Let's start with the obvious. Consumer audio is rife with high-priced
stuff. A lot of it is "overpriced" if you define that to mean "priced out
of proportion to its utility", where the baseline for value is set by the
lowest-priced stuff.

Now we've established that simple fact, let's get to what's wrong with you
'borgs. Of course you can't afford the expensive stuff. Neither can most
people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed to
the likes of you. You don't want that stuff and the people who sell it
don't want you as customers. (It's true you don't want it, right?)

We know you can't afford it. Tough. We also know you don't understand the
luxury goods market. All you understand about value is how much something
costs. All your bleating about "tests" and "proof" and "claims" is a
smokescreen. Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
other luxury category.

Best Buy, as an example, sells hundreds of low-priced boxes out of each
store each week. A high-end salon sells a few boxes each week. "Amps is
amps!" shriek the 'borgs. Then how do you explain the fact that high-end
salons have a steady stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?
"Ripoff!" intone the 'borgs, showing their abysmal ignorance.

You 'borgs don't get it. You're clueless. You're completely lost. You
believe with all your metronic hearts that audio should be utilitarian.
Well, guess what -- it's not. As long as there's a segment of the market
that will pay for fancy nameplates and toadying service, some suppliers
will go into business to satisfy that demand.

The high end is not for you. Turn around and go shop where you're wanted.

George M. Middius wrote:
Let's start with the obvious.

I wish your English expression were more obvious. Wading through the
verbiage I think what it is you are trying to say is:-
1. People will always pay for status symbols.
2. It's no use 'borgs' complaining about people getting ripped-off as
those being ripped-off have more money than sense.
3. Amongst all the overpriced junk some items do give big value for big
money (this last point is far from clear though)
4. You spend far too much time reading posts on newsgroups written by
borgs.
5. You should return to adult education English expression classes.

Kissy Kissy Ayn M

PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
large amounts of money must be spent.

Ayn Marx wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
Let's start with the obvious.

I wish your English expression were more obvious. Wading through the
verbiage I think what it is you are trying to say is:-
1. People will always pay for status symbols.
2. It's no use 'borgs' complaining about people getting ripped-off as
those being ripped-off have more money than sense.
3. Amongst all the overpriced junk some items do give big value for big
money (this last point is far from clear though)
4. You spend far too much time reading posts on newsgroups written by
borgs.
5. You should return to adult education English expression classes.

Kissy Kissy Ayn M

PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
large amounts of money must be spent.

Dear Mr. Marx,
English being my second language I'm always eager for
instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
"Englih expression".
Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
ups.com...

Ayn Marx wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
Let's start with the obvious.

I wish your English expression were more obvious. Wading through the
verbiage I think what it is you are trying to say is:-
1. People will always pay for status symbols.
2. It's no use 'borgs' complaining about people getting ripped-off as
those being ripped-off have more money than sense.
3. Amongst all the overpriced junk some items do give big value for big
money (this last point is far from clear though)
4. You spend far too much time reading posts on newsgroups written by
borgs.
5. You should return to adult education English expression classes.

Kissy Kissy Ayn M

PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
large amounts of money must be spent.

Dear Mr. Marx,
English being my second language I'm always eager for
instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
"Englih expression".
Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
Ludovic Mirabel

try Ms Marx instead of Mr.

Steve

Ayn Marx wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:

snip


PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
large amounts of money must be spent.

The engineering per se is not expensive. It has long, long since been
reduced to practice, documented, discussed. There is nothing
proprietary or radical about it. The best example is the Linn Sondek,
essentially a uprated, better made version of the JFK/MM era AR
turntable. Any patents ran out decades ago.

The price is high because the market is inversely-price-sensitive, the
units are built in small quantities, and because there is a fair bit of
skilled hand labor involved at Western salaries (though I'd venture to
say that if there's a Ferrari in Linn's parking lot it does not belong
to any of the assemblers or technicians.)

Given a positively-price-sensitive market condition, substantially
higher quantities of product (leading to increased automation, design
to use more precise techniques on automated bases, etc.) and the use of
less expensive assembly labor-although that's a nominal part of the
whole package-it is absolutely and conclusively certain that the exact
quality of a current Linn table-arm-cartridge combination could be
reduced, probably drastically. However, arguably, a small specialist
firm like Linn could _then_ build a product yet better than the one
they currently do for more money than the mass produced version.

There will always be "more", a "higher end". However there have to be
objective standards or the "higher end" will be "higher" only in the
minds of the buyer, who will be a laughingstock in the eyes of others.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Given a positively-price-sensitive market condition, substantially
higher quantities of product (leading to increased automation, design
to use more precise techniques on automated bases, etc.) and the use of
less expensive assembly labor-although that's a nominal part of the
whole package-it is absolutely and conclusively certain that the exact
quality of a current Linn table-arm-cartridge combination could be
reduced, probably drastically.

Bret, do you have a German-schtick you feel compelled to adhere to? Why do
you force the reader to wade through seven line sentences, with word counts
of fifty-one? It is extremely hard to read.

I actually read your bloated sentence. It contains interesting thoughts. But
you need to cut it into digestible pieces. Let's do that now:

"Lowering the price of a high-end product would result in substantially
greater sales. Increased automation would allow more precision of assembly,
with lower labor cost. I am absolutely positive that the quality of a
current Linn table-arm combination could be drastically reduced."

As we discover the meaning of this bloated monstrosity, further paraphrase
becomes possible:

"With the substitution of automation for human skill, assembly of a Linn
table-arm combination could be accomplished in a Chinese sweatshop, with
drastic reduction in quality."

Steve Batt said:

try Ms Marx instead of Mr.

Or Anonytroll, if you want to be as accurate as possible.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...

Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
other luxury category.

Really... lets take jewelry. For more money one usually gets either
a higher grade, a fancier cut, or simply a bigger diamond.
How about cars... one usually gets more horse power and a plethora
of useless options.
How about fashion... what does one get for big bucks in fashion?
Is audio like luxury fashion? No wonder I like hand me downs.

ScottW

Bret Ludwig wrote:

Ayn Marx wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:


snip

PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
large amounts of money must be spent.


The engineering per se is not expensive. It has long, long since been
reduced to practice, documented, discussed. There is nothing
proprietary or radical about it. The best example is the Linn Sondek,
essentially a uprated, better made version of the JFK/MM era AR
turntable. Any patents ran out decades ago.

The price is high because the market is inversely-price-sensitive, the
units are built in small quantities, and because there is a fair bit of
skilled hand labor involved at Western salaries (though I'd venture to
say that if there's a Ferrari in Linn's parking lot it does not belong
to any of the assemblers or technicians.)

Given a positively-price-sensitive market condition, substantially
higher quantities of product (leading to increased automation, design
to use more precise techniques on automated bases, etc.) and the use of
less expensive assembly labor-although that's a nominal part of the
whole package-it is absolutely and conclusively certain that the exact
quality of a current Linn table-arm-cartridge combination could be
reduced, probably drastically. However, arguably, a small specialist
firm like Linn could _then_ build a product yet better than the one
they currently do for more money than the mass produced version.

There will always be "more", a "higher end". However there have to be
objective standards or the "higher end" will be "higher" only in the
minds of the buyer, who will be a laughingstock in the eyes of others.

Translation please in 10 words or less ?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Given a positively-price-sensitive market condition, substantially
higher quantities of product (leading to increased automation, design
to use more precise techniques on automated bases, etc.) and the use of
less expensive assembly labor-although that's a nominal part of the
whole package-it is absolutely and conclusively certain that the exact
quality of a current Linn table-arm-cartridge combination could be
reduced, probably drastically.

Bret, do you have a German-schtick you feel compelled to adhere to? Why do
you force the reader to wade through seven line sentences, with word
counts
of fifty-one? It is extremely hard to read.

I actually read your bloated sentence. It contains interesting thoughts.
But
you need to cut it into digestible pieces. Let's do that now:

"Lowering the price of a high-end product would result in substantially
greater sales. Increased automation would allow more precision of
assembly,
with lower labor cost. I am absolutely positive that the quality of a
current Linn table-arm combination could be drastically reduced."

As we discover the meaning of this bloated monstrosity, further paraphrase
becomes possible:

"With the substitution of automation for human skill, assembly of a Linn
table-arm combination could be accomplished in a Chinese sweatshop, with
drastic reduction in quality."

I think he really meant a reduction in cost.
Chinese quality varies from the worst in the world to the best.
We're now getting mobile
KU-band satellite transceivers out of Chinese factories of equal or
better quality than our US factory. National Semiconductor's president
recently went on a rant in Electronic News about US manufacturing
and pointed out that the perception of the Chinese sweatshop is
flat out wrong in todays day and age. If you want to see the worlds
most advanced state of the art manufacturing ("dark" factories, so
fully automated that no lighting is needed for human operators)
you have to go to China to see it.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:Gu3Ze.121097$Ep.6930@lakeread02...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Given a positively-price-sensitive market condition, substantially
higher quantities of product (leading to increased automation, design
to use more precise techniques on automated bases, etc.) and the use of
less expensive assembly labor-although that's a nominal part of the
whole package-it is absolutely and conclusively certain that the exact
quality of a current Linn table-arm-cartridge combination could be
reduced, probably drastically.

Bret, do you have a German-schtick you feel compelled to adhere to? Why
do
you force the reader to wade through seven line sentences, with word
counts
of fifty-one? It is extremely hard to read.

I actually read your bloated sentence. It contains interesting thoughts.
But
you need to cut it into digestible pieces. Let's do that now:

"Lowering the price of a high-end product would result in substantially
greater sales. Increased automation would allow more precision of
assembly,
with lower labor cost. I am absolutely positive that the quality of a
current Linn table-arm combination could be drastically reduced."

As we discover the meaning of this bloated monstrosity, further
paraphrase
becomes possible:

"With the substitution of automation for human skill, assembly of a Linn
table-arm combination could be accomplished in a Chinese sweatshop, with
drastic reduction in quality."

I think he really meant a reduction in cost.
Chinese quality varies from the worst in the world to the best.
We're now getting mobile
KU-band satellite transceivers out of Chinese factories of equal or
better quality than our US factory. National Semiconductor's president
recently went on a rant in Electronic News about US manufacturing
and pointed out that the perception of the Chinese sweatshop is
flat out wrong in todays day and age. If you want to see the worlds
most advanced state of the art manufacturing ("dark" factories, so
fully automated that no lighting is needed for human operators)
you have to go to China to see it.

ScottW

Scott, you're right, of course. I made the reference as an element of
sarcasm.
Chinese manufacturing technology is scarily good, a challenge to the future
of our nation, a challenge I think we will lose.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Let's start with the obvious. Consumer audio is rife with high-priced
stuff. A lot of it is "overpriced" if you define that to mean "priced out
of proportion to its utility", where the baseline for value is set by the
lowest-priced stuff.

Now we've established that simple fact, let's get to what's wrong with you
'borgs. Of course you can't afford the expensive stuff.

How many of them have you met?

Neither can most
people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed to
the likes of you.

So therefor we have no right to assess their value as equipment or to
determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?

You don't want that stuff and the people who sell it
don't want you as customers. (It's true you don't want it, right?)

I don't want tobe patronized and lied to about how much better my better my
system will sound if I buy $100.00 per ft, cable. I don't want some
ignorant schlub to try and convince me that things that aren't capable of
happening are possible with the newest tweak.

We know you can't afford it. Tough.

Irrelevant to the stuff being as advertised.

We also know you don't understand the
luxury goods market.

When you buy something considered a luxury, it has things that can
objectively be considered better than the plain vanilla version. A more
comfortable chair, a longer lasting engine, whatever, it means improvement
other than cosmetic.

All you understand about value is how much something
costs.

The people who engineer and record music want and expect that their work
will be given the courtesy of playback on equipment that will accurately
reproduce it. To that end, audiophiles try to get equipment that doesn't
audibly distort. Once you have a device that achieves that end, anything
more is not luxury, it's window drressing. While some may think it nice to
have gear that looks as good as it sounds, for most of us the sound comes
first.

All your bleating about "tests" and "proof" and "claims" is a
smokescreen. Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
other luxury category.

Which other luxury categories market things that can't do what they are
claimed to be able to do?

Best Buy, as an example, sells hundreds of low-priced boxes out of each
store each week. A high-end salon sells a few boxes each week. "Amps is
amps!" shriek the 'borgs. Then how do you explain the fact that high-end
salons have a steady stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?
"Ripoff!" intone the 'borgs, showing their abysmal ignorance.

And the evidence to the contrary is where? Aside from the possiblity of
better quality speakers, what besides the better digs is there to recomend?


You 'borgs don't get it. You're clueless. You're completely lost. You
believe with all your metronic hearts that audio should be utilitarian.

Bull****, we beleive it should do what it advertises it can do. If it can't
do that they shouldn't claim it does. If it can, it's worth then becomes
something to consider.

Well, guess what -- it's not. As long as there's a segment of the market
that will pay for fancy nameplates and toadying service, some suppliers
will go into business to satisfy that demand.


Nothing wrong with excellent coustomer service, it's the bull****
advertising that's the problem and the belief that things that cost more
sound better when they only look better. Most people are smart enough to
know that if they buy expensive cologne, it doesn't mean they get to sleep
with a supermodel. If audio companies want to adverstise sex appeal as a
reason to buy their stuff so what? When they say it sounds better or
different, then they ought to be willing and able to demonstrate it.


The high end is not for you.

The high end is almost completely the province of loudspeaker design, since
(assuming sound quality is the main goal), so any other claims aobut high
end are really confined to looks and features. I don't know anybody who
thinks you shouldn't be able to spend asa much as you want on your stereo,
but you should be aware, and lots of people seem not to be, that it doesn't
buy better performance.

Turn around and go shop where you're wanted.


So the audio salons should maybe put up signs: NO TECHNICALLY COMPETENT
PEOPLE ALLOWED?

**** you, snob.

George M. Middius a écrit :

Let's start with the obvious. Consumer audio is rife with high-priced
stuff. A lot of it is "overpriced" if you define that to mean "priced out
of proportion to its utility", where the baseline for value is set by the
lowest-priced stuff.

Now we've established that simple fact, let's get to what's wrong with you
'borgs. Of course you can't afford the expensive stuff. Neither can most
people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed to
the likes of you. You don't want that stuff and the people who sell it
don't want you as customers. (It's true you don't want it, right?)

We know you can't afford it. Tough. We also know you don't understand the
luxury goods market. All you understand about value is how much something
costs. All your bleating about "tests" and "proof" and "claims" is a
smokescreen. Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
other luxury category.

Best Buy, as an example, sells hundreds of low-priced boxes out of each
store each week. A high-end salon sells a few boxes each week. "Amps is
amps!" shriek the 'borgs. Then how do you explain the fact that high-end
salons have a steady stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?
"Ripoff!" intone the 'borgs, showing their abysmal ignorance.

You 'borgs don't get it. You're clueless. You're completely lost. You
believe with all your metronic hearts that audio should be utilitarian.
Well, guess what -- it's not. As long as there's a segment of the market
that will pay for fancy nameplates and toadying service, some suppliers
will go into business to satisfy that demand.

The high end is not for you. Turn around and go shop where you're wanted.

George you have already written that more than 1,000 times
on RAO. Why don't you try to be a little bit more imaginative ?
Now you just look like these old pop-stars who endlessly try
to recycle the gimmicks which have brought them a little
success long time ago. Pathetic no ?

I suggest you to stop posting on RAO during a few years and
to profit of this retirement to feed your indigent thought.
I'm sure that this is necessary in order for the "Normals"
to recover their hero and to make you the triumph that you
deserve.

All my best...

wrote:


Dear Mr. Marx,
English being my second language I'm always eager for
instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
"Englih expression".
Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
Ludovic Mirabel

Thanks for giving me yet another sex change.
'English expression' is common usage. It stands for the skill, or
lack, facility in expressing oneself in English. I hope that's
sufficiently unambiguous.

Examples of good English expression? (how come you know how to use that
phrase when finding it somewhat unusual?}
1. G.E.Moore 'Principia Ethica' Publ' 1971 Cambridge University Press
2. Mark Mason ' The Christian Holocaust' 1981 Markwell Press Hong Kong
3. Rudolf Arnheim 'Visual Thinking' 1969 University of Californa Press
4. Gail Bell ' The Worried Well' Quarterly Essays 2005 Issue 18 Black
Inc Melbourne
5. William Boyd 'The History of Western Education' (Revised Edition)
1966 A. & C. Black Ltd Bristol.
6. Louis Breger 'Freud: Darkness in The Midst of Vision' 2000 John
Wiley & Sons New York.
7. John Passmore ' A Hundred Years of Philosophy' 1966 Penguin. UK.
8. Bertrand Russell ' The Problems of Philosophy' 1974 Oxford
University Press.
9. Jean Seznec 'The Survival of The Pagan Gods: The Mythological
Tradition and It's Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art' (translated
from the French into cogent English by Barbara F Sessions) 1961 Harper
Torchbooks New York.
10. Dale Spender 'Women of Ideas and what Men have Done to them' 1982
Ark Paperbacks London.

That should keep you going for a while petal.

wrote:

Dear Mr. Marx,
English being my second language I'm always eager for
instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
"Englih expression".
Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
Ludovic Mirabel

Dearest Ludivic, thanks for giving me yet another sex change.
'English expression' is common usage. It stands for skill, or
lack off, facility in expressing oneself in English. I hope that's
sufficiently unambiguous.

Examples of good English expression? (how come you know how to use that

phrase when finding it somewhat unusual?}
1. G.E.Moore 'Principia Ethica' Publ' 1971 Cambridge University Press
2. Mark Mason ' The Christian Holocaust' 1981 Markwell Press Hong Kong

3. Rudolf Arnheim 'Visual Thinking' 1969 University of Californa Press

4. Gail Bell ' The Worried Well' Quarterly Essays 2005 Issue 18 Black
Inc Melbourne
5. William Boyd 'The History of Western Education' (Revised Edition)
1966 A. & C. Black Ltd Bristol.
6. Louis Breger 'Freud: Darkness in The Midst of Vision' 2000 John
Wiley & Sons New York.
7. John Passmore ' A Hundred Years of Philosophy' 1966 Penguin. UK.
8. Bertrand Russell ' The Problems of Philosophy' 1974 Oxford
University Press.
9. Jean Seznec 'The Survival of The Pagan Gods: The Mythological
Tradition and It's Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art' (translated
from the French into cogent English by Barbara F Sessions) 1961 Harper

Torchbooks New York.
10. Dale Spender 'Women of Ideas and what Men have Done to them' 1982
Ark Paperbacks London.


That should keep you going for a while petal.

wrote:


Dear Mr. Marx,
English being my second language I'm always eager for
instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
"Englih expression".
Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
Ludovic Mirabel

Dearest Ludivic, thanks for giving me yet another sex change.
'English expression' is common usage. It stands for skill & clarity
, or
lack off, in expressing oneself in English. I hope that's
sufficiently unambiguous.

Examples of good English expression? (how come you know how to use that

phrase so appropriately when finding it somewhat unusual?}

1. G.E.Moore 'Principia Ethica' Publ' 1971 Cambridge University Press

2. Mark Mason ' The Christian Holocaust' 1981 Markwell Press Hong
Kong
3. Rudolf Arnheim 'Visual Thinking' 1969 University of Californa
Press
4. Gail Bell ' The Worried Well' Quarterly Essays 2005 Issue 18 Black

Inc Melbourne
5. William Boyd 'The History of Western Education' (Revised Edition)

1966 A. & C. Black Ltd Bristol.
6. Louis Breger 'Freud: Darkness in The Midst of Vision' 2000 John
Wiley & Sons New York.
7. John Passmore ' A Hundred Years of Philosophy' 1966 Penguin. UK.
8. Bertrand Russell ' The Problems of Philosophy' 1974 Oxford
University Press.
9. Jean Seznec 'The Survival of The Pagan Gods: The Mythological
Tradition and It's Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art'
(translated
from the French into cogent English by Barbara F Sessions) 1961
Harper Torchbooks New York.
10. Dale Spender 'Women of Ideas and what Men have Done to them'
1982
Ark Paperbacks London.


That should keep you going for a while petal.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Ayn Marx wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
Let's start with the obvious.

I wish your English expression were more obvious. Wading through the
verbiage I think what it is you are trying to say is:-
1. People will always pay for status symbols.
2. It's no use 'borgs' complaining about people getting ripped-off as
those being ripped-off have more money than sense.
3. Amongst all the overpriced junk some items do give big value for big
money (this last point is far from clear though)
4. You spend far too much time reading posts on newsgroups written by
borgs.
5. You should return to adult education English expression classes.

Kissy Kissy Ayn M

PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
large amounts of money must be spent.

Dear Mr. Marx,
English being my second language I'm always eager for
instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
"Englih expression".
Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
Ludovic Mirabel


Just ignore her as she is a stupid posturing old woman who should know
better.

"Ayn Marx" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:


Dear Mr. Marx,
English being my second language I'm always eager for
instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
"Englih expression".
Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
Ludovic Mirabel

Thanks for giving me yet another sex change.
'English expression' is common usage. It stands for the skill, or
lack, facility in expressing oneself in English. I hope that's
sufficiently unambiguous.

Examples of good English expression? (how come you know how to use that
phrase when finding it somewhat unusual?}
1. G.E.Moore 'Principia Ethica' Publ' 1971 Cambridge University Press
2. Mark Mason ' The Christian Holocaust' 1981 Markwell Press Hong Kong
3. Rudolf Arnheim 'Visual Thinking' 1969 University of Californa Press
4. Gail Bell ' The Worried Well' Quarterly Essays 2005 Issue 18 Black
Inc Melbourne
5. William Boyd 'The History of Western Education' (Revised Edition)
1966 A. & C. Black Ltd Bristol.
6. Louis Breger 'Freud: Darkness in The Midst of Vision' 2000 John
Wiley & Sons New York.
7. John Passmore ' A Hundred Years of Philosophy' 1966 Penguin. UK.
8. Bertrand Russell ' The Problems of Philosophy' 1974 Oxford
University Press.
9. Jean Seznec 'The Survival of The Pagan Gods: The Mythological
Tradition and It's Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art' (translated
from the French into cogent English by Barbara F Sessions) 1961 Harper
Torchbooks New York.
10. Dale Spender 'Women of Ideas and what Men have Done to them' 1982
Ark Paperbacks London.

That should keep you going for a while petal.

"English Expression" was in common usage about 50 years ago.

| Neither can most
| people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed to
| the likes of you.
|
| So therefor we have no right to assess their value as equipment or to
| determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?

I think what the original ****tard poster doesn't get, is that its the
people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop, manufacture, and repair the
stuff in the first place. Its some bull**** corporate unit and some bull****
deluded retailer who crank the price up to make 1000%+ profit. I am not
saying a $10000 amp is equal to some dodgey $80 jobbo, but no human senses
could tell the differnece between a $1500 amp and a $10000 amp, especially
when they all use the same made-in-korea semiconductors within.

and build your own high-end stuff. You can build amps for about 10% of the
cost of the crap you find in shops. Doug

Bret Ludwig wrote:
PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
large amounts of money must be spent.

The engineering per se is not expensive. It has long, long since been
reduced to practice, documented, discussed. There is nothing
proprietary or radical about it. The best example is the Linn Sondek,
essentially a uprated, better made version of the JFK/MM era AR
turntable. Any patents ran out decades ago.

If you are implying here that Linn's turntables are still state of the
art I'd suggest you are behind the times.

Yapper barked:

Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
other luxury category.

Really... lets[sic] take jewelry. For more money one usually gets either
a higher grade, a fancier cut, or simply a bigger diamond.

What's your dorkiness rating today, Scottie? I'm betting you've
experienced a surge recently.

I'll observe in passing that your analogy is inapt. I won't dwell on how
stupid a person would have to be not to see that. Bye.

SmakDaddy said:

I think what the original ****tard

blush

poster doesn't get, is that its the
people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop, manufacture, and repair the
stuff in the first place.

Oopsie. Your cluelessness runneth over.

You don't know what 'borgs are. You just do not know anything.

Now hush up and go choke your chicken some more.

Fred At Home said:

"English Expression" was in common usage about 50 years ago.

Now we got rap myoozik. So much better!

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:57:15 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...

Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
other luxury category.

Really... lets take jewelry. For more money one usually gets either
a higher grade, a fancier cut, or simply a bigger diamond.

Usually they get a "better name". Like Tiffany.

How about cars... one usually gets more horse power and a plethora
of useless options.

Or a "fancier name". Like Eddie Bauer.

How about fashion... what does one get for big bucks in fashion?

A "big name". Like Gauthier.

Is audio like luxury fashion? No wonder I like hand me downs.

Naw, you've just got a Goodwill mentality in a 6 figure income.

| You don't know what 'borgs are. You just do not know anything.

Wrong again, little one

Heres a little secret just for you - I dont care what you think about
anything.

from Smak

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 08:26:51 GMT, "Doug Flynn"
wrote:

and build your own high-end stuff. You can build amps for about 10% of the
cost of the crap you find in shops. Doug

Yes. Only to have it go bang in your face.

SmakDaddy said:

You don't know what 'borgs are. You just do not know anything.

Wrong again, little one

Stop lying. You said:

people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop[sic], manufacture, and repair the
stuff in the first place.

This shows your ignorance. 'Borgs do none of those things. If they did,
they would not be 'borgs. You so stupid, yo' mama filed to get your genome
reassembled.

Also, fix your newsreader, imbecile.

"SmakDaddy" wrote in message
...
| Neither can most
| people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed
to
| the likes of you.
|
| So therefor we have no right to assess their value as equipment or to
| determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?

I think what the original ****tard poster doesn't get, is that its the
people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop, manufacture, and repair the
stuff in the first place. Its some bull**** corporate unit and some
bull****
deluded retailer who crank the price up to make 1000%+ profit. I am not
saying a $10000 amp is equal to some dodgey $80 jobbo, but no human senses
could tell the differnece between a $1500 amp and a $10000 amp, especially
when they all use the same made-in-korea semiconductors within.

1000% is an exaggeration of an unfortunate situation.
But the argument that the country of origin for semiconductors makes diverse
amplifiers equal is a bad one. Amplifiers vary widely in sound, but not
necessarily on the basis of price. I find that MOSFETs sound different from
bipolars, and IGFETs. The way MOSFETs are driven is yet a further division.
And high bias bipolar amps sound different from low bias designs.

So, I take it, to you, a Halcro sounds the same as a Parasound?

The "borgs" are not the makers. The "borgs" are users, not of equipment, but
of other human beings.

"Bret Ludwig" said:

(though I'd venture to
say that if there's a Ferrari in Linn's parking lot it does not belong
to any of the assemblers or technicians.)


There are no Ferraris in Linn's parking lot (The Aston belongs to
Ivor) .

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 08:26:51 GMT, "Doug Flynn"
wrote:

and build your own high-end stuff. You can build amps for about 10% of
the
cost of the crap you find in shops. Doug

Yes. Only to have it go bang in your face.

No necessarily. I've built plenty of SS amplifiers including pre-amps and
power amps to in excess of 300W RMS per channel with no problems. Sure in a
lot of cases you can save money by DYI but I doubt it would be as high as
90% unless the manufactured amplifier is way over the top in the rip-off
stakes.

A decent solid case (chassis), heatsinks and a capable power supply are
generally the expensive parts in a high powered amplifier unless you are
using particularly exotic or expensive semiconductors. I haven't built any
valve gear in years, but gauging on the costs of valves and no readily
available off the shelf components (output and power transformers, smoothing
chokes, etc) I suspect a valve project is a somewhat expensive one?

Cheers,
Alan

Alan Rutlidge wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 08:26:51 GMT, "Doug Flynn"
wrote:

and build your own high-end stuff. You can build amps for about 10% of
the
cost of the crap you find in shops. Doug

Yes. Only to have it go bang in your face.

No necessarily. I've built plenty of SS amplifiers including pre-amps and
power amps to in excess of 300W RMS per channel with no problems. Sure in a
lot of cases you can save money by DYI but I doubt it would be as high as
90% unless the manufactured amplifier is way over the top in the rip-off
stakes.

A decent solid case (chassis), heatsinks and a capable power supply are
generally the expensive parts in a high powered amplifier unless you are
using particularly exotic or expensive semiconductors. I haven't built any
valve gear in years, but gauging on the costs of valves and no readily
available off the shelf components (output and power transformers, smoothing
chokes, etc) I suspect a valve project is a somewhat expensive one?

Cheers,
Alan

The cost of the labour intensive output transformers and strong chassis
required to support the transformers will always make building
a tube amp far more expensive $$per watt project than any SS design.

But DIYers are never solely cost conscious ppl.
For a variety of other reasons tube amps are a DIYer's delight to build
and listen to.

But very few DIYers wind their own transformers and chokes.

One hasn't really built a tube amp unless one has wound all the
trannies though.....

Patrick Turner.

Ayn Marx wrote:
wrote:


Dear Mr. Marx,
English being my second language I'm always eager for
instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
"Englih expression".
Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
Ludovic Mirabel

Dearest Ludivic, thanks for giving me yet another sex change.
'English expression' is common usage. It stands for skill & clarity
, or
lack off, in expressing oneself in English. I hope that's
sufficiently unambiguous.

Examples of good English expression? (how come you know how to use that

phrase so appropriately when finding it somewhat unusual?}

1. G.E.Moore 'Principia Ethica' Publ' 1971 Cambridge University Press

2. Mark Mason ' The Christian Holocaust' 1981 Markwell Press Hong
Kong
3. Rudolf Arnheim 'Visual Thinking' 1969 University of Californa
Press
4. Gail Bell ' The Worried Well' Quarterly Essays 2005 Issue 18 Black

Inc Melbourne
5. William Boyd 'The History of Western Education' (Revised Edition)

1966 A. & C. Black Ltd Bristol.
6. Louis Breger 'Freud: Darkness in The Midst of Vision' 2000 John
Wiley & Sons New York.
7. John Passmore ' A Hundred Years of Philosophy' 1966 Penguin. UK.
8. Bertrand Russell ' The Problems of Philosophy' 1974 Oxford
University Press.
9. Jean Seznec 'The Survival of The Pagan Gods: The Mythological
Tradition and It's Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art'
(translated
from the French into cogent English by Barbara F Sessions) 1961
Harper Torchbooks New York.
10. Dale Spender 'Women of Ideas and what Men have Done to them'
1982
Ark Paperbacks London.


That should keep you going for a while petal.

Dear MS. Marx,
apologies for the insulting "Mr" in my first posting to you and
for giving me another opportunity to iomprove my English.
I have not yet got to your erudite reading list but your Nr. 10
sounds particularly fascinating and cogent. 10. Dale Spender 'Women
of Ideas and what Men have Done to them'

I'd guess there's a chapter there about low IQ men calling
superior women Mr. rather than Miss, Mrs., Madame or Frau.
Unforgivable!
I must say I was hoping you would make it all less
painful and just give a few simple QUOTES confirming that these eminent
writers used your "English expression" where I in my simplicity thought
just plain "English" would do. On which page(s) am I to find the
suitable examples of the correctness of your usage? You're giving ME
the assignment to dig and dig trying desperately to find the examples
confirming YOUR ideas. .
For instance you said to Middius: " I wish your English
expression were more obvious.. Or You should return to adult
education English expression classes.
I thought that you meant he should return to adult
English (period!) classes and that as a result his English (period!)
would be clearer rather than "more obvious". What's there to be obvious
about? Obvious to you or to me?
Again I thought that "expression" fitted best phrases such
as "This kind of expressions is inappropriate " or "Her face bore a
pained expression" and was redundant, pedantic ergo stylistically wrong
added to "English". For instance do you like this sentence "My English
expresion is better than your English expression"?
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. While we're at it could you give me a good English expression to
match "hutzpah"?

wrote in message
ups.com...

P.S. While we're at it could you give me a good English expression to
match "hutzpah"?


Lionel, insisting, that the only proper spelling is "Chutzpah".
Not that Chutzpah is even an English word
Not that Lionel can even write proper simple English

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:57:15 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote
in message ...

Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
other luxury category.

Really... lets take jewelry. For more money one usually gets either
a higher grade, a fancier cut, or simply a bigger diamond.

Usually they get a "better name". Like Tiffany.

How about cars... one usually gets more horse power and a plethora
of useless options.

Or a "fancier name". Like Eddie Bauer.

Which happens to come with a specific option package.


How about fashion... what does one get for big bucks in fashion?

A "big name". Like Gauthier.

Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the addition
of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.

Is audio like luxury fashion? No wonder I like hand me downs.

Naw, you've just got a Goodwill mentality in a 6 figure income.

Yes, I am blessed and must have sympathy for those suffering the internal
conflicts and insecurities brought by longings of luxury with never a hope
(save the lotto) of acquiring.

ScottW

"ScottW" said:

Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the addition
of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.


Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
value pretty well.

A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
Radford can't be had for a bargain.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"SmakDaddy" wrote in message
...
| Neither can most
| people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed
to
| the likes of you.
|
| So therefor we have no right to assess their value as equipment or to
| determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?

I think what the original ****tard poster doesn't get, is that its the
people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop, manufacture, and repair the
stuff in the first place. Its some bull**** corporate unit and some
bull****
deluded retailer who crank the price up to make 1000%+ profit. I am not
saying a $10000 amp is equal to some dodgey $80 jobbo, but no human
senses
could tell the differnece between a $1500 amp and a $10000 amp,
especially
when they all use the same made-in-korea semiconductors within.

1000% is an exaggeration of an unfortunate situation.
But the argument that the country of origin for semiconductors makes
diverse
amplifiers equal is a bad one. Amplifiers vary widely in sound, but not
necessarily on the basis of price.

And your evidence of this is where?

I find that MOSFETs sound different from
bipolars, and IGFETs.

But only in sighted listening so the comment ios useless.

The way MOSFETs are driven is yet a further division.

Another worthless anecdote.

And high bias bipolar amps sound different from low bias designs.

More unscientific crapola.

So, I take it, to you, a Halcro sounds the same as a Parasound?

You have a DBT that shows otherwise?

The "borgs" are not the makers. The "borgs" are users, not of equipment,
but
of other human beings.

More nonsense. The ones being called Borgs by ididots like Middius and you
are the people who understand that measurements have actual meanbing and
that when two devices meansure similarly enough, they sound the same.

"Doug Flynn" wrote in message
...
and build your own high-end stuff. You can build amps for about 10% of
the
cost of the crap you find in shops. Doug

10%! Not likely. If you choose to not use the overweight faceplates and
such, you can save money, but the components themselves are more expensive
for the DIYer than for the mass producer. There are some DIY groups that
pool their money to get better pricing on projects they have interest in,
but overall you can't build an amp or preamp for substantially less than a
competently designed one that's mass produced. Naturally they will sound
indistinguishable from each other, again assuming competent design.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
"ScottW" said:

Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the addition
of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.


Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
value pretty well.

A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
Radford can't be had for a bargain.

But products from lesser known names that soound identical can be.

"Ayn Marx" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bret Ludwig wrote:
PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
large amounts of money must be spent.

The engineering per se is not expensive. It has long, long since been
reduced to practice, documented, discussed. There is nothing
proprietary or radical about it. The best example is the Linn Sondek,
essentially a uprated, better made version of the JFK/MM era AR
turntable. Any patents ran out decades ago.

If you are implying here that Linn's turntables are still state of the
art I'd suggest you are behind the times.

Isn't state of the art and turntable an oxymoron?