Why is it only bad when you're libeled?
Why do you feel you have Carte Blanche to libel others?
Why do you need anything more than what's posted here in order to sue for
libel.

Is everybody who finds you to be a liar and dweeb committing libel?

"Michael McKelvy" a écrit dans le message de
news
Why is it only bad when you're libeled?
Why do you feel you have Carte Blanche to libel others?
Why do you need anything more than what's posted here in order to sue for
libel.

Is everybody who finds you to be a liar and dweeb committing libel?

This is a good question that you are putting to Doctor Lie (Note that Doctor
Lie like George M. Middius, never answers the *good* questions).

Here is my answer : since he had pushed all his patients to commit suicide,
you are our good Doctor's prefered toy.

Don't worry Mickey, Bruce J. Richman's anathemas sound more and more like
death rattle. :-)

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" a écrit dans le message de
news
Why is it only bad when you're libeled?
Why do you feel you have Carte Blanche to libel others?
Why do you need anything more than what's posted here in order to sue
for
libel.

Is everybody who finds you to be a liar and dweeb committing libel?

This is a good question that you are putting to Doctor Lie (Note that
Doctor
Lie like George M. Middius, never answers the *good* questions).

Here is my answer : since he had pushed all his patients to commit
suicide,
you are our good Doctor's prefered toy.

Don't worry Mickey, Bruce J. Richman's anathemas sound more and more like
death rattle. :-)


It is interesting to not that B.J. started out as a fairly rational sounding
guy, other than his love for obsolete technology, (turntables). He spoke
reasonably and politely. Then something happened, perhaps an interruption
in his anti-psychotic medication, and he began tirades against Stewart
Pinkerton,(his crime was thinking BJ's sig line was sort of pompous).

He also went off on a guy who signed himself GVB, accusing him of being a
sockpuppet. GVB were the poster's initials.

The first rumblings about him being a fraud were when he unprofessionally
referred to Brain McCarty as Bwian. Now BM is a well known jerkoff and a
pain in the ass and as everyone knows he doesn't really deserve much in the
way of courtesy, however, many thought such a reference was childish and not
in keeping with the professional behavior one expects from a PhD..

Apparently anyone who criticizes BJ for anything, is a flamer, libeler,
compulsive liar, hates psychologists, a sockpuppet or Onanist.

Methinks he doth protest to much, indeed.

"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Methinks he doth protest to much, indeed.

Michael.. you ain't ****in' Shakespear.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Michael McKelvy a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" a écrit dans le message de
news
Why is it only bad when you're libeled?
Why do you feel you have Carte Blanche to libel others?
Why do you need anything more than what's posted here in order to sue

for

libel.

Is everybody who finds you to be a liar and dweeb committing libel?

This is a good question that you are putting to Doctor Lie (Note that

Doctor

Lie like George M. Middius, never answers the *good* questions).

Here is my answer : since he had pushed all his patients to commit

suicide,

you are our good Doctor's prefered toy.

Don't worry Mickey, Bruce J. Richman's anathemas sound more and more like
death rattle. :-)



It is interesting to not that B.J. started out as a fairly rational sounding
guy, other than his love for obsolete technology, (turntables).

Nothing really wrong up to now.
This is the Dr Jekyll that I know.

He spoke reasonably and politely. Then something happened, perhaps an interruption
in his anti-psychotic medication, and he began tirades against Stewart
Pinkerton,(his crime was thinking BJ's sig line was sort of pompous).

Most of the guys here think that Richman sig is *terribly* pompous...
Only a few told him.

He also went off on a guy who signed himself GVB, accusing him of being a
sockpuppet. GVB were the poster's initials.

The first rumblings about him being a fraud were when he unprofessionally
referred to Brain McCarty as Bwian. Now BM is a well known jerkoff and a
pain in the ass and as everyone knows he doesn't really deserve much in the
way of courtesy, however, many thought such a reference was childish and not
in keeping with the professional behavior one expects from a PhD..

Since he is limited in his audio knowledge and that RAO rules are
outrages and "knowledge competition" our good Doctor offers free
diagnostics to Normals' enemies. Funny to see how he is too coward to
have a word toward George M. Middius who use to protect this "old thing"
in a grotesque way.
This is the Mr Hyde that we know.

Apparently anyone who criticizes BJ for anything, is a flamer, libeler,
compulsive liar, hates psychologists, a sockpuppet or Onanist.

Richman is a crybaby, a pathologic one. His cowardice has no limit and
makes him suffer a lot.

Methinks he doth protest to much, indeed.

It's good to be agree with you on that Mickey. Your analyze is OK
without the excess which characterize Richman's ones.
Note that I have been very interested by the way he "called for" you
recently, apparently without good reasons since the main subject was
Ferstler...
Our Good Doctor is very ill.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Methinks he doth protest to much, indeed.

Michael.. you ain't ****in' Shakespear.


Paul Dormer, a well known and widely despised libeler of people he doesn't
like has been lying and attacking me for 7 years. He obsessive compulsive
behavior cries out for the intervention of a trained psyco-analyst to attach
electrodes to his frontal lobes and turn the juice up until he agrees with
everything I say. If he doesn't he will continually be called a liar and
slanderer, until I get sick of telling him so.

As an aside it is interesting to note that BJ has been saying I've been
libeling him for 6-7 years, but he's started saying 3 years ago. He's
obviously math challenged as well as what professional psychologists like to
call a "cuckoo bird."

Paul Dormer wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Methinks he doth protest to much, indeed.

Michael.. you ain't ****in' Shakespear.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t







duh-Mikey McStupid, predictable scumbag that he is, can always be counted on to
generate attack threads and then complain about unprovoked attacks. He's a
despicable hypcrite.

Ferstler actually admitted that his most recent entrances here to disrupt and
bait folks in to a flamefest in the hopes that he could get some false,
distorted material for a hack writing job he hoped to pawn off on one of the
rags he sometimes writes for. That's the *distortion* angle.

And, as per his anti-vinyl, anti-preference agenda, he's been spewing all sorts
of anti-vinyl propaganda lately - even though nobody challenged his antivinyl
biases.
That's the *dispersion* angle.

duh-Mikey McStupid, not being able to read or understand anything other than
Krooglish, it would appear, simply doesn't get it.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Paul Dormer wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Methinks he doth protest to much, indeed.

Michael.. you ain't ****in' Shakespear.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t







duh-Mikey McStupid, predictable scumbag that he is, can always be counted
on to
generate attack threads and then complain about unprovoked attacks. He's
a
despicable hypcrite.

Ferstler actually admitted that his most recent entrances here to disrupt
and
bait folks in to a flamefest in the hopes that he could get some false,
distorted material for a hack writing job he hoped to pawn off on one of
the
rags he sometimes writes for. That's the *distortion* angle.

And, as per his anti-vinyl, anti-preference agenda, he's been spewing all
sorts
of anti-vinyl propaganda lately - even though nobody challenged his
antivinyl
biases.
That's the *dispersion* angle.

duh-Mikey McStupid, not being able to read or understand anything other
than
Krooglish, it would appear, simply doesn't get it.




This is an attack thread?
Most people would say it's a series of legitimate questions about the
behavior you exhibit here.

Why is it only bad when you're libeled?
Why do you feel you have Carte Blanche to libel others?
Why do you need anything more than what's posted here in order to sue for
libel.

Is everybody who finds you to be a liar and dweeb committing libel?

Odd you chose not to respond to these reasonable questions.

What are you hiding?

Michael McKelvy a écrit :

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...

Paul Dormer wrote:


"Michael McKelvy" emitted :


Methinks he doth protest to much, indeed.

Michael.. you ain't ****in' Shakespear.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t







duh-Mikey McStupid, predictable scumbag that he is, can always be counted

on to

generate attack threads and then complain about unprovoked attacks. He's

a

despicable hypcrite.

Ferstler actually admitted that his most recent entrances here to disrupt

and

bait folks in to a flamefest in the hopes that he could get some false,
distorted material for a hack writing job he hoped to pawn off on one of

the

rags he sometimes writes for. That's the *distortion* angle.

And, as per his anti-vinyl, anti-preference agenda, he's been spewing all

sorts

of anti-vinyl propaganda lately - even though nobody challenged his

antivinyl

biases.
That's the *dispersion* angle.

duh-Mikey McStupid, not being able to read or understand anything other

than

Krooglish, it would appear, simply doesn't get it.





This is an attack thread?
Most people would say it's a series of legitimate questions about the
behavior you exhibit here.

Why is it only bad when you're libeled?
Why do you feel you have Carte Blanche to libel others?
Why do you need anything more than what's posted here in order to sue for
libel.

Is everybody who finds you to be a liar and dweeb committing libel?

Odd you chose not to respond to these reasonable questions.

What are you hiding?

Nothing but an insignifiant dying oldster full of cowardice and hatred.
Why do you put the question ?

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" a écrit dans le message de
news
Why is it only bad when you're libeled?
Why do you feel you have Carte Blanche to libel others?
Why do you need anything more than what's posted here in order to sue

for

libel.

Is everybody who finds you to be a liar and dweeb committing libel?

This is a good question that you are putting to Doctor Lie (Note that

Doctor

Lie like George M. Middius, never answers the *good* questions).

Here is my answer : since he had pushed all his patients to commit

suicide,

you are our good Doctor's prefered toy.

Don't worry Mickey, Bruce J. Richman's anathemas sound more and more
like
death rattle. :-)



It is interesting to not that B.J. started out as a fairly rational
sounding
guy, other than his love for obsolete technology, (turntables).

Nothing really wrong up to now.
This is the Dr Jekyll that I know.

He spoke reasonably and politely. Then something happened, perhaps an
interruption
in his anti-psychotic medication, and he began tirades against Stewart
Pinkerton,(his crime was thinking BJ's sig line was sort of pompous).

Most of the guys here think that Richman sig is *terribly* pompous...
Only a few told him.

He also went off on a guy who signed himself GVB, accusing him of being
a
sockpuppet. GVB were the poster's initials.

The first rumblings about him being a fraud were when he
unprofessionally
referred to Brain McCarty as Bwian. Now BM is a well known jerkoff and
a
pain in the ass and as everyone knows he doesn't really deserve much in
the
way of courtesy, however, many thought such a reference was childish and
not
in keeping with the professional behavior one expects from a PhD..

Since he is limited in his audio knowledge and that RAO rules are
outrages and "knowledge competition" our good Doctor offers free
diagnostics to Normals' enemies. Funny to see how he is too coward to
have a word toward George M. Middius who use to protect this "old thing"
in a grotesque way.
This is the Mr Hyde that we know.

Apparently anyone who criticizes BJ for anything, is a flamer, libeler,
compulsive liar, hates psychologists, a sockpuppet or Onanist.

Richman is a crybaby, a pathologic one. His cowardice has no limit and
makes him suffer a lot.

Methinks he doth protest to much, indeed.

It's good to be agree with you on that Mickey. Your analyze is OK
without the excess which characterize Richman's ones.
Note that I have been very interested by the way he "called for" you
recently, apparently without good reasons since the main subject was
Ferstler...
Our Good Doctor is very ill.

He may be a doctor, but I have serous doubts about his being "good."

Go to Google and do a search from 1998 to 1999 and you will find the
beginnings of his change from a seemingly normal vinyl enthusiast to a
ranting whack job.

Many people assumed he was another Gindi sockpuppet, which would explain why
he appears to know things about psychology.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Methinks he doth protest to much, indeed.

Michael.. you ain't ****in' Shakespear.

Paul Dormer, a well known and widely despised libeler of people he
doesn't
like has been lying and attacking me for 7 years.

Naah.. more like 6*.

He obsessive compulsive
behavior cries out for the intervention of a trained psyco-analyst to
attach
electrodes to his frontal lobes and turn the juice up until he agrees
with
everything I say. If he doesn't he will continually be called a liar and
slanderer, until I get sick of telling him so.

Regardless of the flagrant tissue of lies you wrote above, can you
explain why flies spend more of their time hovering over you? Is it
because flies are attracted to.... ? ;-)


*This is a joke btw. If I ever said anything untrue about you it was
in jest. Anybody with a brain can tell the difference ;-) You seem to
be obsessed with the notion that you are being persecuted on usenet. I
have no interest in *persuing* you, but if you poke your head above
the parapet and say something utterly stupid then you're fair game ;-)

If you were a good sport, you wouldn't complain.. ;-)


The stench you leave behind?
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Bruce J. Richman" emitted :

Methinks he doth protest to much, indeed.

Michael.. you ain't ****in' Shakespear.

duh-Mikey McStupid, predictable scumbag that he is, can always be counted
on to
generate attack threads and then complain about unprovoked attacks. He's
a
despicable hypcrite.

Mickey begets attacks and personal insults, just by being himself. He
doesn't appreciate how insulting it is to have to wade through his
crap. If he would just shut the **** up, nobody would bother him ;-)


--
That's odd, I have the same feeling about you.

You don't have to shut up, just be civil.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Methinks he doth protest to much, indeed.

Michael.. you ain't ****in' Shakespear.

Paul Dormer, a well known and widely despised libeler of people he
doesn't
like has been lying and attacking me for 7 years.

Naah.. more like 6*.

He obsessive compulsive
behavior cries out for the intervention of a trained psyco-analyst to
attach
electrodes to his frontal lobes and turn the juice up until he agrees
with
everything I say. If he doesn't he will continually be called a liar and
slanderer, until I get sick of telling him so.

Regardless of the flagrant tissue of lies you wrote above,

Sorry you missed the joke, I was doing a parody of a Richman response.


*This is a joke btw. If I ever said anything untrue about you it was
in jest. Anybody with a brain can tell the difference ;-) You seem to
be obsessed with the notion that you are being persecuted on usenet.

I don't know where you get that idea from, I've never even hinted at it and
don't beleive it.

I
have no interest in *persuing* you, but if you poke your head above
the parapet and say something utterly stupid then you're fair game ;-)


The problem I have is that you think the truth is a lie.

If you were a good sport, you wouldn't complain.. ;-)

I wasn't complaining, that would pointless. As I said I was doing a parody.



S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Paul Dormer wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Methinks he doth protest to much, indeed.

Michael.. you ain't ****in' Shakespear.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t







duh-Mikey McStupid, predictable scumbag that he is, can always be counted
on to
generate attack threads and then complain about unprovoked attacks. He's
a
despicable hypcrite.

Why because I point out your hipocrisy and lies?



Ferstler actually admitted that his most recent entrances here to disrupt
and
bait folks in to a flamefest in the hopes that he could get some false,
distorted material for a hack writing job he hoped to pawn off on one of
the
rags he sometimes writes for. That's the *distortion* angle.

And, as per his anti-vinyl, anti-preference agenda, he's been spewing all
sorts
of anti-vinyl propaganda lately - even though nobody challenged his
antivinyl
biases.
That's the *dispersion* angle.

If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is an inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


duh-Mikey McStupid, not being able to read or understand anything other
than
Krooglish, it would appear, simply doesn't get it.



I get that you're an unprofessional asshole who rarely posts about audio,
mostly because you don't really know anything about it other thjan you likel
vinyl and are well versed in musical trivia.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is an inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving? Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs. Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio flavored with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate for inherent
distortions in his speakers.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to hear.

Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs. Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you like what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.

"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 9:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to hear.

That is a crap shoot at best. But if that is really your goal you will need all
the recording monitors used by the various engineers who recorded all your
favorite titles along with virtual copies of their studios to mimic the
acoustics. That is quite impractical don't you think?



Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs. Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you like what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

No I am speaking of an obvious conflict between someone's mantra and their
actual listening bias.



It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.

It isn't odd if one is basing thier choices on what they hear. People who
invest more in their audio philosophies than their actual listening experience
is putting the cart before the horse IMO. Hey, if that is what makes you happy
fine, but it isn't about the sound at that point.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 9:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to hear.

That is a crap shoot at best. But if that is really your goal you will
need all
the recording monitors used by the various engineers who recorded all your
favorite titles along with virtual copies of their studios to mimic the
acoustics. That is quite impractical don't you think?

Certainly, but starting with the most accurate source material is the place
to start.


Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs.

So you hear differently.

Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio
flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you like
what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

No I am speaking of an obvious conflict between someone's mantra and their
actual listening bias.

I can't speak for others, I knew the instant I heard my first CD, it was the
better medium. Percussion was better, there was less noise and a more
convincing illusion of musicians in the room.



It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct
frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.

It isn't odd if one is basing thier choices on what they hear. People who
invest more in their audio philosophies than their actual listening
experience
is putting the cart before the horse IMO. Hey, if that is what makes you
happy
fine, but it isn't about the sound at that point.


My choices are always based on what sounds better to me. I don't care what
sounds better to anybody else and niether does anyone else I know.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to hear.

Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs. Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio
flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you like what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.



Well, maybe one sounds good, and the
other sounds bad, to any particular individual.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to hear.

Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs. Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio
flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you like
what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct
frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.



Well, maybe one sounds good, and the
other sounds bad, to any particular individual.


Maybe, but that's not the position that seems to be held by some. Some
people just think that any form of active EQ is wrong and CAN'T sound good.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to
hear.

Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs. Funny how at least one other person who is touting the
same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio
flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you like
what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct
frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.



Well, maybe one sounds good, and the
other sounds bad, to any particular individual.


Maybe, but that's not the position that seems to be held by some. Some
people just think that any form of active EQ is wrong and CAN'T sound
good.


The vinyl "difference" is not an EQ difference.

BTW, the Arnie 'cant' (that you religiously follow)
that the sonic differences attributed to tube vs solid state
amplification is merely equalization difference caused by
impedence, and that one can derive tube sound from ss equipment
via equalization is misleading bull****.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
.net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is
an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to
hear.

Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs. Funny how at least one other person who is touting the
same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio
flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate
for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you
like
what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct
frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.



Well, maybe one sounds good, and the
other sounds bad, to any particular individual.


Maybe, but that's not the position that seems to be held by some. Some
people just think that any form of active EQ is wrong and CAN'T sound
good.


The vinyl "difference" is not an EQ difference.

Part of it is.


BTW, the Arnie 'cant' (that you religiously follow)
that the sonic differences attributed to tube vs solid state
amplification is merely equalization difference caused by
impedence, and that one can derive tube sound from ss equipment
via equalization is misleading bull****.

Not really, you can also achieve it through changing the impedance to your
speakers. Put a 1 ohm resistor in series with each speaker, presto.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy a écrit :

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...

Paul Dormer wrote:


"Michael McKelvy" emitted :


Methinks he doth protest to much, indeed.

Michael.. you ain't ****in' Shakespear.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t







duh-Mikey McStupid, predictable scumbag that he is, can always be
counted

on to

generate attack threads and then complain about unprovoked attacks.
He's

a

despicable hypcrite.

Ferstler actually admitted that his most recent entrances here to
disrupt

and

bait folks in to a flamefest in the hopes that he could get some false,
distorted material for a hack writing job he hoped to pawn off on one of

the

rags he sometimes writes for. That's the *distortion* angle.

And, as per his anti-vinyl, anti-preference agenda, he's been spewing
all

sorts

of anti-vinyl propaganda lately - even though nobody challenged his

antivinyl

biases.
That's the *dispersion* angle.

duh-Mikey McStupid, not being able to read or understand anything other

than

Krooglish, it would appear, simply doesn't get it.





This is an attack thread?
Most people would say it's a series of legitimate questions about the
behavior you exhibit here.

Why is it only bad when you're libeled?
Why do you feel you have Carte Blanche to libel others?
Why do you need anything more than what's posted here in order to sue
for
libel.

Is everybody who finds you to be a liar and dweeb committing libel?

Odd you chose not to respond to these reasonable questions.

What are you hiding?

Nothing but an insignifiant dying oldster full of cowardice and hatred.
Why do you put the question ?
To demonstrate that he won't answer.

He never answers the same kind of questions he likes to ask.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
.net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is
an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to
hear.

Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs. Funny how at least one other person who is touting the
same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio
flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate
for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you
like
what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the
distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct
frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.



Well, maybe one sounds good, and the
other sounds bad, to any particular individual.


Maybe, but that's not the position that seems to be held by some.
Some
people just think that any form of active EQ is wrong and CAN'T sound
good.


The vinyl "difference" is not an EQ difference.

Part of it is.


BTW, the Arnie 'cant' (that you religiously follow)
that the sonic differences attributed to tube vs solid state
amplification is merely equalization difference caused by
impedence, and that one can derive tube sound from ss equipment
via equalization is misleading bull****.

Not really, you can also achieve it through changing the impedance to your
speakers. Put a 1 ohm resistor in series with each speaker, presto.

"presto" is not "tubo".

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

snip
Not really, you can also achieve it through changing the impedance to your
speakers. Put a 1 ohm resistor in series with each speaker, presto.


Been there, done that. Not true. You poor sod sound like Oberlander...

Test incredients:
Sunfire 300 wpc SS amp with "current source" and "voltage source" outputs
ASL Hurricane 200/100 wpc pentode/triode tube amps
Any reasonable speaker cable
Martin-Logan SL3 speakers
Well designed listening room

According to Bob Carver, one set of Sunfire's outputs is supposed to make it
sound like a "tube amp" compliments of the 1 ohm resistor trick. Well, I
tried it many times this summer at my beach house and it did NOT sound
anything like the ASL. It merely sounded bad - rolled off and muffled. I am
still amazed how good the Sunfire sounds (and it does) with the SL3's
through its normal outputs considering that its designer is obviously a
dolt. So stop repeating BS you have heard from others and report your own
findings.

DUH (again)!

Margaret

"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 9:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to hear.

That is a crap shoot at best. But if that is really your goal you will
need all
the recording monitors used by the various engineers who recorded all your
favorite titles along with virtual copies of their studios to mimic the
acoustics. That is quite impractical don't you think?

Certainly, but starting with the most accurate source material is the place
to start.

And what would that be? Hint, it isn't the recording. Once you set your
reference, what matters most, the individual eliments or the final output? you
know, the forrest or the trees?




Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs.

So you hear differently.

Differently than what? Be careful now, you are well on the way to premising
your argument on a false assumption if you are about to question my hearing or
my experience with live music. That's fine if you wish to sling mud and
undermind your own position.


Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio
flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you like
what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

No I am speaking of an obvious conflict between someone's mantra and their
actual listening bias.

I can't speak for others, I knew the instant I heard my first CD, it was the
better medium. Percussion was better, there was less noise and a more
convincing illusion of musicians in the room.

I had the same exact experience. It was what made me persue hifi. When I had
the opportunity to make comparisons using high end LP playback the tables
turned. I must say that they did so much to my dismay. I wanted CDs to be
better than LPs. I went with my ears and not my biases. Most people never get
to make that comparison. Most people have never listened to high end LP
playback. It simply isn't something you find in every house hold or every local
electronics store.



It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct
frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.

It isn't odd if one is basing thier choices on what they hear. People who
invest more in their audio philosophies than their actual listening
experience
is putting the cart before the horse IMO. Hey, if that is what makes you
happy
fine, but it isn't about the sound at that point.


My choices are always based on what sounds better to me. I don't care what
sounds better to anybody else and niether does anyone else I know.

That's good. Now what have you actually listened to extensively that has lead
you to believe that CD playback at its best is better than LP playback at it's
best? What is the best LP playback you have heard and how did it fall short to
your experiences with CDs?

S888Wheel wrote:
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 9:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net

If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible

distortion

then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is an

inferior

medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to hear.

That is a crap shoot at best. But if that is really your goal you will

need all

the recording monitors used by the various engineers who recorded all your
favorite titles along with virtual copies of their studios to mimic the
acoustics. That is quite impractical don't you think?


Certainly, but starting with the most accurate source material is the place
to start.


And what would that be? Hint, it isn't the recording. Once you set your
reference, what matters most, the individual eliments or the final output? you
know, the forrest or the trees?



Yes I get that far more often from CDs

than LPs.

So you hear differently.


Differently than what? Be careful now, you are well on the way to premising
your argument on a false assumption if you are about to question my hearing or
my experience with live music. That's fine if you wish to sling mud and
undermind your own position.


Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same

audio

mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio

flavored

with

plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate for

inherent

distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you like

what

you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

No I am speaking of an obvious conflict between someone's mantra and their
actual listening bias.


I can't speak for others, I knew the instant I heard my first CD, it was the
better medium. Percussion was better, there was less noise and a more
convincing illusion of musicians in the room.


I had the same exact experience. It was what made me persue hifi. When I had
the opportunity to make comparisons using high end LP playback the tables
turned. I must say that they did so much to my dismay. I wanted CDs to be
better than LPs. I went with my ears and not my biases. Most people never get
to make that comparison. Most people have never listened to high end LP
playback. It simply isn't something you find in every house hold or every local
electronics store.

It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct

frequency

response is somehow bad or wrong.

It isn't odd if one is basing thier choices on what they hear. People who
invest more in their audio philosophies than their actual listening

experience

is putting the cart before the horse IMO. Hey, if that is what makes you

happy

fine, but it isn't about the sound at that point.


My choices are always based on what sounds better to me. I don't care what
sounds better to anybody else and niether does anyone else I know.


That's good. Now what have you actually listened to extensively that has lead
you to believe that CD playback at its best is better than LP playback at it's
best? What is the best LP playback you have heard and how did it fall short to
your experiences with CDs?

Hint : as you are seriously speaking about audio, I suggest you to
change the subject of the thread since this one was the product of
Richman's insane fantasy.
This is also the role of the sewer worker isn't it ?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 9:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to
hear.

That is a crap shoot at best. But if that is really your goal you will
need all
the recording monitors used by the various engineers who recorded all
your
favorite titles along with virtual copies of their studios to mimic the
acoustics. That is quite impractical don't you think?

Certainly, but starting with the most accurate source material is the
place
to start.

And what would that be?

The master tape.

Hint, it isn't the recording.

Sorry, but you don't get to change the rules at your whim.

Once you set your
reference, what matters most, the individual eliments or the final output?
you
know, the forrest or the trees?

Fidelity to the original.


Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs.

So you hear differently.

Differently than what?

Than I do.

Be careful now, you are well on the way to premising
your argument on a false assumption if you are about to question my
hearing or
my experience with live music. That's fine if you wish to sling mud and
undermind your own position.

Your paranoia is showing.

Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio
flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you like
what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

No I am speaking of an obvious conflict between someone's mantra and
their
actual listening bias.

I can't speak for others, I knew the instant I heard my first CD, it was
the
better medium. Percussion was better, there was less noise and a more
convincing illusion of musicians in the room.

I had the same exact experience. It was what made me persue hifi. When I
had
the opportunity to make comparisons using high end LP playback the tables
turned. I must say that they did so much to my dismay. I wanted CDs to be
better than LPs.

In terms of technical specifications, CD are vastly superior.

I went with my ears and not my biases.

So you say.

Most people never get
to make that comparison. Most people have never listened to high end LP
playback.

I have and it is clearly second rate compared to CD for me.

It simply isn't something you find in every house hold or every local
electronics store.



It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct
frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.

It isn't odd if one is basing thier choices on what they hear. People
who
invest more in their audio philosophies than their actual listening
experience
is putting the cart before the horse IMO. Hey, if that is what makes
you
happy
fine, but it isn't about the sound at that point.


My choices are always based on what sounds better to me. I don't care
what
sounds better to anybody else and niether does anyone else I know.

That's good. Now what have you actually listened to extensively that has
lead
you to believe that CD playback at its best is better than LP playback at
it's
best?

Everything from Pink Floyd to Bach.

What is the best LP playback you have heard and how did it fall short to
your experiences with CDs?

Every LP I have ever heard has more noise.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 9:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
.net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is
an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to
hear.

That is a crap shoot at best. But if that is really your goal you
will
need all
the recording monitors used by the various engineers who recorded all
your
favorite titles along with virtual copies of their studios to mimic
the
acoustics. That is quite impractical don't you think?

Certainly, but starting with the most accurate source material is the
place
to start.

And what would that be?

The master tape.

Hint, it isn't the recording.

Sorry, but you don't get to change the rules at your whim.

Once you set your
reference, what matters most, the individual eliments or the final
output?
you
know, the forrest or the trees?

Fidelity to the original.


Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs.

So you hear differently.

Differently than what?

Than I do.

Be careful now, you are well on the way to premising
your argument on a false assumption if you are about to question my
hearing or
my experience with live music. That's fine if you wish to sling mud and
undermind your own position.

Your paranoia is showing.

Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio
flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate
for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you
like
what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

No I am speaking of an obvious conflict between someone's mantra and
their
actual listening bias.

I can't speak for others, I knew the instant I heard my first CD, it
was
the
better medium. Percussion was better, there was less noise and a more
convincing illusion of musicians in the room.

I had the same exact experience. It was what made me persue hifi. When I
had
the opportunity to make comparisons using high end LP playback the
tables
turned. I must say that they did so much to my dismay. I wanted CDs to
be
better than LPs.

In terms of technical specifications, CD are vastly superior.

I went with my ears and not my biases.

So you say.

Most people never get
to make that comparison. Most people have never listened to high end LP
playback.

I have and it is clearly second rate compared to CD for me.

It simply isn't something you find in every house hold or every local
electronics store.



It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct
frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.

It isn't odd if one is basing thier choices on what they hear. People
who
invest more in their audio philosophies than their actual listening
experience
is putting the cart before the horse IMO. Hey, if that is what makes
you
happy
fine, but it isn't about the sound at that point.


My choices are always based on what sounds better to me. I don't care
what
sounds better to anybody else and niether does anyone else I know.

That's good. Now what have you actually listened to extensively that has
lead
you to believe that CD playback at its best is better than LP playback
at
it's
best?

Everything from Pink Floyd to Bach.

What is the best LP playback you have heard and how did it fall short to
your experiences with CDs?

Every LP I have ever heard has more noise.



Lack of noise does not equal abundance of music!

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/25/2004 11:07 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 9:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to
hear.

That is a crap shoot at best. But if that is really your goal you will
need all
the recording monitors used by the various engineers who recorded all
your
favorite titles along with virtual copies of their studios to mimic the
acoustics. That is quite impractical don't you think?

Certainly, but starting with the most accurate source material is the
place
to start.

And what would that be?

The master tape.

Wrong. Put your ear to a master tape and tell me what you hear. Nothing. It
cannot be a reference because it makes no sound without a playback system. The
original event is the ultimate reference.


Hint, it isn't the recording.

Sorry, but you don't get to change the rules at your whim.

I'm not changing any rules.



Once you set your
reference, what matters most, the individual eliments or the final output?
you
know, the forrest or the trees?

Fidelity to the original.

Yes, the original event.



Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs.

So you hear differently.

Differently than what?

Than I do.

How do you know? Have you heard what I have heard?



Be careful now, you are well on the way to premising
your argument on a false assumption if you are about to question my
hearing or
my experience with live music. That's fine if you wish to sling mud and
undermind your own position.

Your paranoia is showing.

No. Just trying to keep you on the right track.


Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio
flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you like
what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

No I am speaking of an obvious conflict between someone's mantra and
their
actual listening bias.

I can't speak for others, I knew the instant I heard my first CD, it was
the
better medium. Percussion was better, there was less noise and a more
convincing illusion of musicians in the room.

I had the same exact experience. It was what made me persue hifi. When I
had
the opportunity to make comparisons using high end LP playback the tables
turned. I must say that they did so much to my dismay. I wanted CDs to be
better than LPs.

In terms of technical specifications, CD are vastly superior.

Thats great if you wish to read specs for pleasure. If you wish to listen to
music what you hear is what matters. Would you suggest that I ignore what I
hear in favor of some one's interpretation of the specs?



I went with my ears and not my biases.

So you say.

Are you suggesting that I am lying? My biases were clearly in favor of CDs.



Most people never get
to make that comparison. Most people have never listened to high end LP
playback.

I have and it is clearly second rate compared to CD for me.

What exactly did you listen to?



It simply isn't something you find in every house hold or every local
electronics store.



It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct
frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.

It isn't odd if one is basing thier choices on what they hear. People
who
invest more in their audio philosophies than their actual listening
experience
is putting the cart before the horse IMO. Hey, if that is what makes
you
happy
fine, but it isn't about the sound at that point.


My choices are always based on what sounds better to me. I don't care
what
sounds better to anybody else and niether does anyone else I know.

That's good. Now what have you actually listened to extensively that has
lead
you to believe that CD playback at its best is better than LP playback at
it's
best?

Everything from Pink Floyd to Bach.

On what equipment? Which specific issues did you compare?




What is the best LP playback you have heard and how did it fall short to
your experiences with CDs?

Every LP I have ever heard has more noise.

Why can't you answer a simple question? What is the best LP playback you have
listened to? What gear? What LPs? And what system? If every LP playback rig you
have listened to had so much added noise that it was noticable even on analog
recordings then you were clearly listening to something less than ideal.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 9:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
.net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It is
an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you to
hear.

That is a crap shoot at best. But if that is really your goal you
will
need all
the recording monitors used by the various engineers who recorded
all
your
favorite titles along with virtual copies of their studios to mimic
the
acoustics. That is quite impractical don't you think?

Certainly, but starting with the most accurate source material is the
place
to start.

And what would that be?

The master tape.

Hint, it isn't the recording.

Sorry, but you don't get to change the rules at your whim.

Once you set your
reference, what matters most, the individual eliments or the final
output?
you
know, the forrest or the trees?

Fidelity to the original.


Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs.

So you hear differently.

Differently than what?

Than I do.

Be careful now, you are well on the way to premising
your argument on a false assumption if you are about to question my
hearing or
my experience with live music. That's fine if you wish to sling mud
and
undermind your own position.

Your paranoia is showing.

Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his audio
flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to compensate
for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you
like
what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

No I am speaking of an obvious conflict between someone's mantra
and
their
actual listening bias.

I can't speak for others, I knew the instant I heard my first CD, it
was
the
better medium. Percussion was better, there was less noise and a
more
convincing illusion of musicians in the room.

I had the same exact experience. It was what made me persue hifi. When
I
had
the opportunity to make comparisons using high end LP playback the
tables
turned. I must say that they did so much to my dismay. I wanted CDs to
be
better than LPs.

In terms of technical specifications, CD are vastly superior.

I went with my ears and not my biases.

So you say.

Most people never get
to make that comparison. Most people have never listened to high end
LP
playback.

I have and it is clearly second rate compared to CD for me.

It simply isn't something you find in every house hold or every local
electronics store.



It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the
distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct
frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.

It isn't odd if one is basing thier choices on what they hear.
People
who
invest more in their audio philosophies than their actual listening
experience
is putting the cart before the horse IMO. Hey, if that is what
makes
you
happy
fine, but it isn't about the sound at that point.


My choices are always based on what sounds better to me. I don't
care
what
sounds better to anybody else and niether does anyone else I know.

That's good. Now what have you actually listened to extensively that
has
lead
you to believe that CD playback at its best is better than LP playback
at
it's
best?

Everything from Pink Floyd to Bach.

What is the best LP playback you have heard and how did it fall short
to
your experiences with CDs?

Every LP I have ever heard has more noise.



Lack of noise does not equal abundance of music!

It certainly helps to be able to hear the music. As does flatter FR and
lack of wow and flutter.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 9:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
. net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
.net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest
possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias. It
is
an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want you
to
hear.

That is a crap shoot at best. But if that is really your goal you
will
need all
the recording monitors used by the various engineers who recorded
all
your
favorite titles along with virtual copies of their studios to
mimic
the
acoustics. That is quite impractical don't you think?

Certainly, but starting with the most accurate source material is
the
place
to start.

And what would that be?

The master tape.

Hint, it isn't the recording.

Sorry, but you don't get to change the rules at your whim.

Once you set your
reference, what matters most, the individual eliments or the final
output?
you
know, the forrest or the trees?

Fidelity to the original.


Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs.

So you hear differently.

Differently than what?

Than I do.

Be careful now, you are well on the way to premising
your argument on a false assumption if you are about to question my
hearing or
my experience with live music. That's fine if you wish to sling mud
and
undermind your own position.

Your paranoia is showing.

Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his
audio
flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to
compensate
for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story, you
like
what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

No I am speaking of an obvious conflict between someone's mantra
and
their
actual listening bias.

I can't speak for others, I knew the instant I heard my first CD,
it
was
the
better medium. Percussion was better, there was less noise and a
more
convincing illusion of musicians in the room.

I had the same exact experience. It was what made me persue hifi.
When
I
had
the opportunity to make comparisons using high end LP playback the
tables
turned. I must say that they did so much to my dismay. I wanted CDs
to
be
better than LPs.

In terms of technical specifications, CD are vastly superior.

I went with my ears and not my biases.

So you say.

Most people never get
to make that comparison. Most people have never listened to high end
LP
playback.

I have and it is clearly second rate compared to CD for me.

It simply isn't something you find in every house hold or every local
electronics store.



It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the
distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to correct
frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.

It isn't odd if one is basing thier choices on what they hear.
People
who
invest more in their audio philosophies than their actual
listening
experience
is putting the cart before the horse IMO. Hey, if that is what
makes
you
happy
fine, but it isn't about the sound at that point.


My choices are always based on what sounds better to me. I don't
care
what
sounds better to anybody else and niether does anyone else I know.

That's good. Now what have you actually listened to extensively that
has
lead
you to believe that CD playback at its best is better than LP
playback
at
it's
best?

Everything from Pink Floyd to Bach.

What is the best LP playback you have heard and how did it fall short
to
your experiences with CDs?

Every LP I have ever heard has more noise.



Lack of noise does not equal abundance of music!

It certainly helps to be able to hear the music. As does flatter FR and
lack of wow and flutter.

It helps you hear whatever your reproduction rig puts out.
Not to say that it sounds like music.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
"The Libeler" McStupid
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/24/2004 9:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
. net


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
.net


If you prefer clean sounding audio that has the lowest
possible
distortion
then you are obviously going to have an anti-vinyl bias.
It
is
an
inferior
medium from a technical standpoint.


Clean as in sterile and uninvolving?

No, clean as in closer to what the artist and engineer want
you
to
hear.

That is a crap shoot at best. But if that is really your goal
you
will
need all
the recording monitors used by the various engineers who
recorded
all
your
favorite titles along with virtual copies of their studios to
mimic
the
acoustics. That is quite impractical don't you think?

Certainly, but starting with the most accurate source material is
the
place
to start.

And what would that be?

The master tape.

Hint, it isn't the recording.

Sorry, but you don't get to change the rules at your whim.

Once you set your
reference, what matters most, the individual eliments or the final
output?
you
know, the forrest or the trees?

Fidelity to the original.


Yes I get that far more often from CDs
than LPs.

So you hear differently.

Differently than what?

Than I do.

Be careful now, you are well on the way to premising
your argument on a false assumption if you are about to question
my
hearing or
my experience with live music. That's fine if you wish to sling
mud
and
undermind your own position.

Your paranoia is showing.

Funny how at least one other person who is touting the same
audio
mantra has now come forward and admitted that he likes his
audio
flavored
with
plenty of added distortion from the listening room to
compensate
for
inherent
distortions in his speakers.

You're speaking of preference, and that's a different story,
you
like
what
you like and there's no morally correct way to listen.

No I am speaking of an obvious conflict between someone's
mantra
and
their
actual listening bias.

I can't speak for others, I knew the instant I heard my first CD,
it
was
the
better medium. Percussion was better, there was less noise and a
more
convincing illusion of musicians in the room.

I had the same exact experience. It was what made me persue hifi.
When
I
had
the opportunity to make comparisons using high end LP playback the
tables
turned. I must say that they did so much to my dismay. I wanted
CDs
to
be
better than LPs.

In terms of technical specifications, CD are vastly superior.

I went with my ears and not my biases.

So you say.

Most people never get
to make that comparison. Most people have never listened to high
end
LP
playback.

I have and it is clearly second rate compared to CD for me.

It simply isn't something you find in every house hold or every
local
electronics store.



It is odd that some of the same people who argue that the
distortion
produced by LP playback is OK but adding an equalizer to
correct
frequency
response is somehow bad or wrong.

It isn't odd if one is basing thier choices on what they hear.
People
who
invest more in their audio philosophies than their actual
listening
experience
is putting the cart before the horse IMO. Hey, if that is what
makes
you
happy
fine, but it isn't about the sound at that point.


My choices are always based on what sounds better to me. I don't
care
what
sounds better to anybody else and niether does anyone else I
know.

That's good. Now what have you actually listened to extensively
that
has
lead
you to believe that CD playback at its best is better than LP
playback
at
it's
best?

Everything from Pink Floyd to Bach.

What is the best LP playback you have heard and how did it fall
short
to
your experiences with CDs?

Every LP I have ever heard has more noise.



Lack of noise does not equal abundance of music!

It certainly helps to be able to hear the music. As does flatter FR and
lack of wow and flutter.

It helps you hear whatever your reproduction rig puts out.
Not to say that it sounds like music.



There are turntables that are so low in wow and flutter that the superiority
of CD is a wash.
There are cartridges that go beyond the response of CD but again it's a non
issue
There are dbx encoded discs that exceed CD's signal to noise ratio

Then there are consumer recordings and consumer turntables which consumer CD
players blow out of the water

I wonder what high end enthusiasts would be saying however, had the
recording industry stubbornly refused to work on CD and stuck to the LP and
cassette format.

They would be crying foul I think.

There is work now being done to improve CD but I really think the high end
died back in 1982 with the CDP101
There is just not a whole lot left to improve
and certainly nothing the average music buyer is willing to pay extra for