasn't *my* misstep. Actually it was *you* who introduced the
idea of subsonics in live music, not me.

Thanks Weil for admitting the fact that you can't tell the difference
between music created with acoustical instruments and music created
electronically.

Since all music reproduced in a home system is "created
electronically", I'm not sure what your point is.

Weil, I'm quite sure now that you don't see my point at all.

And since there are only two practical "acoustical instruments" in the
world that can get within 1 hz of the "important" 6 hz point (and none
of the recordings that you cited have recordings of said "acoustic
instruments"), your point is even further afield.

Weil, I'm quite sure now that you don't see my point at all.

Of course, since you're apparently now considering a cannon or a
synthesizer an "acoustical instrument", you've just struck out.

Weil, I'm quite sure now that you don't see my point at all.


I can't help it if you are called
on something and don't have the sence to say what you actually mean.

I've never had any sence.

I guess that it was just "A figment of Atkinson's imaginataion".

I'm quite sure that Atkinson has no imaginataion at all.