Don Pearce said:

Well, that reads like a claim of an actual physical effect to me.

Hi Don! Did you just get home from the hospital? Sounds like you were born
yesterday. Happy birthday.

Thank you, George. As it happens I am feeling particularly young and
vigorous today. This evening I'm going to a 21st birthday party (no, not
mine) at a rather nice club in central London so that is just as well.

Have a good time and don't drink too much.

If you would care to try again with the birthday greetings when February
comes round, that would be very nice.

Thanks for the info. Maybe you should check your clothing for turnip leaves.
(American joke)

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

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

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


IOW, I like classical and certain kinds of traditional
music, but I realize that my grandchildren see the
same music from 50+ years later.

Is teaching about the Revolutionary War less important
now than it was 50 years ago?

I think so. Increasingly true the more recent the war.
IOW The Korean war has lost tremendous importance, as
has WW2.

Gee, I think that it's just as important now to learn
about those events as it ever was.

Something about "those who fail to heed history, are
bound to.........".

There's a difference between heeding history and obsessing
over it.

Right after WW2 the US arguably had a national obsession
with WW2. As a nation we mulled it over again and again. We
had movies about it, TV shows about it, magazine articles
about it, books about it, and even a president or two
(Eisenhower and Kennedy) about it.

On 23 Sep 2005 08:00:06 -0700, George Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

Well, that reads like a claim of an actual physical effect to me.

Hi Don! Did you just get home from the hospital? Sounds like you were born
yesterday. Happy birthday.

Thank you, George. As it happens I am feeling particularly young and
vigorous today. This evening I'm going to a 21st birthday party (no, not
mine) at a rather nice club in central London so that is just as well.

Have a good time and don't drink too much.

If you would care to try again with the birthday greetings when February
comes round, that would be very nice.

Thanks for the info. Maybe you should check your clothing for turnip leaves.
(American joke)

Well, I've Googled that without success - so I'm all agog!

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message



Well, I've Googled that without success - so I'm all agog!


Turnip leaves - falling off a turnip truck - fresh off the
farm - highly naive.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:58:14 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message



Well, I've Googled that without success - so I'm all agog!


Turnip leaves - falling off a turnip truck - fresh off the
farm - highly naive.

Ah! I see. I think.... Can't quite see the link, though.

d

Don Pearce said:

Reads like a perceptive effect to me.

Read again - it claims "improved inter-transient silence". That is a
quantifiable, physical effect.

How many trees in your forest, Don? Oh wait -- obviously you can't see the
forest. Never mind.

Don Pearce said:

Thanks for the info. Maybe you should check your clothing for turnip leaves.
(American joke)

Well, I've Googled that without success - so I'm all agog!

When you see an ad saying "New! Improved!" do you demand "tests" to verify
the "claims"?

Don Pearce said:

Well, I've Googled that without success - so I'm all agog!

Turnip leaves - falling off a turnip truck - fresh off the
farm - highly naive.

Ah! I see. I think.... Can't quite see the link, though.

How about Popeye and his spinach?

Don Pearce said:

If you would care to try again with the birthday greetings when February
comes round, that would be very nice.


I'll play "Aquarius" just for you, tonight.

( I'm one myself, you will note).

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Arny Krueger" said:

Besides, there's another meaning to exceptional. Know what
an "exceptional child" is?


I bet you were one. ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:36:13 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

Thanks for the info. Maybe you should check your clothing for turnip leaves.
(American joke)

Well, I've Googled that without success - so I'm all agog!

When you see an ad saying "New! Improved!" do you demand "tests" to verify
the "claims"?

MOst of the time when I see such an ad, it is for something that has never
even existed before, so improvement hardly comes into it.

d

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:48:49 +0200, Sander deWaal wrote:

Don Pearce said:

If you would care to try again with the birthday greetings when February
comes round, that would be very nice.


I'll play "Aquarius" just for you, tonight.

( I'm one myself, you will note).

This is indeed the dawning of the age.

d

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:35:04 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

Reads like a perceptive effect to me.

Read again - it claims "improved inter-transient silence". That is a
quantifiable, physical effect.

How many trees in your forest, Don? Oh wait -- obviously you can't see the
forest. Never mind.

You've been taking those obscure pills again, George.

d

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:48:47 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

Well, I've Googled that without success - so I'm all agog!

Turnip leaves - falling off a turnip truck - fresh off the
farm - highly naive.

Ah! I see. I think.... Can't quite see the link, though.

How about Popeye and his spinach?

I eat it raw - could never stand the way it came out of those cans, all
sloppy.

d

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...


Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform some
audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't really
happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only known effect
they have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies.


No, the ultimate purpose of an audio system is to provide a means to
play music for our enjoyment.
Perception is IT. Whay you enjoy
listening to and through is what counts

What you say is absolutely true. But ultimately the question becomes: How
much enjoyment can I get out of a piece of equipment that cost a small
fortune, and that I know does not improve sound quality enough to be
recognizable in a blind test?

Norm Strong

Don Pearce said:

How many trees in your forest, Don? Oh wait -- obviously you can't see the
forest. Never mind.

You've been taking those obscure pills again, George.

Maybe not. Maybe you've been partaking of elixir of obtuseness.

I know, I know -- you're a full-blown nerd and you can't be expected to follow a
conversation if you're barraged with tropes. Sorry.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:23:57 -0700, wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...


Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform some
audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't really
happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only known effect
they have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies.


No, the ultimate purpose of an audio system is to provide a means to
play music for our enjoyment.
Perception is IT. Whay you enjoy
listening to and through is what counts

What you say is absolutely true. But ultimately the question becomes: How
much enjoyment can I get out of a piece of equipment that cost a small
fortune, and that I know does not improve sound quality enough to be
recognizable in a blind test?

Depends on several factors. First of all, does the small fortune make
a difference to your bank account and is the simple pride of ownership
enough to make it a non-factor? Second of all, how much importance do
you attach to a blind test and is it more important to you how the
system sounds overall, blind test notwithstanding.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:06:19 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:48:47 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

Well, I've Googled that without success - so I'm all agog!

Turnip leaves - falling off a turnip truck - fresh off the
farm - highly naive.

Ah! I see. I think.... Can't quite see the link, though.

How about Popeye and his spinach?

I eat it raw - could never stand the way it came out of those cans, all
sloppy.

d

Even saag panir? Or saag dal? Or even spanikopita?

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

Bull****. Shakti Stones are advertised as having a physical effect, not
an
emotional one.

"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity, dynamics and focus.
The improved inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear ambient
cue information essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width
and unwavering imaging."

No test data... no wonder Mickey's confused.



There is measurement data on the Shaktis website, but it's all about
eliminating RF.

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"andy" emitted :

So getting to the point that perhaps you missed, if someone says that
the Mpingo Disks makes his audio system sound better, I can't disprove
it and neither can you.

Nonsense. Unless the person claims being able to see Mpingo Disks
(whatever they are) is a requirement then simply blindfolding the
subject while adding or subtracting the disks will determine the truth
of what is perceived or not.

Thank you for exposing the irrelevancy of DBTs for consumers so
succinctly...

Question.. do you routinely blindfold yourself when listening?

Contextual knowledge and visual stimuli impact listener perception.
This is intuitive. Could you enjoy fine quality food whilst somebody
is chomping on a turd in your line of sight (naming no names)? Bias is
an inescapable aspect of daily life. Even sceptics acknowledge that
they perceive audible differences between components they claim are
sonically indistinguishable. If this were NOT true, what would be the
point in DBT?

So if somebody feels a benefit from Mpingo Disks... who cares.

People who find truth to be a value.

It's
their money to do with as they please.

People have the right and the expectation that a product can actually do
something.
Shakti Stones fail that test when it comes to audio.

If the complaint is "fraud" or
"misinformation" - whining on a consumer orientated forum will get you
nowhere.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:04:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



The Korean war has lost tremendous importance, as has
WW2.

Not for those who were killed in them.

True, those who were killed in those wars found the wars to be irrelevant,
once they were dead.


I'm trying to be nice, really!
I'll let someone else say it.
It has to do with atrocities commited upon a dead person.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 08:43:46 -0400, Clyde Slick wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:16:58 -0400, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bull****. Shakti Stones are advertised as having a physical effect,
not
an
emotional one.


"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity, dynamics and
focus.
The improved inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear
ambient
cue information essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width
and unwavering imaging."

Well, that reads like a claim of an actual physical effect to me.



Reads like a perceptive effect to me.

Read again - it claims "improved inter-transient silence". That is a
quantifiable, physical effect.



Read it again yourself, its "about" what one might hear.
I appeals to subjectivists, not to meter sluts.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 08:43:46 -0400, Clyde Slick wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:16:58 -0400, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bull****. Shakti Stones are advertised as having a
physical effect, not an
emotional one.


"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity,
dynamics and focus. The improved inter-transient
silence allows the listener to hear ambient cue
information essential for accurate perception of stage
depth, width and unwavering imaging."

Well, that reads like a claim of an actual physical
effect to me.



Reads like a perceptive effect to me.

Read again - it claims "improved inter-transient
silence". That is a quantifiable, physical effect.

The question that Art seems to sputter out trying to answer is:

If it is just a perceptive effect, why bother to try to obtain it by
buying equipment?

What Art needs is a audiophool magazine that tells him his existing stereo
provides exceptional clarity , with more liquidity, dynamics and focus.
The ragazine should say that your stereo provides improved inter-transient
silence that allows the listener to hear ambient cue information
essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width and unwavering
imaging.

Trouble is, the non-existent ad revenues from such a magazine would push
its price way beyond what Art can afford, given that Art foolishly spent
all that money on equipment. ;-)


I spend much more time listening to music than to reading magazines.
And I told you many times before, I didn't spend all that much money
on equipment.

wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...


Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform
some audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't
really happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only known
effect they have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies.


No, the ultimate purpose of an audio system is to provide a means to
play music for our enjoyment.
Perception is IT. Whay you enjoy
listening to and through is what counts

What you say is absolutely true. But ultimately the question becomes:
How much enjoyment can I get out of a piece of equipment that cost a small
fortune, and that I know does not improve sound quality enough to be
recognizable in a blind test?

For you, obviously none.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


I eat it raw -


Arny doesn't heat it up for you?

Clyde Slick said:

Trouble is, the non-existent ad revenues from such a magazine would push
its price way beyond what Art can afford, given that Art foolishly spent
all that money on equipment. ;-)

I spend much more time listening to music than to reading magazines.
And I told you many times before, I didn't spend all that much money
on equipment.

"All that money" is obviously relative to your means. In the past 5 years,
I've spent an average of a little over 1% of my gross income each year on
audio. In the past year, it was 2% because I replaced my preamp. Although
maybe I should factor that down because it's an AV preamp and I use it
more for TV and movies than for music.

At any rate, since Krooger's income is around $8K per year, for him
spending a few hundred amounts to "all that money".

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:37:34 GMT, wrote:

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

Bull****. Shakti Stones are advertised as having a physical effect, not
an
emotional one.

"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity, dynamics and focus.
The improved inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear ambient
cue information essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width
and unwavering imaging."

No test data... no wonder Mickey's confused.



There is measurement data on the Shaktis website, but it's all about
eliminating RF.

It isn't even that. It is about the fact that you can detune a dipole by
putting dielectric material near it. Whoopee!

d

Richard Malesweski wrote:

While you jerkoff to pictures of your grandmother.

Hey dick, how was the ride? Did you win the Shining Star award
again this year? Will you be in any of the pictures this year or did
you ask not to be mentioned or photographed? You still have that
scraggly ponytail?

Hit the ceiling yet, Sack'O'****? :-)

While you were gone, everyone agreed YOU are the biggest
sack o' **** here. Do your best Dick Tracy thing and Google
it up.

Why are you so ****ed? Is it because being a nursemaid isn't
any fun? How much longer will you have to do that?

"surf" wrote in message
. ..
Richard Malesweski wrote:

While you jerkoff to pictures of your grandmother.

Hey dick, how was the ride? Did you win the Shining Star award
again this year? Will you be in any of the pictures this year or did
you ask not to be mentioned or photographed? You still have that
scraggly ponytail?

Hit the ceiling yet, Sack'O'****? :-)

While you were gone, everyone agreed YOU are the biggest
sack o' **** here. Do your best Dick Tracy thing and Google
it up.

Why are you so ****ed? Is it because being a nursemaid isn't
any fun? How much longer will you have to do that?


Until his ship comes in
and he inherits the double wide.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:00:51 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

One should never take a review as anything but a rough guideline, or
possibly a way to narrow the field.

Exactly. Which is why I added:

That said, I enjoy reviews and use them as a guide, though not as a
bible. If reviewers from two or three different mags agree that a
component is exceptional, it probably is.

I agree with Mr. Weil, but not with you.

Explain your thinking, George. ('m assuming that thinking is involved.
:-))

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 08:56:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The Korean war has lost tremendous importance, as has
WW2.

Not for those who were killed in them.

True, those who were killed in those wars found the wars to
be irrelevant, once they were dead.

You have inside information on that, Arnie? If so, you owe it to
Mankind to share it.

BTW Paul, your skills at making irrelevant, senseless posts
in the style of Weil, Sackman and Middius seems to be
*improving*, if that can be called improving. It can't.

Thank you, Arnie. I try.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:14:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There's a difference between heeding history and obsessing
over it.

Right after WW2 the US arguably had a national obsession
with WW2. As a nation we mulled it over again and again. We
had movies about it, TV shows about it, magazine articles
about it, books about it, and even a president or two
(Eisenhower and Kennedy) about it.

And that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that it convulsed
the world for six years, caused immeasurable suffering and trauma and
resulted in the deaths of 55 million people? Nah, couldn't be....

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:20:01 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:

He trains teenage boys in his basement

Really? Are there pictures?

(Did I just say that? Something's gone wrong with my circuits.)

paul packer said:

I agree with Mr. Weil, but not with you.

Explain your thinking, George. ('m assuming that thinking is involved.

Why should it be? This is RAO.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

paul packer said:

I agree with Mr. Weil, but not with you.

Explain your thinking, George. ('m assuming that
thinking is involved.

Why should it be? This is RAO.

Inability to read headers noted.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

paul packer said:

I agree with Mr. Weil, but not with you.

Explain your thinking, George. ('m assuming that
thinking is involved.

Why should it be? This is RAO.

Inability to read headers noted.


Inability to figure out who has been posting to this subthread, noted.

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

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

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


IOW, I like classical and certain kinds of traditional
music, but I realize that my grandchildren see the
same music from 50+ years later.

Is teaching about the Revolutionary War less important
now than it was 50 years ago?

I think so. Increasingly true the more recent the war.
IOW The Korean war has lost tremendous importance, as
has WW2.

Gee, I think that it's just as important now to learn
about those events as it ever was.

Something about "those who fail to heed history, are
bound to.........".

There's a difference between heeding history and obsessing over it.

Right after WW2 the US arguably had a national obsession with WW2. As a
nation we mulled it over again and again. We had movies about it, TV
shows about it, magazine articles about it, books about it, and even a
president or two (Eisenhower and Kennedy) about it.

Imagine that. Simply because it was the biggest threat to freedom in the
world up until that time and a magnificent stand with an uncertain outcome
by the free people of the world. Obsessed? Shame on us!

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

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

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


IOW, I like classical and certain kinds of
traditional music, but I realize that my
grandchildren see the same music from 50+ years
later.

Is teaching about the Revolutionary War less
important now than it was 50 years ago?

I think so. Increasingly true the more recent the war.
IOW The Korean war has lost tremendous importance, as
has WW2.

Gee, I think that it's just as important now to learn
about those events as it ever was.

Something about "those who fail to heed history, are
bound to.........".

There's a difference between heeding history and
obsessing over it. Right after WW2 the US arguably had a
national obsession
with WW2. As a nation we mulled it over again and again.
We had movies about it, TV shows about it, magazine
articles about it, books about it, and even a president
or two (Eisenhower and Kennedy) about it.

Imagine that. Simply because it was the biggest threat
to freedom in the world up until that time and a
magnificent stand with an uncertain outcome by the free
people of the world. Obsessed? Shame on us!

I can tell I'm dealing with people who prefer making
comments that they think are clever, rather than mulling
over whether or not we really learned anything useful from
that rather ugly slice of history.

Imagine that. Simply because it was the biggest
threat to freedom in the world up until that time and a
magnificent stand with an uncertain outcome by the
free people of the world. Obsessed? Shame on us!

I can tell I'm dealing with people who prefer making
comments that they think are clever, rather than mulling
over whether or not we really learned anything useful from
that rather ugly slice of history.

I assume one of the things we should have learned is that people and
countries often create their own enemies.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Imagine that. Simply because it was the biggest
threat to freedom in the world up until that time and a
magnificent stand with an uncertain outcome by the
free people of the world. Obsessed? Shame on us!

I can tell I'm dealing with people who prefer making
comments that they think are clever, rather than mulling
over whether or not we really learned anything useful from
that rather ugly slice of history.

I assume one of the things we should have learned is that people and
countries often create their own enemies.


Exactly what do you propose to do about that?
Advocate sitting on your hands?
How do you know what the futere will bring?
Countries once allies later become enemies.
Countires once enemies later become allies.
Its what happens.
That's what you should learn.