"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:


How on earth would YOU know?

Trust me. Better yet, go hunt up a copy of my book, The Home
Theater Companion (Schirmer Books, 1997) and turn to page
93.


Is that the page that puts the violins on the right?

Actually, the Seattle Symphony had (and may still have) the
violins on both the left and right. Indeed, the classic
orientation of orchestras had it that way for decades. I
think that arrangement works better than the current version
that has the violins all stacked together on the left.

As for my faux mention of "violins on the right" years ago,
that was a quick typo goof. That you continue to make a
point of that shows just how petty you are.



Back then, you mounted a rigorous but
useless defense. Now, its a typo.



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

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

Is that the page that puts the violins on the right?

Actually, the Seattle Symphony had (and may still have) the
violins on both the left and right. Indeed, the classic
orientation of orchestras had it that way for decades. I
think that arrangement works better than the current version
that has the violins all stacked together on the left.

As for my faux mention of "violins on the right" years ago,
that was a quick typo goof. That you continue to make a
point of that shows just how petty you are.

Back then, you mounted a rigorous but
useless defense. Now, its a typo.

Pull up the proof, tweako.

Howard Ferstler

wrote in message
oups.com...


Clyde Slick squatted out:

That's the problem with liars and bull****ters, they have a hard time
keeping their stories straight.




That must be why Atkinson's sad tale about amplifier DBTs and his
"lost" Lecson rings so hollow, eh?


What??



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

"Clyde Slick" wrote:


that would be nice, a publisher suing Howard for quoting himself.
though, really, it is more like a crime against humanity.

The mistake guys like you an Midddius make is believing that you can
actually damage the so-called enemies Ferstler, Krueger, McCarty, and
perhaps others by continual diatribes against them on the usenet.

I don't know how or why the usenet was started. Many of you seem to be here
for decades. It was probably a computer geek meeting area for different
interests. Most people visit to get an obscure question anwered - I needed
a manual for a dodgy piece of gear. Only to get attacked for apparently
living in Australia, home of a frequent victim.

The truth however is that no one takes anything here seriously. I'ts all
considered a big wank. Krueger speaks coherently at a hifi gathering.
Ferstler continues to write books and get paid for doing so. And yesterday
I was forwarded a link to an Asia broadcast show that says McCarty is on a
seminar abouit broadcasting in Singapore. Seems like attacks by you and
Middius on these people are seen clearly for what they are, rantings by geek
lunatics.

What a waste of time.

Please resume your attacks on me immediately.

MC

Michael Conzo wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote:


that would be nice, a publisher suing Howard for quoting himself.
though, really, it is more like a crime against humanity.

The mistake guys like you an Midddius make is believing that you can
actually damage the so-called enemies Ferstler, Krueger, McCarty, and
perhaps others by continual diatribes against them on the usenet.

I don't know how or why the usenet was started. Many of you seem to be here
for decades. It was probably a computer geek meeting area for different
interests. Most people visit to get an obscure question anwered - I needed
a manual for a dodgy piece of gear. Only to get attacked for apparently
living in Australia, home of a frequent victim.

The truth however is that no one takes anything here seriously. I'ts all
considered a big wank. Krueger speaks coherently at a hifi gathering.
Ferstler continues to write books and get paid for doing so. And yesterday
I was forwarded a link to an Asia broadcast show that says McCarty is on a
seminar abouit broadcasting in Singapore. Seems like attacks by you and
Middius on these people are seen clearly for what they are, rantings by geek
lunatics.

What a waste of time.

Please resume your attacks on me immediately.


Don't worry, Michael, I'm sure "Middius" or his droid "Surf" (or some
other Middius ******) will be swooping down to call you "Bwain" at any
moment. Maybe you'll even hear from Morein, who was convinced "by the
evidence" that NYOB123 was the poster we know as "Powell". Quite a
brain trust, eh? ;-)

Brother Horace the Rationalizer Nonpareil said:

Harold, you can't reproduce them here without permission. Once you sold them to
a publisher, they're no longer your property.

They edited them. The finished products were somewhat
different.

If they're not the same as the published versions, you're in the clear.

Trust me, the editor at Routledge will have no
objections, whatsoever.

Odd that you still don't seem to understand copyrights. You say you've had
your articles published. I don't see how that can be true. Unless nobody
ever wanted to reprint them, ever.

In any case, after reading them you can consider yourself
re-educated a bit regarding audio.

Sure, go with that. Doesn't hurt me. :-)

In , Michael Conzo wrote :

"Clyde Slick" wrote:

[snip]

Please resume your attacks on me immediately.

Considering Art Sackman's tiny personality I bet that he would not resist to
a Middius' absence longer than 1 month. ;-)

Lionel wrote:
In , Michael Conzo wrote :

"Clyde Slick" wrote:

[snip]

Please resume your attacks on me immediately.

Considering Art Sackman's tiny personality I bet that he would not resist to
a Middius' absence longer than 1 month. ;-)


Tiny personality, tiny putz, tiny brain. Shall we call him "tiny'? :-D

In .com,
wrote :



Lionel wrote:
In , Michael Conzo wrote :

"Clyde Slick" wrote:

[snip]

Please resume your attacks on me immediately.

Considering Art Sackman's tiny personality I bet that he would not resist
to a Middius' absence longer than 1 month. ;-)


Tiny personality, tiny putz, tiny brain. Shall we call him "tiny'? :-D

Do you remember Tiny Art's great adventure in CDG airport ? :-)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:22:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

I wish you'd make up your mind. According to this, two channel is JUST
FINE for simulating the sound of a live event.

Dave, you continue to get apples mixed up with oranges. With
the Villchur demo things were different from what you get
when playing normal recordings in a home-listening
environment.

Then it was a meaningless display for home speakers.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:22:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

What Villchur was trying to do was show that the speakers
could duplicate the tonality of a live ensemble, and the way
to do that would be to record anechoically and then let the
playback area add its own reverb to the anechoic recording
and the live performers. Neither the sound of the speakers,
nor the sound of the performers would come from anywhere but
up front, with the hall itself adding reverb to the
direct-field sound coming from both. This is not the same as
what we get with home playback of commercial recordings,
although in both cases we want the speakers to deliver clean
tonality. And clean tonality is what Villchur wanted to
demonstrate.

You're joking, right?

He wanted people to think that his speakers could fool people and
thus, would be great speakers to buy and to recommend in print.

Once again, you're making it up as you go...

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:32:43 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:31:12 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Well, there are no Quads in town to listen to these days.
But I did hear a pair a couple of decades ago and they most
assuredly did not sound like AR-3s.

Ohhhh, NOW you're claiming to have heard them. I think you're making
stuff up.

I believe that the question about whether I had heard them
involved the later models. What I heard was the classic
version. I certainly thought they were bass thin, and the
midrange did not have the richness of the AR systems. I
think that basically they behaved like huge headphones:
strong direct-field strength, with a preponderance of
midrange power.

Funny how this information is just NOW coming to light, after all of
the conversation about you experiencing Quads.

I just don't believe you, frankly.

As for my musical attendance, that did not seem to bother
those who published my two books of record reviews. How many
record-review books have you published, Dave?

How many of yours are still in print, Howard?

I think that the latest one is still available from the
publisher. I have not kept track.

I'll bet that they get them back from Overstock.com. It's all about
the O you know, Howard.

In any case, what has
going out of print to do with the fact that I at least
published the books?

It's germane to the question about the utility of the books. You make
it sound like they are the Bible (which has been in print for more
than a few years).

I continue to marvel at how guys like you make light of
getting a book published. You seem to think that all you
need to do is sit down and the info just rolls right out
onto the page.

Getting a book published is one thing. Making a profit from the book
by selling them to actual individuals is another matter. Your book
could have been a publisher's idea of a loss-leader (many books are
published just for that reason).

Actually, Dave, if you put half the effort into writing a
book as you do with your multitude of RAO posts, you might
actually be able to get a text composed. Of course, you
would then have to get it to a publisher and let them
critique it. And it would have to be coherent from beginning
to end. Much different from writing RAO commentaries.

Well Howard, if you had gone to 4 more years of college, you could be
a surgeon today. Why didn't you?

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:09:02 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:05:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

The only comparisons Villchur did with the AR-1 involved
comparing their low-bass output with that of a live organ. I
believe the comparison was discussed in the original "Audio
League Report" journal. There were no ensemble comparisons
with that speaker.

You're wrong.

"During a 1954 hifi show in New York, a small (approximately 1'X2'X1')
loudspeaker system first appeared, innocuously displayed amid a
literal forest of giant bass reflex and horn systems. To quote an
attendee of this show, "I can recall walking into the room and looking
behind the curtains to see where they had hidden the Klipschorn. It
was sort of a joke, but not really, because it was just unbelievable
that this small speaker was putting out such a tremendous amount of
bass. They were playing, I believe, a Westminister recording of
'L'Histoire du Soldat' in which the bass drum was like I'd never heard
it before". snip The man who invented this sonic marvel was Edgar
Vilchur, his new company was called Acoustic Research, the speaker was
named AR-1".

AR Sales Training Manual ca 1990.

This was not a live-vs-recorded demo.

Yes, I KNOW. I told you about this demo BETWEEN SPEAKERS. Weren't you
paying attention?

Note that by 1990 the
"old" AR was completely gone.

Not true. They were still in Canton and they were still AR. They
weren't sold to Jensen until mid '90, which didn't really change
anything for a couple of years. I think it was at this time that they
moved the operation to California.

Know how I know? I was there (in late '89). They were the same company
that they had been since '67, i.e. a Teledyne company. Nice factory
BTW. Big white building. Plenty of parking. Nicely landscaped. Yep,
they "tanked" right about the same time that Allison did. Framingham
(or wherever it was) was far more modest though.

The newcomers might capitalize
on what the company had done in the past, but the business
was a lot different.

As I said, in 1990, they were the same company as they had been for 30
years, although in a couple of years, they would have the assets
sucked out of them by Jensen. They were doing some interesting work on
on-board digital speaker correction at the time I was there.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:12:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:14:52 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

The screen rolls up into a ceiling-mounted housing when not
in use. You need to learn more about upscale video, Dave.

So, you move your speakers out of the way then the screen is brought
down, do you?

When pulled down, the bottom of the screen is attached to a
hook on the top-back of the center speaker. The rig is
adjusted so that there is a small degree of tension that
pulls the screen tight and reduces ripples.

Must wreak havoc for your center speaker to be BELOW such a large
screen.

The speaker is 38 inches high and the bottom of the screen
stops at that point. The top of the screen is four feet
above that point and the screen is eight feet wide.
Normally, I close a nine-foot-wide drape behind the speaker
and the screen if it is pulled down.

I seem to remember you grousing about not being able to position the
center speaker properly because of the screen position. Now I see that
ALL of the speakers were below the bottom on the screen, which must
really screw up coordinating the sound with the picture, especially
since you don't believe in vertical soundstaging.

Lionel wrote:
In .com,
wrote :



Lionel wrote:
In , Michael Conzo wrote :

"Clyde Slick" wrote:

[snip]

Please resume your attacks on me immediately.

Considering Art Sackman's tiny personality I bet that he would not resist
to a Middius' absence longer than 1 month. ;-)


Tiny personality, tiny putz, tiny brain. Shall we call him "tiny'? :-D

Do you remember Tiny Art's great adventure in CDG airport ? :-)


The time he paid the "big" Euros for the "tiny" bottle of water? Or the
time the female bathroom attendant tried to peek at his "tiny" pee-pee?
:-D

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

Is that the page that puts the violins on the right?

Actually, the Seattle Symphony had (and may still have) the
violins on both the left and right. Indeed, the classic
orientation of orchestras had it that way for decades. I
think that arrangement works better than the current version
that has the violins all stacked together on the left.

As for my faux mention of "violins on the right" years ago,
that was a quick typo goof. That you continue to make a
point of that shows just how petty you are.

Back then, you mounted a rigorous but
useless defense. Now, its a typo.

Pull up the proof, tweako.

Keep denying reality, bozo



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

"Michael Conzo" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote:


that would be nice, a publisher suing Howard for quoting himself.
though, really, it is more like a crime against humanity.

The mistake guys like you an Midddius make is believing that you can
actually damage the so-called enemies Ferstler, Krueger, McCarty, and
perhaps others by continual diatribes against them on the usenet.


I'll take it from you, After all, you are the expert at damaging
enemies on Usenet.



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

wrote in message
oups.com...


Don't worry, Michael, I'm sure "Middius" or his droid "Surf" (or some
other Middius ******) will be swooping down to call you "Bwain" at any
moment.

If you had a bwain, you would have
known it was "bwian".



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

Clyde Slick said:

If you had a bwain, you would have
known it was "bwian".

Besides, the 'borgs are the ******s. We in the Resistance employ fluffers
when needed.

George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

If you had a bwain, you would have
known it was "bwian".

Besides, the 'borgs are the ******s. We in the Resistance employ fluffers
when needed.


Who's your favorite cyber-fluffer, "George"? Is it Art? dave? Surf?

No one can replace the late, lamented Trotsky, eh? Too bad he "turned"
on you. :-(

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


Clyde Slick said:

If you had a bwain, you would have
known it was "bwian".

Besides, the 'borgs are the ******s. We in the Resistance employ fluffers
when needed.


One occupation where it is much more desirable for employers
to hire illegal aliens rather than mechanize.



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

wrote in message
ups.com...




Who's your favorite cyber-fluffer, "George"? Is it Art? dave? Surf?

No one can replace the late, lamented Trotsky, eh? Too bad he "turned"
on you. :-(


Not that there's anything wrong with that.



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

Clyde Slick said to Thing:

on you. :-(

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Thing is impotent? Imagine that. Probably a result of smoking all that pot
and dropping all that acid.

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:22:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

I wish you'd make up your mind. According to this, two channel is JUST
FINE for simulating the sound of a live event.

Dave, you continue to get apples mixed up with oranges. With
the Villchur demo things were different from what you get
when playing normal recordings in a home-listening
environment.

Then it was a meaningless display for home speakers.

Not if the point was to show that the speakers could
duplicate the tonal and spectral balance of a live ensemble.

Incidentally, I contacted a VERY knowledgeable source and
they indicated that Ed Villchur never did any
live-vs-recorded comparisons with non AR speakers before the
started the company, or at any other times, either.

AR speakers were it, period.

By the way, this "debate" we are having about the
live-vs-recorded sessions is over.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:22:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

What Villchur was trying to do was show that the speakers
could duplicate the tonality of a live ensemble, and the way
to do that would be to record anechoically and then let the
playback area add its own reverb to the anechoic recording
and the live performers. Neither the sound of the speakers,
nor the sound of the performers would come from anywhere but
up front, with the hall itself adding reverb to the
direct-field sound coming from both. This is not the same as
what we get with home playback of commercial recordings,
although in both cases we want the speakers to deliver clean
tonality. And clean tonality is what Villchur wanted to
demonstrate.

You're joking, right?

He wanted people to think that his speakers could fool people and
thus, would be great speakers to buy and to recommend in print.

Once again, you're making it up as you go...

Nope. Dave, you are more than just a tweako. You are a guy
with a problem.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:32:43 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:31:12 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Well, there are no Quads in town to listen to these days.
But I did hear a pair a couple of decades ago and they most
assuredly did not sound like AR-3s.

Ohhhh, NOW you're claiming to have heard them. I think you're making
stuff up.

I believe that the question about whether I had heard them
involved the later models. What I heard was the classic
version. I certainly thought they were bass thin, and the
midrange did not have the richness of the AR systems. I
think that basically they behaved like huge headphones:
strong direct-field strength, with a preponderance of
midrange power.

Funny how this information is just NOW coming to light, after all of
the conversation about you experiencing Quads.

I just don't believe you, frankly.

The most pleasant thing about this situation is that it does
not mean a thing. If you had clout it might, but you are
about as clout free as anyone can get.

Actually, Dave, if you put half the effort into writing a
book as you do with your multitude of RAO posts, you might
actually be able to get a text composed. Of course, you
would then have to get it to a publisher and let them
critique it. And it would have to be coherent from beginning
to end. Much different from writing RAO commentaries.

Well Howard, if you had gone to 4 more years of college, you could be
a surgeon today. Why didn't you?

Look who's talking. If you had gone to college at all, you
might actually have amounted to something beyond being an
RAO gadfly. As for being a surgeon, I freeze up at the sight
of blood.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

As I said, in 1990, they were the same company as they had been for 30
years...

No they were not. When Villchur and Allison left the spirit
disappeared.

Howard Ferstler

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:23:42 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:22:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

I wish you'd make up your mind. According to this, two channel is JUST
FINE for simulating the sound of a live event.

Dave, you continue to get apples mixed up with oranges. With
the Villchur demo things were different from what you get
when playing normal recordings in a home-listening
environment.

Then it was a meaningless display for home speakers.

Not if the point was to show that the speakers could
duplicate the tonal and spectral balance of a live ensemble.

Who cares if it isn't real world relevant?

Incidentally, I contacted a VERY knowledgeable source and
they indicated that Ed Villchur never did any
live-vs-recorded comparisons with non AR speakers before the
started the company, or at any other times, either.

I never said that he did. He DID do comparisons using recorded
material with OTHER speakers as props though.

AR speakers were it, period.

Only if you're talking about the "live" demos. I never said that he
did that during the early demos. Go back and reread, if you don't
believe me. i think that your comprehension skills are faulty.

By the way, this "debate" we are having about the
live-vs-recorded sessions is over.

That's because you proved that it was mostly irrelevant.

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:12:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

So, you move your speakers out of the way then the screen is brought
down, do you?

When pulled down, the bottom of the screen is attached to a
hook on the top-back of the center speaker. The rig is
adjusted so that there is a small degree of tension that
pulls the screen tight and reduces ripples.

Must wreak havoc for your center speaker to be BELOW such a large
screen.

Nope. With visual source material the brain tends to let the
eyes dictate. It even works with regular AV systems that
have the center speaker high up on a RPTV and the main
speakers normally located. However, a shift that large
(particularly with the center speaker above the level of the
left and right mains) can be a problem with music. This is
why I continue to use a phantom center with my middle
system, which has a standard center speaker located on top
of a RPTV.

The speaker is 38 inches high and the bottom of the screen
stops at that point. The top of the screen is four feet
above that point and the screen is eight feet wide.
Normally, I close a nine-foot-wide drape behind the speaker
and the screen if it is pulled down.

I seem to remember you grousing about not being able to position the
center speaker properly because of the screen position.

The speaker is horizontally at dead center. Why would it not
be?

Now I see that
ALL of the speakers were below the bottom on the screen, which must
really screw up coordinating the sound with the picture, especially
since you don't believe in vertical soundstaging.

With movies it is no big deal, since the visual image so
dominates. With music, the soundstage is nearly flat, with
the central dip not being significant. This three-speaker
combo continues to be the best soundstage simulator of any
speaker packages I have ever reviewed, be there three or two
channels up front with those combinations.

Howard Ferstler

Brother Horace Who Should Prefer Anonymity blathered:

Once again, you're making it up as you go...

Nope. Dave, you are more than just a tweako. You are a guy
with a problem.

I agree with this assessment. dave, your insistence on trying to break down
Harold's religious fervor is quixotic. An impossible dream, even.

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Brother Horace the Rationalizer Nonpareil said:

Harold, you can't reproduce them here without permission. Once you sold them to
a publisher, they're no longer your property.

They edited them. The finished products were somewhat
different.

If they're not the same as the published versions, you're in the clear.

Trust me, the editor at Routledge will have no
objections, whatsoever.

Odd that you still don't seem to understand copyrights.

I leave that issue to my editors. So far, they have no
problems with what I have done. I think that you tweakos are
more concerned with getting something on me here than
adhering to any letters of the law.

You say you've had
your articles published. I don't see how that can be true. Unless nobody
ever wanted to reprint them, ever.

Actually, I had one of the articles I did for Stereo Review
a long time back reprinted in a Chinese (Taiwan) audio
journal. It was completely translated into Mandarin. Stereo
Review sent me a copy as a keepsake.

I had a Chinese guy in the library do some translating, and
damned if the thing was rather wildly different from what I
said in the English version. They even mentioned speaker
models as part of my examples that I had never heard. The
article reprint did not gain me a cent.

A number of years ago Consumer Digest excerpted a video
chapter from my book, The Home Theater Companion. I did get
paid for that one, happily.

As best I can tell, the only other articles that have been
reproduced were given that treatment on the internet. Some
manufacturers have put my product-review articles on their
web sites and if you go to Amazon they have a very large
number of them available as part of some reprint series they
are doing. The reprints cost money, unfortunately, and I do
not get any payoff from the deals. At least not yet.

Howard Ferstler

Michael Conzo wrote:

The truth however is that no one takes anything here seriously.

Amen, almost. Only the rational types have that attitude.
Some of the tweakos live in worlds that revolve around this
place. It is like the center of their collective universe.

I'ts all
considered a big wank. Krueger speaks coherently at a hifi gathering.
Ferstler continues to write books and get paid for doing so.

Not any more. Too much work.

And yesterday
I was forwarded a link to an Asia broadcast show that says McCarty is on a
seminar abouit broadcasting in Singapore. Seems like attacks by you and
Middius on these people are seen clearly for what they are, rantings by geek
lunatics.

On the mark.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:23:42 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Incidentally, I contacted a VERY knowledgeable source and
they indicated that Ed Villchur never did any
live-vs-recorded comparisons with non AR speakers before the
started the company, or at any other times, either.

I never said that he did. He DID do comparisons using recorded
material with OTHER speakers as props though.

Yeah, but your earlier posts implied that he had been doing
live-vs-recorded comparisons with other-brand speakers. In
any case, to quote my source:

"Villchur, working with a dealer, did distortion comparisons
with
high-level sine-wave inputs, but after starting AR. The
stars were AR woofers. of course."

This guy worked with Villchur from the late 1950s to the
late 1960s. I am sure you know who he is.

Enjoy your audio rig, Dave.

Howard Ferstler

Brother Horace the Author-Poseur admits his faculties are MIA.

Odd that you still don't seem to understand copyrights.

I leave that issue to my editors.

It's sad to see a once-productive library clerk descend into senile
dementia. Have you considered eating your gun before you go completely gaga?

His Lordship Harold Ferstler, Sultan of the Sockpuppet Army, addresses
the troops.

Michael Conzo wrote:

Amen

Thus the sociopath who is a known criminal receives King Harold's
beneficence. I guess we should all bow down when you knight Bwian.

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Michael Conzo wrote:

The truth however is that no one takes anything here seriously.

Amen, almost. Only the rational types have that attitude.
Some of the tweakos live in worlds that revolve around this
place. It is like the center of their collective universe.

I'ts all
considered a big wank. Krueger speaks coherently at a hifi gathering.
Ferstler continues to write books and get paid for doing so.

Not any more. Too much work.

And yesterday
I was forwarded a link to an Asia broadcast show that says McCarty is on
a
seminar abouit broadcasting in Singapore. Seems like attacks by you and
Middius on these people are seen clearly for what they are, rantings by
geek
lunatics.

On the mark.


And 'you' say you are against scammers?
If irony "at leaast" killed.



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

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:31:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:32:43 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:31:12 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Well, there are no Quads in town to listen to these days.
But I did hear a pair a couple of decades ago and they most
assuredly did not sound like AR-3s.

Ohhhh, NOW you're claiming to have heard them. I think you're making
stuff up.

I believe that the question about whether I had heard them
involved the later models. What I heard was the classic
version. I certainly thought they were bass thin, and the
midrange did not have the richness of the AR systems. I
think that basically they behaved like huge headphones:
strong direct-field strength, with a preponderance of
midrange power.

Funny how this information is just NOW coming to light, after all of
the conversation about you experiencing Quads.

I just don't believe you, frankly.

The most pleasant thing about this situation is that it does
not mean a thing. If you had clout it might, but you are
about as clout free as anyone can get.

Well, it means something to those of us who have had this conversation
with you regarding Quads.

And if you don't think that the original Quads "didn't have the
richness of the AR systems" in terms of the midrange, you're just
nuts. Simple as that. Either that or you heard a broken pair in a
****ty room.

Actually, Dave, if you put half the effort into writing a
book as you do with your multitude of RAO posts, you might
actually be able to get a text composed. Of course, you
would then have to get it to a publisher and let them
critique it. And it would have to be coherent from beginning
to end. Much different from writing RAO commentaries.

Well Howard, if you had gone to 4 more years of college, you could be
a surgeon today. Why didn't you?

Look who's talking. If you had gone to college at all, you
might actually have amounted to something beyond being an
RAO gadfly.

Since I DID go to college, your logic falls apart.

As for being a surgeon, I freeze up at the sight
of blood.

As I freeze up at the thought of writing to spec.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:33:05 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

As I said, in 1990, they were the same company as they had been for 30
years...

No they were not. When Villchur and Allison left the spirit
disappeared.

For over 20 years then. What's a decade amongst friends?

Nonetheless, this was still pre-Jensen. and the TSW series was a
really nice sounding series, and well made to boot.

Howard Ferstler a écrit :

[snip]

I think that you tweakos are
more concerned with getting something on me here than
adhering to any letters of the law.

Howard why do you call Middius "tweako" ?
Middius has never tweaked anything in his life... Except his
disguise for the gay pride parade. :-)

Lionella said:

Howard why do you call Middius "tweako" ?

I found a candid picture of Lionella during her short-lived career as a porn
model:

http://tinyurl.com/5qzed