[Boon[_2_]]

On May 23, 10:43�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On May 23, 10:26�pm, Boon wrote:





On May 23, 1:15�pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 22, 9:22�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On May 22, 6:34�pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 22, 11:15�am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On May 22, 12:45�pm, Boon wrote:

On May 22, 11:19�am, Bret L wrote:

On May 22, 10:52�am, Boon wrote:

On May 22, 9:47�am, ScottW wrote:

On May 21, 9:20�pm, Boon wrote:

On May 21, 5:20�pm, Bret L wrote:

�It would be less entertaining here, that's for sure.

If you and Scott were less autistic, you guys would still be the
dumbest ones here.

�I wonder if Marc's "special needs" kid knows how he likes to use
false claims of disability as an insult?
Let me apologize for Marc to any autistic persons or parents/relatives
of an autistic person.

Phillips really doesn't know what a crass ass he is.

Once again YOUR disability has let you down. My problem isn't that you
and Bret are autistic. It's that you two fail to admit it, and
perfectly reasonable people get sucked into arguments with you without
being properly informed about your condition. That's very dishonest.

Wow...you ****ed up again, Scott. Amazing.

�Who's really crazy, us or you?

Neither.

�If you really were sane and really believed either or both of us
insane, you'd simply killfile us and move on.

I don't think either of you are insane. I think you are two autistic
people who, like many other autistic people, are attracted to Usenet
because you don't have to admit you're autistic to participate. In
real life, most people can talk to autistic people and figure out
pretty quickly that something's amiss. For instance, I met Scott in
person a few times, and he has this way of pontificating about some
arcane point while looking off into space as if he forgets that other
people are around. he also has a problem with eye contact, which is
common among people with Aspergers. And whenever Art and I would be
making jokes and laughing, Scott would merely sit there, stone-faced.

�That's how sane people deal with insane people on Usenet.

Not really. For instance, Arny was crazy and probably suffered from at
least two serious personality disorders. Some people ignored him, some
people taunted him but I think most "sane" people wanted him to leave
and expressed their desire for him to do that. You see. when there's a
crazy person in the room, some sane people ignore them, and others try
to do something about it. In other words, there is more than one
"sane" response to a crazy person. Your insistence that there's only
one is wrong...and just plain dumb.

�Anyone with sense knows that you don't argue with crazy people. That
makes you crazier than they are. They don't know better, you
supposedly do.

Unless, of course, a crazy person starts to deface, destroy or damage.
Then it's time to step in and take them out.

I like the sound analog and tube audio.
It's great not being shouted down by some asshole for saying that.
good riddance to Arny

�You really felt "shouted down" by Arny on usenet? �I find that odd.

Arny shouted down

�If you think anyone can "shout down" anyone on RAO,
it only tells me you hold the readers of this group in pretty low
regard.

anyone with a differing opinion, trying' to
invalidate such opinions

�such is the nature of most debates on differing opinions.

by demanding DBT's, so he turned the subject of every discussion not a
DBT tirade.

�Which then spun into a decade long string of anti-Arny tirade on
pretty disgusting levels.

�The funny part of your argument is this....Arny won't argue that many
high (relative to SS)
distortion tube based systems aren't audibly different than most SS
systems.
He won't argue that most analog sources and especially vinyl sources
aren't audibly different
than digital sources.....so your premise of liking the sound of tubes
and analog as a personal
preference isn't something Arny would try to refute with DBTs.

So I find your premise that your preference was invalidated with
demands of DBTs at odds with the facts.

When was the last time your eyes were gouged.
Better yet, when was the FIRST time.
HAve your empty eye sockets lost their virginity yet?

I don't feel the need to prove anything to myself
or the need to overcome personal bias with DBTs.
But when some audiophool wants to spout some BS...
I'm not going to object to calls for some evidence either.

Well, the evidence would be the fact that your systems always sound
terrible, and mine didn't. And if there were combinations that didn't
quite work, it was always equipment I had in for review, and not my
actual reference systems.

The Orions probably make your system sound better than ever before,
but the simple truth is that you don't have the equipment to bring out
the best of the Orions. An old Yamaha preamp, a pair of Quad ESLs set
on unstable wooden stools and of course your POS Mitsubishi TT...the
evidence is overwhleming that you are unable to assemble a nice-
sounding system. Of course you hide behind specs and engineering, but
it still lets you down.

Oddly enough, i found it more enjoyable than the
last system i heard at your house, with the SE tube amps.
I found that myopic and constrained, there were missing pieces
to the sound. It was not realistic.
Scott's sytem was very good, not world class, but enjoyable for
hours of listening without fatigue. that was with the quads.

not trying to pick a fight, just stating my audio preference.

That's fine...SETs are not for everyone. I eventually tired of them
and went onto something better and less idiosyncratic. I doubt you
would have found any faults when my system consisted of Harbeth 40.1s,
BAT VK-32SE and VK-55SE amplification and my Michell/SME/Koetsu TT.

I would have to disagree with you on Scott's system. While it did get
better over the years, it still lacked any real energy or sense of
dynamics. It just always sounded dull and two-dimensional. I couldn't
listen to music on it for more than a minute or two before my mind
started to wander and I started wondering about what I was going to do
later, after I left his house.

We've talked about this before, when I asked you what I would think of
your system. While I appreciate Vandersteens, I'm definitely less
charitable toward Music Hall TTs, which I think are overshadowed by
Regas. And I went through my vintage amp phase with a Scott 299B and
decided it didn't produce a stable enough image to satisfy. It was
about the qualifiers: "Wow, this sounds pretty good...for an amp
that's older than me." But I would rather have a new integrated from
someone like LFD, Sugden or Naim than a classic amp from Scott,
Fisher, Eico or even Marantz. So chances are that I would find fault
with your system as well.

That said, I still think Scott's system was subpar from the get-go,and
wasn't any better than mid-fi systems you find in the big home
electronic chains (if any still exist).