| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#401
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:34:25 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote: (paul packer) said: Given that the aim of all amp designers is a straight wire with gain, and excluding massive incompetence, there can never have been "huge" differences. Not *all* amp designers. Forgive me. I'm an idealist. |
|
#402
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 12:42:41 +0200, Lionel
wrote: Now this is indeed a serious attack on the English language. You are too basically cartesian to appreciate my poetry. I start to feel sorry for you. Let me know when you finish. |
|
#403
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 21:46:55 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: Given the massive swing to Home Theatre gear Gee, and Arnie's just finished assuring me that HT is not the biggest enemy of hi-fi in the US. |
|
#404
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 14:03:06 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote: There is always room for improvement. An interesting consideration... are objectivist and subjectivist needs mutually exclusive? I don't think so. There's a dichotomy here. I believe components other than speakers sound significantly (though not radically) different even within the same price range, so I'm a subjectivist. But I don't believe these weird accessories (including high priced interconnects) and tweaks really aid sound quality at all (and I've tried many of them including green pens), so I'm also a skeptic, which I guess is a kind of objectivist. So....I appear to have a foot in both camps. Am I the only one? |
|
#407
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#408
|
|||
|
|||
|
paul packer said: There is always room for improvement. An interesting consideration... are objectivist and subjectivist needs mutually exclusive? There's a dichotomy here. I believe components other than speakers sound significantly (though not radically) different even within the same price range, so I'm a subjectivist. But I don't believe these weird accessories (including high priced interconnects) and tweaks really aid sound quality at all (and I've tried many of them including green pens), so I'm also a skeptic, which I guess is a kind of objectivist. So....I appear to have a foot in both camps. Am I the only one? You're avoiding the crux, which is "tests". If you believe in the value of tests, you get to be an objectivist. That doesn't just mean rationally acknowledging the value of scientifically valid tests performed by experienced R&D professionals in real enterprises. It also means you have to believe that a very few "tests" that are done without real scientific controls, in which both the participants and the proctors are predisposed to not hearing differences, are sufficient for all audio equipment and all listeners. You also have to believe that any difference somebody thinks they heard in real-life listening, but that disappears during a "test", is illusory. You further have to believe that "science" has reached its limit, and any apparent (but not real) audible difference that cannot be fully explained using what the best scientists know today is also not real. Failing all of the above criteria, you're not an "objectivist". Sorry. (If you want to be a 'borg, the requirements are even more stringent.) |
|
#409
|
|||
|
|||
|
paul packer said: Actually I'd have expected that many would be intensely interested in "affordable" hi-fi and where the bargains might be found, but there are very few such posts, or even reviews of cheaper equipment. Admittedly the stores are crammed with HT stuff at the moment, but what about Ebay? Surely posters here buy and sell on the Bay, yet I never see any posts about their latest acquisitions and how they sound, what marvellous discoveries they've made about Rotel and Nad cheapies and how they sound 80% as good as a Krell, or whatever. What I'm saying is that for an audio NG there's something missing here, which is lively debate on non gold-plated audio. It's ironic that in this very thread there's a lively debate going on about cars of the vey kind we rarely see about audio. If you're referring to RAO, those discussions used to happen. Then came the 'borgs, and that was the end of that. |
|
#410
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: paul packer said: Actually I'd have expected that many would be intensely interested in "affordable" hi-fi and where the bargains might be found, but there are very few such posts, or even reviews of cheaper equipment. Admittedly the stores are crammed with HT stuff at the moment, but what about Ebay? Surely posters here buy and sell on the Bay, yet I never see any posts about their latest acquisitions and how they sound, what marvellous discoveries they've made about Rotel and Nad cheapies and how they sound 80% as good as a Krell, or whatever. What I'm saying is that for an audio NG there's something missing here, which is lively debate on non gold-plated audio. It's ironic that in this very thread there's a lively debate going on about cars of the vey kind we rarely see about audio. If you're referring to RAO, those discussions used to happen. Then came the 'borgs, and that was the end of that. Because of the reduced number of posters, it's less likely to find someone with direct experience with a given piece of audio equipment. It was fun to point to my second-hand NAD integrated when Howard tried to sell me on amp comparisons. Stephen |
|
#411
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 said:
If you're referring to RAO, those discussions used to happen. Then came the 'borgs, and that was the end of that. Because of the reduced number of posters, it's less likely to find someone with direct experience with a given piece of audio equipment. It was fun to point to my second-hand NAD integrated when Howard tried to sell me on amp comparisons. I always wondered why Howard considered me a tweako freako, where I have never bought an amplifier or CD player new. Instead, I build most of my stuff myself, incuding the turntable. Speaking of Howard, how would he have survived Katrina? -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#412
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 07:47:52 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: paul packer said: Actually I'd have expected that many would be intensely interested in "affordable" hi-fi and where the bargains might be found, but there are very few such posts, or even reviews of cheaper equipment. Admittedly the stores are crammed with HT stuff at the moment, but what about Ebay? Surely posters here buy and sell on the Bay, yet I never see any posts about their latest acquisitions and how they sound, what marvellous discoveries they've made about Rotel and Nad cheapies and how they sound 80% as good as a Krell, or whatever. What I'm saying is that for an audio NG there's something missing here, which is lively debate on non gold-plated audio. It's ironic that in this very thread there's a lively debate going on about cars of the vey kind we rarely see about audio. If you're referring to RAO, those discussions used to happen. Then came the 'borgs, and that was the end of that. Are you saying you're wary of discussing subjective distinctions with the objectivists looking on? If you're so certain such distinctions exist, why not just discuss them and leave the objectivists to their measurements? Or could it be that most of the potential on-topic posters have been scared away by all the off-topic strife and there's no one left to discuss audio? |
|
#413
|
|||
|
|||
|
paul packer said: If you're referring to RAO, those discussions used to happen. Then came the 'borgs, and that was the end of that. Are you saying you're wary of discussing subjective distinctions with the objectivists looking on? No. If you're so certain such distinctions exist, why not just discuss them and leave the objectivists to their measurements? How new are you to RAO? Or could it be that most of the potential on-topic posters have been scared away by all the off-topic strife and there's no one left to discuss audio? Now, maybe. |
|
#414
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 06:17:24 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 07:02:56 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 07:22:17 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: I doubt that Porsche will EVER let VW equal their specs, even when sharing platforms, motors, or whatever. And that was the original point. But of course they do, in the base models, which was my point - they are the *same* vehicle, aside from the nose cones. Nope. Motors have different specs. You can endulge your fantasy about "fake detuning" and all that, but your spinning just make you look foolish, Lord Bumbershoot. Yeah, yeah, funny how that engine gives 247 HP in *every* vehicle it's used in, apart from the Touareg. You could of course argue that it's therefore the Touareg that's had the 'special tuning', rather than believe the Porsche bull****. No, one can easily believe that the VW group understands the marketing angle of "higher-end marques" even within their own group. That's why, for instance, they don't make a comparable Golf to your vehicle. If they do a "high end" model of their own, it seems to be a unique model, like the Phaeton (and now we see how successful *that* has been. BTW, did you know that Burnt Fishtrousers, head of VAG Group, would just *love* to drop the 650 HP twin-turbo version of the W-12 into the Touareg, to blow the Porsche into the weeds? Of course, the marketing boys will never let him do it, There you go. That's the point, which you are only NOW finally coming around to admit. Oh, so your pooint wasn't that Porsche makes better cars, just that their marketing boys insist that the competition is rated with less power? Oh, you DIDN'T quite get the point. It's more that Porsche's marketing boys INSIST that there be a "sporting" advantage between themselves and "a garden variety VW". And VW itself does this with their own branding. Your car is a perfect example of that niche marketing. And the lack of success of the Phaeton vs the relative success of the Bentley seems to underscore that when VW tries to get out of the public perception as a value-driven car, it gets in trouble. Of course, they've been playing that braindead game for years with the Boxster, which was never going to be allowed to have more power than the base 911. They're now doing the same with the Cayman, even though it's already faster round the 'Ring than a 911. What's your point? That either the Boxter or the 911 has suffered in sales from this sort of positioning? Why on earth would they undermine the 9-11? The idea was to bring MORE people on board the Porsche ship, not siphon sales away from their bread and butter line. You really *don't* understand marketing. VAG is going to fight Porsche with AUDI, not VW. What's stupid is the whole idea of such a vehicle having over 400HP in the first place. It's something that a drunken inbred such as yourself would embrace. People have also stuck big block V8s in the back of old VW Beetles as well. Doesn't make it particularly smart. Shame that you don't know much about cars. Overfinch have been putting big V-8s with up to 400 horses into Rangies for more than a decade. So? It's STILL stupid. My favourite Beetle conversion is the one that has a 911 Turbo under the skin - sort of completes the circle! :-) My favorite was a Beetle front end and a 911 rear cap and Boxer motor and Porsche running gear, complete with wing. It was really quite amazing looking AND it passed the TuV, which is a miracle in and of itself. Only took my buddy almost three years to finish it. As previously noted, when you weight more than two tons, you *need* 400 horses - any Bentley owner could have told you that, Vile. No you don't, Stewed. Or are you saying that the V8 Touareg/Cayenne is "useless"? Hell, we have 800 hp Mustangs with blowers. Stupid if you ask me. |
|
#415
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 06:19:05 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 08:44:21 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:15:42 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: BTW, the Ford pickup doesn't *have* to have a rifle rack But it *does* have to have a little cartoon of Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes fame) ****ing on a ram's head (or a Chevy bowtie). I haven't seen a rifle rack in a pickup for years. They keep them in stainless steel bed boxes now. Yeah, but that's not so handy for picking off n***** of opportunity, now is it, boy? Your racism is your own issue, not mine. |
|
#416
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lionel" wrote
True. And all the unshamed distortions he used in his exchange with Pinkerton. All along this thread Dave Weil fits perfectly the Middius' definition of the Borg. ...So much that I am very surprised of George silence. ;-) and I am surprised that you find it necessary to converse with a bloated, alcoholic malcontent like Malesweski. Maybe you need the help in your battles with Dave and George? |
|
#417
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 06:29:22 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: snip That engine - in current 3.2 size - has *always* produced 247 HP in VWs and Audis. http://www.internetautoguide.com/car...wagen/touareg/ 2004 Volkswagen Touareg Performance & Efficiency Standard Features - 3,189 cc 3.2 liters 6 V front engine with 84 mm bore, 95.9 mm stroke, 11 compression ratio, double overhead cam, variable valve timing/camshaft and four valves per cylinder - Premium unleaded fuel - Multi-point injection fuel system - Main 100 liter premium unleaded fuel tank - Power: EEC and 164 kW , 220 HP @ 5,400 rpm; 225 ft lb , 310 Nm @ 3,200 rpm http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=78 ENGINES/TRANSMISSIONS 3.2 V6 petrol (3,189cc): 162kW (220PS) at 5,800 rpm / 305Nm (225 lb ft) torque at 3,200 rpm. So much for your knowledge of "history". It's already been stipulated that the Touareg is the exception, presumably for marketing reasons. Bus****. You haven't retracted your claim that the Touareg has ALWAYS had 240 (or plus as you tried to claim earlier). It hasn't. It used to only have 220HP. Typical Vile distortion of reality. You're joking of course. You ignore the reason that I posted those links and you change the subject. Just say the words, stumblebum. "I was wrong. The VW version of this motor HASN'T always had the current level of tune". You CAN'T, can you? Your original point was that the Porsche version is special, which it just plain is not. No, my original point is that the performance WASN'T exactly the same, as you claimed. It's STILL not. The Porsche STILL beats the VW by a second (and it used to be two). This is NOT identical (surely in the engineering world, the word Identical still has some meaning). And I wonder how much the new Porsche 500 hp model beats the W12 equipped model. Or do you consider 50 hp a "nit"? That big-bore VR6 engine was developed for the R32 Golf and the TT, and now is also used in the new Passat and the Audi A3. In all cases, it produces 247 HP. There's a 3.6 litre FSI version with close on 300 horses waiting to go into the new TT, and it will no doubt also find its way across the range in time. shrug None of this has anything to do with the original point. And later on, I'll show you where you're wrong about R32 and the new Passat. Don't believe everything the Porsche boys try to tell you, Vile, they simply don't have the resources to develop serious new engines (or indeed an SUV). I guess you don't know how a company can increase horsepower by even simple tweaks to an intake/exhaust system. Heck, a more efficient exhaust from manifold to tailpipe ALONE can add 5 HP. I guess you don't think that Porsche has the resources to maximize the diesign of an existing motor. You'd be wrong, of course, but you can reach for any desperate measure that you'd like. But it looks like VAG DID want to narrow the over 20 HP gap by doing some tweaking of their own. Still trying to lie your way out of your obvious foul up, Vile? The Cayenne has the same power as every other vehicle using the 3.2 VR6 *except* the Touareg. So? so far, you haven't been able to show any documentation that disproves the idea that Porsche's tweaking is unique to Porsche. No special tuning by Porsche, Wrong. just an agreement by VW to *detune* the Touareg to save Porsche blushes. Why on earth would they do that? It's THEIR motor, right? Why would they sign/make such an agreement? Both parties insisted that development would be done in-house (and with great secrecy toward the other). They didn't "detune" the Touareg, the old base motor at 220 hp was the standard. Both Porsche AND VW simply took it further, with VAG declining to take the Touareg to the Audi and Porsche levels. They obviously did that to protect the AUDI marque, not the Porsche marque. And who cares that Audi (another "upscale marque") ALSO maintains a respectable difference in specs between VW and itself. Bringing in Audi just shows your desperation to avoid saying the simple words, "Hey, I'm wrong about the specs". In fact, it supports my OWN contention, because even VAG ITSELF keeps a spec advantage to their "upscale" brand. Still trying to lie your way out of your obvious foul up, Vile? The Golf R32 and new Passat also use the same engine, rated at 247 HP in each case. Wrong. The R32 started with 241 HP, at a time when the Audi WAS rated at 247, and this year, it's going all the way to 250 HP. Which means that they're tweaking it even further that Porsche has to this point. But since these cars aren't in direct competition with Porsche, Porsche doesn't really care. I guarantee you that if they put this new version in the Touareg, the Porsche team will find a way to tweak it to 255 or 260. http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publi...ter_1472.shtml "Volkswagen News The New Golf R32 – New Edition Of The Most Powerful Golf Ever By source: Volkswagen AG Aug 9, 2005, 09:05 Volkswagen AG has released the first official information on the new Golf R32 for the German/European market. The immediate question that will come to North American enthusiasts minds is why another 3.2l VR6? The 3.2l VR6 in this latest generation R32 now has fuel stratisfied injection (FSI) technology and now outputs 250hp more efficiently and with better economy". http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cf...kswagen/1.html "3.2 V6 FSI, 184 kW: As of the fourth quarter of 2005, a newly developed 3,169 cm3 V6 engine will be available for the Passat Variant. At 6,200 rpm and with 184 kW / 250 hp at its disposal, it can produce a maximum torque of 330 Newton metres (as of 2,500 and up to 3,000 rpm)". Etc., etc., etc... Oh, BTW, the new A6 gets 255 HP (maybe you poor backwater types aren't going to get the new tuning shrug). Once again, advantage to Audi. http://www.audiusa.com/model_home/0,...ystyle=a6sedan A6 3.2 Starting at $42,620* The all-new A6 3.2 performs with uncommon vigor when fitted with the powerful but economical V6 engine with FSI® Direct Injection. With 255 hp, the first ever Audi FSI engine in North America goes from 0-60 mph in just 7.1 seconds. http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/audi_..._overview.html Quick Facts about the 2005 Audi A6 3.2 with Tiptronic: Invoice Price:$38,757 get dealer quotes MSRP:$41,900 Estimated Payments:$874/month* find current rates Rebates & Incentives:Cash Back / Special Financing more info Gas Mileage:NL mpg city / NL mpg hwy Engine/s:3.2L V6, 24 valve, 255@6500hp And, this IS a redesign, a 3.2-litre V6 FSI which is NOT technically the same motor on the Touareg (at this point). At least, VAG is calling it "new", because they've made the intake system more efficient. Hey, sorta what Porsche did a few years ago. You lose. Again. |
|
#418
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... paul packer said: There is always room for improvement. An interesting consideration... are objectivist and subjectivist needs mutually exclusive? There's a dichotomy here. I believe components other than speakers sound significantly (though not radically) different even within the same price range, so I'm a subjectivist. But I don't believe these weird accessories (including high priced interconnects) and tweaks really aid sound quality at all (and I've tried many of them including green pens), so I'm also a skeptic, which I guess is a kind of objectivist. So....I appear to have a foot in both camps. Am I the only one? You're avoiding the crux, which is "tests". If you believe in the value of tests, you get to be an objectivist. Fair enough. That doesn't just mean rationally acknowledging the value of scientifically valid tests performed by experienced R&D professionals in real enterprises. It also means you have to believe that a very few "tests" that are done without real scientific controls, in which both the participants and the proctors are predisposed to not hearing differences, are sufficient for all audio equipment and all listeners. That's just BS and and a cheap attempt to smear all objectivists by forcing association with Arny. You need to give that agenda a rest when having meaningful input. You also have to believe that any difference somebody thinks they heard in real-life listening, but that disappears during a "test", is illusory. More BS. You just need to allow the test protocol every opportunity to reveal the difference heard in "real-life listening". Long sessions, music, noise sources, tones, rapid switching etc. Anything the subject feels is necessary to allow positive blind detection. You further have to believe that "science" has reached its limit, and any apparent (but not real) audible difference that cannot be fully explained using what the best scientists know today is also not real. Obvious to me that the science of recording and playback enhancement hasn't reached its limits. Some of the processing of surround environments with headphones in PC games is proof of that. The progress in just the last few years is nothing short of amazing. I think that arena might open up whole new realms of audible reproduction differences. Does it apply to classic stereo recordings? Not really... Failing all of the above criteria, you're not an "objectivist". Who appointed you judge and jury? Sorry. (If you want to be a 'borg, the requirements are even more stringent.) Borg's practice thought control... but so does George. ScottW |
|
#419
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... paul packer said: If you're referring to RAO, those discussions used to happen. Then came the 'borgs, and that was the end of that. Are you saying you're wary of discussing subjective distinctions with the objectivists looking on? No. If you're so certain such distinctions exist, why not just discuss them and leave the objectivists to their measurements? How new are you to RAO? Or could it be that most of the potential on-topic posters have been scared away by all the off-topic strife and there's no one left to discuss audio? Now, maybe. George.... why not admit you're as hostile as anyone to those who don't share your "resistance" POV? ScottW |
|
#420
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:08:40 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote: Speaking of Howard, how would he have survived Katrina? He should be fine. Probably got a bit of rain and wind. Might have lost power for a short time. Probably about what we got in Nashville a day later. |
|
#421
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scottie said: George.... why not admit you're as hostile as anyone to those who don't share your "resistance" POV? Depends on what you mean by "resistance POV". The single unifying characteristic shared by everybody who identifies with the Resistance is in fact the same viewpoint you hold. You share my view, Scottie. Can you admit that? |
|
#422
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scottie said: That doesn't just mean rationally acknowledging the value of scientifically valid tests performed by experienced R&D professionals in real enterprises. It also means you have to believe that a very few "tests" that are done without real scientific controls, in which both the participants and the proctors are predisposed to not hearing differences, are sufficient for all audio equipment and all listeners. That's just BS How rude. and and a cheap attempt to smear all objectivists by forcing association with Arny. You need to give that agenda a rest when having meaningful input. You still don't read very well. You also have to believe that any difference somebody thinks they heard in real-life listening, but that disappears during a "test", is illusory. More BS. Gracious, such hostility! You just need to allow the test protocol every opportunity to reveal the difference heard in "real-life listening". Long sessions, music, noise sources, tones, rapid switching etc. Anything the subject feels is necessary to allow positive blind detection. It's still a "test" and it's not the same as listening for enjoyment. You further have to believe that "science" has reached its limit, and any apparent (but not real) audible difference that cannot be fully explained using what the best scientists know today is also not real. Obvious to me that the science of recording and playback enhancement hasn't reached its limits. Some of the processing of surround environments with headphones in PC games is proof of that. The progress in just the last few years is nothing short of amazing. Thank you for not attacking me in this paragraph. Failing all of the above criteria, you're not an "objectivist". Who appointed you judge and jury? It's an opinion, twit. You seem to have a different opinion. Shall I have my commandos take off your head? Sorry. (If you want to be a 'borg, the requirements are even more stringent.) Borg's[sic] practice thought control... but so does George. How is your opinion any less of "thought control" than mine? Where did I say that if you don't share my viewpoint, that makes you an un-person? Audio 'borgism entails a lot more deformities than just being undereducated and subpar in literacy. |
|
#423
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote: MINe 109 said: If you're referring to RAO, those discussions used to happen. Then came the 'borgs, and that was the end of that. Because of the reduced number of posters, it's less likely to find someone with direct experience with a given piece of audio equipment. It was fun to point to my second-hand NAD integrated when Howard tried to sell me on amp comparisons. I always wondered why Howard considered me a tweako freako, where I have never bought an amplifier or CD player new. Think of all the sales you've cost the midfi industry! Obviously you're an enemy of rational audio. :-) Instead, I build most of my stuff myself, incuding the turntable. Speaking of Howard, how would he have survived Katrina? If you live in a swing state as Howard does, FEMA's on your doorstep with checks and casseroles in a matter of days. Stephen |
|
#424
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sam's surf is deploring :
"Lionel" wrote True. And all the unshamed distortions he used in his exchange with Pinkerton. All along this thread Dave Weil fits perfectly the Middius' definition of the Borg. ...So much that I am very surprised of George silence. ;-) and I am surprised that you find it necessary to converse with a bloated, alcoholic malcontent like Malesweski. Maybe you need the help in your battles with Dave and George? Unlike you I don't handle any battles on RAO, and I'm not interested in sharing your petty misery. I just like to point out that Dave "Nice Guy" Weil is a pitiful braggart and George "Minus" Middius a pathologic narcissistic. |
|
#426
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:46:12 +0200, Lionel
wrote: dave weil a écrit : Bus****. Coming out a bus with an oat engine ? Glad you're paying such close attention. Shame you aren't paying as close attention to Mr. Pinkerton's errors of omission *and* commission. I suspect that he will fall suddenly silent on his latest gaffes..."experts" are like that. They don't like to be shown wrong. |
|
#427
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Scottie said: George.... why not admit you're as hostile as anyone to those who don't share your "resistance" POV? Depends on what you mean by "resistance POV". The single unifying characteristic shared by everybody who identifies with the Resistance is in fact the same viewpoint you hold. You share my view, Scottie. Can you admit that? What? That Arny's a nut? BFD. I don't share your view that a "resistance" is necessary or beneficial. ScottW |
|
#428
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Scottie said: That doesn't just mean rationally acknowledging the value of scientifically valid tests performed by experienced R&D professionals in real enterprises. It also means you have to believe that a very few "tests" that are done without real scientific controls, in which both the participants and the proctors are predisposed to not hearing differences, are sufficient for all audio equipment and all listeners. That's just BS How rude. But true. and and a cheap attempt to smear all objectivists by forcing association with Arny. You need to give that agenda a rest when having meaningful input. You still don't read very well. Well enough to know your vision is distorted. You also have to believe that any difference somebody thinks they heard in real-life listening, but that disappears during a "test", is illusory. More BS. Gracious, such hostility! You just need to allow the test protocol every opportunity to reveal the difference heard in "real-life listening". Long sessions, music, noise sources, tones, rapid switching etc. Anything the subject feels is necessary to allow positive blind detection. It's still a "test" and it's not the same as listening for enjoyment. How does one "listen for enjoyment", draw a conclusion yet avoid the "test" mentality? If your gonna make a choice... it's always a test. If you're not gonna make a choice... then there is nothing to compare and no conclusion to be drawn. You further have to believe that "science" has reached its limit, and any apparent (but not real) audible difference that cannot be fully explained using what the best scientists know today is also not real. Obvious to me that the science of recording and playback enhancement hasn't reached its limits. Some of the processing of surround environments with headphones in PC games is proof of that. The progress in just the last few years is nothing short of amazing. Thank you for not attacking me in this paragraph. Calling BS is not an attack. Quit trying to take the wimp road. It's been closed to you for quite some time. Failing all of the above criteria, you're not an "objectivist". Who appointed you judge and jury? It's an opinion, twit. You seem to have a different opinion. Gee...no fooling. Shall I have my commandos take off your head? more like bite my ankles and nip my heels. Sorry. (If you want to be a 'borg, the requirements are even more stringent.) Borg's[sic] practice thought control... but so does George. How is your opinion any less of "thought control" than mine? I respect any one's right to their opinion as long as they respect my right to mine. Where did I say that if you don't share my viewpoint, that makes you an un-person? Not an un-person... just an unintelligent person. Audio 'borgism entails a lot more deformities than just being undereducated and subpar in literacy. So much for accepting alternative points of view. IRMC. ScottW |
|
#429
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:46:12 +0200, Lionel wrote: dave weil a écrit : Bus****. Coming out a bus with an oat engine ? Glad you're paying such close attention. Shame you aren't paying as close attention to Mr. Pinkerton's errors of omission *and* commission. I suspect that he will fall suddenly silent on his latest gaffes..."experts" are like that. They don't like to be shown wrong. I thought you were both pretty funny in a Gus Ferrotte sort of way. ScottW |
|
#430
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 12:44:30 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote: I thought you were both pretty funny in a Gus Ferrotte sort of way. Whoever THAT is. Are you sure you didn't mean "Ferdinande Porsh"? |
|
#431
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave weil a écrit :
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:46:12 +0200, Lionel wrote: dave weil a écrit : Bus****. Coming out a bus with an oat engine ? Glad you're paying such close attention. Shame you aren't paying as close attention to Mr. Pinkerton's errors of omission *and* commission. I suspect that he will fall suddenly silent on his latest gaffes..."experts" are like that. They don't like to be shown wrong. I don't care about Pinkerton, he is an old barking dog. |
|
#432
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 12:44:30 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: I thought you were both pretty funny in a Gus Ferrotte sort of way. Whoever THAT is. He's famous........ for head butting a brick wall and knocking himself out. ScottW |
|
#433
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lionel" wrote
Unlike you I don't handle any battles on RAO, and I'm not interested in sharing your petty misery. Oh - you handle battles on RAO, and you also have your own petty miseries. Deny it all you want. Everyone can see it. I just like to point out that Dave "Nice Guy" Weil is a pitiful braggart and George "Minus" Middius a pathologic narcissistic. Those are your battles that everyone can see. You can't see the pitiful pathologies of torrie****s only because he helps you with your petty battles. He is on your side, no? |
|
#434
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... So Harry, you think that audiophiles need to be lied to? No, Arny, I think audiophiles need news, information, and reviews and Stereophile provides it. Addicts think they need drugs. Most audiophiles know how to (and how not to) use their reviews and reviewers. Ignore them? The fact that you have no use for it and have a vendetta against it is *your* problem. No vendetta Harry, its just that I'm far more knowlegable about audio than you are, and therefore can catch more lies. |
|
#435
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 21:46:55 -0400, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Given the massive swing to Home Theatre gear Gee, and Arnie's just finished assuring me that HT is not the biggest enemy of hi-fi in the US. Harry is a good source of obsolete information. |
|
#436
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
Those are your battles that everyone can see. You can't see the pitiful pathologies of torrie****s only because he helps you with your petty battles. He is on your side, no? The irony is that the loser who posted this has to post with an email address that closely resembles mine. It's all about truth and justice, right? LOL! |
|
#437
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message Those are your battles that everyone can see. You can't see the pitiful pathologies of torrie****s only because he helps you with your petty battles. He is on your side, no? The irony is that the loser who posted this has to post with an email address that closely resembles mine. It's all about truth and justice, right? LOL! One of the bigger psychos carrying a "resistance" membership card, eh? Does "The Group" have mental health coverage for their employees? Tom Albertz- seek help!! |
|
#438
|
|||
|
|||
|
Paul Packer says: (Sept4) "I'm saying is that for an audio NG there's something missing here", Yes, indeed. I find it interesting that of all controversies it is the questioning of evidence for ABX that sends not a few into spluttering, red-eyed, inarticulate, foaming-at-the-mouth,rage, where nothing but obscenities will do.* Their fury intimidates new audio amateurs from asking questions or discussing improvement Not a few of the most vocal have little acquaintance with (and interest in) the sound of original instruments of the orchestra. For those whose "music' consists of what they can hear on their home or car" hi-fi system" the little ABX box with a switch is a godsend. Its limitations confirm "scientifically" that there is nothing more to hear out there then they manage to; wire is wire and amps are amps - and those who hear more are snobs or self-deluded, or swindlers trying to put one over the honest folks. ABX allows them to transform their resentment and suspicion of inferiority into a triumph. There is something very personal about the fervour with which pursue those who want to get closer to the original instruments' sound. After all no one forces them to listen to chamber music. The simplistic minds, bereft of any original thought, have limited ability to profit from education. They believe that the textbooks they managed to memorise contain the ultimate truth. They now own Science with a capital S. But if one learns one thing in medicine it is that science is a living process. Yesterday's "100% incurable" disease one day yields to penicillin and yesterday's certainties go into the textbooks of history of medicine. Like in every generalization there are exceptions. Two that occur to me are first Arny Krueger , the inventor of ABX. He would be superhuman if he did not have emotional capital invested in his brain child. The other are the musicians. Very few are interested in high-end. It is a shame from the consumer point of view- because if they were they would not allow some of the monstrosities perpetrated in their name by eg. DG and Melodiya. The explanation may be that they listen for and hear something completely different from the audience out in their seats. Perhaps they *expect* the reproduction to be a caricature and a little better or a little worse makes no difference to them. Ludovic Mirabel *If you think I'm exaggerating just look at the RAO correspondence. |
|
#439
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#440
|
|||
|
|||
|
Richard Malesweski wrote:
Would you like a job whoring overpiced Real Estate to jackasses in Colorado? You seem an ideal candidate. Contact Tom Albertz at 970-690-6900 Or you could be a bloated, red-faced alcoholic with a ****ty website and no work except changing his daddy's diapers and waiting for the estate. Contact Richard Malesweski at 479-631-9378 or email him at You're an asshole, Richard. You must really hate yourself and your life. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Does anyone know of this challenge? | High End Audio | |||
| Cable Madness SALE at AudioWaves | Marketplace | |||
| audio coax cable | High End Audio | |||
| Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
| cabling explained | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
