Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
ten-HUT, Cpl. Krooborg!
The Krooborg has lost its mission notes. I have only 4 cheeks to turn, That explains his extraordinary ****ting capacity.. |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn's One-Sided Agenda Demonstrated By Her Track Record Of Not Confronting Posts Like This One.
Arny Krueger a scris: It was all a farce. as opposed to an "insult". |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn's One-Sided Agenda Demonstrated By Her Track Record Of Not Confronting Posts Like This One.
Arny Krueger wrote: No, it was true becasue they couldn't stop insulting me. It was all a farce. Yes, dear. Poor dear! |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote: Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy minority". One reason why LP bigots are so passionate is that they probably sense that its all starting to slip away. One shoe dropping was the termination of production of the V15. I have two of them. What a terrible-sounding cartridge, IMO. Neither one is mounted currently. But I am panicked: it's all starting to slip away! And I still call you "asshole." |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com wrote: John Atkinson wrote: I fail to understand why you are obsessing about this matter. Well, it's pretty obvious why he's obsessing about it...you said it. There is that, of course, which is why Mr. Krueger trolled me by starting a new thread to discuss a casual remark I made a while back. I've been pretty underwhelmed by the RIAA tracking for years. It doesn't account for specialized retailers, such as high-end stereo stores that sell vinyl on the side, or most mail-order retailers. Actually it does, but not by surveying retailers. John has been embarassed and humiliated and driven to further obfuscation by find print from the RIAA web site in the recent past. I guess that John needs to read a bit more fine print on the RIAA web site such as the following: "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States." Note that the RIAA is not about membership composed of small niche dealers. I guess it is a mystery to John how one can account for media sales without surveying dealers. To understand this you need some experience with how retailing works which John obviously lacks. Retailers buy product from a distrubution chain that for all intents and purposes is highly likely to include organizations that *are* RIAA members. IOW record stores don't sell product that they create, they buy it from someone else, and that someone else can track sales by analyzing payments and shipments. Payments and shipments are tracked in the normal course of business. IOW, if you ship recordings to a dealer, you don't know what happens to them until they are sold, destroyed, returned, or paid for. If they are paid for, then and only then are they counted as being sold. New recordings that end up in the hands of consumers without being paid for are commonly known as "pirated" recordings. If John wants to claim that the LP and so-called high-resolution recording market is dominated by piracy, he can be my guest. ;-) It also doesn't account for all of the new vinyl sales on e-Bay, which for years has been a hotbed of LP activity. That's been my impression also, though if the RIAA are trying harder to track that sales activity, as Mr. Krueger claims, that would be commendable. Mr. Krueger, of course, for personal reasons, needs to "prove" that the LP sales activity you and I are talking about doesn't actually exist. These are intersting times for audio, in that the two hottest product areas right now, in terms of reader passion, are LP playback and network-distributed digital music. Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy minority". One reason why LP bigots are so passionate is that they probably sense that its all starting to slip away. I've been hearing that for the last twenty years. Still hasn't materialized. One shoe dropping was the termination of production of the V15. Word is, thanks to the backlash, they're going to reintroduce it. Besides, the only real result of discontinuing the V15 is that now M97xEs are flying off the shelf. Boon |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn's One-Sided Agenda Demonstrated By Her Track Record Of Not Confronting Posts Like This One.
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:14:31 -0500, "Harry Lavo" wrote: And despite it all, enough audio discussion to keep it interesting. Yes, there is that. :-) I just got a copy of "Suit Yourself" by Shelby Lynne yesterday. Very enjoyable. Last week I got a copy of "Let It Go" by Clair Marlo after having it recommended to me. (I made sure I got the original CD from Sheffield Labs.) I liked this one too. I'm a predominantly a classical and jazz fan, although I also tend to like singer/songwriters of the folk/rock persuasion. A few weeks ago I bought the boxed set of Beethoven's nine symphonies put out under the LSO (London Symphony Orchestra) label and featuring the LSO under the direction of Bernard Haitink. They gave the whole series in London in November-December of 2005 and March-April of 2006. Recorded the live performances, selected and merged the best, cleaned up extraneous sounds, and issues them as Hybrid multi-channel SACDs. The performances in London got rave reviews...so when the set became available and bought it. Was immediately bowled over...really interesting and fresh interpretations...and the best SACD orchestral surround sound I have heard. In my living room, I can close my eyes and hear the same sound as I hear when listening live in a decent concert hall. Been waiting for that all my adult life. And then for a change of pace, I put on my Mary Chapin Carpenter Time*Sex*Love album, which I really like and has some of the best studio production value I have heard on SACD (again in surround sound...the stereo mix isn't particularly good IMO). I can recommend these to anybody interested in the genre's. |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy minority". One reason why LP bigots are so passionate is that they probably sense that its all starting to slip away. One shoe dropping was the termination of production of the V15. I have two of them. What a terrible-sounding cartridge, IMO. How'd you end up with 2 similar make carts you don't like? One I can understand. Neither one is mounted currently. Which version? If its a current one with available replacement stylii I'll let you give it to me. ScottW |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn's One-Sided Agenda Demonstrated By Her Track Record Of Not Confronting Posts Like This One.
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:54:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: True, because people were jaundiced by past experience. No, it was true becasue they couldn't stop insulting me. And so the world continues to revolve around one Arnold Krueger Esq. |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"ScottW" wrote in message
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy minority". One reason why LP bigots are so passionate is that they probably sense that its all starting to slip away. One shoe dropping was the termination of production of the V15. I have two of them. What a terrible-sounding cartridge, IMO. How'd you end up with 2 similar make carts you don't like? One I can understand. Neither one is mounted currently. Which version? If its a current one with available replacement stylii I'll let you give it to me. I'd even pay shipping and a nominal handling fee if the cartridge was in good shape. It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of your preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R is capable of doing such a thing. Of course, why would I believe that he could tell if he hadn't damaged it or pack and ship it properly? |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn's One-Sided Agenda Demonstrated By Her Track Record Of Not Confronting Posts Like This One.
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:54:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: True, because people were jaundiced by past experience. No, it was true becasue they couldn't stop insulting me. And so the world continues to revolve around one Arnold Krueger Esq. Well, that is something that the relevant parties do to themselves. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:07:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of your preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R is capable of doing such a thing. What about the load resistance? http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html Nice reference, BTW. I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be used with anything but the standard 47K. |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Here in Ohio" wrote in message On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:07:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of your preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R is capable of doing such a thing. What about the load resistance? http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html Nice reference, BTW. I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be used with anything but the standard 47K. It is more capacitive sensitive than even most other MM's. |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Here in Ohio" wrote in message What about the load resistance? http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be used with anything but the standard 47k. The V15 III needed to be loaded with 68k ohms for flat response. I believed the V15-IV and V were okay with 47k ohms. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Here in Ohio" wrote in message On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:07:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of your preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R is capable of doing such a thing. What about the load resistance? http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html Nice reference, BTW. I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be used with anything but the standard 47K. It is more capacitive sensitive than even most other MM's. It is bad news for people who can't follow instructions and good news for the people who can. BTW Harry, I just checked google and noticed your many denouncments of the V15. I guessed that would be the outcome, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for running true to form. |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Here in Ohio" wrote in message On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:07:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of your preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R is capable of doing such a thing. What about the load resistance? http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html Nice reference, BTW. I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be used with anything but the standard 47K. It is more capacitive sensitive than even most other MM's. It is bad news for people who can't follow instructions and good news for the people who can. BTW Harry, I just checked google and noticed your many denouncments of the V15. I guessed that would be the outcome, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for running true to form. There is a difference between "knowing" a cartridge and "liking" it, Arny. I did the original V15 reveiw for TAS. I inherited a V15III with the Dual 701 I bought. I had preamps that I could play with loading. I also talked to dealers, and I subscribed to IAR who did extensive testing of the load-effects of resistance and capitance on cartridges. IMO the V15 series was always overhyped...in part because of its "trackability" which was real but no better than the early top-of-line ADC's, and the ADC's sounded much better (eg. more like music) although by today's standards they are a bit "colored" but in a music-friendly way. I could get it "flat" but I never could get it "real". Their was a reason that the XLM was TAS's reference cartridge during the early days of the V15. I had figured it out for myself earlier and used the ADC 25 (three styli) cartridge from the late '60's until the XLM was introduced. |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn's One-Sided Agenda Demonstrated By Her Track Record Of Not Confronting Posts Like This One.
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message news On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:39:05 -0500, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Here in Ohio" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:14:31 -0500, "Harry Lavo" wrote: And despite it all, enough audio discussion to keep it interesting. Yes, there is that. :-) I just got a copy of "Suit Yourself" by Shelby Lynne yesterday. Very enjoyable. Last week I got a copy of "Let It Go" by Clair Marlo after having it recommended to me. (I made sure I got the original CD from Sheffield Labs.) I liked this one too. I'm a predominantly a classical and jazz fan, although I also tend to like singer/songwriters of the folk/rock persuasion. My tastes can only be described as "eclectic." :-) Well, then you should have SACD capability. The Sony C2000ES sold on eBay (Canadian grey market w/three year warranty) for under $300 is an excellent CD/SACD changer...very transparent, although its midrange smoothness can be bettered (I use a separate DAC for critical CD listening) but superb on SACD because it has a "direct out" that is pure DSD and bypasses any PCM conversion, which tends to reduce ambience on this machine (and on my Pioneer 578a). A few weeks ago I bought the boxed set of Beethoven's nine symphonies put out under the LSO (London Symphony Orchestra) label and featuring the LSO under the direction of Bernard Haitink. They gave the whole series in London in November-December of 2005 and March-April of 2006. Recorded the live performances, selected and merged the best, cleaned up extraneous sounds, and issues them as Hybrid multi-channel SACDs. How do they sound as two-channel CDs? I did some exploring of this yesterday. Obviously they use the same DSD mixdown, and the CD's sound slightly different thatn the SACD, but still excellent. It's just that the orchestra doesn't translate to stereo very well, once you've grown accustom to multi-channel. I guess a truthful answer would be that I probably no longer can make that judgement with the same frame of reference that you might have. They are excellent performances IMO, opinion, however. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Here in Ohio" wrote in message On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:07:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of your preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R is capable of doing such a thing. What about the load resistance? http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html Nice reference, BTW. I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be used with anything but the standard 47K. It is more capacitive sensitive than even most other MM's. It is bad news for people who can't follow instructions and good news for the people who can. BTW Harry, I just checked google and noticed your many denouncments of the V15. I guessed that would be the outcome, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for running true to form. There is a difference between "knowing" a cartridge and "liking" it, Arny. Depends on where you are on the accuracy ladder. Note all those audiophiles who were caught flat-footed by Sander's little NL distortion test. I did the original V15 reveiw for TAS. I bet it was a review, not a reveiw. ;-) I inherited a V15III with the Dual 701 I bought. I had preamps that I could play with loading. I also talked to dealers, and I subscribed to IAR who did extensive testing of the load-effects of resistance and capitance on cartridges. So, what sort of bias controls did you use to clear yourself of the influence of all of these highly biased authorities in your life, Harry? IMO the V15 series was always overhyped...in part because of its "trackability" which was real but no better than the early top-of-line ADC's, and the ADC's sounded much better (eg. more like music) although by today's standards they are a bit "colored" but in a music-friendly way. The difference in warp-induced and eccentricity-induced amplitude modulation distortion between V15 and XLM cartridges was one of those night and day things. Problem is that the XLM's fairly gross amplitude modulation distortion was interpreted by the naive as being a good soundstage. I could get it "flat" but I never could get it "real". Once I started listening to digital recordings, I never lost a lot of sleep over such facts of life. The LP format is pretty much what it is, and that's not all that good. Their was a reason that the XLM was TAS's reference cartridge during the early days of the V15. Probably, it was the distortion, which they interpreted as being euphonic. I had figured it out for myself earlier and used the ADC 25 (three styli) cartridge from the late '60's until the XLM was introduced. You sound like Peter Pritchard true believer, Harry. There seems to be a pattern there... ;-) |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
ScottW wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy minority". One reason why LP bigots are so passionate is that they probably sense that its all starting to slip away. One shoe dropping was the termination of production of the V15. I have two of them. What a terrible-sounding cartridge, IMO. How'd you end up with 2 similar make carts you don't like? One I can understand. I got them at different times for very little investment. One is a Type IV, one is a Type VMR. You see, I'm open-minded. (I'm sure there's a reason you cannot understand.) At the time, I was willing to try a newer version. Neither one is mounted currently. Which version? If its a current one with available replacement stylii I'll let you give it to me. So no, they're not the current version. I haven't used them in years. Maybe I'll give them another spin one of these days. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Arny Krueger" said:
Depends on where you are on the accuracy ladder. Note all those audiophiles who were caught flat-footed by Sander's little NL distortion test. Umm.....you're actually flattering me a little, Arns. It was Jacco's test, I merely posted the files and the end result of this unscientific, sighted test. -- "Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks." |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: Atkinson calls it "reader passion", I call it "a noisy minority". One reason why LP bigots are so passionate is that they probably sense that its all starting to slip away. One shoe dropping was the termination of production of the V15. I have two of them. What a terrible-sounding cartridge, IMO. How'd you end up with 2 similar make carts you don't like? One I can understand. Neither one is mounted currently. Which version? If its a current one with available replacement stylii I'll let you give it to me. I'd even pay shipping and a nominal handling fee if the cartridge was in good shape. It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of your preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R is capable of doing such a thing. Of course, why would I believe that he could tell if he hadn't damaged it or pack and ship it properly? Or (could it possibly be) that I preferred other cartridges? Or do you disagree that a mechanical device (like a phono cartridge) can sound different? Nah. Impossible. in·sane (in-san') adj. Of, exhibiting, or afflicted with insanity. Characteristic of or associated with persons afflicted with insanity: an insane laugh; insane babbling. ass·hole (as'hol') n. Vulgar Slang. A thoroughly contemptible, detestable person. |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Here in Ohio" wrote in message On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:07:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of your preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R is capable of doing such a thing. What about the load resistance? http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html Nice reference, BTW. I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be used with anything but the standard 47K. It is more capacitive sensitive than even most other MM's. It is bad news for people who can't follow instructions and good news for the people who can. BTW Harry, I just checked google and noticed your many denouncments of the V15. I guessed that would be the outcome, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for running true to form. There is a difference between "knowing" a cartridge and "liking" it, Arny. Depends on where you are on the accuracy ladder. Note all those audiophiles who were caught flat-footed by Sander's little NL distortion test. Between the two, I had a strong prefereence. And it had to do with which sounded the most like real voices and real instruments in my system...which allowed more suspension of disbelief. In other words, Arny...like most audiophiles make judgements. Oh, I'm sorry, preferences are totally bogus unless they match up with yours..... I did the original V15 reveiw for TAS. I bet it was a review, not a reveiw. ;-) touche' I inherited a V15III with the Dual 701 I bought. I had preamps that I could play with loading. I also talked to dealers, and I subscribed to IAR who did extensive testing of the load-effects of resistance and capitance on cartridges. So, what sort of bias controls did you use to clear yourself of the influence of all of these highly biased authorities in your life, Harry? Which are those, Arny. Did you miss the part that said I made the choice of ADC over Shure about eight years before TAS was concieved, and based on my own auditioning? I still have a tape of a cartridge comparison I made a year later (having rejected the best Shure at the time...of the ADC 10e vs. Stanton 681EE and the Ortofon SL-15. The ADC beat them for "musicality" as well. IMO the V15 series was always overhyped...in part because of its "trackability" which was real but no better than the early top-of-line ADC's, and the ADC's sounded much better (eg. more like music) although by today's standards they are a bit "colored" but in a music-friendly way. The difference in warp-induced and eccentricity-induced amplitude modulation distortion between V15 and XLM cartridges was one of those night and day things. Problem is that the XLM's fairly gross amplitude modulation distortion was interpreted by the naive as being a good soundstage. Soundstage had nothing to do with my preference. I could get it "flat" but I never could get it "real". Once I started listening to digital recordings, I never lost a lot of sleep over such facts of life. The LP format is pretty much what it is, and that's not all that good. Complete non-sequitor noted, apparently just to fill up space. Their was a reason that the XLM was TAS's reference cartridge during the early days of the V15. Probably, it was the distortion, which they interpreted as being euphonic. Your profound ignorance of the reality of how and why that choice was made is evident. I had figured it out for myself earlier and used the ADC 25 (three styli) cartridge from the late '60's until the XLM was introduced. You sound like Peter Pritchard true believer, Harry. There seems to be a pattern there... ;-) At the time he made the best sounding cartridges, that's all. His wooden tonearm, however, while a nice concept, sucked. Such was its flimsy construction. |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Here in Ohio" wrote in message On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:07:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: It is well known that V15s sound like crap unless you match up the cartridge to the input capacitance of your preamp and wiring. I seriously doubt that ****R is capable of doing such a thing. What about the load resistance? http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html Nice reference, BTW. I've never seen any recommendations that the V15 be used with anything but the standard 47K. It is more capacitive sensitive than even most other MM's. It is bad news for people who can't follow instructions and good news for the people who can. BTW Harry, I just checked google and noticed your many denouncments of the V15. I guessed that would be the outcome, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for running true to form. There is a difference between "knowing" a cartridge and "liking" it, Arny. Depends on where you are on the accuracy ladder. Note all those audiophiles who were caught flat-footed by Sander's little NL distortion test. Between the two, I had a strong preference. As did I. I owned an XLM and a V15. After a lot of listening, the XLM went into a drawer. And it had to do with which sounded the most like real voices and real instruments in my system...which allowed more suspension of disbelief. In other words, Arny...like most audiophiles make judgements. We came up with different conclusions. I picked the cartrdige that was, in the large scheme of things, more accurate. Oh, I'm sorry, preferences are totally bogus unless they match up with yours..... Never said that. I just said that the XLM had these pretty strong technical flaws. I did the original V15 reveiw for TAS. I bet it was a review, not a reveiw. ;-) touche' I inherited a V15III with the Dual 701 I bought. I had preamps that I could play with loading. I also talked to dealers, and I subscribed to IAR who did extensive testing of the load-effects of resistance and capitance on cartridges. So, what sort of bias controls did you use to clear yourself of the influence of all of these highly biased authorities in your life, Harry? Which are those, Arny. Did you miss the part that said I made the choice of ADC over Shure about eight years before TAS was concieved, and based on my own auditioning? OK Harry, so you're a true believer in a certain brand. In the 8 years before TAS was conceived of, I tried lots of brands. For example, my first magnetic cartridge was an Empire 108. Now I don't know exactly how many years that was before TAS was conceived of, but whatever. I still have a tape of a cartridge comparison I made a year later (having rejected the best Shure at the time...of the ADC 10e vs. Stanton 681EE and the Ortofon SL-15. The ADC beat them for "musicality" as well. Hmm, I had a 681EE or EEE at some point in my life. That was a short experience. IMO the V15 series was always overhyped...in part because of its "trackability" which was real but no better than the early top-of-line ADC's, and the ADC's sounded much better (eg. more like music) although by today's standards they are a bit "colored" but in a music-friendly way. The difference in warp-induced and eccentricity-induced amplitude modulation distortion between V15 and XLM cartridges was one of those night and day things. Problem is that the XLM's fairly gross amplitude modulation distortion was interpreted by the naive as being a good soundstage. Soundstage had nothing to do with my preference. I find that a little surprising given how many times you've ranted and raved about superior soundstaging, Harry. Maybe you didn't know the word then. I could get it "flat" but I never could get it "real". Once I started listening to digital recordings, I never lost a lot of sleep over such facts of life. The LP format is pretty much what it is, and that's not all that good. Complete non-sequitor noted, apparently just to fill up space. Just the facts. Their was a reason that the XLM was TAS's reference cartridge during the early days of the V15. Probably, it was the distortion, which they interpreted as being euphonic. Your profound ignorance of the reality of how and why that choice was made is evident. Let's put it this way Harry. I was a charter subscriber to TAS, just like I was a charter subscriber to Stereophile. Both were defining moments, but in different ways. SP was a strong influence in my life for a much longer period of time. I grew out of TAS pretty quick. TAS was rather thoroughly debunked in my life by a number of experiences, the XLM being one, and ABX being another. I had figured it out for myself earlier and used the ADC 25 (three styli) cartridge from the late '60's until the XLM was introduced. You sound like Peter Pritchard true believer, Harry. There seems to be a pattern there... ;-) At the time he made the best sounding cartridges, that's all. His wooden tonearm, however, while a nice concept, sucked. Such was its flimsy construction. The XLM was flimsy, too. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:13:25 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Let's put it this way Harry. I was a charter subscriber to TAS, just like I was a charter subscriber to Stereophile. Both were defining moments, but in different ways. SP was a strong influence in my life for a much longer period of time. I grew out of TAS pretty quick. TAS was rather thoroughly debunked in my life by a number of experiences, the XLM being one, and ABX being another. I had read Audio, Stereo Review, and High Fidelity for a number of years, beginning somewhere in the mid-'70s. I liked Audio and found the other 2 to be rather boring. I started out in the late 50s, reading the general-technican audience ragazines like Popular Electronics, Radio & TV News and Wireless World. In the early '80s, I was exposed to TAS, Stereophile, and The $ensible Sound. In the early 60s I got tuned into High Fideilty, High Fidelity Review, and Audio. My recollection is that an ad in Audio led me to SP. My 12 issue subscription to SP ended up being the longest-running single magazine subscription of my life - I think it took Holt more than 6 years to get out his first 12 issues. But what issues they were! I found TAS to be rather snotty. Consider the sources. Stereophile was interesting (mostly because of JGH I think), but I preferred T$S because of the emphasis on best bang for the buck. (I have always preferred products that give you good value for money. They tickle my fancy just for that reason alone.) When SP started out there was no high end as such. One could even buy a good Marantz or Mac power amp or preamp and get change from $300. I found that, in some of the magazines, there was a certain style of review where they spent a bunch of time mentioning recordings and how the equipment sounded with those recordings. I quickly made it my practice to skip over that part of the reviews. (I still can't tolerate that stuff.) I read it, and for a while I ate it up. An example might be: "Though the 9007 was a somewhat cool customer, less "ripe" than some other amplifiers I've encountered, it managed to effectively capture the harmonic structures of instruments on familiar recordings, reproducing with great clarity the texture and tonality of pianos, for instance. I pulled out Nat "King" Cole's 1956 trio recording After Midnight (LP, Capitol W782) one evening, and this mono recording's three-dimensionality and instrumental palpability were impressively revealed thanks to the 9007's musical grip. Rhythmically, the record had never sounded more assured, though it had less of its familiar tubey warmth and "golden glow" than I'm used to." We didn't mention IAR, did we? Well now we have, let's move on. ;-) Sort of trying to eff the ineffable. I don't effing need that crap. :-) Consider the source. In the end, I concluded that most of the reviews weren't really worth reading. (On the other hand, people like Richard Heyser and D.B. Keele wrote really good reviews. Hi Fi News and RR had some good stuff in it, although it was hard to obtain in my area. Later on HFN & RR seemed to go all mystical, just like some of the US audio mags. I had a subscription to Studio Sound for quite a while and they had some extremely good articles too.) I agree that the reviews in Audio and HFN often made more sense than the rest. I've looked at a number of online reviews at various sites, and they just don't hold my attention. It's more of the "I listened to this recording and the violins sounded really ripe on this amplifier... I speculate that the blue LEDs the amplifier uses made the sound of the violins ripe because my reference amplifier uses red LEDs and the violins don't sound ripe on it.) Does one even need to see much but a picture of the equipment to write a review like that? I'm sure I've seen one audio product reviewed when there weren't even finished first prototypes of it. ;-) Of the current crop of magazines, only AudioXpress is interesting because at least it tells you how to do things instead of just telling you to buy things. AudioXpress appeals to people who have intersts like that. However, I'm about 45 years on the sunny side of building my first power amp from scratch. There aren't a lot of people who have built as much custom electronics as I have. So AudioXpress slid off my radar, even though I wrote and co-wrote a few articles for them in what are now their early days. I like the tests that JA does for Stereophile too, although I think more weight should be given to the results. There are problems with some of JAs tests, especially in the digital domain. However, IMO & IME the means by which they do equipment listening tests are unbelievably crude and inherently highly insensitive, issues of bias control notwithstanding. In essence their equipment reviews are as good as fiction or poetry. Well-written pap. |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote: AudioXpress slid off my radar, even though I wrote and co-wrote a few articles for them in what are now their early days. One article. There are problems with some of JA's tests, especially in the digital domain. Another nasty little troll from Arny Krueger. You have not yet substantiated this criticism in any meaningful way, Mr. Krueger. And the one time you did try to, it turned out that your criticism stemmed from your own misunderstanding, as was demonstrated on r.ah-e by Glenn Zelniker. (Those morbidly interested should search the Newsgroups using the keywords "dither failure" -- see, for example, message .) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: AudioXpress slid off my radar, even though I wrote and co-wrote a few articles for them in what are now their early days. One article. There are problems with some of JA's tests, especially in the digital domain. Another nasty little troll from Arny Krueger. You have not yet substantiated this criticism in any meaningful way, Mr. Krueger. As usual, I did. You just didn't like what I did. And the one time you did try to, it turned out that your criticism stemmed from your own misunderstanding, as was demonstrated on r.ah-e by Glenn Zelniker. At that stage of life, I had learned to let Glenn blow hard, as was his preference. (Those morbidly interested should search the Newsgroups using the keywords "dither failure" -- see, for example, message .) I agree that appealling to the terminally morbid is a worthwhile use of your talents, John. |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:50:05 -0500, "Harry Lavo" wrote: At the time he made the best sounding cartridges, that's all. His wooden tonearm, however, while a nice concept, sucked. Such was its flimsy construction. That somehow reminds me of that NAD turntable with the arm made of a flat sheet of circuit board material or something. :-) Well, Pritchards was made of afromosa wood, looked nice, and had decent bearings. But it had a plastic headshell that was pressure fitted to the arm, and which worked itself loose in no time. It may have done more to spread the myth that replacable headshells always muck up the sound than any other arm. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message ... On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:13:25 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Let's put it this way Harry. I was a charter subscriber to TAS, just like I was a charter subscriber to Stereophile. Both were defining moments, but in different ways. SP was a strong influence in my life for a much longer period of time. I grew out of TAS pretty quick. TAS was rather thoroughly debunked in my life by a number of experiences, the XLM being one, and ABX being another. I had read Audio, Stereo Review, and High Fidelity for a number of years, beginning somewhere in the mid-'70s. I liked Audio and found the other 2 to be rather boring. In the early '80s, I was exposed to TAS, Stereophile, and The $ensible Sound. I found TAS to be rather snotty. Stereophile was interesting (mostly because of JGH I think), but I preferred T$S because of the emphasis on best bang for the buck. (I have always preferred products that give you good value for money. They tickle my fancy just for that reason alone.) I found that, in some of the magazines, there was a certain style of review where they spent a bunch of time mentioning recordings and how the equipment sounded with those recordings. I quickly made it my practice to skip over that part of the reviews. (I still can't tolerate that stuff.) An example might be: "Though the 9007 was a somewhat cool customer, less "ripe" than some other amplifiers I've encountered, it managed to effectively capture the harmonic structures of instruments on familiar recordings, reproducing with great clarity the texture and tonality of pianos, for instance. I pulled out Nat "King" Cole's 1956 trio recording After Midnight (LP, Capitol W782) one evening, and this mono recording's three-dimensionality and instrumental palpability were impressively revealed thanks to the 9007's musical grip. Rhythmically, the record had never sounded more assured, though it had less of its familiar tubey warmth and "golden glow" than I'm used to." It may surprise you find I don't much like them either. For that very reason, the reviews in Sound and Music are completely worthless, since this is *all* they do vis-a-vis audio evaluation. Sort of trying to eff the ineffable. I don't effing need that crap. :-) In the end, I concluded that most of the reviews weren't really worth reading. (On the other hand, people like Richard Heyser and D.B. Keele wrote really good reviews. Hi Fi News and RR had some good stuff in it, although it was hard to obtain in my area. Later on HFN & RR seemed to go all mystical, just like some of the US audio mags. I had a subscription to Studio Sound for quite a while and they had some extremely good articles too.) Audio and Hi Fi News and RR were my favorites...but so was I(nternational) A(udio) R(eview) back in its heyday in the late '70's / early '80's. Audio goes all the way back to my dad...somewhere he had (I've lost) some of the very earliest copies from the early '50's. But I've been a subscriber to the subjective mags as well since Stereophile was a baby, and TAS just a gleam in HP's eye. I never trust any single review in any of them, but in each there are reviewers that I give more credence to than others. I've looked at a number of online reviews at various sites, and they just don't hold my attention. It's more of the "I listened to this recording and the violins sounded really ripe on this amplifier... I speculate that the blue LEDs the amplifier uses made the sound of the violins ripe because my reference amplifier uses red LEDs and the violins don't sound ripe on it.) Most are pretty amateurish. When I read them, or often when I read a new reviewer in a subjective mag, I get a sense of deja vu. They tend to make the same errors we did in the first few issues of TAS. Of the current crop of magazines, only AudioXpress is interesting because at least it tells you how to do things instead of just telling you to buy things. I like the tests that JA does for Stereophile too, although I think more weight should be given to the results. The mag provides the info...subjective and objective. You provide the "weights". How hard is that? |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Here in Ohio" wrote in message On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:13:25 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Let's put it this way Harry. I was a charter subscriber to TAS, just like I was a charter subscriber to Stereophile. Both were defining moments, but in different ways. SP was a strong influence in my life for a much longer period of time. I grew out of TAS pretty quick. TAS was rather thoroughly debunked in my life by a number of experiences, the XLM being one, and ABX being another. I had read Audio, Stereo Review, and High Fidelity for a number of years, beginning somewhere in the mid-'70s. I liked Audio and found the other 2 to be rather boring. I started out in the late 50s, reading the general-technican audience ragazines like Popular Electronics, Radio & TV News and Wireless World. In the early '80s, I was exposed to TAS, Stereophile, and The $ensible Sound. In the early 60s I got tuned into High Fideilty, High Fidelity Review, and Audio. My recollection is that an ad in Audio led me to SP. My 12 issue subscription to SP ended up being the longest-running single magazine subscription of my life - I think it took Holt more than 6 years to get out his first 12 issues. But what issues they were! I found TAS to be rather snotty. HP wasn't snotty in those days...he basically did the same as Stereophile...look for the best, and evaluate the equipment based primarily on sound and synergy. If JGH *had* published more on time, there probably wouldn't have been a TAS. There was much audiophile unhappiness with Stereophiles erratic operation, and Harry was a newspaperman and thought he could launch a magazine that did the same kind of reveiwing but got out on time. Unfortunately, then there were two. Not out on time, I mean. Consider the sources. Stereophile was interesting (mostly because of JGH I think), but I preferred T$S because of the emphasis on best bang for the buck. (I have always preferred products that give you good value for money. They tickle my fancy just for that reason alone.) When SP started out there was no high end as such. One could even buy a good Marantz or Mac power amp or preamp and get change from $300. This is factually wrong. In 1964, a pair of Marantz power amps cost $768 ($4800 in todays $). The MAC 275 cost $444 ($2800 in todays $). The only ones that gave you change from $300 were the Eico, Dynaco, and Citation kits. Source: 1964 Audio and Stereo Review equipment directories. I found that, in some of the magazines, there was a certain style of review where they spent a bunch of time mentioning recordings and how the equipment sounded with those recordings. I quickly made it my practice to skip over that part of the reviews. (I still can't tolerate that stuff.) I read it, and for a while I ate it up. An example might be: "Though the 9007 was a somewhat cool customer, less "ripe" than some other amplifiers I've encountered, it managed to effectively capture the harmonic structures of instruments on familiar recordings, reproducing with great clarity the texture and tonality of pianos, for instance. I pulled out Nat "King" Cole's 1956 trio recording After Midnight (LP, Capitol W782) one evening, and this mono recording's three-dimensionality and instrumental palpability were impressively revealed thanks to the 9007's musical grip. Rhythmically, the record had never sounded more assured, though it had less of its familiar tubey warmth and "golden glow" than I'm used to." We didn't mention IAR, did we? Well now we have, let's move on. ;-) Sort of trying to eff the ineffable. I don't effing need that crap. :-) Consider the source. A meaningless comment, if ever there was one. In the end, I concluded that most of the reviews weren't really worth reading. (On the other hand, people like Richard Heyser and D.B. Keele wrote really good reviews. Hi Fi News and RR had some good stuff in it, although it was hard to obtain in my area. Later on HFN & RR seemed to go all mystical, just like some of the US audio mags. I had a subscription to Studio Sound for quite a while and they had some extremely good articles too.) I agree that the reviews in Audio and HFN often made more sense than the rest. Hey, we have a trifecta. I've looked at a number of online reviews at various sites, and they just don't hold my attention. It's more of the "I listened to this recording and the violins sounded really ripe on this amplifier... I speculate that the blue LEDs the amplifier uses made the sound of the violins ripe because my reference amplifier uses red LEDs and the violins don't sound ripe on it.) Does one even need to see much but a picture of the equipment to write a review like that? I'm sure I've seen one audio product reviewed when there weren't even finished first prototypes of it. ;-) If you have, it wasn't in Stereophile or TAS (at least since the late seventies...Harry got burned once...he was not stupid...and put a policy in place.) Of the current crop of magazines, only AudioXpress is interesting because at least it tells you how to do things instead of just telling you to buy things. AudioXpress appeals to people who have intersts like that. However, I'm about 45 years on the sunny side of building my first power amp from scratch. There aren't a lot of people who have built as much custom electronics as I have. So AudioXpress slid off my radar, even though I wrote and co-wrote a few articles for them in what are now their early days. I like the tests that JA does for Stereophile too, although I think more weight should be given to the results. There are problems with some of JAs tests, especially in the digital domain. However, IMO & IME the means by which they do equipment listening tests are unbelievably crude and inherently highly insensitive, issues of bias control notwithstanding. In essence their equipment reviews are as good as fiction or poetry. Well-written pap. We never would have guessed you held such views, Arny. :-) |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Harry Lavo" said:
Audio and Hi Fi News and RR were my favorites...but so was I(nternational) A(udio) R(eview) back in its heyday in the late '70's / early '80's. Audio goes all the way back to my dad...somewhere he had (I've lost) some of the very earliest copies from the early '50's. Look at this: http://www.audioxpress.com/bksprods/BKSGENHIS.htm The Audio Anthology series, 6 volumes with reprints from Audio Engineering starting from 1947. The Audiocraft Reissue Collection is interesting as well. -- "Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks." |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" said: Audio and Hi Fi News and RR were my favorites...but so was I(nternational) A(udio) R(eview) back in its heyday in the late '70's / early '80's. Audio goes all the way back to my dad...somewhere he had (I've lost) some of the very earliest copies from the early '50's. Look at this: http://www.audioxpress.com/bksprods/BKSGENHIS.htm The Audio Anthology series, 6 volumes with reprints from Audio Engineering starting from 1947. The Audiocraft Reissue Collection is interesting as well. Thanks for the references....AudioXpress is one of the few audio sites I didn't have bookmarked, and I was aware of the reprints. Looking at some of the reprints from McProud's first volume brought back memories....I think Dad's first issue was in 1948. He was an electrical engineer by training, a vibration engineer by occupation before he started his own string of Radio/Television/Audio stores in 1949, and (somehow) a local officer in the Society of Automotive Engineers. I didn't follow his footsteps, but my interests didn't diverge much. He built his first homebuilt speaker in 1939....I built mine in 1956. |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
John Atkinson a scris: Arny Krueger wrote: AudioXpress slid off my radar, even though I wrote and co-wrote a few articles for them in what are now their early days. One article. There are problems with some of JA's tests, especially in the digital domain. Another nasty little troll from Arny Krueger. You have not yet substantiated this criticism in any meaningful way, Mr. Krueger. And the one time you did try to, it turned out that your criticism stemmed from your own misunderstanding, as was demonstrated on r.ah-e by Glenn Zelniker. (Those morbidly interested should search the Newsgroups using the keywords "dither failure" -- see, for example, message .) Ahhh! My all-time favorite Krueger meltdown. |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
oups.com John Atkinson a scris: Arny Krueger wrote: AudioXpress slid off my radar, even though I wrote and co-wrote a few articles for them in what are now their early days. One article. There are problems with some of JA's tests, especially in the digital domain. Another nasty little troll from Arny Krueger. You have not yet substantiated this criticism in any meaningful way, Mr. Krueger. And the one time you did try to, it turned out that your criticism stemmed from your own misunderstanding, as was demonstrated on r.ah-e by Glenn Zelniker. (Those morbidly interested should search the Newsgroups using the keywords "dither failure" -- see, for example, message .) Ahhh! My all-time favorite Krueger meltdown. It's not a meltdown at all. In contrast we have a great collection of Art's meltdowns - they are simply full quotes of other people's posts with no additional comments. My all time-favorite Zelniker meltdown: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...4238316ba088bb |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
The Krooborg is stuck behind its own personal language barrier again. In contrast we have a great collection of Art's meltdowns - they are simply full quotes of other people's posts with no additional comments. Arnii, could you please tell us what "meltdown" means in Krooglish? All we know from your outburst quoted above is that the meaning is vastly different from the human meaning. Still waiting for the secret instructions on how to purchase an aBxism switchbox. TIA. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
Arny Krueger wrote: My all time-favorite Zelniker meltdown: So who is this Zelniker? I've been here for about a year and I don't recall seeing any posts from this person. This wouldn't be like you hypocritically whining about how people talk about you when you're not here, would it? But, as we all know, you're an insane asshole, so you wouldn't be able to see that. _______________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
Shhhh! said: My all time-favorite Zelniker meltdown: So who is this Zelniker? I've been here for about a year and I don't recall seeing any posts from this person. He's a Real Audio Guy who used to post on Usenet. He owns his own company that makes professional studio gear (www.z-sys.com). Naturally, Krooger is much smarter than some PhD who earns a fine living supplying equipment to top sound engineers around the world. Or so Arnii tells us. ;-) This wouldn't be like you hypocritically whining about how people talk about you when you're not here, would it? Stop doing that! You can't expect the Krooborg to play fair when everybody is conspiring against him. The bottom line about Glenn is that a few times, he tried to teach Arnii a thing or two about digital electronics. The effort was unsuccessful. My fave exchange between Dr. Z and Mr. **** involved a test Glenn gives to job applicants. He posted it on RAO and invited Krooger to submit his answers. That drove Turdy into a major Kroodown. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
George M. Middius wrote: Shhhh! said: My all time-favorite Zelniker meltdown: So who is this Zelniker? I've been here for about a year and I don't recall seeing any posts from this person. He's a Real Audio Guy who used to post on Usenet. He owns his own company that makes professional studio gear (www.z-sys.com). Naturally, Krooger is much smarter than some PhD who earns a fine living supplying equipment to top sound engineers around the world. Or so Arnii tells us. ;-) This wouldn't be like you hypocritically whining about how people talk about you when you're not here, would it? Stop doing that! You can't expect the Krooborg to play fair when everybody is conspiring against him. The bottom line about Glenn is that a few times, he tried to teach Arnii a thing or two about digital electronics. The effort was unsuccessful. My fave exchange between Dr. Z and Mr. **** involved a test Glenn gives to job applicants. He posted it on RAO and invited Krooger to submit his answers. That drove Turdy into a major Kroodown. I'll go search that exchange. My guess is that it's pretty funny. I just read the 'meltdown' post that Arns referred to. It appears that it's simply another case of somebody trying to have a discussion with Arns, then Arns frustrates them with lies, distortions, illogic and so forth, then the person realizes that Arns is an insane asshole and tells him to **** off, then Arns declares 'victory' due to a 'meltdown.' While I haven't been here all that long, it does seem to be a recurring pattern. The funny thing is that Arns is so insane he can't see when his ass has been handed to him. This comment seemed spot-on: "How's this? **** YOU, you loathsome, psychotic, subhuman imbecile! You deserve every ounce of vitriole and hatred directed your way." ____________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
In article om,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: George M. Middius wrote: Shhhh! said: My all time-favorite Zelniker meltdown: So who is this Zelniker? I've been here for about a year and I don't recall seeing any posts from this person. He's a Real Audio Guy who used to post on Usenet. He owns his own company that makes professional studio gear (www.z-sys.com). Naturally, Krooger is much smarter than some PhD who earns a fine living supplying equipment to top sound engineers around the world. Or so Arnii tells us. ;-) This wouldn't be like you hypocritically whining about how people talk about you when you're not here, would it? Stop doing that! You can't expect the Krooborg to play fair when everybody is conspiring against him. The bottom line about Glenn is that a few times, he tried to teach Arnii a thing or two about digital electronics. The effort was unsuccessful. My fave exchange between Dr. Z and Mr. **** involved a test Glenn gives to job applicants. He posted it on RAO and invited Krooger to submit his answers. That drove Turdy into a major Kroodown. I'll go search that exchange. My guess is that it's pretty funny. I just read the 'meltdown' post that Arns referred to. It appears that it's simply another case of somebody trying to have a discussion with Arns, then Arns frustrates them with lies, distortions, illogic and so forth, then the person realizes that Arns is an insane asshole and tells him to **** off, then Arns declares 'victory' due to a 'meltdown.' While I haven't been here all that long, it does seem to be a recurring pattern. That plus often declaring himself the smartest person in the room. |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
Jenn said: While I haven't been here all that long, it does seem to be a recurring pattern. That plus often declaring himself the smartest person in the room. Jenn that's something we expect a Lilliputian like you Jenn to say Jenn. LOt"S. Seriously though (harumph)... It's my belief that in Krooger's warped and delusion-rocked world, he sees himself sitting at a Console Of Ultimate Power, firing off missives of concentrated "knowledge", thereby demolishing the puny intellects who dare to challenge him. He's so far gone, though, that what Arnii thinks is a devastating "deconstruction" usually amounts to incoherent whining. Krooger fires his missiles and hears satisfying explosions, but sane people hear the plop-plop-plop of turds falling on Krooger's front yard. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
Arny Krueger a scris: In contrast we have a great collection of Art's meltdowns - they are simply full quotes of other people's posts with no additional comments. The only thing melting down in my house is my mouse. |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How about this?
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris: So who is this Zelniker? A "REAL PROFESSIONAL AUDO ENGINEER" who totally eviscerated Arny. |