Clyde Slick said:

Even in my youmger days, I wasn't fast enough
to run away from a Krueger snot storm.

Mikey just told us that Arnii isn't snotty, he's "supremely confident".
And Mikey is RAO's acknowledged eckthpurt on all things related to
boogers, so he should know. Unless, of course, his interpretation of
****borg's behavior is an "anamoly", whatever that is.



John Atkinson's parable for dealing with 'borgs: the man with limited or
no experience is more confident of his knowledge than the man _with_ such
experience.

Clyde Slick said:

I was talking about Cindy Sheehan, who is trying to shame
the president into acting honorably.

Abandoning millions to Sadamists and violent Islamists is
NOT honorable.

Is that what Ms. Sheehan is lobbying for? I must have missed it.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:22:31 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:54:31 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:40:23 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news

I'm aware of Volvo's reputation in this regard - another line that one
would hardly call "cutting edge performance").


Well they do have a 4WD wagon with 2.5 liter inline 5 that produces 300
hp
which incidentally amounts to more per liter than the BMW and Audi
Pinkerton
was blathering about.

Shame you don't know much about cars. We were discussing *normally
aspirated* engines, not puffers.

Irrelevant. I was discussing *cutting edge performance*. Shame you're too
wasted to get it.

Shame then that you snipped my reference to the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO
IX FQ400, a stock vehicle with 200 BHP per litre.

Note that *cutting edge performance* is represented almost exclusively
by normally aspirated engines.

Horse****!

I believe the Brazilians find cow**** a more productive way of
generating biodiesel......

Exhausted puffers are generally just a
cheap way of plugging the gap to the proper top of the range models.
Note that BMW don't have *any* puffers of any kind, while the latest
generation of 'cutting edge' sports saloons from Audi and Mercedes use
normally-aspirated V8s,

More horse****. The SLR and the 55's and 65's are not normally aspirated.
Neither is the Audi RS6.

The SLR is not a saloon, the C55 and E55 *are* normally aspirated, the
others are supercharged rather than turbocharged, and the RS6 is no
longer made. The *new* engines are high-revving normally aspirated
units, which is also true of the latest AMG engines. Note also that
AMG is *not* Mercedes, it's an associated tuning company.

revving to more than 8,000 rpm in the new Audi
RS4. And you certainly don't see Aston Martin, Lamborghini, or Ferrari
using anything but normally aspirated motors. Porsche of course have
always had their Turbo available to frighten the unwary customer, but
their 'cutting edge' GT3 model is normally aspirated.

Yet more horse****. Carrera GT is the cutting edge, you drunken moron.

And it has a normally aspirated engine, you stupid old queen.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:52:13 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
roups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.opinion wrote:
Let us hope that the lady patiently waiting in
the ditch in Crawford, TX has more success.

I had no idea that anyone in Crawford, much less a whore in a
ditch, cared about anything related to science.

I was talking about Cindy Sheehan, who is trying to shame
the president into acting honorably.


Abandoning millions to Sadamists and violent Islamists is
NOT honorable.

Horse****, there was *zero* terorism in Iraq before the last slaughter
(you couldn't call it a war), and Saddam was only there because George
Senior lacked the balls to follow through in the first conflict.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:47:33 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:




snip


I confess I have a veritable hive of confusions about this whole ABX
thing. Firstly, I don't understand why A/Bing never seems to show up
any but the grossest differences; I only know it doesn't. How do I
know that? Because I only have to play one 5 minute track off any CD
through the two components in question to easily perceive the
difference--the difference that was not at all apparent on A/B
switching. Which brings me to my next confusion: how do the proponents
of A/Bing explain this phenomenon? Do they ever move on to Step 2, and
if so, and assuming they actually hear a difference, do they then say,
"This must be imagined, or it would have shown up on A/Bing".

Yes, that is exactly what they say. Of course, this can be true. But they
go beond that...they claim any sighted difference *IS* the result of
imagination. They thus leave science (and common sense) and enter the realm
of propaganda for their cause.

Also,
how do they explain electronic design? I mean, if one amp is designed
one way, fastidiously using the best components, and another uses any
old components in a nevertheless competent fashion to arrive at
similar distortion and noise figures, are the A/Bers saying there
cannot be any audible difference given the figures, and if so, then
what is the point of manufacturers making top grade components like
Black Gate etc, or audio designers attempting to achieve the best
sound BEYOND the noise and distortion figures? Or is that all
audiophool mumbo jumbo?

Good. Chung has a product for you. He (one of the EE's on RAHE) has
insisted that if a component is spec'd properly for it's place in the
circuit, then all components meeting that spec will sound the same, and
anybody who feels differently is either misguided or a charlatan. Moreover,
he says that "listening in" a piece of equipment is a high-end charade, and
that good circuit design plus a "confirming listen" to make sure all is well
is what real engineers do.

Of course, he can't explain why my Onkyo preamp, with actually superior
"specs" for the most part, sounds far less "real" in my system thtn does my
Audio Research preamp. I haven't done an ABX, so of course my "claim" can't
be taken seriously. Sometimes this argument gets so laughable on its face
that one just needs to walk away for awhile.


For myself I'm a cheapskate. I'd prefer to
believe that the cheapest items are as good as the other sort given
similar specs; unfortunately my ears too often, though not always,
tell me otherwise. I know all this has been thrashed out ad nauseam
here and elsewhere, but I'm still confused as to what the A/Bers
actually hear when they play a favourite track first on a $200 amp and
then on a $2000 one. I don't understand, above all, how this debate
ever arose in the first place, or what currently sustains it when the
evidence is clear.


Frankly, many of the people making the argument don't seem to own really
high-end gear, so one wonders about their real world experience with
comparisons. Pinkerton does, but of course (wink, wink) he only bought it
because he liked its looks and functionality, not because it sounded better.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:22:31 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:54:31 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:40:23 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
newsj7sf1l5p5qtu4nmj0uj78u3berho3gaal@4ax. com...

I'm aware of Volvo's reputation in this regard - another line that
one
would hardly call "cutting edge performance").


Well they do have a 4WD wagon with 2.5 liter inline 5 that produces
300
hp
which incidentally amounts to more per liter than the BMW and Audi
Pinkerton
was blathering about.

Shame you don't know much about cars. We were discussing *normally
aspirated* engines, not puffers.

Irrelevant. I was discussing *cutting edge performance*. Shame you're
too
wasted to get it.

Shame then that you snipped my reference to the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO
IX FQ400, a stock vehicle with 200 BHP per litre.

Note that *cutting edge performance* is represented almost exclusively
by normally aspirated engines.

Horse****!

I believe the Brazilians find cow**** a more productive way of
generating biodiesel......

Exhausted puffers are generally just a
cheap way of plugging the gap to the proper top of the range models.
Note that BMW don't have *any* puffers of any kind, while the latest
generation of 'cutting edge' sports saloons from Audi and Mercedes use
normally-aspirated V8s,

More horse****. The SLR and the 55's and 65's are not normally aspirated.
Neither is the Audi RS6.

The SLR is not a saloon, the C55 and E55 *are* normally aspirated, the

CLS55, S55 and S65 are saloons.

others are supercharged rather than turbocharged,

Irrelevant. Neither is normally aspirated.

and the RS6 is no
longer made.

The replacement due in 2006 will not be normally aspirated either.

The *new* engines are high-revving normally aspirated
units, which is also true of the latest AMG engines. Note also that
AMG is *not* Mercedes, it's an associated tuning company.


Horse**** again you moron. AMG is part of Mercedes. Has been for years.
Sober up and keep up with the news.

revving to more than 8,000 rpm in the new Audi
RS4. And you certainly don't see Aston Martin, Lamborghini, or Ferrari
using anything but normally aspirated motors. Porsche of course have
always had their Turbo available to frighten the unwary customer, but
their 'cutting edge' GT3 model is normally aspirated.

Yet more horse****. Carrera GT is the cutting edge, you drunken moron.

And it has a normally aspirated engine, you stupid old queen.
--

Of course my point was that the GT3 is not their cutting edge, you impotent
old drunk.


Cheers,

Margaret

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:12:09 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 06:51:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:57:30 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message

But also, from my experience of having taken part in
some of those tests as
a listener, it is because the proctor wanted to
introduce an element of confusion into the scoring,
thus increasing the possibility of a null result.

Yet another example of Atkinson's paranoia.

hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format,
there were definite incentives to get the sample size
and rate as low as possible: to get an adequate duration
with the limitations of the technically & economically
viable solution available in 1980.
that's not an opinion, but a fact :-)
Rudy

nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit
linear coded format. Sony upped that to 16....come on,
14 bits ?? who are ya kiddin? Listening tests ???

Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits
equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music
master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly
dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem?

The problem is that too many newbies have been mis-educated
by high end ragazines with the lie that analog has infinite
resolution. I wonder how many times that lie has been
published in say Stereophile or TAS?

Harry tell lies? Say it ain't so! :-)

Gratuitous insult / slander duly noted.

Not *you*, you insignificant self-important cretin, the *real* Harry!
Didn't you see the TAS reference?

Beasides, anything I've ever said about you has been a compliment -
couldn't fail to be, since I never use the kind of language I'd need
for an insult...............

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Margaret von B. said:

I think it is time you get some new meds, Arny. Or is all of your rambling
just a series of "typos"?

Arnii's toilet may be backed up again. Time for a flush!

Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote
Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote
Arny Krueger wrote



snip

??

?? back at you!

So if the listener fail to detect, the ABX box is there
to justify that it will have no impact on the listener's
ability to discern sound differences, right?

No.

If the listener fails to detect it could well be that
there is nothing to detect.

WHO, then, is given the power to make a final decision
whether there is something or nothing to detect during
the experiment ?

For me, Science.


Answer the question !

Stop hiding in the facade of "Science".


ABX box is there to help ensure that the listener isn't
just reporting his prejudices and biases.

And guess who gets penalize when the listeners failed to
abandon their biases --as required-- ?

The listeners. Bad decisions and undisciplined behavior have consequences.


But you just said above that:


" ABX box is there to help ensure that the listener isn't
just reporting his prejudices and biases. "


See the word "help" and "ensure" in your comment ?

Did you mean to say ...to help and ensure they don't pass the test
because of their friabilities ?



Assuming of course that the equip. does not again add
'additional' variables of its own.

That can be determined.

Can you clarify ?

Sure, which equipment are you talking about?

The transparent ABX equipment. The box.

It's known to be transparent, both by listening tests and measurements.



That's right! And it could never be blame when stress and
confusion occurs........ Correct?



What is the objective that the proctor wish to
achieve by incorporating such ABX equipment with
regards to the validity of the test ?

A more valid test for a given level of effort.

Therefore the listener must meet the same level of
performance and precision set forth by the ABX
equipment,.

No, the listener must meet his own standard for his
personal best.

'cause if he fail to detect, the resulting data at the
end of the experiment will be corroborated by the ABX
equip. as legitimate, no?

Its the corroboration of the listener's responses by the
ABX equipment that tells us whether the listener's
responses are legitimate or just random guessing.


WHO, then, decides in setting the level of standard for
the listener to ensure that when confusion occurs... and
he/she made an honest guess, they should be penalized ?


[Answer the question!]


It's the listener's responsibility to ensure that the listening environment
meets their needs.


Are you joking ? What if that person is Fertsler who wanted
to deliberately falsify the data to meet his needs?


If they don't like the game then they shouldn't play.

Tell me who wants to play your game if you penalize those
making an honest guess ?


The listener must be absolutely precise in his decision.
No guessing, right ?

If the listener is just guessing, then the ABX equipment
will help identify that.

No, what you mean to say is that the ABX equip. will help to ensure that,
at the end of the test, the listener is
identified and thoroughly lambasted from then on.

What are you saying? The listener is identified as being who he is at the
beginning of the test.


LoL!


Of course you'd say that.



How does abx equip. 'validly justify' itself with
regards to its capability to
expose whether or not, the listener is able to detect
and differentiate subtle sound differences ?

Certainly tests done without ABX equipment, that
duplicate the results of tests done with ABX equipment,
supports the idea that the equipment isn't masking
differences that could otherwise be heard.

I'm not asking whether the ABX box is masking the
differences that otherwise could be heard, I'm asking
how does the box validly justify itself in exposing the
listener ability to detect subtle differences.

The box is a simple mechanism with a simple function. If
it executes that simple function properly, then it will
expose whether or not the listener is detecting subtle
differences. Whether or not the box is executing its
simple function can be determined by doing a test whose
outcome is obvious, such as when one of the two pieces
of equipment being compared is turned off and not
responding at all.


Again, I'm not asking you what the box is, or how to use it. I'm asking how
does it validly decide that the listener
is not making an honest guess.

The box doesn't decide squat. People are required to make decisions.



Oh yeah ?

WHO, then, is given the power to make a final decision
whether there is something or nothing to detect during
the experiment ?




( The embarrassing truth is that you refused to respond to this
question above. Would you redeem yourself this time ? )



snip

We're not talking about sighted test, we're talkin about
long term, extended listening comparison under blind
test condition.

Then the listener's personal preferences and biases are
removed as influenced in the test by the proper use of
the ABX box to do a blind test.

??

?? back at you!

I don't think you have a good enough command of the English language to
pursue this topic more deeply.


Evasiveness duly noted.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:30:20 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:22:31 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:54:31 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:40:23 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
newsj7sf1l5p5qtu4nmj0uj78u3berho3gaal@4ax .com...

I'm aware of Volvo's reputation in this regard - another line that
one
would hardly call "cutting edge performance").


Well they do have a 4WD wagon with 2.5 liter inline 5 that produces
300
hp
which incidentally amounts to more per liter than the BMW and Audi
Pinkerton
was blathering about.

Shame you don't know much about cars. We were discussing *normally
aspirated* engines, not puffers.

Irrelevant. I was discussing *cutting edge performance*. Shame you're
too
wasted to get it.

Shame then that you snipped my reference to the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO
IX FQ400, a stock vehicle with 200 BHP per litre.

Note that *cutting edge performance* is represented almost exclusively
by normally aspirated engines.

Horse****!

I believe the Brazilians find cow**** a more productive way of
generating biodiesel......

Exhausted puffers are generally just a
cheap way of plugging the gap to the proper top of the range models.
Note that BMW don't have *any* puffers of any kind, while the latest
generation of 'cutting edge' sports saloons from Audi and Mercedes use
normally-aspirated V8s,

More horse****. The SLR and the 55's and 65's are not normally aspirated.
Neither is the Audi RS6.

The SLR is not a saloon, the C55 and E55 *are* normally aspirated, the

CLS55, S55 and S65 are saloons.

But they are not *sports* saloons - even for fat Texans........

And strictly speaking, they are AMGs, not Mercs. A fine distinction,
to be sure.

others are supercharged rather than turbocharged,

Irrelevant. Neither is normally aspirated.

But as noted, they're not *sports* saloons by any reasonable standard.

and the RS6 is no
longer made.

The replacement due in 2006 will not be normally aspirated either.

Perhaps, but it will be using an old engine. The *new* 'cutting edge'
angines are normally aspirated. Good luck in your desperate flailing
to defend a lost position. But there always something fundamentally
pathetic about dolls with balls..........

The *new* engines are high-revving normally aspirated
units, which is also true of the latest AMG engines. Note also that
AMG is *not* Mercedes, it's an associated tuning company.

Horse**** again you moron. AMG is part of Mercedes. Has been for years.
Sober up and keep up with the news.

Wholly owned, but independent, as with Aston Martin and Jaguar.

revving to more than 8,000 rpm in the new Audi
RS4. And you certainly don't see Aston Martin, Lamborghini, or Ferrari
using anything but normally aspirated motors. Porsche of course have
always had their Turbo available to frighten the unwary customer, but
their 'cutting edge' GT3 model is normally aspirated.

Yet more horse****. Carrera GT is the cutting edge, you drunken moron.

And it has a normally aspirated engine, you stupid old queen.
--
Of course my point was that the GT3 is not their cutting edge, you impotent
old drunk.

Noted that you're once again trying to cover your mistake. I guess
you've had lots of practice.........................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the
'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation bias.
That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.


DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Sure it does - why wouldn't it? Besides, why would anyone *not*
expecting difference even bother to take such a test?

You really are a braindead clown.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

I have little doubt you could successfully tell the
difference between two Brendel performances of the same
work, in a DBT, even if you lacked knowledge of the
'arcana'.

Am I overestimating you?

But can you understand the meaning of the differences?

Straw man, since the knowing the meaning of the differences
is outside the scope of the discussion.

You agreed that chord balance was inside the scope of the discussion
when you claimed you could more precisely balance a chord using eq than
a musician could do in performing on an instrument.


More of Krueger's slimy debating trade.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

I have little doubt you could successfully tell the
difference between two Brendel performances of the same
work, in a DBT, even if you lacked knowledge of the
'arcana'.

Am I overestimating you?

But can you understand the meaning of the differences?

Straw man, since the knowing the meaning of the
differences is outside the scope of the discussion.

You agreed that chord balance was inside the scope of the
discussion when you claimed you could more precisely
balance a chord using eq than a musician could do in
performing on an instrument.

Wrong, because I was talking about changing chord balance as a technical
exercise, which can be done without knowing what chord balance is
musically speaking.


Commas are cheap these days. Try
buying some.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...


Not in any message retrievable by Google, Mr. Krueger.
For the record, I played in touring bands 1966 through
1972 first while I was at university then while working a
day job in scientific research. From 1972 through 1976, I
played bass guitar professionally: touring, doing
broadcasts, and working sessions. I still play the
occasional live gig, the most recent of which was 10 days
ago. I have engineered, produced, and played as a musician
on around 50 commercially released recordings, the most
recent of which, which I engineered, edited, mixed,
mastered, and also contributed a bass guitar part to
one track, is released next week. I am also a full
voting member of NARAS (the Grammys) Engineers &
Producers Wing.

So just why you regard this experience of mine in audio
engineering and music production as "a muth that is
way too easy to bust", Mr. Krueger, escapes me. Perhaps
you are confusing me with someone else, just as you
presumably did with your comments on my attitude to
religion. But thank you for playing "Let's COmpare
Resumes." :-)


hah!, but you don't have a general engineering
degree from Oakland University and you
never designed an ashtray for an Omni.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:25:46 +0000 (UTC), in rec.audio.opinion you
wrote:

What you also fail to take into account is the more benign usage and
environmental conditions that European cars are subject to (in an
overall sense) as opposed to American cars. American cars in general
aren't as "edgy" as their European counterparts, partly because
America (ironically, I think) has taken the lead in being strict on
emissions standards, which robs an engine of its maximum performance
(as well as mandating sometimes ridiculous "safety standards" which
adds weight and bulk to the car. I'm referring mostly to those
over-the-top body prodection requirements of the 70s - 90s). They also
have to be designed to extreme usage in a wide variety of
environmental conditions and long-term mileage requirements (and yes,
I'm aware of Volvo's reputation in this regard - another line that one
would hardly call "cutting edge performance").

Shame you don't know much about cars. Virtually all European cars now
conform to the same safety and emissions standards as their American
counterparts. I believe California is a little tougher, but then
that's a different planet, really.....................

Shame you ignore the history of emissions control. I guess you don't
know too much about the subject - cars.

But that's not surprising coming from an area of the world where
100,000 km is considered high mileage.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:28:59 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

They also
have to be designed to extreme usage in a wide variety of
environmental conditions and long-term mileage requirements (and yes,
I'm aware of Volvo's reputation in this regard - another line that one
would hardly call "cutting edge performance").


Well they do have a 4WD wagon with 2.5 liter inline 5 that produces 300 hp
which incidentally amounts to more per liter than the BMW and Audi Pinkerton
was blathering about.

Shame you don't know much about cars. We were discussing *normally
aspirated* engines, not puffers.

Bull****. Volvo was the sub subject. Perhaps you should put down the
bottle for a change, you old drunk.

Stewart Pinkerton said:

And strictly speaking, they are AMGs, not Mercs. A fine distinction,
to be sure.

I've never heard Mercedes cars referred to as "Mercs". Weren't you going
on about Ford a little while ago?

Stewart Pinkerton said:

DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Because Krooger is a liar, Nousiane is an ideologue, and Ferstler is a
propagandist.

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Besides, why would anyone *not*
expecting difference even bother to take such a test?

Surely you jest. Have you met Tommi, Harold, and Arnii?

You probably don't realize how much schmutz your precious beliefs in
sameness and aBxism attract from the company they keep.

dave weil said:

But that's not surprising coming from an area of the world where
100,000 km is considered high mileage.

Speaking of which, do you know the average mileage of trade-ins in Japan?

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
ego.......
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


Yeah, someone called 'Jenn', claiming to be a conductor, already
tried that on r.a.h-e - it wasn't convincing then, either, except as
yet another demonstration of musos

Gee, Stewart, I'm very fond of you...no need to...ah never mind.


You do stand out from among the herd.

That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day. Thanks!

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:52:13 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
groups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.opinion wrote:
Let us hope that the lady patiently waiting in
the ditch in Crawford, TX has more success.

I had no idea that anyone in Crawford, much less a whore in a
ditch, cared about anything related to science.

I was talking about Cindy Sheehan, who is trying to shame
the president into acting honorably.


Abandoning millions to Sadamists and violent Islamists is
NOT honorable.

Horse****, there was *zero* terorism in Iraq before

I guess when the dictator is doing he killing it isn't called terrorism.

the last slaughter
(you couldn't call it a war),

Poor Stu's queens rules of war... tell it to your dead from the
Falkland Islands War.


and Saddam was only there because George
Senior lacked the balls to follow through in the first conflict.

Or stuck to the UN mandate, depending on your point of view.

The media was going a little bonkers on that Highway of Death
scene. We couldn't have anymore "slaughter".

ScottW

Scottie does his version of the "debating trade" dance.

Horse****, there was *zero* terorism in Iraq before

I guess when the dictator is doing he killing it isn't called terrorism.

That is correct. It's called repression.

Are you now going to pull a Krooger and declare that if you'd said what
you meant to say, you would have said the right thing, and so you should
get full points anyway? ;-)

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:40:08 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

And strictly speaking, they are AMGs, not Mercs. A fine distinction,
to be sure.

I've never heard Mercedes cars referred to as "Mercs". Weren't you going
on about Ford a little while ago?

I am not responsible for your ignorance of standard abbreviations.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:40:43 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton said:

DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Because Krooger is a liar, Nousiane is an ideologue, and Ferstler is a
propagandist.

And you are an ignorant asshole without a life or a clue, which seems
to even things up somewhat.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:41:56 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton said:

Besides, why would anyone *not*
expecting difference even bother to take such a test?

Surely you jest. Have you met Tommi, Harold, and Arnii?

No, but when they *took* tests, as opposed to proctoring, it was
because they expected a difference, When such expectations are dashed
on many occasions, one usually begins to see the light............

You probably don't realize how much schmutz your precious beliefs in
sameness and aBxism attract from the company they keep.

You probably don't realise how deluded you are.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:46:11 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

dave weil said:

But that's not surprising coming from an area of the world where
100,000 km is considered high mileage.

Speaking of which, do you know the average mileage of trade-ins in Japan?

It's about 10,000 km, isn't it? It's a mark of honour to have a *new*
car in Japan. Perhaps that's a factor in how rapidly they evolve -
there's a hungry market out there for newer and better?

It's definitely a mark of American 'sophistication' that the biggest
selling vehicle is a fatass pickup truck with leaf-spring suspension
and a live rear axle. I'm betting that the most popular accessory is a
rifle rack...................

Dammit, even America's 'flagship' sports car has leaf spring rear
suspension! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:30:20 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:22:31 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:54:31 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:fj3uf15t1lprgngjr6qtuddqhpc8o24792@4ax. com...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:40:23 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
newsj7sf1l5p5qtu4nmj0uj78u3berho3gaal@4a x.com...

I'm aware of Volvo's reputation in this regard - another line that
one
would hardly call "cutting edge performance").


Well they do have a 4WD wagon with 2.5 liter inline 5 that produces
300
hp
which incidentally amounts to more per liter than the BMW and Audi
Pinkerton
was blathering about.

Shame you don't know much about cars. We were discussing *normally
aspirated* engines, not puffers.

Irrelevant. I was discussing *cutting edge performance*. Shame you're
too
wasted to get it.

Shame then that you snipped my reference to the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO
IX FQ400, a stock vehicle with 200 BHP per litre.

Note that *cutting edge performance* is represented almost exclusively
by normally aspirated engines.

Horse****!

I believe the Brazilians find cow**** a more productive way of
generating biodiesel......

Exhausted puffers are generally just a
cheap way of plugging the gap to the proper top of the range models.
Note that BMW don't have *any* puffers of any kind, while the latest
generation of 'cutting edge' sports saloons from Audi and Mercedes use
normally-aspirated V8s,

More horse****. The SLR and the 55's and 65's are not normally
aspirated.
Neither is the Audi RS6.

The SLR is not a saloon, the C55 and E55 *are* normally aspirated, the

CLS55, S55 and S65 are saloons.

But they are not *sports* saloons - even for fat Texans........


CLS55 is the most sporting of them all. Even for drunken british twits. The
fact that *you* cannot afford it, does not disqualify it.

And strictly speaking, they are AMGs, not Mercs. A fine distinction,
to be sure.


Horse****. They come with Mercedes VIN's. It is that simple.

others are supercharged rather than turbocharged,

Irrelevant. Neither is normally aspirated.

But as noted, they're not *sports* saloons by any reasonable standard.


What would that make your moped then? Oh, I said it...

and the RS6 is no
longer made.

The replacement due in 2006 will not be normally aspirated either.

Perhaps, but it will be using an old engine. The *new* 'cutting edge'
angines are normally aspirated. Good luck in your desperate flailing
to defend a lost position. But there always something fundamentally
pathetic about dolls with balls..........

"Cutting edge" is a figment of your imagination. Definitions by a nobody
like you don't count.


The *new* engines are high-revving normally aspirated
units, which is also true of the latest AMG engines. Note also that
AMG is *not* Mercedes, it's an associated tuning company.

Horse**** again you moron. AMG is part of Mercedes. Has been for years.
Sober up and keep up with the news.

Wholly owned, but independent, as with Aston Martin and Jaguar.

Horse****. AM is AM. Jag is a Jag. AMG is a Mercedes. Or do they badge them
AM Fords and Jaguar Fords for you dorks over there? AM and Jag have their
own VIN's.


revving to more than 8,000 rpm in the new Audi
RS4. And you certainly don't see Aston Martin, Lamborghini, or Ferrari
using anything but normally aspirated motors. Porsche of course have
always had their Turbo available to frighten the unwary customer, but
their 'cutting edge' GT3 model is normally aspirated.

Yet more horse****. Carrera GT is the cutting edge, you drunken moron.

And it has a normally aspirated engine, you stupid old queen.
--
Of course my point was that the GT3 is not their cutting edge, you
impotent
old drunk.

Noted that you're once again trying to cover your mistake. I guess
you've had lots of practice.........................

You can try to bake a cake out of your horse**** but it is still horse****.

Cheers,

Margaret




--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Pinkerton says: (message 1594, August 14)
"You are a liar and a crook. I referred *specifically* to KEF, who ran
with B&O in Denmark a large-scale Eureka project called Archimedes, on
speaker/room interactions, using DBT methods extensively. This led
directly to the development of the Uni-Q drivers and to the 'pod'
cabinet designs pioneered by B&W. Interesting that your version of
Google seems quite different from everone else's.
http://www.beoworld.co.uk/archimedes.htm
Tells the story - took all of five seconds on Google to make the link.
You are a liar and a crook. "

Using all these resources B&O achieved mediocre loudspeakers in pretty
boxes.
Pray Milaird what has it all to do with A POSITIVE REPORT OF COMPARING
COMPONENTS BY ABX?
You ARE desperate aren't you?
Ludovic Mirabel
Any more about Appalachians? (see my message 1581, Aug.13)

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:28:59 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

They also
have to be designed to extreme usage in a wide variety of
environmental conditions and long-term mileage requirements (and yes,
I'm aware of Volvo's reputation in this regard - another line that one
would hardly call "cutting edge performance").


Well they do have a 4WD wagon with 2.5 liter inline 5 that produces 300
hp
which incidentally amounts to more per liter than the BMW and Audi
Pinkerton
was blathering about.

Shame you don't know much about cars. We were discussing *normally
aspirated* engines, not puffers.

Bull****. Volvo was the sub subject. Perhaps you should put down the
bottle for a change, you old drunk.

Stoopi seems to have the same problem that Arny frequently has. With
numerous fights in progress with everyone imaginable, he forgets what he is
fighting about. And being an alcoholic doesn't probably help.

Pukey Drunkerton whined:

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Because Krooger is a liar, Nousiane is an ideologue, and Ferstler is a
propagandist.

And you are an ignorant asshole without a life or a clue, which seems
to even things up somewhat.

On the contrary, I was one of the first RAO regulars to recognize you for
the bigoted, unschooled, rabid, drunken religionist that you are. You will
note, if you're capable of half a second's objectivity regarding yourself,
that my opinion is now shared by most of the regular contributors on all
of the audio newsgroups. Now I might really deserve that low opinion you
have of me, and it might be coincidence that I came to the same conclusion
as everybody else. Or it could be that the problem is not in me but in
someone else. ;-)

Drunkie Pukerton squawked:

Surely you jest. Have you met Tommi, Harold, and Arnii?

No, but when they *took* tests, as opposed to proctoring, it was
because they expected a difference,

ring ring ring

Stewbie, it's the reality phone. This must be your annual update call. Do
you want to take it there, or are you too drunk to hold the handset?

In article tgKLe.4066$Ji.968@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

Horse****, there was *zero* terorism in Iraq before

I guess when the dictator is doing he killing it isn't called terrorism.

That's correct.

Stephen

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:46:11 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

dave weil said:

But that's not surprising coming from an area of the world where
100,000 km is considered high mileage.

Speaking of which, do you know the average mileage of trade-ins in Japan?

It's about 10,000 km, isn't it? It's a mark of honour to have a *new*
car in Japan. Perhaps that's a factor in how rapidly they evolve -
there's a hungry market out there for newer and better?

It's definitely a mark of American 'sophistication' that the biggest
selling vehicle is a fatass pickup truck with leaf-spring suspension
and a live rear axle. I'm betting that the most popular accessory is a
rifle rack...................

Old school. This is the ticket.

http://www.ibistek.com/cobra_gallery.asp?title=main

ScottW

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:54:46 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:40:08 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

And strictly speaking, they are AMGs, not Mercs. A fine distinction,
to be sure.

I've never heard Mercedes cars referred to as "Mercs". Weren't you going
on about Ford a little while ago?

I am not responsible for your ignorance of standard abbreviations.

Why are you talking about Mercurys?

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:01:37 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:46:11 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

dave weil said:

But that's not surprising coming from an area of the world where
100,000 km is considered high mileage.

Speaking of which, do you know the average mileage of trade-ins in Japan?

It's about 10,000 km, isn't it? It's a mark of honour to have a *new*
car in Japan. Perhaps that's a factor in how rapidly they evolve -
there's a hungry market out there for newer and better?

It's definitely a mark of American 'sophistication' that the biggest
selling vehicle is a fatass pickup truck with leaf-spring suspension
and a live rear axle.

I don't disagree that America's preoccupation with SUVs and big trucks
(something that you upper crust Brits were first on point with) is
laughable (that was part of my previous point about the US market).

I'm betting that the most popular accessory is a
rifle rack...................

You'd be wrong. It's a trailer package. chuckle

BTW, that "gun rack" stereotype is pretty much long gone. I live in
the heart of "gun rack" country and I can't remember the last one that
I've seen. Now, Harley Davidson stickers, THAT'S a different story.

Dammit, even America's 'flagship' sports car has leaf spring rear
suspension! :-)

Really? Since when does the Viper have such a suspension?

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:47:32 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:54:46 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:40:08 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

And strictly speaking, they are AMGs, not Mercs. A fine distinction,
to be sure.

I've never heard Mercedes cars referred to as "Mercs". Weren't you going
on about Ford a little while ago?

I am not responsible for your ignorance of standard abbreviations.

Why are you talking about Mercurys?

I'm not, I'm talking about soldiers of fortune.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:31:15 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:


Pukey Drunkerton whined:

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Because Krooger is a liar, Nousiane is an ideologue, and Ferstler is a
propagandist.

And you are an ignorant asshole without a life or a clue, which seems
to even things up somewhat.

On the contrary, I was one of the first RAO regulars to recognize you for
the bigoted, unschooled, rabid, drunken religionist that you are.

SCORE!

QED..................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:55:32 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:01:37 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:46:11 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

dave weil said:

But that's not surprising coming from an area of the world where
100,000 km is considered high mileage.

Speaking of which, do you know the average mileage of trade-ins in Japan?

It's about 10,000 km, isn't it? It's a mark of honour to have a *new*
car in Japan. Perhaps that's a factor in how rapidly they evolve -
there's a hungry market out there for newer and better?

It's definitely a mark of American 'sophistication' that the biggest
selling vehicle is a fatass pickup truck with leaf-spring suspension
and a live rear axle.

I don't disagree that America's preoccupation with SUVs and big trucks
(something that you upper crust Brits were first on point with) is
laughable (that was part of my previous point about the US market).

Actually, we called them shooting brakes or estate cars, because they
were useful for loading up all the clutter you need for a good day out
blasting birds out of the sky, or lumping bits and bobs to the far
corners of one's estate. :-)

I'm betting that the most popular accessory is a
rifle rack...................

You'd be wrong. It's a trailer package. chuckle

Ah yes, good ol' UHaul..............

BTW, that "gun rack" stereotype is pretty much long gone. I live in
the heart of "gun rack" country and I can't remember the last one that
I've seen. Now, Harley Davidson stickers, THAT'S a different story.

However, you can still buy those T-shirts with a list of things that
indicate why you might be a redneck - and there's always a rifle rack
on that list! :-)

OTOH, who the heck buys those that say 'you might consider thanking
your lucky stars that you're in Texas'? :-)


OTGH, the *really* cool accessory is the one that's legal in South
Africa - side-mounted flamethrowers for dislodging unwanted nig... er,
I mean persons of doubtful reputation...............

Dammit, even America's 'flagship' sports car has leaf spring rear
suspension! :-)

Really? Since when does the Viper have such a suspension?

Sorry, that's a truck engine in a plastic body................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:06:24 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:30:20 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:22:31 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

CLS55, S55 and S65 are saloons.

But they are not *sports* saloons - even for fat Texans........

CLS55 is the most sporting of them all. Even for drunken british twits. The
fact that *you* cannot afford it, does not disqualify it.

Are you *nuts*? The CLS55 is just a quirky styling exercise to make an
S-class saloon *look* sporty. OTOH, I do have a few shares left in the
most fabulous bridge - even nicer than the one your idiot cousin in
Arizona bought by mistake.

And strictly speaking, they are AMGs, not Mercs. A fine distinction,
to be sure.

Horse****. They come with Mercedes VIN's. It is that simple.

others are supercharged rather than turbocharged,

Irrelevant. Neither is normally aspirated.

But as noted, they're not *sports* saloons by any reasonable standard.

What would that make your moped then? Oh, I said it...

Faster than most Mercs on real roads, in point of fact.......

and the RS6 is no
longer made.

The replacement due in 2006 will not be normally aspirated either.

Perhaps, but it will be using an old engine. The *new* 'cutting edge'
angines are normally aspirated. Good luck in your desperate flailing
to defend a lost position. But there always something fundamentally
pathetic about dolls with balls..........

"Cutting edge" is a figment of your imagination. Definitions by a nobody
like you don't count.

Back at ya, ladyboy!

Bottom line - *all* the desirable new 'cutting edge' motors by
*anyone's* definition are naturally aspirated and have specific
outputs of 100BHP per litre or more.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering