On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 05:31:56 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Best ways to do to make the biggest difference towards better sound:

optimize speaker placement and listening position
apply treatments to improve room acoustics e.g.
- first-reflection absorption for highs and midrange
- bass traps
- room EQ
upgrade speakers


Pretty much everything after that runs a distant second, except for
changing cables, which runs a distant third , if that.

Agreed, and acoustical treatments can be home-made for very little
money, so it's a real shame they are so rarely used. I didn't "get
it" on this issue myself until a couple years ago, but I'm sure glad I
did. 8)

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 07:49:50 GMT, wrote:

By now it was demonstraded to you beyond any doubt what a "serious
newsgroup" doea no look like.
Go to "www.Audio Asylum.com" The DBT discussion is banned,

They prefer ignorance?

Well, I can see why some might want it banned, just because it's been
beaten to death.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:33:42 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 05:31:56 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Best ways to do to make the biggest difference towards better sound:

optimize speaker placement and listening position
apply treatments to improve room acoustics e.g.
- first-reflection absorption for highs and midrange
- bass traps
- room EQ
upgrade speakers


Pretty much everything after that runs a distant second, except for
changing cables, which runs a distant third , if that.

Agreed, and acoustical treatments can be home-made for very little
money, so it's a real shame they are so rarely used. I didn't "get
it" on this issue myself until a couple years ago, but I'm sure glad I
did. 8)

And the eggcrates don't clash with your Salvation Army furnishings, do
they?

dave weil said to dippyborg:

acoustical treatments can be home-made for very little money

And the eggcrates don't clash with your Salvation Army furnishings, do
they?

Are you sure dippy has moved up from dumpster-diving? ;-)


..
..

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


dave weil said to dippyborg:

acoustical treatments can be home-made for very little money

And the eggcrates don't clash with your Salvation Army furnishings, do
they?

Are you sure dippy has moved up from dumpster-diving? ;-)


http://tinyurl.com/9k6nb

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message


In article
.com,
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:

wrote:

By now it was demonstraded to you beyond any doubt
what a "serious newsgroup" does no look like.
Go to "www.Audio Asylum.com" The DBT discussion is
banned,

The claim that DBT discussion is banned is just another
example of Ludovic's failing grip on reality. Last time I
checked, DBTs are only banned on AA in the section devoted
to cables.

Audio Asylum is nothing if not aptly-named. And I'm
pretty sure I saw Sam Tellig calling
someone *profane* names there recently.

Tellig's posts were removed in a timely fashion. Another
Stereophile regular melts down in public - what's new?

(DBT discussion
was only banned in the cable section
last time I looked..has there been a forum-wide putsch
there since?) It's hardly the haven of
reason and civil discourse Derrick seems to seek.

I don't see AA as being especially useless.

If you want no-nonsense discussion of audio and audio
perception -- claims of the 'I heard a
difference therefore it is real" type are actually
against its terms of service, as are
flamewars and profanity -- try www.hydrogenaudio.org.

Agreed.

For a pro audio perspective , seek out
the www.prosoundweb forums or rec.audio.pro or
rec.audio.tech. www.audioholics.com also
has some very good articles on no-nonsense audio, and a
pretty good and lively forum. And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's
nightmare.

ditto and ditto.

--------------------------------------------------------

And naturally Sullivan's delight He can spout there at
will without fear of contradiction.

See former comments about Ludovic's disconnect with reality.
Sullivan can and is frequently contradicted on RAHE.

No need to take
shelter in his dodge of "killfiling" whenever the going
gets too hot.

Ah, so what Ludovic is complaining about is his inability to
engage in personal attacks and defamation.

The RAHE engineer-moderator does his job
for him. He hypocritically proclaimed ban on ABX debate.

Nothing like a personal attack to salve Ludovic's wounded
ego, it seems.

This allows RAHE to post all the subtle cryptonyms like:
"Prove by a bias-free test that your impressions are
real".

This would be no doubt be one of Ludovic's made-up quotes.

If one says that the bias-free."test' (read ABX)
has never been validated by experiment your retort is
censored out because it is "repetitive" or
"uninteresting" or about ABX or what not.

To mental midgets like Ludovic, all bias-controlled tests
are the same, it seems.

Sullivans and
their clones reign supreme there. The gagged opposition
left one by one- gentle Harry Lavo the last survivor.

If you call being Harry Lavo "being a survivor" ;-)

There are others there who are simpatico :-)

Ludovic's affinity for RAO would appear to lie in his
ability to find sympathy from people who are as
logically-challenged and unaware of relevant facts as he is.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arny says:
"Ah, so what Ludovic is complaining about is his inability to
engage in personal attacks and defamation"

Arny- where I come from, the "going gets hot" means "when argument
gets hot". Sorry that your imagination does not see a lively discussion
without "personal attacks and defamation"

You don't do argurments. You obviously seem teh Monty Python "argument
sketch" too many times. You only contradict.


Sorry that you next prove that you learned the lesson only too well:
Here are a few excerpts from your current usage:.
"This would be no doubt be one of Ludovic's made-up quotes"
Note the artful use of "one of"..
Mo
"To mental midgets like Ludovic, all bias-controlled tests
are the same, it seems."

And here is one of the "personal attacks and defamation " I
subjected our supporter of civility in discussion: two short months
ago.
"Arny let me now say something in sorrow rather than anger. You are
an inventive guy , a cut above average, you're bright and articulate
well, you forgot more about electronics than I will ever know. I am
told that. your ABX or its derivatives are used daily by researchers..
This should be plenty satisfying to you. You don't need to extend the
ABX empire to where it does not fit.
It seems that you can never satisfy some egos. Arny is confusing a
disagreement with "personal attacks and defamation ".
It seems also that I truly got under his skin by awkward questions like
this one: "IPlease point to ONE SINGLE published ABX test which
resulted in recognition of differences between any electronically
comparable audio component and another."
You don't like this wording? REPHRASE it. Anything goes. Don't
nitpick and don't stay mute till you hope the question was forgotten
when you can start things afresh.
Because it will not be . I'll take care of that.
I'm also notifyiing your claque that if they want to go on the way
they have been doing I will continue to take it and to dish it out too.

Obsession noted.

In spades. Thankfully in a free society they can not fulfil their
dreams and muzzle the opposition.
Ludovic Mirabel
At least my quarrel with RAHE was not about repetitious advertising.

No it was about you being a repetitious idiot.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

If you shut up about your ignorant view of ABX, nobody would have to keep
telling you how wrong you are.

What ? Back to the old tricks of chopping up somebody's text to
victoriously answer your own artistic creations, shouting ever louder
"lie" when short of evidence etc.

Stop lying, I'll stop pointing out when you do it.

No more promotional- advertising material to copy from the web? Given
up on flooding the RAO opening page ?


I'm sure I can find more of it you like. Since ABX and other forms of DBT
are the norm for audio research, they are easy to find. It's impossible to
find any scientific confirmation for sighted listening for subtle
differences.

Go back to the work-bench. Remember: no gain without pain. Soon
you'll be skilled enough to pass as your own some stuff you found on
the web and at last get a beautiful gold-lettered diploma from.your
night school.
That will show them.
Ludovic Mirabel

When will you be able to receive the news that ABX is a perfectly valid
subset of DBT ?
When will you be able to provide evidence that virtually anyone doing audio
research of any kind doesn't use ABX?
When will you pull your head out of your ass and recognize that there is no
arguement about ABX except for a few fringe loonies who refuse to accept
what the rest of the audio world already knows?

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 07:49:50 GMT, wrote:

By now it was demonstraded to you beyond any doubt what a "serious
newsgroup" doea no look like.
Go to "www.Audio Asylum.com" The DBT discussion is banned,

They prefer ignorance?

Well, I can see why some might want it banned, just because it's been
beaten to death.

Only because people like Ludo won't shut up about it. There are a few other
people who seem ignorant of the fact that it's not only possible for
different gear to sound alike, but indeed likely that it will be thus.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
Can those apparently few people who use this Newsgroup just for
matters
Audio advise me if there is a "more" appropriate newsgroup for
dealing
with Audio queries ao running down the subject matter of "most" of
the
posts leads me to believe that this NG is for anything and
everything
except serious Audio buffs.
I do hope this post attracts those who are prepared to advise but
no
doubt some people will take offence at the tenure of my remarks, I
assure you no offence is intended, I just want some loudspeaker
advice
but feel from the subject matter of some of the posts I may be in
the
wrong place.
--
Derrick

By now it was demonstraded to you beyond any doubt what a "serious
newsgroup" doea no look like.
Go to "www.Audio Asylum.com" The DBT discussion is banned, moderator
rejects profanity, people argue about equipment and discuss their
experience. You'll soon know who you feel deserves to be listened to.
Ludovic Mirabel


Audio Asylum is nothing if not aptly-named. And I'm pretty sure I saw
Sam
Tellig calling
someone *profane* names there recently. (DBT discussion was only banned
in
the cable section
last time I looked..has there been a forum-wide putsch there since?)
It's
hardly the haven of
reason and civil discourse Derrick seems to seek.

If you want no-nonsense discussion of audio and audio perception --
claims
of the 'I heard a
difference therefore it is real" type are actually against its terms of
service, as are
flamewars and profanity -- try www.hydrogenaudio.org. For a pro audio
perspective , seek out
the www.prosoundweb forums or rec.audio.pro or rec.audio.tech.
www.audioholics.com also
has some very good articles on no-nonsense audio, and a pretty good and
lively forum. And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
.And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.

And naturally Sullivan's delight He can spout there at will without
fear of contradiction. No need to take shelter in his dodge of
"killfiling" whenever the going gets too hot. The RAHE
engineer-moderator does his job for him. He hypocritically proclaimed
ban on ABX debate. This allows RAHE to post all the subtle cryptonyms
like: "Prove by a bias-free test that your impressions are real". If
one says that the bias-free."test' (read ABX) has never been validated
by experiment your retort is censored out because it is "repetitive" or
"uninteresting" or about ABX or what not. Sullivans and their clones
reign supreme there. The gagged opposition left one by one- gentle
Harry Lavo the last survivor.

There are others there who are simpatico :-)

Indeed...there always are.
These days there's almost always debate there about some *inventive*
model of audio reality that Jenn and other subjectivists have offered.

Yep, that's me; always inventing some reality or another. Go figure. I
just wish that I could remember inventing some reality; it sounds like
it could be interesting.

Apparently
the RAHE moderator(s) are less intolerant than Dr. Mirabilis claims.

Btw, not all of my posts to RAHE are approved, either.

For the record, neither are all of mine.

You can bet
that when it appears I've stopped participating in a thread, it's because
I've reached the point where the mods disallowed or have asked me to rewrite
a post
if I want to resubmit it. I usually find that's not worth the effort.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:37:09 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:33:42 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 05:31:56 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Best ways to do to make the biggest difference towards better sound:

optimize speaker placement and listening position
apply treatments to improve room acoustics e.g.
- first-reflection absorption for highs and midrange
- bass traps
- room EQ
upgrade speakers


Pretty much everything after that runs a distant second, except for
changing cables, which runs a distant third , if that.

Agreed, and acoustical treatments can be home-made for very little
money, so it's a real shame they are so rarely used. I didn't "get
it" on this issue myself until a couple years ago, but I'm sure glad I
did. 8)

And the eggcrates don't clash with your Salvation Army furnishings, do
they?

HO HO HO HA HA HA you're a funny guy. 8)

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 16:42:11 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:37:09 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:33:42 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 05:31:56 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Best ways to do to make the biggest difference towards better sound:

optimize speaker placement and listening position
apply treatments to improve room acoustics e.g.
- first-reflection absorption for highs and midrange
- bass traps
- room EQ
upgrade speakers


Pretty much everything after that runs a distant second, except for
changing cables, which runs a distant third , if that.

Agreed, and acoustical treatments can be home-made for very little
money, so it's a real shame they are so rarely used. I didn't "get
it" on this issue myself until a couple years ago, but I'm sure glad I
did. 8)

And the eggcrates don't clash with your Salvation Army furnishings, do
they?

HO HO HO HA HA HA you're a funny guy. 8)

I know.

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
Can those apparently few people who use this Newsgroup just for
matters
Audio advise me if there is a "more" appropriate newsgroup for
dealing
with Audio queries ao running down the subject matter of "most" of
the
posts leads me to believe that this NG is for anything and
everything
except serious Audio buffs.
I do hope this post attracts those who are prepared to advise but
no
doubt some people will take offence at the tenure of my remarks, I
assure you no offence is intended, I just want some loudspeaker
advice
but feel from the subject matter of some of the posts I may be in
the
wrong place.
--
Derrick

By now it was demonstraded to you beyond any doubt what a "serious
newsgroup" doea no look like.
Go to "www.Audio Asylum.com" The DBT discussion is banned, moderator
rejects profanity, people argue about equipment and discuss their
experience. You'll soon know who you feel deserves to be listened to.
Ludovic Mirabel


Audio Asylum is nothing if not aptly-named. And I'm pretty sure I saw
Sam
Tellig calling
someone *profane* names there recently. (DBT discussion was only banned
in
the cable section
last time I looked..has there been a forum-wide putsch there since?)
It's
hardly the haven of
reason and civil discourse Derrick seems to seek.

If you want no-nonsense discussion of audio and audio perception --
claims
of the 'I heard a
difference therefore it is real" type are actually against its terms of
service, as are
flamewars and profanity -- try www.hydrogenaudio.org. For a pro audio
perspective , seek out
the www.prosoundweb forums or rec.audio.pro or rec.audio.tech.
www.audioholics.com also
has some very good articles on no-nonsense audio, and a pretty good and
lively forum. And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
.And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.

And naturally Sullivan's delight He can spout there at will without
fear of contradiction. No need to take shelter in his dodge of
"killfiling" whenever the going gets too hot. The RAHE
engineer-moderator does his job for him. He hypocritically proclaimed
ban on ABX debate. This allows RAHE to post all the subtle cryptonyms
like: "Prove by a bias-free test that your impressions are real". If
one says that the bias-free."test' (read ABX) has never been validated
by experiment your retort is censored out because it is "repetitive" or
"uninteresting" or about ABX or what not. Sullivans and their clones
reign supreme there. The gagged opposition left one by one- gentle
Harry Lavo the last survivor.

There are others there who are simpatico :-)

Indeed...there always are.
These days there's almost always debate there about some *inventive*
model of audio reality that Jenn and other subjectivists have offered.

Yep, that's me; always inventing some reality or another. Go figure. I
just wish that I could remember inventing some reality; it sounds like
it could be interesting.

Apparently
the RAHE moderator(s) are less intolerant than Dr. Mirabilis claims.

Btw, not all of my posts to RAHE are approved, either.

For the record, neither are all of mine.

You can bet
that when it appears I've stopped participating in a thread, it's because
I've reached the point where the mods disallowed or have asked me to rewrite
a post
if I want to resubmit it. I usually find that's not worth the effort.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jenn says:
For the record, neither are all of mine.

In my case it was not one or two. It was nine submissions in a row.
Some of them were messages amended to comply with the reasons quoted
for a previous rejection- never because of profanity.

By the time I reached nine rejections I felt that Bates decided to
silence me and that RAHE was closed to me. I concluded that he was very
concerned about the sanctity of ABX. Sullivan unwittingly confirms
this:
.And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.
One gives thanks for the free society remembering all the little
censors cutting this or that in the two totalirian sysytems one lived
through- every true believer's nightmare.
Ludovic Mirabel

Sullivan unwittingly

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
Can those apparently few people who use this Newsgroup just for
matters
Audio advise me if there is a "more" appropriate newsgroup for
dealing
with Audio queries ao running down the subject matter of "most" of
the
posts leads me to believe that this NG is for anything and
everything
except serious Audio buffs.
I do hope this post attracts those who are prepared to advise but
no
doubt some people will take offence at the tenure of my remarks, I
assure you no offence is intended, I just want some loudspeaker
advice
but feel from the subject matter of some of the posts I may be in
the
wrong place.
--
Derrick

By now it was demonstraded to you beyond any doubt what a "serious
newsgroup" doea no look like.
Go to "www.Audio Asylum.com" The DBT discussion is banned, moderator
rejects profanity, people argue about equipment and discuss their
experience. You'll soon know who you feel deserves to be listened to.
Ludovic Mirabel


Audio Asylum is nothing if not aptly-named. And I'm pretty sure I saw
Sam
Tellig calling
someone *profane* names there recently. (DBT discussion was only banned
in
the cable section
last time I looked..has there been a forum-wide putsch there since?)
It's
hardly the haven of
reason and civil discourse Derrick seems to seek.

If you want no-nonsense discussion of audio and audio perception --
claims
of the 'I heard a
difference therefore it is real" type are actually against its terms of
service, as are
flamewars and profanity -- try www.hydrogenaudio.org. For a pro audio
perspective , seek out
the www.prosoundweb forums or rec.audio.pro or rec.audio.tech.
www.audioholics.com also
has some very good articles on no-nonsense audio, and a pretty good and
lively forum. And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
.And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.

And naturally Sullivan's delight He can spout there at will without
fear of contradiction. No need to take shelter in his dodge of
"killfiling" whenever the going gets too hot. The RAHE
engineer-moderator does his job for him. He hypocritically proclaimed
ban on ABX debate. This allows RAHE to post all the subtle cryptonyms
like: "Prove by a bias-free test that your impressions are real". If
one says that the bias-free."test' (read ABX) has never been validated
by experiment your retort is censored out because it is "repetitive" or
"uninteresting" or about ABX or what not. Sullivans and their clones
reign supreme there. The gagged opposition left one by one- gentle
Harry Lavo the last survivor.

There are others there who are simpatico :-)

Indeed...there always are.
These days there's almost always debate there about some *inventive*
model of audio reality that Jenn and other subjectivists have offered.

Yep, that's me; always inventing some reality or another. Go figure. I
just wish that I could remember inventing some reality; it sounds like
it could be interesting.

Do you have a perceptual tic that precludes you from cognitively
registering the word 'model'? *THAT* would be more interesting
than the suppositional horses you flog over on RAHE.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
Can those apparently few people who use this Newsgroup just for
matters
Audio advise me if there is a "more" appropriate newsgroup for
dealing
with Audio queries ao running down the subject matter of "most" of
the
posts leads me to believe that this NG is for anything and
everything
except serious Audio buffs.
I do hope this post attracts those who are prepared to advise but
no
doubt some people will take offence at the tenure of my remarks, I
assure you no offence is intended, I just want some loudspeaker
advice
but feel from the subject matter of some of the posts I may be in
the
wrong place.
--
Derrick

By now it was demonstraded to you beyond any doubt what a "serious
newsgroup" doea no look like.
Go to "www.Audio Asylum.com" The DBT discussion is banned, moderator
rejects profanity, people argue about equipment and discuss their
experience. You'll soon know who you feel deserves to be listened to.
Ludovic Mirabel


Audio Asylum is nothing if not aptly-named. And I'm pretty sure I saw
Sam
Tellig calling
someone *profane* names there recently. (DBT discussion was only banned
in
the cable section
last time I looked..has there been a forum-wide putsch there since?)
It's
hardly the haven of
reason and civil discourse Derrick seems to seek.

If you want no-nonsense discussion of audio and audio perception --
claims
of the 'I heard a
difference therefore it is real" type are actually against its terms of
service, as are
flamewars and profanity -- try www.hydrogenaudio.org. For a pro audio
perspective , seek out
the www.prosoundweb forums or rec.audio.pro or rec.audio.tech.
www.audioholics.com also
has some very good articles on no-nonsense audio, and a pretty good and
lively forum. And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
.And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.

And naturally Sullivan's delight He can spout there at will without
fear of contradiction. No need to take shelter in his dodge of
"killfiling" whenever the going gets too hot. The RAHE
engineer-moderator does his job for him. He hypocritically proclaimed
ban on ABX debate. This allows RAHE to post all the subtle cryptonyms
like: "Prove by a bias-free test that your impressions are real". If
one says that the bias-free."test' (read ABX) has never been validated
by experiment your retort is censored out because it is "repetitive" or
"uninteresting" or about ABX or what not. Sullivans and their clones
reign supreme there. The gagged opposition left one by one- gentle
Harry Lavo the last survivor.

There are others there who are simpatico :-)

Indeed...there always are.
These days there's almost always debate there about some *inventive*
model of audio reality that Jenn and other subjectivists have offered.

Yep, that's me; always inventing some reality or another. Go figure. I
just wish that I could remember inventing some reality; it sounds like
it could be interesting.

Do you have a perceptual tic that precludes you from cognitively
registering the word 'model'? *THAT* would be more interesting
than the suppositional horses you flog over on RAHE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan said to Jenn:
Do you have a perceptual tic that precludes you from cognitively
registering the word 'model'? *THAT* would be more interesting
than the suppositional horses you flog over on RAHE.

I'll take advantage offered by Sullivan's enigmatic
semantico/metaphysico/metaphorical imagery to straighten out my own
ambiguous wording. In my last message I said:

"One gives thanks for the free society remembering all the little
censors cutting this or that in the two totalitarian sysytems one lived

through- every true believer's nightmare"
..
Late night phrasing. What I meant was "Every true believer's daydream".
Of course.
Ludovic Mirabel

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
Can those apparently few people who use this Newsgroup just for
matters
Audio advise me if there is a "more" appropriate newsgroup for
dealing
with Audio queries ao running down the subject matter of "most"
of
the
posts leads me to believe that this NG is for anything and
everything
except serious Audio buffs.
I do hope this post attracts those who are prepared to advise
but
no
doubt some people will take offence at the tenure of my
remarks, I
assure you no offence is intended, I just want some loudspeaker
advice
but feel from the subject matter of some of the posts I may be
in
the
wrong place.
--
Derrick

By now it was demonstraded to you beyond any doubt what a
"serious
newsgroup" doea no look like.
Go to "www.Audio Asylum.com" The DBT discussion is banned,
moderator
rejects profanity, people argue about equipment and discuss their
experience. You'll soon know who you feel deserves to be listened
to.
Ludovic Mirabel


Audio Asylum is nothing if not aptly-named. And I'm pretty sure I
saw
Sam
Tellig calling
someone *profane* names there recently. (DBT discussion was only
banned
in
the cable section
last time I looked..has there been a forum-wide putsch there
since?)
It's
hardly the haven of
reason and civil discourse Derrick seems to seek.

If you want no-nonsense discussion of audio and audio perception --
claims
of the 'I heard a
difference therefore it is real" type are actually against its
terms of
service, as are
flamewars and profanity -- try www.hydrogenaudio.org. For a pro
audio
perspective , seek out
the www.prosoundweb forums or rec.audio.pro or rec.audio.tech.
www.audioholics.com also
has some very good articles on no-nonsense audio, and a pretty good
and
lively forum. And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
.And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.

And naturally Sullivan's delight He can spout there at will without
fear of contradiction. No need to take shelter in his dodge of
"killfiling" whenever the going gets too hot. The RAHE
engineer-moderator does his job for him. He hypocritically proclaimed
ban on ABX debate. This allows RAHE to post all the subtle cryptonyms
like: "Prove by a bias-free test that your impressions are real". If
one says that the bias-free."test' (read ABX) has never been
validated
by experiment your retort is censored out because it is "repetitive"
or
"uninteresting" or about ABX or what not. Sullivans and their clones
reign supreme there. The gagged opposition left one by one- gentle
Harry Lavo the last survivor.

There are others there who are simpatico :-)

Indeed...there always are.
These days there's almost always debate there about some *inventive*
model of audio reality that Jenn and other subjectivists have offered.

Yep, that's me; always inventing some reality or another. Go figure. I
just wish that I could remember inventing some reality; it sounds like
it could be interesting.

Do you have a perceptual tic that precludes you from cognitively
registering the word 'model'?

No. I simply don't know of any realities that I've invented.

*THAT* would be more interesting
than the suppositional horses you flog over on RAHE.

LOL Such as?

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
Can those apparently few people who use this Newsgroup just for
matters
Audio advise me if there is a "more" appropriate newsgroup for
dealing
with Audio queries ao running down the subject matter of "most"
of
the
posts leads me to believe that this NG is for anything and
everything
except serious Audio buffs.
I do hope this post attracts those who are prepared to advise
but
no
doubt some people will take offence at the tenure of my
remarks, I
assure you no offence is intended, I just want some loudspeaker
advice
but feel from the subject matter of some of the posts I may be
in
the
wrong place.
--
Derrick

By now it was demonstraded to you beyond any doubt what a
"serious
newsgroup" doea no look like.
Go to "www.Audio Asylum.com" The DBT discussion is banned,
moderator
rejects profanity, people argue about equipment and discuss their
experience. You'll soon know who you feel deserves to be listened
to.
Ludovic Mirabel


Audio Asylum is nothing if not aptly-named. And I'm pretty sure I
saw
Sam
Tellig calling
someone *profane* names there recently. (DBT discussion was only
banned
in
the cable section
last time I looked..has there been a forum-wide putsch there
since?)
It's
hardly the haven of
reason and civil discourse Derrick seems to seek.

If you want no-nonsense discussion of audio and audio perception --
claims
of the 'I heard a
difference therefore it is real" type are actually against its
terms of
service, as are
flamewars and profanity -- try www.hydrogenaudio.org. For a pro
audio
perspective , seek out
the www.prosoundweb forums or rec.audio.pro or rec.audio.tech.
www.audioholics.com also
has some very good articles on no-nonsense audio, and a pretty good
and
lively forum. And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
.And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.

And naturally Sullivan's delight He can spout there at will without
fear of contradiction. No need to take shelter in his dodge of
"killfiling" whenever the going gets too hot. The RAHE
engineer-moderator does his job for him. He hypocritically proclaimed
ban on ABX debate. This allows RAHE to post all the subtle cryptonyms
like: "Prove by a bias-free test that your impressions are real". If
one says that the bias-free."test' (read ABX) has never been
validated
by experiment your retort is censored out because it is "repetitive"
or
"uninteresting" or about ABX or what not. Sullivans and their clones
reign supreme there. The gagged opposition left one by one- gentle
Harry Lavo the last survivor.

There are others there who are simpatico :-)

Indeed...there always are.
These days there's almost always debate there about some *inventive*
model of audio reality that Jenn and other subjectivists have offered.

Yep, that's me; always inventing some reality or another. Go figure. I
just wish that I could remember inventing some reality; it sounds like
it could be interesting.

Do you have a perceptual tic that precludes you from cognitively
registering the word 'model'?

No. I simply don't know of any realities that I've invented.

But do you 'know of' the models of audio reality you've offered on RAHE? Because
if not, it would mean you aren't reading what you write there. Which would
explain a lot, actually.


*THAT* would be more interesting
than the suppositional horses you flog over on RAHE.

LOL Such as?

Oh dear...so, waht *do* you imagine you've been writing over there?
News reports?



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
Can those apparently few people who use this Newsgroup just
for
matters
Audio advise me if there is a "more" appropriate newsgroup
for
dealing
with Audio queries ao running down the subject matter of
"most"
of
the
posts leads me to believe that this NG is for anything and
everything
except serious Audio buffs.
I do hope this post attracts those who are prepared to
advise
but
no
doubt some people will take offence at the tenure of my
remarks, I
assure you no offence is intended, I just want some
loudspeaker
advice
but feel from the subject matter of some of the posts I may
be
in
the
wrong place.
--
Derrick

By now it was demonstraded to you beyond any doubt what a
"serious
newsgroup" doea no look like.
Go to "www.Audio Asylum.com" The DBT discussion is banned,
moderator
rejects profanity, people argue about equipment and discuss
their
experience. You'll soon know who you feel deserves to be
listened
to.
Ludovic Mirabel


Audio Asylum is nothing if not aptly-named. And I'm pretty sure
I
saw
Sam
Tellig calling
someone *profane* names there recently. (DBT discussion was
only
banned
in
the cable section
last time I looked..has there been a forum-wide putsch there
since?)
It's
hardly the haven of
reason and civil discourse Derrick seems to seek.

If you want no-nonsense discussion of audio and audio
perception --
claims
of the 'I heard a
difference therefore it is real" type are actually against its
terms of
service, as are
flamewars and profanity -- try www.hydrogenaudio.org. For a
pro
audio
perspective , seek out
the www.prosoundweb forums or rec.audio.pro or rec.audio.tech.
www.audioholics.com also
has some very good articles on no-nonsense audio, and a pretty
good
and
lively forum. And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's
nightmare.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
.And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's
nightmare.

And naturally Sullivan's delight He can spout there at will
without
fear of contradiction. No need to take shelter in his dodge of
"killfiling" whenever the going gets too hot. The RAHE
engineer-moderator does his job for him. He hypocritically
proclaimed
ban on ABX debate. This allows RAHE to post all the subtle
cryptonyms
like: "Prove by a bias-free test that your impressions are real".
If
one says that the bias-free."test' (read ABX) has never been
validated
by experiment your retort is censored out because it is
"repetitive"
or
"uninteresting" or about ABX or what not. Sullivans and their
clones
reign supreme there. The gagged opposition left one by one-
gentle
Harry Lavo the last survivor.

There are others there who are simpatico :-)

Indeed...there always are.
These days there's almost always debate there about some *inventive*
model of audio reality that Jenn and other subjectivists have
offered.

Yep, that's me; always inventing some reality or another. Go figure.
I
just wish that I could remember inventing some reality; it sounds like
it could be interesting.

Do you have a perceptual tic that precludes you from cognitively
registering the word 'model'?

No. I simply don't know of any realities that I've invented.

But do you 'know of' the models of audio reality you've offered on RAHE?


All I "know" are my opinions on how equipment sounds to me, i.e. my
opinions, and I "know" the sound of live acoustic music because
listening to it is how I make my living, hence I'm highly practiced in
the details of the sound of actual instruments and actual acoustic
spaces. Is this what you mean by "audio realities"? If so, guilty as
charged, I guess.

Because
if not, it would mean you aren't reading what you write there. Which would
explain a lot, actually.

Yawn.



*THAT* would be more interesting
than the suppositional horses you flog over on RAHE.

LOL Such as?

Oh dear...so, waht *do* you imagine you've been writing over there?
News reports?

Pretty much, yes. I report my opinions on what I hear.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...


All I "know" are my opinions on how equipment sounds to me, i.e. my
opinions, and I "know" the sound of live acoustic music because
listening to it is how I make my living, hence I'm highly practiced in
the details of the sound of actual instruments and actual acoustic
spaces. Is this what you mean by "audio realities"? If so, guilty as
charged, I guess.

No, audio realities are ABX torture rituals, and ABX torture rituals alone.
Nothing else will do.

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
Can those apparently few people who use this Newsgroup just
for
matters
Audio advise me if there is a "more" appropriate newsgroup
for
dealing
with Audio queries ao running down the subject matter of
"most"
of
the
posts leads me to believe that this NG is for anything and
everything
except serious Audio buffs.
I do hope this post attracts those who are prepared to
advise
but
no
doubt some people will take offence at the tenure of my
remarks, I
assure you no offence is intended, I just want some
loudspeaker
advice
but feel from the subject matter of some of the posts I may
be
in
the
wrong place.
--
Derrick

By now it was demonstraded to you beyond any doubt what a
"serious
newsgroup" doea no look like.
Go to "www.Audio Asylum.com" The DBT discussion is banned,
moderator
rejects profanity, people argue about equipment and discuss
their
experience. You'll soon know who you feel deserves to be
listened
to.
Ludovic Mirabel


Audio Asylum is nothing if not aptly-named. And I'm pretty sure
I
saw
Sam
Tellig calling
someone *profane* names there recently. (DBT discussion was
only
banned
in
the cable section
last time I looked..has there been a forum-wide putsch there
since?)
It's
hardly the haven of
reason and civil discourse Derrick seems to seek.

If you want no-nonsense discussion of audio and audio
perception --
claims
of the 'I heard a
difference therefore it is real" type are actually against its
terms of
service, as are
flamewars and profanity -- try www.hydrogenaudio.org. For a
pro
audio
perspective , seek out
the www.prosoundweb forums or rec.audio.pro or rec.audio.tech.
www.audioholics.com also
has some very good articles on no-nonsense audio, and a pretty
good
and
lively forum. And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's
nightmare.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
.And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's
nightmare.

And naturally Sullivan's delight He can spout there at will
without
fear of contradiction. No need to take shelter in his dodge of
"killfiling" whenever the going gets too hot. The RAHE
engineer-moderator does his job for him. He hypocritically
proclaimed
ban on ABX debate. This allows RAHE to post all the subtle
cryptonyms
like: "Prove by a bias-free test that your impressions are real".
If
one says that the bias-free."test' (read ABX) has never been
validated
by experiment your retort is censored out because it is
"repetitive"
or
"uninteresting" or about ABX or what not. Sullivans and their
clones
reign supreme there. The gagged opposition left one by one-
gentle
Harry Lavo the last survivor.

There are others there who are simpatico :-)

Indeed...there always are.
These days there's almost always debate there about some *inventive*
model of audio reality that Jenn and other subjectivists have
offered.

Yep, that's me; always inventing some reality or another. Go figure.
I
just wish that I could remember inventing some reality; it sounds like
it could be interesting.

Do you have a perceptual tic that precludes you from cognitively
registering the word 'model'?

No. I simply don't know of any realities that I've invented.

But do you 'know of' the models of audio reality you've offered on RAHE?


All I "know" are my opinions on how equipment sounds to me, i.e. my
opinions, and I "know" the sound of live acoustic music because
listening to it is how I make my living, hence I'm highly practiced in
the details of the sound of actual instruments and actual acoustic
spaces. Is this what you mean by "audio realities"? If so, guilty as
charged, I guess.

Because
if not, it would mean you aren't reading what you write there. Which would
explain a lot, actually.

Yawn.



*THAT* would be more interesting
than the suppositional horses you flog over on RAHE.

LOL Such as?

Oh dear...so, waht *do* you imagine you've been writing over there?
News reports?

Pretty much, yes. I report my opinions on what I hear.
----------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says: " Oh dear...so, waht *do* you imagine you've been
writing over there?
News reports?
Jenn answers:
Pretty much, yes. I report my opinions on what I hear.

How unscientific can you be? Don't you follow distilled wisdom and
"realities" dispensed daily on RAO and RAHE? Don't you know what
contribution "science" would make to your appreciation of audio and
your way of conducting? Shame on you.
Ludovic Mirabel