| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Spread of costs..
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Maybe he is just a sucker for better sound. Prove that you have to spend almost half the price of your system on the front end to get better sound. Prove you can't. As usual, what you say make no logical sense. I think it do. |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
"The Devil" wrote in message
news:4m7gd0h0qtr281tf75vog2ggudphmf478g@rdmzrnewst xt.nz On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 07:49:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: This would be proof that you are so poorly-informed that you think that one can buy a CD player for $1. Who said anything about a CD player? I was thinking of a little 555 board configured as an oscillator. You've confused production with reproduction, yet again. Even Norm strong has those bottoming out around $10. I've enver paid less than about $30 so for one. Since they all sound the same, why pay more than that? You forget so quickly, grasshopper. I've listed out the reasons here, several times. I guess you can get a pretty good wall wart and IC amp for $11.00. Really? Do tell! Just guessing. I know you only have the best stuff. Merely, very good stuff. But unlike the stuff you brag about, I actually have it. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
"MINe 109" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Maybe he is just a sucker for better sound. Prove that you have to spend almost half the price of your system on the front end to get better sound. Prove you can't. As usual, what you say makes no logical sense. I think it do. Enjoy! |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Maybe he is just a sucker for better sound. Prove that you have to spend almost half the price of your system on the front end to get better sound. Prove you can't. As usual, what you say makes no logical sense. An 's' out of nowhere... I like seeing you correct your typos in quoted text. Busted! I think it do. Enjoy! I do. My statement assumes its sense from your statement that preceded it, like this: Prove that you [have to/can't] spend almost half the price of your system on the front end to get better sound. Yes, as you say, both statements are illogical. |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
"MINe 109" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Maybe he is just a sucker for better sound. Prove that you have to spend almost half the price of your system on the front end to get better sound. Prove you can't. As usual, what you say makes no logical sense. An 's' out of nowhere... I like seeing you correct your typos in quoted text. Busted! You obviously need a life, if this is all you have to complain about. Life calls... |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Maybe he is just a sucker for better sound. Prove that you have to spend almost half the price of your system on the front end to get better sound. Prove you can't. As usual, what you say makes no logical sense. An 's' out of nowhere... I like seeing you correct your typos in quoted text. Busted! You obviously need a life, if this is all you have to complain about. Well, there's also the complaint about logic, the one you snipped out. What is it you accuse others of? "Deceptive editing"? Life calls... Hope floats... |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/22/2004 2:29 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 10:55 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Maybe he is just a sucker for better sound. Prove that you have to spend almost half the price of your system on the front end to get better sound. I am not going to argue with you over your straw man. IOW, you have nothing intelligent to say that goes against my claim that vinyl extracts a premium, because it is outdated technology. No. IOW your point is not worth addressing because it has no merit. Your question is meaningless because of so many built in false assumptions. You're the one makng the assumptions, S888wheel. Wrong again. If you want to get the best posible sound from LP playback it will cost you a lot of money That's what I said, and now you are agreeing with. You said *because* it is old, backward technology that does not feel the normal preasures of market competition. You are simply wrong about these alleged causes for the cost. It costs a lot of money because better tables , arms and cartridges require better engineering and more expensive materials and manufacturing. That is *normal.* It has nothing to do with the age of the technology or the existance of newer technologies. (depending on what one considers a lot of money of course) whether or not it will cost you almost half the price of your system obviously depends on the cost of the rest of your system. Right, the vinyl part of your system could run 90% of the price of your system if the rest of it was cheap enough. Yes it could. It could run you 10% or even 1% if the rest of your system was expensive enough. Duh. |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/21/2004 11:57 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin 2004 00:13 wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin 2004 23:23 wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message Paul Dormer wrote: I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this example as it's my most used source. [CD : AMP : SPEAKERS] 1 : 6 : 12 Speakers ------ 17% Pwr Amp ------- 17% PreAmp -------- 18% CD ------------- 17% Subw ----------- 15% Pwr Conditioner ------ 8% Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for. I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math? Dormer requested a ratio. A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts & nuts in way. Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator. JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be finished. No big deal. You should stop to walk on the "cordes"... You should try to make sense. Do you know what is a corde ? ;-) Yes. Do you know what a dancing monkey is? |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 12:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Good LP playback doesn't come cheap. It appears to be "priceless". No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP playbeack equipment. But it is worth the money to those who are interested in better sound. Not at all. No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in hearing thier favorite music at it's sonic best. If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl! Wrong. Just about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago. Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who turned to CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people who turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback. Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end vinyl is a contradiction in terms. Yeah but it is a subjective call. No, it's objective reality. Less noise, wider FR, and bigger dynamic range make it objectively better. That doesn't change the fact that when comparing CDs and LPs of the same recording the preference is a subjective call. The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription exists. If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would simply be wrong. In your opinion. Yes. But my opinion is based on listening comparisons of numerous titles with a legitimate high end LP playback system. It is a much better informed opinion than most. I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less expensive but CD clearly sound better. They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those cassette brief cases people used to have in the car? No, still have one. Then you should know they are far more inconvenient than many CD carrying cases. When radio stations started playing CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs. Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio in their cars. I don't think it mattered. Then you'd be wrong. It was clearly obvious. Even with the compression. Prove that it was clearly obvious to the masses. That was your claim. When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device. They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They didn't take over the market until they became portable and available for cars. LP had been around for a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette. So? So people knew what they sounded like. Wrong. Most people knew what a crappy direct drive turntable with a less than optimally aligned MM cartridge sounded like. Very few people have ever been exposed to high end LP playback. There is a world of difference. While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette, It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many cassettes with you. They are also more durable. Yet another selling point. Yes. A selling point that had nothing to do with sound quality. That was my point. and cassettes could (after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain outperformed both. My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me. Get them checked, they are obviously failing They have been checked. If you care to make a wager we can always compare hearing acuity. Name your price. I will bet any number you name my hearing is objectively better than yours. Then it must be some other part that's failing. You mentioned compression, which do you think is more compressed, LP or CD? Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
"The Devil" wrote in message
news:9oagd0hvi3m7rl453kjjjjs25f4mmb70ja@rdmzrnewst xt.nz It's well known around these parts that you were caught using Photoshop to paste audio gear into pictures of your junkhole 'house'. Thanks for showing that "well known around these parts" equates with delusions. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
S888Wheel a écrit :
From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 11:57 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin 2004 00:13 wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin 2004 23:23 wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message Paul Dormer wrote: I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this example as it's my most used source. [CD : AMP : SPEAKERS] 1 : 6 : 12 Speakers ------ 17% Pwr Amp ------- 17% PreAmp -------- 18% CD ------------- 17% Subw ----------- 15% Pwr Conditioner ------ 8% Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for. I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math? Dormer requested a ratio. A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts & nuts in way. Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator. JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be finished. No big deal. You should stop to walk on the "cordes"... You should try to make sense. Do you know what is a corde ? ;-) Yes. Do you know what a dancing monkey is? Yes a guy like you who his begging for his ration of insults. Satisfied Part-Number ? |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/22/2004 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 12:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Good LP playback doesn't come cheap. It appears to be "priceless". No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP playbeack equipment. But it is worth the money to those who are interested in better sound. Not at all. No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in hearing thier favorite music at it's sonic best. If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl! Wrong. Just about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago. Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who turned to CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people who turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback. Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end vinyl is a contradiction in terms. Yeah but it is a subjective call. No, it's objective reality. Less noise, wider FR, and bigger dynamic range make it objectively better. That doesn't change the fact that when comparing CDs and LPs of the same recording the preference is a subjective call. No response? Figured out I am right? The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription exists. If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would simply be wrong. In your opinion. Yes. But my opinion is based on listening comparisons of numerous titles with a legitimate high end LP playback system. It is a much better informed opinion than most. I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less expensive but CD clearly sound better. They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those cassette brief cases people used to have in the car? No, still have one. Then you should know they are far more inconvenient than many CD carrying cases. When radio stations started playing CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs. Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio in their cars. I don't think it mattered. Then you'd be wrong. It was clearly obvious. Even with the compression. Prove that it was clearly obvious to the masses. That was your claim. No support for your claim noted. When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device. They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They didn't take over the market until they became portable and available for cars. LP had been around for a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette. So? So people knew what they sounded like. Wrong. Most people knew what a crappy direct drive turntable with a less than optimally aligned MM cartridge sounded like. Very few people have ever been exposed to high end LP playback. There is a world of difference. While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette, It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many cassettes with you. They are also more durable. Yet another selling point. Yes. A selling point that had nothing to do with sound quality. That was my point. and cassettes could (after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain outperformed both. My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me. Get them checked, they are obviously failing They have been checked. If you care to make a wager we can always compare hearing acuity. Name your price. I will bet any number you name my hearing is objectively better than yours. Then it must be some other part that's failing. Nope. You mentioned compression, which do you think is more compressed, LP or CD? Well that depends on the title doesn't it? Or do you believe that all CDs of any given recording are less compressed than any LP counterpart? Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. My ears are the final arbitrator for me. Are they not for you? Do you prefer measurements over actual listening? Do you choose something that sounds inferior becuase of the measurements of the medium? |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
Michael McKelvy a écrit :
Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. Michael, S888Wheel statement cannot be disassembled until you can afford yourself his turntable with his arm with his cartridge with his listening room with his... drinking his beer. His challenge isn't Hifi or music... He is only challenging you, RAO and RAHE contributors to buy the same equipment than him. S888Wheel is like a peacock instead of exhibiting his plumes he exhibits his audio system. Since the "awesome day" (lol) he has witnesses of his system reality. It is *VERY* important to have witnesses if like him you love to speak about your audio system. Note that if you try to criticize his behaviour you are accused of "class envy". He has built a kind of bunker around him and his audio system. Normal this is his reason of life. ;-) |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/22/2004 10:49 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 11:57 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin 2004 00:13 wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin 2004 23:23 wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message Paul Dormer wrote: I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this example as it's my most used source. [CD : AMP : SPEAKERS] 1 : 6 : 12 Speakers ------ 17% Pwr Amp ------- 17% PreAmp -------- 18% CD ------------- 17% Subw ----------- 15% Pwr Conditioner ------ 8% Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for. I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math? Dormer requested a ratio. A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts & nuts in way. Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator. JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be finished. No big deal. You should stop to walk on the "cordes"... You should try to make sense. Do you know what is a corde ? ;-) Yes. Do you know what a dancing monkey is? Yes a guy like you who his begging for his ration of insults. Satisfied Part-Number ? The monkey does a little Kroodance when the button is pushed. Yes, I am amused. we all have our guilty pleasures. I found some change in the sofa, is your house for sale? |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
|
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
S888Wheel a écrit :
From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/22/2004 10:49 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 11:57 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin 2004 00:13 wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin 2004 23:23 wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message Paul Dormer wrote: I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this example as it's my most used source. [CD : AMP : SPEAKERS] 1 : 6 : 12 Speakers ------ 17% Pwr Amp ------- 17% PreAmp -------- 18% CD ------------- 17% Subw ----------- 15% Pwr Conditioner ------ 8% Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for. I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math? Dormer requested a ratio. A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts & nuts in way. Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator. JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be finished. No big deal. You should stop to walk on the "cordes"... You should try to make sense. Do you know what is a corde ? ;-) Yes. Do you know what a dancing monkey is? Yes a guy like you who his begging for his ration of insults. Satisfied Part-Number ? The monkey does a little Kroodance when the button is pushed. A what ? A Kroodance ? Take care George will ask for royalties. Yes, I am amused. we all have our guilty pleasures. No problem for me. I just note that you have much more guilty pleasure than the average of the population. I found some change in the sofa, is your house for sale? You cannot pay the price for it. ;-) |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
|
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/22/2004 11:55 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/22/2004 10:49 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 11:57 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin 2004 00:13 wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin 2004 23:23 wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message m Paul Dormer wrote: I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this example as it's my most used source. [CD : AMP : SPEAKERS] 1 : 6 : 12 Speakers ------ 17% Pwr Amp ------- 17% PreAmp -------- 18% CD ------------- 17% Subw ----------- 15% Pwr Conditioner ------ 8% Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for. I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math? Dormer requested a ratio. A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts & nuts in way. Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator. JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be finished. No big deal. You should stop to walk on the "cordes"... You should try to make sense. Do you know what is a corde ? ;-) Yes. Do you know what a dancing monkey is? Yes a guy like you who his begging for his ration of insults. Satisfied Part-Number ? The monkey does a little Kroodance when the button is pushed. A what ? A Kroodance ? Take care George will ask for royalties. Yes, I am amused. we all have our guilty pleasures. No problem for me. I just note that you have much more guilty pleasure than the average of the population. This from a guy who fantasizes about sucking off Bulldogs. That's funny. I found some change in the sofa, is your house for sale? You cannot pay the price for it. ;-) I'll check the car for more loose change. |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
S888Wheel a écrit :
From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/22/2004 11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Michael McKelvy a écrit : Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. Michael, S888Wheel statement cannot be disassembled until you can afford yourself his turntable with his arm with his cartridge with his listening room with his... drinking his beer. Lionel and his class envy. Sad S888Wheel and his programed answers, too funny. His challenge isn't Hifi or music... He is only challenging you, RAO and RAHE contributors to buy the same equipment than him. Lionel and his stupidity. Sad. I just repeat what you use to write day after day. S888Wheel is like a peacock instead of exhibiting his plumes he exhibits his audio system. Class envy again. Pathetic. Your desires don't fit reality ? Yes you are pathetic. Since the "awesome day" (lol) he has witnesses of his system reality. It is *VERY* important to have witnesses if like him you love to speak about your audio system. Amazing how Lionel can get so wound up about his poverty. You could always get off your ass and away from your computer and take a stab at earing more money instead of whinning about others earning more money. Poverty. In your mounth this sound like an insult. I am not poor and not envious, this is why you enrage. Note that if you try to criticize his behaviour you are accused of "class envy". Calling a spade a spade. You are grotesque now. He has built a kind of bunker around him and his audio system. Normal this is his reason of life. ;-) Now you are just fantasizing. Was this your defense mechanism against the terror of your father's late night visits? ;-) The above is S888Wheel ultimate argument, his powerful weapon... What a loser ! |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
S888Wheel a écrit :
From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/22/2004 11:55 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/22/2004 10:49 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 11:57 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin 2004 00:13 wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin 2004 23:23 wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message om Paul Dormer wrote: I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this example as it's my most used source. [CD : AMP : SPEAKERS] 1 : 6 : 12 Speakers ------ 17% Pwr Amp ------- 17% PreAmp -------- 18% CD ------------- 17% Subw ----------- 15% Pwr Conditioner ------ 8% Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for. I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math? Dormer requested a ratio. A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts & nuts in way. Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator. JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be finished. No big deal. You should stop to walk on the "cordes"... You should try to make sense. Do you know what is a corde ? ;-) Yes. Do you know what a dancing monkey is? Yes a guy like you who his begging for his ration of insults. Satisfied Part-Number ? The monkey does a little Kroodance when the button is pushed. A what ? A Kroodance ? Take care George will ask for royalties. Yes, I am amused. we all have our guilty pleasures. No problem for me. I just note that you have much more guilty pleasure than the average of the population. This from a guy who fantasizes about sucking off Bulldogs. That's funny. I found some change in the sofa, is your house for sale? You cannot pay the price for it. ;-) I'll check the car for more loose change. You cannot pay the price for one of my sock. I guess that you cannot understand this, eh Mr Suer ? |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
|
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/22/2004 12:40 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/22/2004 11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Michael McKelvy a écrit : Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. Michael, S888Wheel statement cannot be disassembled until you can afford yourself his turntable with his arm with his cartridge with his listening room with his... drinking his beer. Lionel and his class envy. Sad S888Wheel and his programed answers, too funny. The right answers to the same whinny complaints will tend to look the same. His challenge isn't Hifi or music... He is only challenging you, RAO and RAHE contributors to buy the same equipment than him. Lionel and his stupidity. Sad. I just repeat what you use to write day after day. No. You are responsible for your disgusting posts. I realize you would like to blame me for your ****tyness. Typical of low lifes who suffer from chronic class envy. S888Wheel is like a peacock instead of exhibiting his plumes he exhibits his audio system. Class envy again. Pathetic. Your desires don't fit reality ? Yes you are pathetic. Doing the Kroodance again. Good little monkey. Since the "awesome day" (lol) he has witnesses of his system reality. It is *VERY* important to have witnesses if like him you love to speak about your audio system. Amazing how Lionel can get so wound up about his poverty. You could always get off your ass and away from your computer and take a stab at earing more money instead of whinning about others earning more money. Poverty. In your mounth this sound like an insult. I am not poor and not envious, this is why you enrage. You clearly are and that is why it enrages you. Note that if you try to criticize his behaviour you are accused of "class envy". Calling a spade a spade. You are grotesque now. You have no idea what grotesque is. If you did you would certainly become suicidal. He has built a kind of bunker around him and his audio system. Normal this is his reason of life. ;-) Now you are just fantasizing. Was this your defense mechanism against the terror of your father's late night visits? ;-) The above is S888Wheel ultimate argument, his powerful weapon... What a loser ! And yet you keep dancing. Aren't you tired of being laughed at? Aren't you tired of being enraged? |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: Lionel ahc
Date: 6/22/2004 12:43 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/22/2004 11:55 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/22/2004 10:49 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 11:57 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - mardi 22 Juin 2004 00:13 wrote: From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/21/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel - - lundi 21 Juin 2004 23:23 wrote: From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "JBorg" wrote in message m Paul Dormer wrote: I would be interested to see how ppl spread their costs across components. Here's mine, expressed as ratio. I nominated CD in this example as it's my most used source. [CD : AMP : SPEAKERS] 1 : 6 : 12 Speakers ------ 17% Pwr Amp ------- 17% PreAmp -------- 18% CD ------------- 17% Subw ----------- 15% Pwr Conditioner ------ 8% Just goes to show that you can't ask JBorg a simple question and get a proper answer. Ask for 3 numbers and he gives you six. Furthermore, it appears that he apparently can't do the simple math required to express his results as the ratios that were asked for. I don't think 3 numbers were specifically asked for. Just a breakdown on costs of components. His numbers do break down into simple ratios. Lionel was the only one to screw that one up. Even his was a minor screw up. There is the missing 8% though. Accessories? Bad math? Dormer requested a ratio. A ratio is a ratio. The most popular in the world is named "percent" this is the one I use like Mr. Borg... But it seems that he lost some bolts & nuts in way. Yeah but you didn't break yours down to the lowest common denominator. JBorg's were broken down so all one had to do is ignore the % symbol and the answer was there. Yours required a little bit of extra math to be finished. No big deal. You should stop to walk on the "cordes"... You should try to make sense. Do you know what is a corde ? ;-) Yes. Do you know what a dancing monkey is? Yes a guy like you who his begging for his ration of insults. Satisfied Part-Number ? The monkey does a little Kroodance when the button is pushed. A what ? A Kroodance ? Take care George will ask for royalties. Yes, I am amused. we all have our guilty pleasures. No problem for me. I just note that you have much more guilty pleasure than the average of the population. This from a guy who fantasizes about sucking off Bulldogs. That's funny. I found some change in the sofa, is your house for sale? You cannot pay the price for it. ;-) I'll check the car for more loose change. You cannot pay the price for one of my sock. I guess that you cannot understand this, eh Mr Suer ? Word has it that I wave a bulldog infront of your face you will give me the shirt off your back. |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 12:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Good LP playback doesn't come cheap. It appears to be "priceless". No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP playbeack equipment. But it is worth the money to those who are interested in better sound. Not at all. No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in hearing thier favorite music at it's sonic best. If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl! Wrong. Just about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago. Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who turned to CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people who turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback. Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end vinyl is a contradiction in terms. Yeah but it is a subjective call. No, it's objective reality. Less noise, wider FR, and bigger dynamic range make it objectively better. That doesn't change the fact that when comparing CDs and LPs of the same recording the preference is a subjective call. Which is why I was specific on the reasons why CD is superior. A preference can't be wrong. Stating that your preference is better is wrong when the by objective criteria, your preference is for lower quality reprodcution. The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription exists. If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would simply be wrong. In your opinion. Yes. But my opinion is based on listening comparisons of numerous titles with a legitimate high end LP playback system. It is a much better informed opinion than most. Most of what? Many of the people here have spent long hours listening to live and recorded music on a variety of systems. The hobby is Hi-Fi. If you want to hear what was intended to be heard on the recording you listen to it on a CD. You don't take a carefully crafted recording and proceed to induce wow, flutter, speed variations, limit the fr equency response, compress and decompress, allow microphonic feedback and the host of other problems that LP's are subject to and declare them superior. You like them, fine. Objectively they are a lesser quality item. I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less expensive but CD clearly sound better. They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those cassette brief cases people used to have in the car? No, still have one. Then you should know they are far more inconvenient than many CD carrying cases. But that's not why people replaced their music library with CD's. When radio stations started playing CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs. Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio in their cars. I don't think it mattered. Then you'd be wrong. It was clearly obvious. Even with the compression. Prove that it was clearly obvious to the masses. That was your claim. Alright, I'll recant that and state it this way: I could hear with ears that are nothing special, I therefore assume that most people could hear the same improvement. When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device. They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They didn't take over the market until they became portable and available for cars. LP had been around for a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette. So? So people knew what they sounded like. Wrong. Most people knew what a crappy direct drive turntable with a less than optimally aligned MM cartridge sounded like. Direct drive is superior to a ****ing ruber band. Very few people have ever been exposed to high end LP playback. There is a world of difference. All the tedium of a cheap record player at much higher cost and inferior reproduction compared to a $100.00 CD player. Whoopdedo. While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette, It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many cassettes with you. They are also more durable. Yet another selling point. Yes. A selling point that had nothing to do with sound quality. That was my point. But the sound IS better. and cassettes could (after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain outperformed both. My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me. Get them checked, they are obviously failing They have been checked. If you care to make a wager we can always compare hearing acuity. Name your price. I will bet any number you name my hearing is objectively better than yours. Then it must be some other part that's failing. Nope. You mentioned compression, which do you think is more compressed, LP or CD? Well that depends on the title doesn't it? Not usually. Or do you believe that all CDs of any given recording are less compressed than any LP counterpart? Whatever compression might be applied to a cd recording is nothing by comparison, in general to an LP. Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. My ears are the final arbitrator for me. Are they not for you? Do you prefer measurements over actual listening? Do you choose something that sounds inferior becuase of the measurements of the medium? I like to think I can hear the objectively superior performance of a CD recording with my ears. I didn't need anything else the first time I heard one to know that it was light years away from anything available on LP. That there are clunker recordings on CD is a fact but it doesn't change the fact that a recoding done by a competent engineer will be superior on CD. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: George M. Middius Date: 6/22/2004 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel said: Krooger prefers arguing. Preferably over nothing. No doubt he does, But this is Mikey I am talking to. Monkey see, Mickey do..... I guess the objectivists are right. They all sound the same. When your deaf. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
S888Wheel a écrit :
You cannot pay the price for one of my sock. I guess that you cannot understand this, eh Mr Suer ? Word has it that I wave a bulldog infront of your face you will give me the shirt off your back. Perhaps if you have served in the army you would have learnt how to kill a dog. It takes you 3 seconds. The animal doesn't have any chance. :-( What is really dangerous for a man is at least 2 or more dogs. Ask McKelvy, sure he will be happy to explain you. Note that I like the dogs in general and I despise this idea. Anyway if you want to take my socks you know what you need to bring with you. ;-) |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
My definition of "grotestque" for S888Wheel. ;-)
S888Wheel a écrit :
You have no idea what grotesque is. If you did you would certainly become suicidal. I know what grotesque means. Imagine a guy, a presumptuous petty bourgeois very proud of his life achievement. He uses to do his best to get attention on usenet NGs but he is not really successful. One day on a forum thanks to a fallacious pretext of insult he gets the occasion to drive all the regulars' attention on him. He spend a lot of time in gesticulation and argumentation to keep the general attention, he is the hero. He finally feels important. He is the center of the miserable maelstrom he has created. The maelestrom ? Just an inepte lawsuit. Some of the contributors tell him that it's not really serious. He don't cares, he insults, he mocks... He is the *boss* who manages everything perfectly moreover he is helped by his father a former law counselor... ....But in the end his lawsuit failed lamentably. This is what I call the perfect illustration of what *GROTESQUE* means. |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
Lionel said:
Anyway if you want to take my socks you know what you need to bring with you. ;-) A gas mask? ;-) -- Sander deWaal Vacuum Audio Consultancy |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
Sander deWaal a écrit :
Lionel said: Anyway if you want to take my socks you know what you need to bring with you. ;-) A gas mask? ;-) :-D |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/22/2004 10:06 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: George M. Middius Date: 6/22/2004 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel said: Krooger prefers arguing. Preferably over nothing. No doubt he does, But this is Mikey I am talking to. Monkey see, Mickey do..... I guess the objectivists are right. They all sound the same. When your deaf. This has been suggested as a possible cause for the objectivist POV for many years. I didn't know some objectivists agreed about their hearing disabilities. |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
Subject: Spread of costs..
From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 10:04 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 12:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Good LP playback doesn't come cheap. It appears to be "priceless". No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP playbeack equipment. But it is worth the money to those who are interested in better sound. Not at all. No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in hearing thier favorite music at it's sonic best. If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl! Wrong. Just about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago. Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who turned to CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people who turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback. Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end vinyl is a contradiction in terms. Yeah but it is a subjective call. No, it's objective reality. Less noise, wider FR, and bigger dynamic range make it objectively better. That doesn't change the fact that when comparing CDs and LPs of the same recording the preference is a subjective call. Which is why I was specific on the reasons why CD is superior. Doesn't matter. A preference can't be wrong. Stating that your preference is better is wrong when the by objective criteria, your preference is for lower quality reprodcution. Wrong. The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription exists. If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would simply be wrong. In your opinion. Yes. But my opinion is based on listening comparisons of numerous titles with a legitimate high end LP playback system. It is a much better informed opinion than most. Most of what? Opinions on LP vs CD playback. Duh. Many of the people here have spent long hours listening to live and recorded music on a variety of systems. That's nice. Most people who have had substantial experience comparing CD and LP playback of the same titles using a legitimate high end LP rig prefer the vinyl. The hobby is Hi-Fi. If you want to hear what was intended to be heard on the recording you listen to it on a CD. Bull****. There are some cases where a particlular CD is better than any LP version of a given title that exists on both formats. IME they are few and far between. You don't take a carefully crafted recording and proceed to induce wow, flutter, speed variations, limit the fr equency response, compress and decompress, allow microphonic feedback and the host of other problems that LP's are subject to and declare them superior. Of course not you take the time and effort to reduce those problems to near or below the threshold of audibility then listen. If the LP is superior than the CD (it usually is) then you declare it superior. You like them, fine. Objectively they are a lesser quality item. No. I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less expensive but CD clearly sound better. They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those cassette brief cases people used to have in the car? No, still have one. Then you should know they are far more inconvenient than many CD carrying cases. But that's not why people replaced their music library with CD's. When radio stations started playing CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs. Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio in their cars. I don't think it mattered. Then you'd be wrong. It was clearly obvious. Even with the compression. Prove that it was clearly obvious to the masses. That was your claim. Alright, I'll recant that and state it this way: I could hear with ears that are nothing special, I therefore assume that most people could hear the same improvement. When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device. They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They didn't take over the market until they became portable and available for cars. LP had been around for a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette. So? So people knew what they sounded like. Wrong. Most people knew what a crappy direct drive turntable with a less than optimally aligned MM cartridge sounded like. Direct drive is superior to a ****ing ruber band. Very few people have ever been exposed to high end LP playback. There is a world of difference. All the tedium of a cheap record player at much higher cost and inferior reproduction compared to a $100.00 CD player. Whoopdedo. Wrong again. While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette, It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many cassettes with you. They are also more durable. Yet another selling point. Yes. A selling point that had nothing to do with sound quality. That was my point. But the sound IS better. and cassettes could (after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain outperformed both. My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me. Get them checked, they are obviously failing They have been checked. If you care to make a wager we can always compare hearing acuity. Name your price. I will bet any number you name my hearing is objectively better than yours. Then it must be some other part that's failing. Nope. You mentioned compression, which do you think is more compressed, LP or CD? Well that depends on the title doesn't it? Not usually. Wrong again. Or do you believe that all CDs of any given recording are less compressed than any LP counterpart? Whatever compression might be applied to a cd recording is nothing by comparison, in general to an LP. Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. My ears are the final arbitrator for me. Are they not for you? Do you prefer measurements over actual listening? Do you choose something that sounds inferior becuase of the measurements of the medium? I like to think I can hear the objectively superior performance of a CD recording with my ears. I didn't need anything else the first time I heard one to know that it was light years away from anything available on LP. That there are clunker recordings on CD is a fact but it doesn't change the fact that a recoding done by a competent engineer will be superior on CD. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
My definition of "grotestque" for S888Wheel. ;-)
|
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
|
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
My definition of "grotestque" for S888Wheel. ;-)
S888Wheel a écrit :
From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/23/2004 12:39 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : You have no idea what grotesque is. If you did you would certainly become suicidal. I know what grotesque means. No you don't. Imagine a guy, a presumptuous petty bourgeois very proud of his life achievement. He uses to do his best to get attention on usenet NGs but he is not really successful. One day on a forum thanks to a fallacious pretext of insult he gets the occasion to drive all the regulars' attention on him. He spend a lot of time in gesticulation and argumentation to keep the general attention, he is the hero. He finally feels important. He is the center of the miserable maelstrom he has created. The maelestrom ? Just an inepte lawsuit. Some of the contributors tell him that it's not really serious. He don't cares, he insults, he mocks... He is the *boss* who manages everything perfectly moreover he is helped by his father a former law counselor... ...But in the end his lawsuit failed lamentably. You have a vivd imagination though. Keep slaying those windmills little monkey. ------------------------------------------------------------------- De :Lionel ) Objet : Scott Wheeler's extraordinary life. Groupes de discussion :rec.audio.opinion Date :2003-10-17 06:37:39 PST S888Wheel wrote: You do have way too much spare time. Ironic though. This time you found the truth sort of. I'm spending my "too much spare time" to laugh at you. It doesn't cost me one cent. You're spending your free time to sue one guy, you are sad and exposed to other's sarcasm. Moreover this costs you money. Ooops ! I forget that you do that for nothing because you will fail. Who is wrong ? Who is right ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is what I call the perfect illustration of what *GROTESQUE* means. Like I said, you don't know what grotesque means. You might try lithium for your hallucinations. Have you tested it ? |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
S888Wheel a écrit :
From: Lionel ahc Date: 6/23/2004 12:32 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel a écrit : You cannot pay the price for one of my sock. I guess that you cannot understand this, eh Mr Suer ? Word has it that I wave a bulldog infront of your face you will give me the shirt off your back. Perhaps if you have served in the army you would have learnt how to kill a dog. It takes you 3 seconds. The animal doesn't have any chance. :-( What is really dangerous for a man is at least 2 or more dogs. Ask McKelvy, sure he will be happy to explain you. Note that I like the dogs in general and I despise this idea. I did not know you were into necrophilia as well as bestiality. I will be extra careful not to allow our pets anywhere near you. Ah, ah, ah ! This one is very good Anyway if you want to take my socks you know what you need to bring with you. ;-) No, I don't want your socks. I got what I wanted from you, another monkey dance. I got what I wanted from you, you have demonstrated that you are a loser. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ De :Lionel ) Objet : Scott Wheeler's extraordinary life. View this article only Groupes de discussion :rec.audio.opinion Date :2003-10-17 06:37:39 PST S888Wheel wrote: You do have way too much spare time. Ironic though. This time you found the truth sort of. I'm spending my "too much spare time" to laugh at you. It doesn't cost me one cent. You're spending your free time to sue one guy, you are sad and exposed to other's sarcasm. Moreover this costs you money. Ooops ! I forget that you do that for nothing because you will fail. Who is wrong ? Who is right ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 10:06 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: George M. Middius Date: 6/22/2004 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel said: Krooger prefers arguing. Preferably over nothing. No doubt he does, But this is Mikey I am talking to. Monkey see, Mickey do..... I guess the objectivists are right. They all sound the same. When your deaf. This has been suggested as a possible cause for the objectivist POV for many years. I didn't know some objectivists agreed about their hearing disabilities. The objectivist point of view as I understand it is that audio playback should be that the signal source should be as free from distortion as possible. You are advocating that as distortions make it sound better. No objectivist I know begrudges you the right to play your music with as much distortion as you like. You appear to categorically believe that LP is an objectively superior way to hear music played through a hi-fi and that is simply not true. You make prefer it but that has little to with it being better for the rest of the world. |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... Subject: Spread of costs.. From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 10:04 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 12:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Good LP playback doesn't come cheap. It appears to be "priceless". No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP playbeack equipment. But it is worth the money to those who are interested in better sound. Not at all. No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in hearing thier favorite music at it's sonic best. If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl! Wrong. Just about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago. Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who turned to CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people who turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback. Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end vinyl is a contradiction in terms. Yeah but it is a subjective call. No, it's objective reality. Less noise, wider FR, and bigger dynamic range make it objectively better. That doesn't change the fact that when comparing CDs and LPs of the same recording the preference is a subjective call. Which is why I was specific on the reasons why CD is superior. Doesn't matter. To you. Every person I've ever spoken to about CD that was exposed to LP and Cassette has mentioned the fact that they find CD sound to be clearly superior. A preference can't be wrong. Stating that your preference is better is wrong when the by objective criteria, your preference is for lower quality reprodcution. Wrong. Blank assertion, noted The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription exists. If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would simply be wrong. In your opinion. Yes. But my opinion is based on listening comparisons of numerous titles with a legitimate high end LP playback system. It is a much better informed opinion than most. Most of what? Opinions on LP vs CD playback. Duh. It's no better or worse than any other opinion on what sounds good. Many of the people here have spent long hours listening to live and recorded music on a variety of systems. That's nice. Most people who have had substantial experience comparing CD and LP playback of the same titles using a legitimate high end LP rig prefer the vinyl. Proof? Oh that't right in your world 0+0= everything. The hobby is Hi-Fi. If you want to hear what was intended to be heard on the recording you listen to it on a CD. Bull****. There are some cases where a particlular CD is better than any LP version of a given title that exists on both formats. IME they are few and far between. You don't take a carefully crafted recording and proceed to induce wow, flutter, speed variations, limit the fr equency response, compress and decompress, allow microphonic feedback and the host of other problems that LP's are subject to and declare them superior. Of course not you take the time and effort to reduce those problems to near or below the threshold of audibility then listen. If the LP is superior than the CD (it usually is) then you declare it superior. You like them, fine. Objectively they are a lesser quality item. No. Blank assertion, noted. I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less expensive but CD clearly sound better. They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those cassette brief cases people used to have in the car? No, still have one. Then you should know they are far more inconvenient than many CD carrying cases. But that's not why people replaced their music library with CD's. When radio stations started playing CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs. Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio in their cars. I don't think it mattered. Then you'd be wrong. It was clearly obvious. Even with the compression. Prove that it was clearly obvious to the masses. That was your claim. Alright, I'll recant that and state it this way: I could hear with ears that are nothing special, I therefore assume that most people could hear the same improvement. When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device. They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They didn't take over the market until they became portable and available for cars. LP had been around for a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette. So? So people knew what they sounded like. Wrong. Most people knew what a crappy direct drive turntable with a less than optimally aligned MM cartridge sounded like. Direct drive is superior to a ****ing ruber band. Very few people have ever been exposed to high end LP playback. There is a world of difference. All the tedium of a cheap record player at much higher cost and inferior reproduction compared to a $100.00 CD player. Whoopdedo. Wrong again. Blank assertion noted. While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette, It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many cassettes with you. They are also more durable. Yet another selling point. Yes. A selling point that had nothing to do with sound quality. That was my point. But the sound IS better. and cassettes could (after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain outperformed both. My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me. Get them checked, they are obviously failing They have been checked. If you care to make a wager we can always compare hearing acuity. Name your price. I will bet any number you name my hearing is objectively better than yours. Then it must be some other part that's failing. Nope. You mentioned compression, which do you think is more compressed, LP or CD? Well that depends on the title doesn't it? Not usually. Wrong again. Blank assertion, noted. Or do you believe that all CDs of any given recording are less compressed than any LP counterpart? Whatever compression might be applied to a cd recording is nothing by comparison, in general to an LP. Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. My ears are the final arbitrator for me. Are they not for you? Do you prefer measurements over actual listening? Do you choose something that sounds inferior becuase of the measurements of the medium? I like to think I can hear the objectively superior performance of a CD recording with my ears. I didn't need anything else the first time I heard one to know that it was light years away from anything available on LP. That there are clunker recordings on CD is a fact but it doesn't change the fact that a recoding done by a competent engineer will be superior on CD. |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/23/2004 1:47 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 10:06 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: George M. Middius Date: 6/22/2004 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel said: Krooger prefers arguing. Preferably over nothing. No doubt he does, But this is Mikey I am talking to. Monkey see, Mickey do..... I guess the objectivists are right. They all sound the same. When your deaf. This has been suggested as a possible cause for the objectivist POV for many years. I didn't know some objectivists agreed about their hearing disabilities. The objectivist point of view as I understand it is that audio playback should be that the signal source should be as free from distortion as possible. You are advocating that as distortions make it sound better. That is not what I am advocating in this thread at all. I am advocating the obvious idea that when comparing the two media one can not ignore the fact that a recording and mastering is involved and that the end result is affected by the some total of all the elements from recording to playback. IME, with a given recording, the some total is far more often superior with the right LP and legitimate high end LP playback equipment than with any CD counterpart and/or any CD playback gear in most highend systems. it has clearly most often been the case IME with my system. No objectivist I know begrudges you the right to play your music with as much distortion as you like. You appear to categorically believe that LP is an objectively superior way to hear music played through a hi-fi and that is simply not true. You clearly do not know what I believe. Read the above and try to understand it. You make prefer it but that has little to with it being better for the rest of the world. |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spread of costs..
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/23/2004 1:55 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: .net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... Subject: Spread of costs.. From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 10:04 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/22/2004 12:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: . net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Michael McKelvy" Date: 6/21/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: .net "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 6/21/2004 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message Good LP playback doesn't come cheap. It appears to be "priceless". No. You will find a price tag for just about any record or any piece of LP playbeack equipment. But it is worth the money to those who are interested in better sound. Not at all. No doubt. Not all people interested in audio are actually interested in hearing thier favorite music at it's sonic best. If you are interested in better sound, you scrap vinyl! Wrong. Just about everybody but the die-hards did that decades ago. Quality is hardly determined by the masses. Besides, most people who turned to CDs did so for reasons other than optimal sound quality. And most people who turned to CDs were never aware of high end vinyl playback. Compared to the objectively superior performance of CD playback, high end vinyl is a contradiction in terms. Yeah but it is a subjective call. No, it's objective reality. Less noise, wider FR, and bigger dynamic range make it objectively better. That doesn't change the fact that when comparing CDs and LPs of the same recording the preference is a subjective call. Which is why I was specific on the reasons why CD is superior. Doesn't matter. To you. Every person I've ever spoken to about CD that was exposed to LP and Cassette has mentioned the fact that they find CD sound to be clearly superior. A preference can't be wrong. Stating that your preference is better is wrong when the by objective criteria, your preference is for lower quality reprodcution. Wrong. Blank assertion, noted Blank? The only reason to have an LP playback system IMO is to ply the things you can't get on CD yet or in rare cases because no good LP to CD transcription exists. If you are truly interested in hearing recordings at their best you would simply be wrong. In your opinion. Yes. But my opinion is based on listening comparisons of numerous titles with a legitimate high end LP playback system. It is a much better informed opinion than most. Most of what? Opinions on LP vs CD playback. Duh. It's no better or worse than any other opinion on what sounds good. Wrong again. An informed opion is a better opinion. Many of the people here have spent long hours listening to live and recorded music on a variety of systems. That's nice. Most people who have had substantial experience comparing CD and LP playback of the same titles using a legitimate high end LP rig prefer the vinyl. Proof? What, you demand proof for my assertions and offer none for your own? The proof is anecdotal. We can take a poll right here. All those with extensive experience comparing the same titles on CD and LP using a legitimate high end LP rig state your over all preference. I pick LP. LP leads CD 1 to 0. We can go from there. Oh that't right in your world 0+0= everything. If you really wish to speak for "my world" I suggest you start by getting the facts about my beliefs right. So far you are batting .000. The hobby is Hi-Fi. If you want to hear what was intended to be heard on the recording you listen to it on a CD. Bull****. There are some cases where a particlular CD is better than any LP version of a given title that exists on both formats. IME they are few and far between. You don't take a carefully crafted recording and proceed to induce wow, flutter, speed variations, limit the fr equency response, compress and decompress, allow microphonic feedback and the host of other problems that LP's are subject to and declare them superior. Of course not you take the time and effort to reduce those problems to near or below the threshold of audibility then listen. If the LP is superior than the CD (it usually is) then you declare it superior. You like them, fine. Objectively they are a lesser quality item. No. Blank assertion, noted. Again this "blank" thing? What do you mean? The assertion has clear meaning and clear reference. What is "blank" about it? I believe you are incorrect in your assessment that most people did turn to CD for the improved sound quality. Cassette's are smaller and less expensive but CD clearly sound better. They are not ascompact or easy to store for travel. Do you foget those cassette brief cases people used to have in the car? No, still have one. Then you should know they are far more inconvenient than many CD carrying cases. But that's not why people replaced their music library with CD's. When radio stations started playing CD's in became more obvious to more people that there was less noise, more dynamic range, better bass, and an easier way to access your favorite songs. Radio stations use tons of compression and most people listen to the radio in their cars. I don't think it mattered. Then you'd be wrong. It was clearly obvious. Even with the compression. Prove that it was clearly obvious to the masses. That was your claim. Alright, I'll recant that and state it this way: I could hear with ears that are nothing special, I therefore assume that most people could hear the same improvement. When CD players hit the market they were available mostly to people who could afford $1000.00 or more for a playback device. They dipped down to less than three hundred dollars with two years. They didn't take over the market until they became portable and available for cars. LP had been around for a long while and was a known entity, as was cassette. So? So people knew what they sounded like. Wrong. Most people knew what a crappy direct drive turntable with a less than optimally aligned MM cartridge sounded like. Direct drive is superior to a ****ing ruber band. Very few people have ever been exposed to high end LP playback. There is a world of difference. All the tedium of a cheap record player at much higher cost and inferior reproduction compared to a $100.00 CD player. Whoopdedo. Wrong again. Blank assertion noted. Whatever that is supposed to mean... While consumers do tend to gravitate to smaller more portable audio playback, CD was not really any smaller than cassette, It was in terms of carrying many CDs with you compared to carrying many cassettes with you. They are also more durable. Yet another selling point. Yes. A selling point that had nothing to do with sound quality. That was my point. But the sound IS better. and cassettes could (after Dolby) reproduce pretty much the same FR as LP, CD just plain outperformed both. My ears tell me otherwise. And that is what counts to me. Get them checked, they are obviously failing They have been checked. If you care to make a wager we can always compare hearing acuity. Name your price. I will bet any number you name my hearing is objectively better than yours. Then it must be some other part that's failing. Nope. You mentioned compression, which do you think is more compressed, LP or CD? Well that depends on the title doesn't it? Not usually. Wrong again. Blank assertion, noted. Whateva... Or do you believe that all CDs of any given recording are less compressed than any LP counterpart? Whatever compression might be applied to a cd recording is nothing by comparison, in general to an LP. Your preference may be for LP, but by every objective standard LP is crap compared to CD. My ears are the final arbitrator for me. Are they not for you? Do you prefer measurements over actual listening? Do you choose something that sounds inferior becuase of the measurements of the medium? I like to think I can hear the objectively superior performance of a CD recording with my ears. I didn't need anything else the first time I heard one to know that it was light years away from anything available on LP. That there are clunker recordings on CD is a fact but it doesn't change the fact that a recoding done by a competent engineer will be superior on CD. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| How many months? | Audio Opinions | |||
| Oh, brother. Here we go again... | Audio Opinions | |||
| John Mellencamp Attacks President Bush In Open Letter | Audio Opinions | |||
| O.T. Grocery clerks strike | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
