[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

SACD and DVD remain numbers for the sake of numbers.

It's too bad that they did not or could not have come out
with, like, a 88.2kHz stereo format, 16 bits (or maybe
more just for marketing's sake) that would play
transparently on existing players. And for God's sake
AGREE ON THE STANDARD.

You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard that
is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music.

In your opinion. Which, in this case, I tend to agree with. So, I do
"get it", apparently...

However I must admit that I wouldn't mind some (more) "overkill" in
regards to the bandwidth, just to "be sure", and to put all the debate
to rest.

Hell, 50 years from now there's going to be usenet flame wars over
whether 22kHz is enough bandwidth or not.

Between the complexity and cost of proper "surround
sound", and the competing standards...

The audio industry needs to solve actual problems, not made-up ones like
these. SACD and DVD-A are solutions looking for a problem.

Well, the surround-sound thing is not actually a bad idea... It's
just complex and expensive to do right, and not only from the
consumer's POV.

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Time for a new machine, Arny. On my hardly SOTA Athlon
3800 machine, the graphics take all of about three
seconds to appear.

I would hardly call an Athlon 3800+ even "hardly SOTA",

Who cares what you would call it? He did, quite
appropriately, call it "hardly SOTA".

It's not SOTA or anywhere's near.

Which makes his "my hardly SOTA Athlon" statement quite appropriate.
Why on God's green Earth would you nit-pick it? It's fine. Are we
speaking the same English language, Arny?

It is a commodity computer, pure and simple.

Just because you can produce examples of synonymous words or phrases
does not make what he said inappropriate, Arny.

[Harry Lavo]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 06:49:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message
m
Arny Krueger wrote:

SACD and DVD remain numbers for the sake of numbers.

It's too bad that they did not or could not have come out
with, like, a 88.2kHz stereo format, 16 bits (or maybe
more just for marketing's sake) that would play
transparently on existing players. And for God's sake
AGREE ON THE STANDARD.

You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard
that
is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music.

If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded us again
about your own system. If we knew what it was we could all get one the
same and get the same enjoyment from ordinary CDs that you appear to.

Between soldering jobs, I mean.

Well, we could duplicate his system, but duplicating his (tin) ears might be
more difficult.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message


You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have
the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full
power and glory of music.

If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded
us again about your own system.

Why would that be relevant?

If we knew what it was we
could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment
from ordinary CDs that you appear to.

When did I say that ordinary CDs are guaranteed to provide you with the
satisfaction that you apparently want from recordings?

I never did. I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples
aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry
think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they did,
and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy enough for
Harry to provide reliable proof of it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 06:49:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

SACD and DVD remain numbers for the sake of numbers.

It's too bad that they did not or could not have come
out with, like, a 88.2kHz stereo format, 16 bits (or
maybe more just for marketing's sake) that would play
transparently on existing players. And for God's sake
AGREE ON THE STANDARD.

You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have
the CD standard that
is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of
music.

If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded
us again about your own system. If we knew what it was
we could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment
from ordinary CDs that you appear to. Between soldering jobs, I mean.

Well, we could duplicate his system, but duplicating his
(tin) ears might be more difficult.

Harry, if the difference is so clear, why can't you provide a reliable
example of it?

[Harry Lavo]

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


You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have
the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full
power and glory of music.

If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded
us again about your own system.

Why would that be relevant?

If we knew what it was we
could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment
from ordinary CDs that you appear to.

When did I say that ordinary CDs are guaranteed to provide you with the
satisfaction that you apparently want from recordings?

I never did. I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples
aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry
think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they
did, and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy
enough for Harry to provide reliable proof of it.

When is it going to become clear to you Arny that I have no interest in
providing "proof" to anybody. I hear it, I enjoy it, I urge others to try
it in the belief that they too will hear and enjoy it. It is for making
musical enjoyment more so. It is for making hobbiest enjoyment more so. It
does not require "proof".

If you require proof, go prove it, or prove it negatively yourself. You
have never done a test of DVD-A or SACD. You were badmouthing SACD before
you had ever heard it, based on your engineering "knowledge". The worst of
expectation bias. You don't believe it, fine, shut up and let others form
their own opinion. If you want to yap on, then do some scientific
experiments yourself that others can peer review and find solid....then
talk.

[Harry Lavo]

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

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 06:49:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

SACD and DVD remain numbers for the sake of numbers.

It's too bad that they did not or could not have come
out with, like, a 88.2kHz stereo format, 16 bits (or
maybe more just for marketing's sake) that would play
transparently on existing players. And for God's sake
AGREE ON THE STANDARD.

You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have
the CD standard that
is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of
music.

If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded
us again about your own system. If we knew what it was
we could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment
from ordinary CDs that you appear to. Between soldering jobs, I mean.

Well, we could duplicate his system, but duplicating his
(tin) ears might be more difficult.

Harry, if the difference is so clear, why can't you provide a reliable
example of it?

I have Arny Because I have taken the time to listen critically and with a
carefully controlled set of sources, and have described what I hear, Arny.
And that is good enough for me. And after four years, I still hear it and
it still enhances my musical enjoyment. And I am not alone...countless
others hear the same thing and enjoy it as well.

You've been deriding SACD from before you ever heard it Arny. The worst
kind of expectation bias. Either that, or a very tin ear.

[George M. Middius[_2_]]

Harry Lavo said:

Well, we could duplicate his system, but duplicating his (tin) ears might be
more difficult.

Difficult? I guarantee you don't want to go there.

http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RA...rooger_ear.jpg



--


Krooscience: the antidote to education, experience, and excellence

[paul packer]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have
the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full
power and glory of music.

If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded
us again about your own system.

Why would that be relevant?

If we knew what it was we
could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment
from ordinary CDs that you appear to.

When did I say that ordinary CDs are guaranteed to provide you with the
satisfaction that you apparently want from recordings?

I never did. I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples
aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry
think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they did,
and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy enough for
Harry to provide reliable proof of it.

But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however powerful
Harry's proof. That's why we want to hear about your system.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:26:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



While on the other hand, you relish suffering indignity.

What indignity - having some dogs bark at me? LOL!

Posting on RAO keeps me in practice for suffering fools.

Keeps your debating trade skills sharp too. That's important, Arny.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger a scris:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
ps.com
Signal a scris:
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

(quote from response to post by the late Stewart
Pinkerton)

Did he really die?


I was told he did, and he has not posted since. I
don't know for sure.

A poster on uk.rec.audio said he had contact with
Stewart after he stopped posting and he was OK, but
that was some time ago.

maye he is just on an extended binge.

More likely, Pinky is doing what any number of old
regulars like JJ have done - take advantage of a
transition in life to break free of the RAO habit. He is
no longer suffering the indignity of being associated in
any way with the Middiot and his clique of no-brains.

While on the other hand, you relish suffering indignity.

What indignity - having some dogs bark at me? LOL!

The so called indignity you just pointed out in your previous post.


Posting on RAO keeps me in practice for suffering fools.

I am glad that we are able to assist you in dealing
with your mryiad everyday problems in dealing
with the rest of humanity. At any rate, I
thought you weren't going
to bring your family into RAO discussions.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 06:50:25 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Time for a new machine, Arny. On my hardly SOTA Athlon
3800 machine, the graphics take all of about three
seconds to appear.

I would hardly call an Athlon 3800+ even "hardly SOTA",

Who cares what you would call it? He did, quite
appropriately, call it "hardly SOTA".

It's not SOTA or anywhere's near. It is a commodity computer, pure and
simple.

It would be helpful if Arnold understood the English language.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:18:22 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Signal a scris:
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

(quote from response to post by the late Stewart
Pinkerton)

Did he really die?


I was told he did, and he has not posted since. I
don't know for sure.

A poster on uk.rec.audio said he had contact with
Stewart after he stopped posting and he was OK, but that
was some time ago.

maye he is just on an extended binge.

More likely, Pinky is doing what any number of old regulars like JJ have
done - take advantage of a transition in life to break free of the RAO
habit. He is no longer suffering the indignity of being associated in any
way with the Middiot and his clique of no-brains.

Ahhh, now we get to the root of Arnold's pathology.

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

SACD and DVD remain numbers for the sake of numbers.

It's too bad that they did not or could not have come
out with, like, a 88.2kHz stereo format, 16 bits (or
maybe more just for marketing's sake) that would play
transparently on existing players. And for God's sake
AGREE ON THE STANDARD.

You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have
the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full
power and glory of music.

In your opinion.

Well that, but also as a easily demonstrable scientific fact.


Which, in this case, I tend to agree
with. So, I do "get it", apparently...

However I must admit that I wouldn't mind some (more)
"overkill" in regards to the bandwidth, just to "be
sure", and to put all the debate to rest.

There is already plenty of overkill in place. 16 KHz is the point where SQ
starts going away, as a general rule.

Hell, 50 years from now there's going to be usenet flame
wars over whether 22kHz is enough bandwidth or not.

There has been no reason to argue the point for at least 5 years. It is easy
to make musical recordings 24/96 and more recently 24/192 and compare them
carefully with the identical same music at 44/16. . Heck, even a duffer like
Harry has the ability to do a proper test.

Between the complexity and cost of proper "surround
sound", and the competing standards...

The audio industry needs to solve actual problems, not
made-up ones like these. SACD and DVD-A are solutions
looking for a problem.

Well, the surround-sound thing is not actually a bad
idea... It's just complex and expensive to do right, and
not only from the consumer's POV.

SACD and DVD-A have added nothing of substance to surround.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

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

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 06:49:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

SACD and DVD remain numbers for the sake of numbers.

It's too bad that they did not or could not have come
out with, like, a 88.2kHz stereo format, 16 bits (or
maybe more just for marketing's sake) that would play
transparently on existing players. And for God's
sake AGREE ON THE STANDARD.

You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already
have the CD standard that
is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of
music.

If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you
reminded us again about your own system. If we knew what it was
we could all get one the same and get the same
enjoyment from ordinary CDs that you appear to. Between
soldering jobs, I mean.

Well, we could duplicate his system, but duplicating his
(tin) ears might be more difficult.

Harry, if the difference is so clear, why can't you
provide a reliable example of it?

I have Arny

No you haven't.

Because I have taken the time to listen
critically and with a carefully controlled set of
sources, and have described what I hear, Arny. And that
is good enough for me.

It's not good enough for any thinking person, Harry. OK, you have a
religious faith in high sample rates. So what?

And after four years, I still
hear it and it still enhances my musical enjoyment.

Nahh Harry, you just psych yourself up by reading lists of numbers and
looking at oscilliscope traces. Then you have a few piece of poetry written
by paid shills. That's not how thinking men do things.

And I am not alone...countless others hear the same thing and
enjoy it as well.

Actually the number has been counted by the RIAA and found to be falling
rapidly.

You've been deriding SACD from before you ever heard it Arny.

Bad technology smells from a goodly distance.

The worst kind of expectation bias. Either that, or a very tin ear.

Tell it to the Hydrogen Audio Forum and all the consumers who have throttled
back their purchases related to the high sample rate scam.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

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


You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have
the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the
full power and glory of music.

If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded
us again about your own system.

Why would that be relevant?

If we knew what it was we
could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment
from ordinary CDs that you appear to.

When did I say that ordinary CDs are guaranteed to
provide you with the satisfaction that you apparently
want from recordings? I never did. I'm only saying that higher sample
rates
and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a
few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If
they made the big difference that Harry claims they did,
and if the difference was really all that clear, it
would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof
of it.

When is it going to become clear to you Arny that I have
no interest in providing "proof" to anybody.

It's been perfectly clear to me for years, Harry. I just bring the issue up
and you demonstrate your intellectual bankrupcy, almost on cue.

I hear it,I enjoy it, I urge others to try it in the belief that
they too will hear and enjoy it.

Spoken like a true believer, Harry.

It is for making musical enjoyment more so.

That promise turned out to be a bitter lie. Consumers are abandoning the
DVD-A and SACD hype in droves.

It is for making hobbiest enjoyment more so.

People just want better sound, not pretty scope traces and bigger numbers.

It does not require "proof".

No proof has lead to no sales.

If you require proof, go prove it, or prove it negatively
yourself.

Been there, done that.

You have never done a test of DVD-A or SACD.

Delusions of omnisicence noted.

You were badmouthing SACD before you had ever heard it,
based on your engineering "knowledge".

Harry, the superiority of my technical knowlege about audio over years is
clearly manifest, as you continue to muddle even the basics here on RAO and
over on RAHE. You can't even reliably telll the difference between dynamic
range and bandwidth, but constantly confuse them.

The worst of expectation bias.

Harry, tell it to the guys over on the Hydrogen Audio forum. Tell it to all
the consumers that stopped buy SACD and DVD-A recordings when they turned
out to not fulfill the false promises that were made for them.

You don't believe it, fine, shut up and let others form their own
opinion.

I did that too, Harry when I posted those high bitrate samples over at
www.pcabx.com.

If you want to yap on, then do some scientific experiments yourself that
others can peer review and find solid....then talk.

There's no need for any new experiments because JAES papers done decades ago
still tell it like it is. The absence of reliable contradictory evidence
speaks volumes.

Even Morien is finding out for himself that the noise floor of SACD
recordings is not set by the SACD medium or even by so-called lesser
mediums, but by the venues.

Harry your problem is that my findings being scientific, are predictive of
what people find out for themselves, should they care to investigate the
relevant facts for themselves. Your findings are fantasies.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have
the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the
full power and glory of music.

If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded
us again about your own system.

Why would that be relevant?

If we knew what it was we
could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment
from ordinary CDs that you appear to.

When did I say that ordinary CDs are guaranteed to
provide you with the satisfaction that you apparently
want from recordings?

I never did. I'm only saying that higher sample rates
and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a
few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If
they made the big difference that Harry claims they did,
and if the difference was really all that clear, it
would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof
of it.

But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however
powerful Harry's proof.

I think it would be indicative if Harry would set up an experiment that was
bias controlled and that independent persons could obtain positive outcomes
from. Harry is just trying to make it personal in order to salve his
wounded ego.

That's why we want to hear about your system.

Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving the difference
between SACDs and CDs, if all other things were equal?

Too bad you're not well-informed enough to do some proper listening tests of
your own, Paul.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:26:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



While on the other hand, you relish suffering
indignity.

What indignity - having some dogs bark at me? LOL!

Posting on RAO keeps me in practice for suffering fools.

Keeps your debating trade skills sharp too. That's
important, Arny.

In your dreams, Paul. What keeps me sharp is interacting with real people
in the real world.

[George M. Middius[_2_]]

dave weil said:

It's not SOTA or anywhere's near. It is a commodity computer, pure and
simple.

It would be helpful if Arnold understood the English language.

Understanding is irrelevant. The "debating trade" subsumes all.



--


Krooscience: the antidote to education, experience, and excellence

[George M. Middius[_2_]]

The Krooborg damns itself with its torrents of lies.

In your dreams, Paul. What keeps me sharp is interacting with real people
in the real world.

Are you seriously telling us you consider yourself "sharp"? It's
astonishing how many times you've assured RAO that all the evidence we see
is wrong, and that the reality of your existence is completely different
from what we observe at first-hand.





--


Krooscience: the antidote to education, experience, and excellence

[paul packer]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:34:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have
the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the
full power and glory of music.

If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded
us again about your own system.

Why would that be relevant?

If we knew what it was we
could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment
from ordinary CDs that you appear to.

When did I say that ordinary CDs are guaranteed to
provide you with the satisfaction that you apparently
want from recordings?

I never did. I'm only saying that higher sample rates
and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a
few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If
they made the big difference that Harry claims they did,
and if the difference was really all that clear, it
would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof
of it.

But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however
powerful Harry's proof.

I think it would be indicative if Harry would set up an experiment that was
bias controlled and that independent persons could obtain positive outcomes
from. Harry is just trying to make it personal in order to salve his
wounded ego.

So it's Harry who has a wounded ego, eh?

That's why we want to hear about your system.

Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving the difference
between SACDs and CDs, if all other things were equal?

Your 580s may, but can your ears? You took a dislike to SACD and DVD-A
from the start; can we now trust you to be bias free?

Too bad you're not well-informed enough to do some proper listening tests of
your own, Paul.

Why do I have to be "well-informed" to do proper listening tests? If
you like to send me examples of CDs and SACD or DVD-A equivalents I'll
be happy to do comparisons--in stereo only, of course. I now have
HD650s, so should be able to pick any differences that exist.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:35:28 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:26:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



While on the other hand, you relish suffering
indignity.

What indignity - having some dogs bark at me? LOL!

Posting on RAO keeps me in practice for suffering fools.

Keeps your debating trade skills sharp too. That's
important, Arny.

In your dreams, Paul.

I don't dream about you at all, Arnie.

What keeps me sharp is interacting with real people in the real world.

No, I think the real world is not your preferred milieu. I think
you're much happier on Usenet lecturing us on our failings from your
virtual lectern.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:59:58 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 22:49:08 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
news

Robert said:

Far be in for me to correct someone's grammar (Hi, George!), but
shouldn't that be .."lack of interest from the young?"

No, but if your interpretation of Robert's bizarre locution is
accurate,
it should be "among the young" or "by the young".

I find myself slipping. But if no one reads my posts, why should I?

Are you saying mr. packer is "no one"?

Paul is just a dr... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Hmmm...what am I to make of that?

Ehhh? What? What's happening? Did somebody say something?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Have you been swilling beer and ogling the neighbours again, Robert?
:-)

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:34:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I'm only saying that higher sample rates
and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a
few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If
they made the big difference that Harry claims they
did, and if the difference was really all that clear,
it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable
proof of it.

But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however
powerful Harry's proof.

That's why we want to hear about your system.

Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving
the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other
things were equal?

Your 580s may, but can your ears?

Thanks for contradicting yourself Paul. First you say that my system is
all-important. I tell you what my system is and it makes no difference, you
just turn around and attack me.

Furthermore Paul, you're just playing stupid. You have known for a long time
that I have a pair of 580s and use them for critical listening.

So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over
their with your good buddy the Middiot.

[ScottW]

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

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:34:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I'm only saying that higher sample rates
and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a
few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If
they made the big difference that Harry claims they
did, and if the difference was really all that clear,
it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable
proof of it.

But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however
powerful Harry's proof.

That's why we want to hear about your system.

Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving
the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other
things were equal?

Your 580s may, but can your ears?

Thanks for contradicting yourself Paul. First you say that my system is
all-important. I tell you what my system is and it makes no difference, you
just turn around and attack me.

Furthermore Paul, you're just playing stupid. You have known for a long time
that I have a pair of 580s and use them for critical listening.

So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over their
with your good buddy the Middiot.

Ouch....Paulie got a timeout.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 10, 9:55 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over
their with your good buddy the Middiot.

While you, Arns, need to go stand with your "good buddy" ...

....

....

I'm sure you have one somewhere. Maybe your wife will stand with you
if you stop beating her.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:55:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:34:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I'm only saying that higher sample rates
and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a
few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If
they made the big difference that Harry claims they
did, and if the difference was really all that clear,
it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable
proof of it.

But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however
powerful Harry's proof.

That's why we want to hear about your system.

Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving
the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other
things were equal?

Your 580s may, but can your ears?

Thanks for contradicting yourself Paul. First you say that my system is
all-important. I tell you what my system is and it makes no difference, you
just turn around and attack me.

Firstly, when did I say your system was "all important"? I said we'd
like to know what your system is--but whatever it is, it doesn't rule
out the possibility of personal bias. Secondly, I did not attack you.
This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where there
are none. What I did do was point out that you've had a bias against
SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so are unlikely to judge them
fairly. This is not an attack. An attack is:

"ARNOLD, YOU GREAT CRETIN!!! F**KING wake up to yourself, S**THEAD!!"

That's an attack. See the difference?

Furthermore Paul, you're just playing stupid. You have known for a long time
that I have a pair of 580s and use them for critical listening.

Pardon my memory. I was not consciously aware of it, no.

So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over
their with your good buddy the Middiot.

Why should I stand with someone I disagree with most of the time. Why
would you wish me to?

BTW, I'd better point out before George does that "their" should be
"there".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 10, 6:48 pm, (paul packer) wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:55:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over
their with your good buddy the Middiot.

Why should I stand with someone I disagree with most of the time. Why
would you wish me to?

The gig's up, Paul.

Good old Arns has figured out that if you disagree with him on any
point, you are part of the Konspiracy. There's no use denying it. And
good old Arns has also figured out who controls everybody.

[Jenn]

In article .com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Mar 10, 6:48 pm, (paul packer) wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:55:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over
their with your good buddy the Middiot.

Why should I stand with someone I disagree with most of the time. Why
would you wish me to?

The gig's up, Paul.

Good old Arns has figured out that if you disagree with him on any
point, you are part of the Konspiracy.

He evidently had that figured out from at least the time of my arrival
here.

[George M. Middius[_2_]]

paul packer said:

So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over
their with your good buddy the Middiot.

Why should I stand with someone I disagree with most of the time. Why
would you wish me to?

Poor widdle Kwooborg is konfused again. Actually, Mr. **** has admitted
several times that he's too insane to distinguish the writing styles of
all the Normals.

BTW, I'd better point out before George does that "their" should be
"there".

Did you like my pic of Krooger kleaning his ears? ;-)





--


Krooscience: the antidote to education, experience, and excellence

[George M. Middius[_2_]]

Jenn said:

Good old Arns has figured out that if you disagree with him on any
point, you are part of the Konspiracy.

He evidently had that figured out from at least the time of my arrival
here.

Krooger likes to enemize Normals preemptively. Better sorry than safe.





--


Krooscience: the antidote to education, experience, and excellence

[ScottW]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:55:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:34:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I'm only saying that higher sample rates
and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a
few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If
they made the big difference that Harry claims they
did, and if the difference was really all that clear,
it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable
proof of it.

But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however
powerful Harry's proof.

That's why we want to hear about your system.

Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving
the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other
things were equal?

Your 580s may, but can your ears?

Thanks for contradicting yourself Paul. First you say that my system is
all-important. I tell you what my system is and it makes no difference, you
just turn around and attack me.

Firstly, when did I say your system was "all important"? I said we'd
like to know what your system is--but whatever it is, it doesn't rule
out the possibility of personal bias. Secondly, I did not attack you.

What was the ear crack all about? I think that's where he perceived
an attack.

This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where there
are none. What I did do was point out that you've had a bias against
SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so are unlikely to judge them
fairly. This is not an attack. An attack is:

"ARNOLD, YOU GREAT CRETIN!!! F**KING wake up to yourself, S**THEAD!!"

Those are just unsubstantiated insults with as much attack value
as intellectual content, i.e., none.
Those are as more flags of surrender than attacks.
Sssshhhhie waves them constantly.
You might have noticed a half hearted wave in your direction
from time to time.


That's an attack. See the difference?

Furthermore Paul, you're just playing stupid. You have known for a long time
that I have a pair of 580s and use them for critical listening.

Pardon my memory. I was not consciously aware of it, no.

So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over
their with your good buddy the Middiot.

Why should I stand with someone I disagree with most of the time. Why
would you wish me to?

It's ok...Middiot will accept you no matter what as long as he thinks
you despise Arny.....unless you're Trotsky. Not sure what pushed
the old Middiot over the edge on that one, but he sure imploded
over something.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 10, 7:54 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message

This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where there
are none. What I did do was point out that you've had a bias against
SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so are unlikely to judge them
fairly. This is not an attack. An attack is:

"ARNOLD, YOU GREAT CRETIN!!! F**KING wake up to yourself, S**THEAD!!"

Those are just unsubstantiated insults with as much attack value
as intellectual content, i.e., none.
Those are as more flags of surrender than attacks.
Sssshhhhie waves them constantly.

Blind as well as dumb. You're so dumb you don't even realize when you
get your ass handed to you. LOL!

Are you going for the trifecta, toopid? Shall we get on-topic and
discuss why it appears that you're probably deaf, too? LOL!

You might have noticed a half hearted wave in your direction
from time to time.

But you haven't noticed, as you don't read my posts.

Remember?

Imbecile.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 10, 7:54 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message

This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where there
are none. What I did do was point out that you've had a bias against
SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so are unlikely to judge them
fairly. This is not an attack. An attack is:

"ARNOLD, YOU GREAT CRETIN!!! F**KING wake up to yourself, S**THEAD!!"

Those are just unsubstantiated insults with as much attack value
as intellectual content, i.e., none.
Those are as more flags of surrender than attacks.
Sssshhhhie waves them constantly.

Blind as well as dumb. You're so dumb you don't even realize when you
get your ass handed to you. LOL!

Where's the beef?

Are you going for the trifecta, toopid? Shall we get on-topic and
discuss why it appears that you're probably deaf, too? LOL!

I'm sure that would be on-topic. An ass in the twilight zone
is no less an ass in the audio zone.

You might have noticed a half hearted wave in your direction
from time to time.

But you haven't noticed, as you don't read my posts.

On occasion I do, but I always regret the wasted time.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 10, 9:00 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com...





On Mar 10, 7:54 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message

This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where there
are none. What I did do was point out that you've had a bias against
SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so are unlikely to judge them
fairly. This is not an attack. An attack is:

"ARNOLD, YOU GREAT CRETIN!!! F**KING wake up to yourself, S**THEAD!!"

Those are just unsubstantiated insults with as much attack value
as intellectual content, i.e., none.
Those are as more flags of surrender than attacks.
Sssshhhhie waves them constantly.

Blind as well as dumb. You're so dumb you don't even realize when you
get your ass handed to you. LOL!

Where's the beef?

As I said... LOL!

Are you going for the trifecta, toopid? Shall we get on-topic and
discuss why it appears that you're probably deaf, too? LOL!

I'm sure that would be on-topic. An ass in the twilight zone
is no less an ass in the audio zone.

Referring to the "audio zone" is a funny thing for someone who visits
there as infrequently as you do, toopid.

However, an imbecile on RAO is quite likely an imbecile outside of it,
too. Are you seriously suggesting that you don't realize how stupid
you are?

toopid, I cannot help that your 'brain' doesn't appear to function
very well. I cannot help that you try to appear smart, when you
apparently have physical or other deficiencies that make that
impossible. And I certainly cannot help that you are far too stupid to
see what an ass everybody makes of you. While that's a curious thing,
it is very funny to watch.

Don't you ever stop and wonder why everybody laughs at you?

You might have noticed a half hearted wave in your direction
from time to time.

But you haven't noticed, as you don't read my posts.

On occasion I do, but I always regret the wasted time.

Then why not just stop, toopid?

BTW, what is it again that you bring to this party?

Avoid, avoid, avoid...

Imbecile.

[George M. Middius[_2_]]

Shhhh! said:

However, an imbecile on RAO is quite likely an imbecile outside of it,
too. Are you seriously suggesting that you don't realize how stupid
you are?

I believe Scottie is still in need of an explanation about that. All those
times he's complained about us not explaining what's stupid about what he
said? He meant it. Every time.





--


Krooscience: the antidote to education, experience, and excellence

[paul packer]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:54:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving
the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other
things were equal?

Your 580s may, but can your ears?

Thanks for contradicting yourself Paul. First you say that my system is
all-important. I tell you what my system is and it makes no difference, you
just turn around and attack me.

Firstly, when did I say your system was "all important"? I said we'd
like to know what your system is--but whatever it is, it doesn't rule
out the possibility of personal bias. Secondly, I did not attack you.

What was the ear crack all about? I think that's where he perceived
an attack.

I was simply remarking that we have no way of assessing the acuity of
Arnold's hearing. He's not young, you know. In fact he's an old
codger.

This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where there
are none. What I did do was point out that you've had a bias against
SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so are unlikely to judge them
fairly. This is not an attack. An attack is:

"ARNOLD, YOU GREAT CRETIN!!! F**KING wake up to yourself, S**THEAD!!"

Those are just unsubstantiated insults with as much attack value
as intellectual content, i.e., none.

They would be, if serious, a statement of opinion. With of course a
helpful direction for self-improvement. They have as much intellectual
content as your debates with Shhhh!


Those are as more flags of surrender than attacks.
Sssshhhhie waves them constantly.
You might have noticed a half hearted wave in your direction
from time to time.

I've just finished watching "Planet Earth", and it appears that a
number of creatures wave half heartedly in the direction of other
creatures for no apparent reason. The wise creatures ignore it.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:31:41 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



paul packer said:

So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over
their with your good buddy the Middiot.

Why should I stand with someone I disagree with most of the time. Why
would you wish me to?

Poor widdle Kwooborg is konfused again. Actually, Mr. **** has admitted
several times that he's too insane to distinguish the writing styles of
all the Normals.

BTW, I'd better point out before George does that "their" should be
"there".

Did you like my pic of Krooger kleaning his ears? ;-)

Er...think that got by me.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:55:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:34:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I'm only saying that higher sample rates
and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that
only a few highly mislead people like Harry think
they are. If they made the big difference that Harry
claims they did, and if the difference was really
all that clear, it would be easy enough for Harry to
provide reliable proof of it.

But it might not be so easy for you to detect it
however powerful Harry's proof.

That's why we want to hear about your system.

Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving
the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other
things were equal?

Your 580s may, but can your ears?

Thanks for contradicting yourself Paul. First you say
that my system is all-important. I tell you what my
system is and it makes no difference, you just turn
around and attack me.

Firstly, when did I say your system was "all important"?

OK, so my system is unimportant, so unimportant that you can't remember what
is it, even though we've discussed it many times.

I said we'd like to know what your system is--but
whatever it is, it doesn't rule out the possibility of
personal bias.

So here's the strategy for your attempt to humiliate me Paul:

(1) Make a big play out of what my system is, even though you know what it
is.

(2) Once you get your weak mind refreshed as to what my system is, then move
on to a criticism of my hearing abilities. This is just as stupid as item
(1) because many of the things I say about audibilty weren't established
with just my ears. They have been established with the ears of dozens if not
hundreds of people.

(3) Once you've made your attack on my hearing, then accuse me of being
hopelessly biased.

Secondly, I did not attack you.

Sure you did, Paul. You said that my system was so poor that it had to be
exposed. You slandered me by questioning my judgment. In fact its your
judgment that is hopelessly bollixed up, Paul.

This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where
there are none.

No, the real problem Paul is that you're eggriously stupid. You've got a
memory of vanishing duration. Your logic is hopelessly poor. You are an easy
mark for snake oil artists.

What I did do was point out that you've
had a bias against SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so
are unlikely to judge them fairly.

More slander. The fact of the matter is that the principles of hearing,
psychoacoustics, and recording technology that explain why these
technologies can't work were well-known long before SACD and DVD-A were ever
mentioned. Sue me for being well-informed enough to know them.

And, the fact that so-called audio eggspurts like Atkinson didn't know these
sorts of things up front and didn't debunk this crap before people wasted
millions of dollars on it is a testimonial to how ignorant they are. Either
that, or they did know, but were afraid to tell the truth, or had too much
money to lose by telling the truth up front. Pick the explanation of your
choice.

It's not bias to believe that energy is conserved, that water flows down
hill, and that electrons have a negative charge. It's just a matter of
having appropriate scientific knowledge.

It is no coincidence Paul that you don't know why the DVD-A and SACD formats
can't possibly deliver improved SQ. You are a study in well-practiced
ignorance. Every time you heard something in school about science, you must
have turned your mind off.

It's one thing to simply not be interested and stay ignorant. It's another
thing to accuse people who know far better than you of being biased. You're
a hopeless study in arrogance, Paul. That's what makes you like the Middiot.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message


He evidently had that figured out from at least the time
of my arrival here.

People who are sufficiently arrogant and ignorant exude it in the form of a
sort of a smell that exudes from their posts. Any time I need to refresh my
sense for it, I just read a post by the Middiot or ****R.