[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Jenn" wrote

If you're "agnostic" about it, why did you claim that
they are recordings of acoustic trumpet?

What are my most recent statements on the matter, Jenn?

Why do you reply to questions with questions Arny ?

Trying to get Jenn to explain herself.

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
I actually agree with Arny that whether these are real or
fake trumpets doesn't matter if they prove useful in
listening tests. But I am saddened by AK's continuing to
dispute matters that seem to be well-established fact..

Hey, we got another loser who can't understand the meaning
of the word "agnostic".

Perhaps it is because I _do_ understand the meaning of the
word, Mr. Krueger, that I continue to be puzzled by your
refusal to concede the argument? And I also continue to be
puzzled by your use of the word "we," as in the passage quoted
above. Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

I actually agree with Arny that whether these are real
or fake trumpets doesn't matter if they prove useful in
listening tests. But I am saddened by AK's continuing to
dispute matters that seem to be well-established fact..

Hey, we got another loser who can't understand the
meaning of the word "agnostic".

Perhaps it is because I _do_ understand the meaning of the
word, Mr. Krueger, that I continue to be puzzled by your
refusal to concede the argument?

That's your privelege, John.

And I also continue to be
puzzled by your use of the word "we," as in the passage
quoted above. Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

No, but everybody with a brain should be able to see the futility of
interpreting how I mean the word "agnostic".

Since you seem to want to interpret what I've tried to say in a short
sentence John, perhaps some long sentences will be needed.

I neither know with any assurance, nor do I care at all, whether or not the
so-called trumpet samples on the PCABX web site are recordings of an
acoustic trumpet or synthesized.

It seems to mean a lot to Jenn and Stephen, which indicates that they don't
understand the purpose of those samples. It doesn't take a lot of reading
between the lines to sense that they intend to obtain a great deal of
emotional satisfaction from 100's, perhaps even 1,000s of regurgitations of
the issue. This speaks to their unhealthy mental state.

I'm very pleased to see that you do seem to understand the purpose of the
samples, John and how their intended use is irrelevant to the issue that
Jenn and Stephen seem to want to flog indefinately. In these circumstances,
I need to offer my heart-felt thanks that you are even willing to say so in
public.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article lqvYg.6284$fl.1541@dukeread08,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
...
In article EltYg.6274$fl.1786@dukeread08,
"ScottW" wrote:


A little late to the jean creaming party
over having caught
Arny in a mistake....aren't you John?

Speaking only for myself, it's not about catching him
in a mistake. Anyone can make a mistake; it's no big
deal. What I find interesting is:
1. His evident inability to admit a mistake in the
face of overwhelming evidence

Was it interesting the first time, the 40th time or
the 400th time?

People are a never ending source of interest.

Thanks Jenn for admitting that you are intersted in repeating the same
insults 400 or more times.

That is not an insult. This is an insult: "Hey, we got another loser
who can't understand the meaning of the word
"agnostic"."

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


Speaking only for myself, it's not about catching him in
a mistake. Anyone can make a mistake; it's no big deal.
What I find interesting is:
1. His evident inability to admit a mistake in the face
of overwhelming evidence
2. The fact that as a person who accepts money for
recording acoustic music, he can't can't hear when
something is so blatantly not acoustic.

This is obviously an insult, actually a collection of them.

No insults at all, Arny. I simply find numbers 1 and 2 above to be
interesting.

Since Jenn never
insults anybody, its obviously a forgery.

When did I say that I never make a mistake? Your statement is a
mistake.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


If you're "agnostic" about it, why did you claim that
they are recordings of acoustic trumpet?

What are my most recent statements on the matter, Jenn?

You state that you are unsure.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Jenn" wrote

If you're "agnostic" about it, why did you claim that
they are recordings of acoustic trumpet?

What are my most recent statements on the matter, Jenn?

Why do you reply to questions with questions Arny ?

Trying to get Jenn to explain herself.

I've explained myself perfectly well. Shall I do it again?

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

Arny "discounts" our statements because we don't put up
with false statements about musical matters.

This is obviously an insult. Since Jenn never insults anybody, it is
obviously a forged post.

When did I say that I never insult? Your statement is a
mistake.

[George M. Middius]

After years of futile and self-destructive obfuscation, the Krooborg
finally accedes to the human definition of the "debating trade".

everybody with a brain should be able to see the futility of
interpreting how I mean the word "agnostic".

That's quite a breakthrough, Arnii. Did you finally put yourself under a
doctor's care?





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Jenn]

In article

om,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

om

Speaking only for myself, it's not about catching him in
a mistake. Anyone can make a mistake; it's no big deal.
What I find interesting is:
1. His evident inability to admit a mistake in the face
of overwhelming evidence
2. The fact that as a person who accepts money for
recording acoustic music, he can't can't hear when
something is so blatantly not acoustic.

This is obviously an insult, actually a collection of them.

No insults at all, Arny. I simply find numbers 1 and 2 above to be
interesting.

Since Jenn never
insults anybody, its obviously a forgery.

When did I say that I never make a mistake? Your statement is a
mistake.

Correction: When did I say that I never insult?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

Jenn, why not answer the simple question.

What are my most recent statements on the matter of whether or not the
trumpet samples on PCABX are real or synth?

Remember that if you admit my most recent statements on the matter of
whether or not the trumpet samples on PCABX are real or synth is *different*
from a clear statement that I'm quite sure they are of real trumpet(s) and I
want everybody to believe that they are, then you've been again caught in
repeated lies.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


If you're "agnostic" about it, why did you claim that
they are recordings of acoustic trumpet?

What are my most recent statements on the matter, Jenn?

You state that you are unsure.

That's not what you've been saying, right?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article lqvYg.6284$fl.1541@dukeread08,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
...
In article EltYg.6274$fl.1786@dukeread08,
"ScottW" wrote:


A little late to the jean creaming party
over having caught
Arny in a mistake....aren't you John?

Speaking only for myself, it's not about catching him
in a mistake. Anyone can make a mistake; it's no big
deal. What I find interesting is:
1. His evident inability to admit a mistake in the
face of overwhelming evidence

Was it interesting the first time, the 40th time or
the 400th time?

People are a never ending source of interest.

Thanks Jenn for admitting that you are intersted in
repeating the same insults 400 or more times.

That is not an insult.

Really? I intended it as an insult. Where did I go wrong?

This is an insult: "Hey, we got another loser who can't understand the
meaning of the word
"agnostic"."

That, too.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

Arny "discounts" our statements because we don't put up
with false statements about musical matters.

This is obviously an insult. Since Jenn never insults
anybody, it is obviously a forged post.

When did I say that I never insult?

What about all these statements about you not making insults?

Your statement is a mistake.

I guess so.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


Speaking only for myself, it's not about catching him in
a mistake. Anyone can make a mistake; it's no big deal.
What I find interesting is:
1. His evident inability to admit a mistake in the face
of overwhelming evidence
2. The fact that as a person who accepts money for
recording acoustic music, he can't can't hear when
something is so blatantly not acoustic.

This is obviously an insult, actually a collection of
them.

No insults at all, Arny. I simply find numbers 1 and 2
above to be interesting.

So *interesting* that you repeat them over and over, right?

Since Jenn never
insults anybody, its obviously a forgery.

When did I say that I never make a mistake? Your
statement is a mistake.

When then should we trade insults or mistakes or what?

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com

Speaking only for myself, it's not about catching him in
a mistake. Anyone can make a mistake; it's no big deal.
What I find interesting is:
1. His evident inability to admit a mistake in the face
of overwhelming evidence
2. The fact that as a person who accepts money for
recording acoustic music, he can't can't hear when
something is so blatantly not acoustic.

This is obviously an insult, actually a collection of
them.

No insults at all, Arny. I simply find numbers 1 and 2
above to be interesting.

So *interesting* that you repeat them over and over, right?

I actually haven't repeated them that many times. I am, however, trying
to see how long it will take for you to say that in the face of
overwhelming evidence, Stephen and I are correct about the synth files.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

Arny "discounts" our statements because we don't put up
with false statements about musical matters.

This is obviously an insult. Since Jenn never insults
anybody, it is obviously a forged post.

When did I say that I never insult?

What about all these statements about you not making insults?

I said that I haven't made any since your return from vacation.


Your statement is a mistake.

I guess so.

Correct.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article lqvYg.6284$fl.1541@dukeread08,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
...
In article EltYg.6274$fl.1786@dukeread08,
"ScottW" wrote:


A little late to the jean creaming party
over having caught
Arny in a mistake....aren't you John?

Speaking only for myself, it's not about catching him
in a mistake. Anyone can make a mistake; it's no big
deal. What I find interesting is:
1. His evident inability to admit a mistake in the
face of overwhelming evidence

Was it interesting the first time, the 40th time or
the 400th time?

People are a never ending source of interest.

Thanks Jenn for admitting that you are intersted in
repeating the same insults 400 or more times.

That is not an insult.

Really? I intended it as an insult. Where did I go wrong?

Not understanding that I was referring to my statement.


This is an insult: "Hey, we got another loser who can't understand the
meaning of the word
"agnostic"."

That, too.

As expected.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com

If you're "agnostic" about it, why did you claim that
they are recordings of acoustic trumpet?

What are my most recent statements on the matter, Jenn?

You state that you are unsure.

That's not what you've been saying, right?

Not lately. But you did say that they are recordings trumpet players.
And I'm still wondering how you can ignore the clear evidence that they
are synth files, as opposed to being unsure.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

It seems to mean a lot to Jenn and Stephen, which indicates that they don't
understand the purpose of those samples.

No, it speaks more to your love of stretching out a debate by refusing
to accept evidence and other intellectually dishonest tactics.

Stephen

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

Jenn, why not answer the simple question.

What are my most recent statements on the matter of whether or not the
trumpet samples on PCABX are real or synth?

Asked and answered.


Remember that if you admit my most recent statements on the matter of
whether or not the trumpet samples on PCABX are real or synth is *different*
from a clear statement that I'm quite sure they are of real trumpet(s) and I
want everybody to believe that they are, then you've been again caught in
repeated lies.

I've never lied here. You stated that they are recordings of real
trumpets. You were "quite sure". You later said that you are unsure.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com

If you're "agnostic" about it, why did you claim that
they are recordings of acoustic trumpet?

What are my most recent statements on the matter, Jenn?

You state that you are unsure.

That's not what you've been saying, right?

Not lately. But you did say that they are recordings
trumpet players. And I'm still wondering how you can
ignore the clear evidence that they are synth files, as
opposed to being unsure.

I'm more uncertain that they are recordings of acoustic trumpets, than
before.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

It seems to mean a lot to Jenn and Stephen, which
indicates that they don't understand the purpose of
those samples.

No, it speaks more to your love of stretching out a
debate by refusing to accept evidence and other
intellectually dishonest tactics.

How does one stretch out a debate with other people, except with their
willing participation?

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:51:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:33:14 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



paul packer wrote:

Equalisers, anyone? :-)

I'm no fan of them for sure.

In most cases they end up abusing the sound IMHO.

Graham

They have a function with archival and other poor
quality material which I outlined to Arnie, but keeping
one permanently in circuit to fiddle with whenever you
dislike the sound of a CD is just plain daft.

So much for Paul's appreciation of personal preference.

So much for my tolerance of utterly daft ideas.

For some reason Paul, people like you don't allow me to be other than
perfectly tolerant of utterly daft ideas.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com

If you're "agnostic" about it, why did you claim that
they are recordings of acoustic trumpet?

What are my most recent statements on the matter, Jenn?

You state that you are unsure.

That's not what you've been saying, right?

Not lately. But you did say that they are recordings
trumpet players. And I'm still wondering how you can
ignore the clear evidence that they are synth files, as
opposed to being unsure.

I'm more uncertain that they are recordings of acoustic trumpets, than
before.

Well, that's good. Let's see:
1. Some of the notes are impossible to play on trumpet.
2. The notes are impossibly in tune.
3. The timbres are all wrong.

What more will it take for you be certain? And while we're at it, the
same things apply to your "violins" files. I would ask when are you
going to change the names of the files to something like "MIDI trumpet
files" or "MIDI violin files"?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Powell" wrote in message



If you spent the time to read the post you would have
noted that Krivis believes that "high-end" home audio
gear is in no way comparable to quality pro equipment."

Usually, its low on required function and vastly
overpriced for what it does and how it does it.

This is simply not true. A list of manufacturers with
high quality construction standards was provided.

Construction methods are only a tiny part of the picture.

However, if I recall correctly, this answer was given in
response to a claim that most home audio gear, even high
end, was vastly inferior in construction quality to pro
gear.

What Stuart said is:

"Yeah? I wouldn't use any of these in a situation where time is money
like a recording studio. They just aren't built to the same standard
as the real stuff."

I have always presumed that Stuart meant things like features and
signal-handling standards. For example most consumer equipment operates
with maximum line-level signals in the 1 volt range. Pro audio gear usually
works at levels 12-22 dB higher. Consumer gear is usually designed to drive
line level inputs with input impedances in the 2-10K range. Pro audio gear
is generally built to work with 600 ohm impedance loads.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

It seems to mean a lot to Jenn and Stephen, which
indicates that they don't understand the purpose of
those samples.

No, it speaks more to your love of stretching out a
debate by refusing to accept evidence and other
intellectually dishonest tactics.

How does one stretch out a debate with other people, except with their
willing participation?

Good point. You share responsibility for the "many regurgitations."

Stephen

[Powell]

"John Atkinson" wrote

You really need to keep up with the topic, John. It has been
stipulated by me in the very recent past that the provenance
of the samples is fuzzy.

And this is something I still don't understand. Did the files just
appear on your PC? If someone sent them to you, why didn't
you just ask? Your lack of curiosity is peculiar, to say the least.

Aren't you being overly hard on Arny. You have an
expectation that Arny understands concepts like
Scientific Method or scientific rigor.

[Powell]

"Eeyore" wrote

If you spent the time to read the post you would have
noted that Krivis believes that "high-end" home audio
gear is in no way comparable to quality pro equipment."

Usually, its low on required function and vastly overpriced for what it
does and how it does it.

This is simply not true. A list of manufacturers with
high quality construction standards was provided.

Construction methods are only a tiny part of the picture.

However, if I recall correctly, this answer was given in response
to a claim that most home audio gear, even high end, was vastly
inferior in construction quality to pro gear.

Was it about construction quality originally ?

Krivis implied that the Millennia HV-3C Stereo Microphone
Preamplifier (http://www.mil-media.com/docs/products/hv3c.shtml)
was an example of a high-end proaudio product which was superior
in construction quality to anything manufactured in high-end audio. At
one time the Millennia web site had a picture of the HV-3C with the
cover off. Very good construction indeed for $2K, but not an all out
assault on SOTA.


I'm sure high-end audio would be no worse in that respect.

Agreed.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Why Arny! This appears to be "name-dropping" by your
definition.

Speaks to your ignorance of the meaning of the names, Jenn.

For example, if you had been around here long enough, you might have
posted with JJ on the same threads.

Oh joy. Unfortunately Jenn would have received the same
confusing double-talk. And as I clearly recall the ATT hack
didn't think much of you as a professional anything, often
berating your technical competence and poor on-line civility.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

However, if I recall correctly, this answer was given in
response to a claim that most home audio gear, even high
end, was vastly inferior in construction quality to pro
gear.

What Stuart said is:

"Yeah? I wouldn't use any of these in a situation where time is money
like a recording studio. They just aren't built to the same standard
as the real stuff."

snip quacking

Wrong again Arny.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote

If you're "agnostic" about it, why did you claim that
they are recordings of acoustic trumpet?

What are my most recent statements on the matter, Jenn?

Why do you reply to questions with questions Arny ?

Trying to get Jenn to explain herself.

No you're not.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

Jenn, why not answer the simple question.

What are my most recent statements on the matter of whether or not the
trumpet samples on PCABX are real or synth?

Why don't you tell us ? I'd love to know if you're deaf or not.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

I'm more uncertain that they are recordings of acoustic trumpets, than
before.

Erk ! So you were a 'bit uncertain' even before that ? Just how uncertain were you
originally ?

Graham

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Powell" wrote in message



If you spent the time to read the post you would have
noted that Krivis believes that "high-end" home audio
gear is in no way comparable to quality pro equipment."

Usually, its low on required function and vastly
overpriced for what it does and how it does it.

This is simply not true. A list of manufacturers with
high quality construction standards was provided.

Construction methods are only a tiny part of the picture.

However, if I recall correctly, this answer was given in
response to a claim that most home audio gear, even high
end, was vastly inferior in construction quality to pro
gear.

What Stuart said is:

"Yeah? I wouldn't use any of these in a situation where time is money
like a recording studio. They just aren't built to the same standard
as the real stuff."

I have always presumed that Stuart meant things like features and
signal-handling standards. For example most consumer equipment operates
with maximum line-level signals in the 1 volt range. Pro audio gear
usually works at levels 12-22 dB higher. Consumer gear is usually
designed to drive line level inputs with input impedances in the 2-10K
range. Pro audio gear is generally built to work with 600 ohm impedance
loads.

Then I think your interpretation is wrong. The "time is money" reference
means he thinks there will be a higher probability/rate of failure, based on
shoddier construction. What does that have to do with signal-handling
standard differences, which are well known?

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
in
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote

If you're "agnostic" about it, why did you claim that
they are recordings of acoustic trumpet?

What are my most recent statements on the matter, Jenn?

Why do you reply to questions with questions Arny ?

Trying to get Jenn to explain herself.

No you're not.


Sure I am, it is always fun. Never cease to hear new things.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

I'm more uncertain that they are recordings of acoustic
trumpets, than before.

Erk ! So you were a 'bit uncertain' even before that ?

Before the most recent round of facts?

Yes.

Just how uncertain were you originally ?

You've got me confused with someone who cared about anyhing but their
effectiveness for hearing differences between audio products, which can be
pretty high.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

It seems to mean a lot to Jenn and Stephen, which
indicates that they don't understand the purpose of
those samples.

No, it speaks more to your love of stretching out a
debate by refusing to accept evidence and other
intellectually dishonest tactics.

How does one stretch out a debate with other people,
except with their willing participation?

Good point. You share responsibility for the "many
regurgitations."

Do you?

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Why Arny! This appears to be "name-dropping" by your
definition.

Speaks to your ignorance of the meaning of the names,
Jenn. For example, if you had been around here long enough,
you might have posted with JJ on the same threads.

Oh joy. Unfortunately Jenn would have received the same
confusing double-talk.

You mean from JJ?

And as I clearly recall the ATT
hack didn't think much of you as a professional anything,
often berating your technical competence and poor on-line
civility.

Hmm its Powell doing the projection thing.

Help me Powell, how was your relationship with JJ? All hearts and flowers,
right?

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" wrote in message

"Eeyore" wrote

If you spent the time to read the post you would have
noted that Krivis believes that "high-end" home audio
gear is in no way comparable to quality pro
equipment."

Usually, its low on required function and vastly
overpriced for what it does and how it does it.

This is simply not true. A list of manufacturers with
high quality construction standards was provided.

Construction methods are only a tiny part of the
picture.

However, if I recall correctly, this answer was given
in response to a claim that most home audio gear, even
high end, was vastly inferior in construction quality
to pro gear.

Was it about construction quality originally ?

Krivis implied that the Millennia HV-3C Stereo Microphone
Preamplifier
(http://www.mil-media.com/docs/products/hv3c.shtml) was an example of a
high-end proaudio product which was
superior in construction quality to anything manufactured in
high-end audio.

That is a reach.