MiNE 109 wrote:

In article z,
The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:


On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109
wrote:


I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...

LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...on_991029.html


Just remember the 'th' is silent!

Sounds like a job for Frank Sinatra.


Here's the site with animations of the orbit:

http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~wiegert/3753/3753.html

Ah.

Corkscrewy horseshoes.

Nexus 6

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:31:11 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:14:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The good news is that you are violently hated on most of the
Usenet audio groups, and you don't bother them very much. So life
there
is
relatively gentle and sweet for me.

Except for RAHE apparently.

The RAHE moderators apparently decided to get rid of me to solve their
problems with anti-DBT trollers. Didn't work.

Sorry, but they didn't "get rid of you". *You* got rid of you.

Let me put it this way, I shed no tears. The place has been ruined by the
brain-dead anti-DBTers and even the moderators know it.

Funny how it used to be:

"That would work a real hardship on guys like Middius and Gruvmyster.
My idea of real torment for them would be to require them to get 20
posts approved on RAHE... ;-)"

Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment.

Of course, there's this as well:

"That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I
know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate
anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him
to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very
weak. If you were more knowlegable you would probably not be so snowed
by him".

Looks like you've been "forced to clean up your act". Something that
you are unwilling to do.

Yep, I remember a day when it was considered a sin by you not to post
at RAHE.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:32:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the
chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be.

Show us all how to do it, David "Gratuitous Attack" Weil.

I did, when I gave you some friendly advice about how to stay out of
the '"virtual hospital".

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:33:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:12:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he
works.

And we know why *that* is, don't we?

Weil, I believe your answer has always indicated absolute, paralyzing,
unthinking fear.

Actually, I think that my answer has included respect for my
co-workers.

Oh, you don't want them to become jealous when you get flowers?

No, since I actually BRING flowers from my garden, it would be no
surprise for me to be linked with flowers.

I don't expect *you*of all people to understand why I wouldn't want my
co-workers dragged into RAO. After all, you posted your wife's work
telephone number just so you could try and win "debating trade points"
about a non-audio issue.

In article sGbmb.3887$d87.2541@okepread05,
Nexus 6 wrote:

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109
wrote:


I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...


LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...on_991029.html

I'm not sure I like the name, but that orbit is craaaazeeeee...

Could've Pict a better name, eh?

It's interesting Middius that there's a common thread through you and all of
your brainless parasites. None of you will say anything specific about their
jobs. The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he
works. Yet you yammer and whine about the fact that I'm self-employed. I say
put up or shut up. If jobs are an issue, why haven't the whole rotten lot of
you come clean about YOUR jobs? Let's
start with your job Middius. Who is
your employer and what is your job title? Really.


It's very simple Arny. You are clearly not interested in our jobs, you are
interested in new material for personal attacks. Most people are simply not
interested in feeding personal information to someone who's interests are
purely malliceous.

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:32:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the
chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be.

Show us all how to do it, David "Gratuitous Attack" Weil.

I did, when I gave you some friendly advice about how to stay out of
the '"virtual hospital".

That? It just shows how perverted your idea of getting the chip off YOUR
shoulder is, Weil. Oh well, so much for getting advice about how to treat
people right from an admitted dominatrix. BTW Weil, do you wear a leather
apron and carry handcuffs at work?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment.

Of course, there's this as well:

"That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I
know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate
anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him
to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very
weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so snowed
by him".

Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that quote:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...o.gtegsc.co m

Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how
you're trying to abuse it.

To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks for
showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I
don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more ago.

Looks like you've been "forced to clean up your act". Something that
you are unwilling to do.

Weil, how does this relate you cleaning up your dominatrix act here on RAO,
at this time?

Yep, I remember a day when it was considered a sin by you not to post at
RAHE.

More delusional postings from Weil.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
It's interesting Middius that there's a common thread through you and all
of
your brainless parasites. None of you will say anything specific about
their
jobs. The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where
he
works. Yet you yammer and whine about the fact that I'm self-employed. I
say
put up or shut up. If jobs are an issue, why haven't the whole rotten lot
of
you come clean about YOUR jobs? Let's
start with your job Middius. Who is
your employer and what is your job title? Really.


It's very simple Arny. You are clearly not interested in our jobs, you are
interested in new material for personal attacks.

Thanks for admitting that you would be embarrassed if we were to know what
your job is, sockpuppet wheel.

Most people are simply not
interested in feeding personal information to someone who's interests are
purely malliceous.

Actually, one of my interests would be educating you to write like a
literate person, sockpuppet wheel. But I'll take your final acquiescence to
using a standard posting style as a sign of your desire for personal
improvement.

Arny said

It's interesting Middius that there's a common thread through you and all
of
your brainless parasites. None of you will say anything specific about
their
jobs. The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where
he
works. Yet you yammer and whine about the fact that I'm self-employed. I
say
put up or shut up. If jobs are an issue, why haven't the whole rotten lot
of
you come clean about YOUR jobs? Let's
start with your job Middius. Who is
your employer and what is your job title? Really.


I said


It's very simple Arny. You are clearly not interested in our jobs, you are
interested in new material for personal attacks.

Arny said


Thanks for admitting that you would be embarrassed if we were to know what
your job is, sockpuppet wheel.

I made no such admission. I am very proud of my work. But it is this sort of
tactic of yours, taking something and misrepresenting it that I am talking
about.

I said


Most people are simply not
interested in feeding personal information to someone who's interests are
purely malliceous.

Arny said


Actually, one of my interests would be educating you to write like a
literate person, sockpuppet wheel. But I'll take your final acquiescence to
using a standard posting style as a sign of your desire for personal
improvement.

Yet another fine example of the fact that your intnetions on RAO are purely
malliceous.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:14:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:32:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the
chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be.

Show us all how to do it, David "Gratuitous Attack" Weil.

I did, when I gave you some friendly advice about how to stay out of
the '"virtual hospital".

That? It just shows how perverted your idea of getting the chip off YOUR
shoulder is, Weil. Oh well, so much for getting advice about how to treat
people right from an admitted dominatrix.

The last statement is of course a blad-faced lie.

It's your m.o., right?

That's why you're going to court.

shrug

BTW Weil, do you wear a leather apron and carry handcuffs at work?

Nope. A cloth apron, a corkscrew, a crumber, and some pens, any of the
last three are probably giving you some wet thoughts right about now.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:20:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment.

Of course, there's this as well:

"That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I
know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate
anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him
to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very
weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so snowed
by him".

Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that quote:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...o.gtegsc.co m

Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how
you're trying to abuse it.

To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks for
showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I
don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more ago.

"How about 5 months ago?

Ironically, Richman wrote this 4 years ago. History shows that in the
past 4 years RAO has continued to founder worse and worse, and RAHE
has thrived.

Moderation of RAO poses no particular threat to me because I have
proven that I do well under moderation. Google finds about 2,500 RAHE
posts that I've authored, an average of over one a day for about six
years. I also do well in the 10 other unmoderated audio groups I
currently contribute to".

Google is a bitch, ain't it, Mr. Krueger?

Looks like you've been "forced to clean up your act". Something that
you are unwilling to do.

Weil, how does this relate you cleaning up your dominatrix act here on RAO,
at this time?

What "dominatrix act"? Some projection on your part?

Yep, I remember a day when it was considered a sin by you not to post at
RAHE.

More delusional postings from Weil.

"Face it North, you've been afraid to post in RAHE because you can't
keep a civil mouth".

" Responding to assorted attacks with my own brand
of counterattacks? For the most part, I try to stick to
topic and offer up helpful advice to people. And unlike you,
I do post on RAHE and RAT, and I have no problems with the
RAHE moderators at all.

Of course you don't. You fit right in.

Notice that Mr. Weil is acting like a low-conflict environment is a
cancer ward. The real truth is that "fitting in" at RAHE means
accepting a neutral authority and the accountability that involves.
See what I mean by Mr. Weil's double standard when it comes to
accountability? Apparently accountability that does not favor his
preferences for freely making personal attacks is a bad thing".

Oooohhhh, looks like Arnold has exposed his *own* double standard...

OUCH!

dave weil said:

To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks for
showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I
don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more ago.

Oh Mr. ****, if you please: Didn't you recently claim you had
"deconstructed" something I said in a "debate" snicker about tubes?
How long ago was that? Back in '96, you used to claim that I had a
"secret agenda" of "tubes uber alles" or something like that. Of
course you fabricated that gibberish, but even so, you are basing
today's lies on posts that are 7+ years old. Are you being
hypocritical again, you dirty little 'borg puke?


Google is a bitch, ain't it, Mr. Krueger?

Arnii can't really answer that honestly because he doesn't know how to
use search engines.

S888Wheel wrote:
It's interesting Middius that there's a common thread through you and all of
your brainless parasites. None of you will say anything specific about their
jobs. The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he
works. Yet you yammer and whine about the fact that I'm self-employed. I say
put up or shut up. If jobs are an issue, why haven't the whole rotten lot of
you come clean about YOUR jobs? Let's
start with your job Middius. Who is
your employer and what is your job title? Really.



It's very simple Arny. You are clearly not interested in our jobs, you are
interested in new material for personal attacks. Most people are simply not
interested in feeding personal information to someone who's interests are
purely malliceous.


It's time for S888Wheel to demand his today ration of insults.
What a moron you are Mr. Exhibitionist.
If you try again to play piano on me, please remember that I love
Rachmaninoff.

"Robert Morein" wrote:

nousaine wrote:

Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their own
amplifiers and application specific EQ.

I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.

What speaker do you refer to?

I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS"

Arny Krueger ) wrote in message
:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
.com
two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife, presented at the
recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at how the
spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation
between the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its
spuriae.

Geddes' specialty is loudspeaker design and evaluation. Therefore
he's concerned with relatively high levels of distortion by the
standards of modern audio power amplifiers.

Yes, the two Geddes-Lee AES papers -- Auditory Perception of Nonlinear
Distortion -- were based on work intended to model loudspeaker
nonlinearity, but were intended to present the general case. From the
second of the two papers: "While the primary focus of this study is to
understand the perception of loudspeaker distortion, a wide variety of
nonlinear transfer functions was applied to yield data that may be
applicable to a broad array of systems...The intention of this study was
to sample a broad spectrum of nonlinearities that could represent
virtually any system, and not be limited to just a loudspeaker, or an
amplifier."

I thought it clearly appropriate, therefore, to examine the Geddes-Lee
proposal in the context of amplifier transfer functions. If you feel
differently, Mr. Krueger, then that is your prerogative, of course. (I
assume you have read the papers.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

In message
Tom Nousaine ) wrote:
(John Atkinson) wrote:
two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife, presented at the
recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at how the
spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation
between the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its
spuriae.

OK I heard {those papers}. So how does that show that any {amplifier}
on the market currently available or on your {Recommended Components
List}...is "better sounding" than any other with regard to the GedLee
Metric?

I thought I had answered that question with the next paragraph in my
posting:

This work is not at the stage where someone could plug measured results
into a spreadsheet and out pops a "good" "moderate" "bad" judgment...

Seems clear enough to me.

Wouldn't it be horrible for enthusiasts to learn from a spec-sheet
"number" that their Yamaha integrated amplifier sounds exactly like a
12K high-end set of mono-blocks

Why? If it were true, that would be great news. However, if you examine
the list of necessary specifications I gave in the posting that started
this thread, I would have thought it extremely unlikely that an
inexpensive amplifier would sound the same _under all conditions_ as a
design where the designer has been able to use considerably greater
resources.

That two amplifiers might be able to produce the same "number" under a
carefully controlled subset of conditions is hardly a complete
description of their performance, I would have thought. What _I_ would
be interested in would be to use something like the Geddes-Lee metric
to explore a component's performance _envelope_ under a wide range of
conditions. Audiophiles could thus clearly see what the more expensive
products had to offer and make up their own minds whether the benefit
was worth the asking price.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

MiNE 109 wrote in message
...
In article z,
The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109
wrote:

I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...

LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...on_991029.html

Just remember the 'th' is silent!

Here's the site with animations of the orbit:

http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~wiegert/3753/3753.html

Extraordinary! Looks like something form the world of Terry Pratchett.
(Next you'll be telling us it's "turtles all the way down.")

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

MiNE 109 wrote:
In article sGbmb.3887$d87.2541@okepread05,
Nexus 6 wrote:


The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:


On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109
wrote:



I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...


LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...on_991029.html

I'm not sure I like the name, but that orbit is craaaazeeeee...


Could've Pict a better name, eh?

Groan.

Split my skull.

Nexus 6

(John Atkinson) wrote:

In message
Tom Nousaine ) wrote:
(John Atkinson) wrote:
two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife, presented at the
recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at how the
spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation
between the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its
spuriae.

OK I heard {those papers}. So how does that show that any {amplifier}
on the market currently available or on your {Recommended Components
List}...is "better sounding" than any other with regard to the GedLee
Metric?

I thought I had answered that question with the next paragraph in my
posting:

This work is not at the stage where someone could plug measured results
into a spreadsheet and out pops a "good" "moderate" "bad" judgment...

Seems clear enough to me.

I get it. You are hoping to eventually find a number that will vindicate your
RCL Recommendation and Sound Quality rankings of many products on the list that
haven't actually been shown to sound 'different' under bias controlled
conditions.


Wouldn't it be horrible for enthusiasts to learn from a spec-sheet
"number" that their Yamaha integrated amplifier sounds exactly like a
12K high-end set of mono-blocks

Why? If it were true, that would be great news.

It seemed to be pretty crushing to the owner of the Pass under bias controlled
conditions in his reference system.

However, if you examine
the list of necessary specifications I gave in the posting that started
this thread, I would have thought it extremely unlikely that an
inexpensive amplifier would sound the same _under all conditions_ as a
design where the designer has been able to use considerably greater
resources.

I think that large companies with considerable resources often devote same to
reducing end-user cost.

IME experience it's extremely unlikely that an expensive amplifier will sound
any different from a less expensive one even under the most revealing of
conditions.


That two amplifiers might be able to produce the same "number" under a
carefully controlled subset of conditions is hardly a complete
description of their performance, I would have thought. What _I_ would
be interested in would be to use something like the Geddes-Lee metric
to explore a component's performance _envelope_ under a wide range of
conditions. Audiophiles could thus clearly see what the more expensive
products had to offer and make up their own minds whether the benefit
was worth the asking price.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

That would be a worthwhile goal. But while current measurements won't describe
performance under ALL conditons I'm guessing that Ged-Lee Metric won't do that
either.

I think masking-weighted measurement is an excellent but it's not going to
reveal anyhting about the acoustical performance of amplifiers that we don't
already know.

The better application would be for characterizing loudspeakers.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:lmVlb.3955$mZ5.23026@attbi_s54...
Certainly more than half of the requirements you placed on your
amplifier design detailed in your first reply to this header
disappear
if the designer knows the characteristics of the source and load
ahead
of time. It is for this reason that I forever wonder at how few
speakers come with their own amplifier--at least in the home
hi-fi
industry.

Hi Norm, I believe that the apparent restriction of customer choice
that
this represents is a major impediment to successful marketing of an
active
speaker. Even if the customer buys exactly the amplifier that the
speaker
designer feels works best with his loudspeaker, and would therefore
be
the one that could be supplied in an integrated package, it appears
to be
important to customers to have the widest amplifier choice
available.

I have a different take on this. An average "high-end" enthusiast
may already
have a stack of amplifiers or at least a single expensive 2-channel
amplifier
at his/her disposal. Anybody else has purchased a modrn receiver
with 5
amplifier channels already built into the chassis.

People just don't see the reason to buy power again. The neo-phytes
don't get
it. The high-enders never WILL get it; it's too apparent. So the
best way to
better sounding loudspeakers will remain foreign to the market UNTIL
the
current generation of computer users (who expect their speakers to
be powered)
are in the loop.


Probably only Meridian has made much headway in the audiophile
market
selling integrated loudspeaker/amplifier packages.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

PS: Your letter on the purported advantages of hi-rez audio media
appears in the ne (November) issue of Stereophile.

That take is likely a fair statement of the current market. Paradigm
stopped
offering their Active series which was one of the better performing
speaker
systems ever to reach the market. Yet few would buy them.

Both of you guys are right. Audiophiles simply want to choose their
own amplifiers, and that's that. Also the practicality of the active
speaker diminishes as the number of speakers in the system increases.
The limit is apparently 2. As long as it's a stereo system, the
active approach is good. Above that it gradually becomes less
desirable. With 5 speakers, a receiver is much more practical.

The subwoofer is an isolated case. They're amplified because they
were introduced to the market as an add-on and the market was already
mature. (Another reason has to do with the fact that the FTC does not
enforce rules for advertising on amplifiers in active speakers. All
the neat lies that used to be the shame of amplifier marketing are
once again available for use.)

The Home-theater-in-a-box is another interesting case, offering the
benefits of active speakers and receivers at the same time. Think of
the possibilities: All 6 power amps are in the subwoofer box, each
one tailored to its speaker. The decoding and preamp functions will
be united with the source components in a single box containing a 12cm
optical drive that will play any disc, an FM-AM tuner, and a couple of
aux inputs. For those who demand absolutely everything, a model also
including a video tuner and hard drive will be available adding
Tivo-like capabilities along with mp3 and AAC music. The optical
drive will be capable of burning CDs or DVDs from the HD.

Such a unit could be on the market right now, but I'm sure the
entertainment industry will think of a way to screw it up before it
arrives.

Norm Strong

In article ,
(John Atkinson) wrote:

MiNE 109 wrote in message
...
In article z,
The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109
wrote:

I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...

LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...on_991029.html

Just remember the 'th' is silent!

Here's the site with animations of the orbit:

http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~wiegert/3753/3753.html

Extraordinary! Looks like something form the world of Terry Pratchett.
(Next you'll be telling us it's "turtles all the way down.")

Depends on your belief system! or whatever Stephen Jay says...

This is why I like the internet: moons of Jupiter, non-moon orbital
companions, pre-Saxon Brits, etc.

Stephen

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...

Krooger recently blamed me for the waves of disdain and torrents of
loathing that envelop him on RAO. No doubt he has a similar bugbear
for the other Usenet groups. And somebody else for the other sites
where they have his number.

As usual, you're lying Middius. Or maybe you're so stupid you actually
believe this. You've tried to dominate RAO for years and force me off by
various means. The good news is that you are violently hated on most of
the
Usenet audio groups, and you don't bother them very much. So life there is
relatively gentle and sweet for me. I mostly just come here to futiley
check
for intelligent life, lead newbies away to the promised lands, and feed
the
animals.

It's ironic Middius that the groups where you don't go are mostly
relatively
healthy places were on-topic discussions dominate. In contrast RAO, which
is your own personal turf. is widely despised and hated. Almost as widely
despised and hated as you! Newbies frequently run away screaming.
Experienced hands warn people away. You've done a great job with RAO,
Middius. Your mother should be proud.



Oh, the denail!
Oh, the self deception!
Arny, get help, please!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he
works.

And we know why *that* is, don't we?

Weil, I believe your answer has always indicated absolute, paralyzing,
unthinking fear.

...........that a stark raving mad, vindicitve lunatic will try to disrupt
his personal life.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the
chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be.

Show us all how to do it, David "Gratuitous Attack" Weil.



Duck!!!
There was one right there!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe said to ****-for-Brains:

Krooger recently blamed me for the waves of disdain and torrents of
loathing that envelop him on RAO. No doubt he has a similar bugbear
for the other Usenet groups. And somebody else for the other sites
where they have his number.

As usual, you're lying Middius.

I guess your body was taken over by a pod when you posted this:

"Let's hear about how you are totally innocent of exposing me to
hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, and which causing me to be
shunned or avoided."
--- A. Krooger, professed paranoid lunatic

Oh, the denail!
Oh, the self deception!

Don't forget the paranoia.

Arny, get help, please!

Arnii can't do that because he can't afford it, and the Kroobitch's
insurance will be canceled if he files another claim.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment.

Of course, there's this as well:

"That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I
know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate
anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him
to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very
weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so snowed
by him".

Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that
quote:


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...o.gtegsc.co m

Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how
you're trying to abuse it.

To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks
for
showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I
don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more
ago.

This is noted, for the next time Arny drags up someone elses old posts.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment.

Of course, there's this as well:

"That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I
know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate
anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him
to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very
weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so
snowed
by him".

Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that
quote:



http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...o.gtegsc.co m

Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how
you're trying to abuse it.

To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks
for
showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil.
I
don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more
ago.

This is noted, for the next time Arny drags up someone elses old posts.

Depending on the topic, the age of the post may or may not be important. But
nice try at trying to give yourself a pass for more posturing and irrelevant
claims.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
m...
Arny Krueger ) wrote in message
:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
.com
two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife, presented at the
recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at how the
spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation
between the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its
spuriae.

Geddes' specialty is loudspeaker design and evaluation. Therefore
he's concerned with relatively high levels of distortion by the
standards of modern audio power amplifiers.

Yes, the two Geddes-Lee AES papers -- Auditory Perception of Nonlinear
Distortion -- were based on work intended to model loudspeaker
nonlinearity, but were intended to present the general case.

The general case with modern high-quality amplifiers is inaudible
distortion. The Geddes paper is about audible distortion. Therefore, in
general the Geddes papers are irrelevant to modern high-quality amplifiers
amplifiers.

From the
second of the two papers: "While the primary focus of this study is to
understand the perception of loudspeaker distortion, a wide variety of
nonlinear transfer functions was applied to yield data that may be
applicable to a broad array of systems...The intention of this study was
to sample a broad spectrum of nonlinearities that could represent
virtually any system, and not be limited to just a loudspeaker, or an
amplifier."

The word amplifier covers a lot of territory. A small, somewhat obscure part
of that territory includes amplifiers that are designed to produce audible
non linear distortion and other colorations, such as guitar amplifiers and
SETs. It's possible that the Geddes-Lee papers would be of benefit to those
few designers of guitar amplifiers and SETs.

I thought it clearly appropriate, therefore, to examine the Geddes-Lee
proposal in the context of amplifier transfer functions.

I notice that your magazine tests loudspeakers and phono cartridges, Mr.
Atkinson. Both are well-known sources of audible distortion. I marvel at
your inability to see the application of the Geddes-Lee papers to this part
of your work. This is especially curious given that the papers are as you
have now admitted, mostly addressed toward speakers.

As I finally got you to admit, the recent Geddes-Lee papers are addressed
toward speakers, and only relevant for equipment that has audible
distortion. I find it curious that you started out characterizing the
Geddes-Lee paper solely in terms of the study of amplifiers.

If you feel differently, Mr. Krueger, then that is your prerogative, of
course.

That's such an obvious statement I wonder why you feel obliged to make it, I
guess it lends balance to the fact that you tried to obscure the main point
of the recent Geddes-Lee AES papers by only mentioning their application to
amplifiers which is in general an area that they don't apply to.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote:

nousaine wrote:

Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their own
amplifiers and application specific EQ.

I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.

What speaker do you refer to?

I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS"

Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to speakers
like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps and certain powered
subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very common.

Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If
someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this product
category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a market
composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled experience with
live music.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the
moment.

Of course, there's this as well:

"That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I
know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate
anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force
him
to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is
very
weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so
snowed
by him".

Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that
quote:




http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...o.gtegsc.co m

Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how
you're trying to abuse it.

To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But
thanks
for
showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way,
Weil.
I
don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more
ago.

This is noted, for the next time Arny drags up someone elses old posts.

Depending on the topic, the age of the post may or may not be important.
But
nice try at trying to give yourself a pass for more posturing and
irrelevant
claims.




Translated from Krooglish:

If you bting up one of my old posts it is not alright, but if I bring
up one of your old posts it is ok.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote:

nousaine wrote:

Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their
own
amplifiers and application specific EQ.

I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.

What speaker do you refer to?

I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS"

Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to speakers
like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps and certain
powered
subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very common.

Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If
someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this product
category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a market
composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled experience with
live music.

The divergence of requirement of studio monitors vs. audiophile applications
is well known.
While self powered speakers are optimal from the engineering point of view,
they do not allow the user to optimize the sound to his liking by
appropriate combination of speaker and amplifier.

Audiophiles have justifiable desire to modify the tonality of the system to
their liking, while audio engineers have an obligation to a much larger
audience to produce mixes which are acceptable to a much larger group.

Robert Morein wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote:

nousaine wrote:

Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their

own

amplifiers and application specific EQ.

I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.


What speaker do you refer to?

I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS"

Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to speakers
like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps and certain

powered

subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very common.

Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If
someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this product
category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a market
composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled experience with
live music.


The divergence of requirement of studio monitors vs. audiophile applications
is well known.
While self powered speakers are optimal from the engineering point of view,
they do not allow the user to optimize the sound to his liking by
appropriate combination of speaker and amplifier.

Audiophiles have justifiable desire to modify the tonality of the system to
their liking, while audio engineers have an obligation to a much larger
audience to produce mixes which are acceptable to a much larger group.



That's a nice try, Bob Morion, but it's bunk. Audiophiles are extremely
critical of the equipment, and studio guys are extremely critical of the
sound on a recording. For them the equipment is a means to an end, and
hence they don't give it the same scrutiny that audiophiles do.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote:

nousaine wrote:

Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with
their
own
amplifiers and application specific EQ.

I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.

What speaker do you refer to?

I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS"

Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to
speakers like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps
and certain powered subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very
common.

Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If
someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this
product category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is
a market composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled
experience with live music.

The divergence of requirement of studio monitors vs. audiophile
applications is well known.

The divergence has been closing for a long time. There are lots of consumer
speakers that have the word "Monitor" in their names. Self-powered consumer
speakers are becoming more popular.

While self powered speakers are optimal from the engineering point of
view, they do not allow the user to optimize the sound to his liking
by appropriate combination of speaker and amplifier.

Sure you can optimize sound with powered speakers, you just buy a powered
speaker that suits your preferences. Besides, there are effective means
other than playing "Musical Chairs" with speakers, to get speakers that
provide sound to one's liking. I could mention the e-word but I hate to get
too many people upset.

Audiophiles have justifiable desire to modify the tonality of the
system to their liking, while audio engineers have an obligation to a
much larger audience to produce mixes which are acceptable to a much
larger group.

Engineers also express their personal preferences when they chose speakers.
They have a lot more experience than audiophiles with comparing live versus
recorded sound.

"trotsky" wrote in message



Audiophiles are
extremely critical of the equipment, and studio guys are extremely
critical of the sound on a recording.

One would hope that audiophiles are extremely critical of sound quality, and
that studio guys are also extremely critical of sound quality.

For them the equipment is a
means to an end, and hence they don't give it the same scrutiny that
audiophiles do.

One differences is that engineers have a lot more at stake when they
audition recordings.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:13:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

One would hope that audiophiles are extremely critical of sound quality, and
that studio guys are also extremely critical of sound quality.

But not in the same way. The "sound quality" that studio guys are
concered with is often times at odds with the "best reproduction" of
music. This is because they have more pressing issues, i.e. - how is
this going to sound on radio, in the clubs, in the car, etc. And
sometimes it's about keeping the artist happy.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:13:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

One would hope that audiophiles are extremely critical of sound
quality, and that studio guys are also extremely critical of sound
quality.

But not in the same way. The "sound quality" that studio guys are
concerned with is often times at odds with the "best reproduction" of
music.

This may or may not be true.

This is because they have more pressing issues, i.e. - how is
this going to sound on radio, in the clubs, in the car, etc. And
sometimes it's about keeping the artist happy.

One flaw in this thinking is that both the engineer and the artist listen to
the same recording through the same speakers in the studio.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:38:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:13:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

One would hope that audiophiles are extremely critical of sound
quality, and that studio guys are also extremely critical of sound
quality.

But not in the same way. The "sound quality" that studio guys are
concerned with is often times at odds with the "best reproduction" of
music.

This may or may not be true.

No, it *is* true that *often times* the "best reproduction" of music
is at odds with the commercial realities.

This is because they have more pressing issues, i.e. - how is
this going to sound on radio, in the clubs, in the car, etc. And
sometimes it's about keeping the artist happy.

One flaw in this thinking is that both the engineer and the artist listen to
the same recording through the same speakers in the studio.

But it's not a flaw since they don't always have the same perception
about sound quality. As I pointed out, the engineer has other exterior
concerns that the producer and record company wants him or her to take
care of. Plus, the musician comes to the plate from "behind" the
music, so to speak, while the engineer is "in front" of the music.
Sometimes, the musician gets only a slice of the whole. And sometimes,
they don't even really have final approval either.

No, it's a mistake to equate the very artifical listening environment
of the studio control room with the home environment. What's good for
one is not always good for the other.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:57:04 -0500, dave weil
wrote:


But it's not a flaw since they don't always have the same perception
about sound quality. As I pointed out, the engineer has other exterior
concerns that the producer and record company wants him or her to take
care of. Plus, the musician comes to the plate from "behind" the
music, so to speak, while the engineer is "in front" of the music.
Sometimes, the musician gets only a slice of the whole. And sometimes,
they don't even really have final approval either.

No, it's a mistake to equate the very artifical listening environment
of the studio control room with the home environment. What's good for
one is not always good for the other.

I should have added that there is one area where Mr. Krueger might be
correct and that would be in mixing for movie surround sound and/or
surround sound live DVD performances. That's because, for a change,
they are actually mixing for the intended home use instead of
intermediary delivery systems such as radio, dance clubs or car audio.

Dave said


But not in the same way. The "sound quality" that studio guys are
concered with is often times at odds with the "best reproduction" of
music. This is because they have more pressing issues, i.e. - how is
this going to sound on radio, in the clubs, in the car, etc. And
sometimes it's about keeping the artist happy.








All too often the real underlying preasure is how to get something in the can
by the end of the day.