Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
Arny Krueger wrote:
"dizzy" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: SACD and DVD remain numbers for the sake of numbers. It's too bad that they did not or could not have come out with, like, a 88.2kHz stereo format, 16 bits (or maybe more just for marketing's sake) that would play transparently on existing players. And for God's sake AGREE ON THE STANDARD. You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music. In your opinion. Which, in this case, I tend to agree with. So, I do "get it", apparently... However I must admit that I wouldn't mind some (more) "overkill" in regards to the bandwidth, just to "be sure", and to put all the debate to rest. Hell, 50 years from now there's going to be usenet flame wars over whether 22kHz is enough bandwidth or not. Between the complexity and cost of proper "surround sound", and the competing standards... The audio industry needs to solve actual problems, not made-up ones like these. SACD and DVD-A are solutions looking for a problem. Well, the surround-sound thing is not actually a bad idea... It's just complex and expensive to do right, and not only from the consumer's POV. |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SACD Player Recommendation
Arny Krueger wrote:
"dizzy" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Time for a new machine, Arny. On my hardly SOTA Athlon 3800 machine, the graphics take all of about three seconds to appear. I would hardly call an Athlon 3800+ even "hardly SOTA", Who cares what you would call it? He did, quite appropriately, call it "hardly SOTA". It's not SOTA or anywhere's near. Which makes his "my hardly SOTA Athlon" statement quite appropriate. Why on God's green Earth would you nit-pick it? It's fine. Are we speaking the same English language, Arny? It is a commodity computer, pure and simple. Just because you can produce examples of synonymous words or phrases does not make what he said inappropriate, Arny. |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 06:49:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message m Arny Krueger wrote: SACD and DVD remain numbers for the sake of numbers. It's too bad that they did not or could not have come out with, like, a 88.2kHz stereo format, 16 bits (or maybe more just for marketing's sake) that would play transparently on existing players. And for God's sake AGREE ON THE STANDARD. You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music. If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded us again about your own system. If we knew what it was we could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment from ordinary CDs that you appear to. Between soldering jobs, I mean. Well, we could duplicate his system, but duplicating his (tin) ears might be more difficult. |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"paul packer" wrote in message
You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music. If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded us again about your own system. Why would that be relevant? If we knew what it was we could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment from ordinary CDs that you appear to. When did I say that ordinary CDs are guaranteed to provide you with the satisfaction that you apparently want from recordings? I never did. I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they did, and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof of it. |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 06:49:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: SACD and DVD remain numbers for the sake of numbers. It's too bad that they did not or could not have come out with, like, a 88.2kHz stereo format, 16 bits (or maybe more just for marketing's sake) that would play transparently on existing players. And for God's sake AGREE ON THE STANDARD. You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music. If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded us again about your own system. If we knew what it was we could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment from ordinary CDs that you appear to. Between soldering jobs, I mean. Well, we could duplicate his system, but duplicating his (tin) ears might be more difficult. Harry, if the difference is so clear, why can't you provide a reliable example of it? |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "paul packer" wrote in message You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music. If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded us again about your own system. Why would that be relevant? If we knew what it was we could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment from ordinary CDs that you appear to. When did I say that ordinary CDs are guaranteed to provide you with the satisfaction that you apparently want from recordings? I never did. I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they did, and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof of it. When is it going to become clear to you Arny that I have no interest in providing "proof" to anybody. I hear it, I enjoy it, I urge others to try it in the belief that they too will hear and enjoy it. It is for making musical enjoyment more so. It is for making hobbiest enjoyment more so. It does not require "proof". If you require proof, go prove it, or prove it negatively yourself. You have never done a test of DVD-A or SACD. You were badmouthing SACD before you had ever heard it, based on your engineering "knowledge". The worst of expectation bias. You don't believe it, fine, shut up and let others form their own opinion. If you want to yap on, then do some scientific experiments yourself that others can peer review and find solid....then talk. |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 06:49:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: SACD and DVD remain numbers for the sake of numbers. It's too bad that they did not or could not have come out with, like, a 88.2kHz stereo format, 16 bits (or maybe more just for marketing's sake) that would play transparently on existing players. And for God's sake AGREE ON THE STANDARD. You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music. If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded us again about your own system. If we knew what it was we could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment from ordinary CDs that you appear to. Between soldering jobs, I mean. Well, we could duplicate his system, but duplicating his (tin) ears might be more difficult. Harry, if the difference is so clear, why can't you provide a reliable example of it? I have Arny Because I have taken the time to listen critically and with a carefully controlled set of sources, and have described what I hear, Arny. And that is good enough for me. And after four years, I still hear it and it still enhances my musical enjoyment. And I am not alone...countless others hear the same thing and enjoy it as well. You've been deriding SACD from before you ever heard it Arny. The worst kind of expectation bias. Either that, or a very tin ear. |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
Harry Lavo said: Well, we could duplicate his system, but duplicating his (tin) ears might be more difficult. Difficult? I guarantee you don't want to go there. http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RA...rooger_ear.jpg -- Krooscience: the antidote to education, experience, and excellence |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music. If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded us again about your own system. Why would that be relevant? If we knew what it was we could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment from ordinary CDs that you appear to. When did I say that ordinary CDs are guaranteed to provide you with the satisfaction that you apparently want from recordings? I never did. I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they did, and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof of it. But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however powerful Harry's proof. That's why we want to hear about your system. |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SACD Player Recommendation
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:26:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: While on the other hand, you relish suffering indignity. What indignity - having some dogs bark at me? LOL! Posting on RAO keeps me in practice for suffering fools. Keeps your debating trade skills sharp too. That's important, Arny. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SACD Player Recommendation
Arny Krueger a scris: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ups.com Arny Krueger a scris: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ps.com Signal a scris: "Harry Lavo" wrote: (quote from response to post by the late Stewart Pinkerton) Did he really die? I was told he did, and he has not posted since. I don't know for sure. A poster on uk.rec.audio said he had contact with Stewart after he stopped posting and he was OK, but that was some time ago. maye he is just on an extended binge. More likely, Pinky is doing what any number of old regulars like JJ have done - take advantage of a transition in life to break free of the RAO habit. He is no longer suffering the indignity of being associated in any way with the Middiot and his clique of no-brains. While on the other hand, you relish suffering indignity. What indignity - having some dogs bark at me? LOL! The so called indignity you just pointed out in your previous post. Posting on RAO keeps me in practice for suffering fools. I am glad that we are able to assist you in dealing with your mryiad everyday problems in dealing with the rest of humanity. At any rate, I thought you weren't going to bring your family into RAO discussions. |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SACD Player Recommendation
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 06:50:25 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Time for a new machine, Arny. On my hardly SOTA Athlon 3800 machine, the graphics take all of about three seconds to appear. I would hardly call an Athlon 3800+ even "hardly SOTA", Who cares what you would call it? He did, quite appropriately, call it "hardly SOTA". It's not SOTA or anywhere's near. It is a commodity computer, pure and simple. It would be helpful if Arnold understood the English language. |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SACD Player Recommendation
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:18:22 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Signal a scris: "Harry Lavo" wrote: (quote from response to post by the late Stewart Pinkerton) Did he really die? I was told he did, and he has not posted since. I don't know for sure. A poster on uk.rec.audio said he had contact with Stewart after he stopped posting and he was OK, but that was some time ago. maye he is just on an extended binge. More likely, Pinky is doing what any number of old regulars like JJ have done - take advantage of a transition in life to break free of the RAO habit. He is no longer suffering the indignity of being associated in any way with the Middiot and his clique of no-brains. Ahhh, now we get to the root of Arnold's pathology. |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"dizzy" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: SACD and DVD remain numbers for the sake of numbers. It's too bad that they did not or could not have come out with, like, a 88.2kHz stereo format, 16 bits (or maybe more just for marketing's sake) that would play transparently on existing players. And for God's sake AGREE ON THE STANDARD. You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music. In your opinion. Well that, but also as a easily demonstrable scientific fact. Which, in this case, I tend to agree with. So, I do "get it", apparently... However I must admit that I wouldn't mind some (more) "overkill" in regards to the bandwidth, just to "be sure", and to put all the debate to rest. There is already plenty of overkill in place. 16 KHz is the point where SQ starts going away, as a general rule. Hell, 50 years from now there's going to be usenet flame wars over whether 22kHz is enough bandwidth or not. There has been no reason to argue the point for at least 5 years. It is easy to make musical recordings 24/96 and more recently 24/192 and compare them carefully with the identical same music at 44/16. . Heck, even a duffer like Harry has the ability to do a proper test. Between the complexity and cost of proper "surround sound", and the competing standards... The audio industry needs to solve actual problems, not made-up ones like these. SACD and DVD-A are solutions looking for a problem. Well, the surround-sound thing is not actually a bad idea... It's just complex and expensive to do right, and not only from the consumer's POV. SACD and DVD-A have added nothing of substance to surround. |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 06:49:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dizzy" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: SACD and DVD remain numbers for the sake of numbers. It's too bad that they did not or could not have come out with, like, a 88.2kHz stereo format, 16 bits (or maybe more just for marketing's sake) that would play transparently on existing players. And for God's sake AGREE ON THE STANDARD. You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music. If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded us again about your own system. If we knew what it was we could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment from ordinary CDs that you appear to. Between soldering jobs, I mean. Well, we could duplicate his system, but duplicating his (tin) ears might be more difficult. Harry, if the difference is so clear, why can't you provide a reliable example of it? I have Arny No you haven't. Because I have taken the time to listen critically and with a carefully controlled set of sources, and have described what I hear, Arny. And that is good enough for me. It's not good enough for any thinking person, Harry. OK, you have a religious faith in high sample rates. So what? And after four years, I still hear it and it still enhances my musical enjoyment. Nahh Harry, you just psych yourself up by reading lists of numbers and looking at oscilliscope traces. Then you have a few piece of poetry written by paid shills. That's not how thinking men do things. And I am not alone...countless others hear the same thing and enjoy it as well. Actually the number has been counted by the RIAA and found to be falling rapidly. You've been deriding SACD from before you ever heard it Arny. Bad technology smells from a goodly distance. The worst kind of expectation bias. Either that, or a very tin ear. Tell it to the Hydrogen Audio Forum and all the consumers who have throttled back their purchases related to the high sample rate scam. |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "paul packer" wrote in message You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music. If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded us again about your own system. Why would that be relevant? If we knew what it was we could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment from ordinary CDs that you appear to. When did I say that ordinary CDs are guaranteed to provide you with the satisfaction that you apparently want from recordings? I never did. I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they did, and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof of it. When is it going to become clear to you Arny that I have no interest in providing "proof" to anybody. It's been perfectly clear to me for years, Harry. I just bring the issue up and you demonstrate your intellectual bankrupcy, almost on cue. I hear it,I enjoy it, I urge others to try it in the belief that they too will hear and enjoy it. Spoken like a true believer, Harry. It is for making musical enjoyment more so. That promise turned out to be a bitter lie. Consumers are abandoning the DVD-A and SACD hype in droves. It is for making hobbiest enjoyment more so. People just want better sound, not pretty scope traces and bigger numbers. It does not require "proof". No proof has lead to no sales. If you require proof, go prove it, or prove it negatively yourself. Been there, done that. You have never done a test of DVD-A or SACD. Delusions of omnisicence noted. You were badmouthing SACD before you had ever heard it, based on your engineering "knowledge". Harry, the superiority of my technical knowlege about audio over years is clearly manifest, as you continue to muddle even the basics here on RAO and over on RAHE. You can't even reliably telll the difference between dynamic range and bandwidth, but constantly confuse them. The worst of expectation bias. Harry, tell it to the guys over on the Hydrogen Audio forum. Tell it to all the consumers that stopped buy SACD and DVD-A recordings when they turned out to not fulfill the false promises that were made for them. You don't believe it, fine, shut up and let others form their own opinion. I did that too, Harry when I posted those high bitrate samples over at www.pcabx.com. If you want to yap on, then do some scientific experiments yourself that others can peer review and find solid....then talk. There's no need for any new experiments because JAES papers done decades ago still tell it like it is. The absence of reliable contradictory evidence speaks volumes. Even Morien is finding out for himself that the noise floor of SACD recordings is not set by the SACD medium or even by so-called lesser mediums, but by the venues. Harry your problem is that my findings being scientific, are predictive of what people find out for themselves, should they care to investigate the relevant facts for themselves. Your findings are fantasies. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music. If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded us again about your own system. Why would that be relevant? If we knew what it was we could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment from ordinary CDs that you appear to. When did I say that ordinary CDs are guaranteed to provide you with the satisfaction that you apparently want from recordings? I never did. I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they did, and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof of it. But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however powerful Harry's proof. I think it would be indicative if Harry would set up an experiment that was bias controlled and that independent persons could obtain positive outcomes from. Harry is just trying to make it personal in order to salve his wounded ego. That's why we want to hear about your system. Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other things were equal? Too bad you're not well-informed enough to do some proper listening tests of your own, Paul. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SACD Player Recommendation
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:26:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: While on the other hand, you relish suffering indignity. What indignity - having some dogs bark at me? LOL! Posting on RAO keeps me in practice for suffering fools. Keeps your debating trade skills sharp too. That's important, Arny. In your dreams, Paul. What keeps me sharp is interacting with real people in the real world. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SACD Player Recommendation
dave weil said: It's not SOTA or anywhere's near. It is a commodity computer, pure and simple. It would be helpful if Arnold understood the English language. Understanding is irrelevant. The "debating trade" subsumes all. -- Krooscience: the antidote to education, experience, and excellence |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SACD Player Recommendation
The Krooborg damns itself with its torrents of lies. In your dreams, Paul. What keeps me sharp is interacting with real people in the real world. Are you seriously telling us you consider yourself "sharp"? It's astonishing how many times you've assured RAO that all the evidence we see is wrong, and that the reality of your existence is completely different from what we observe at first-hand. -- Krooscience: the antidote to education, experience, and excellence |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:34:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message You still don't get it, do you Dizzy? They already have the CD standard that is capable of transmitting the full power and glory of music. If you really believe this, Arny, it's time you reminded us again about your own system. Why would that be relevant? If we knew what it was we could all get one the same and get the same enjoyment from ordinary CDs that you appear to. When did I say that ordinary CDs are guaranteed to provide you with the satisfaction that you apparently want from recordings? I never did. I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they did, and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof of it. But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however powerful Harry's proof. I think it would be indicative if Harry would set up an experiment that was bias controlled and that independent persons could obtain positive outcomes from. Harry is just trying to make it personal in order to salve his wounded ego. So it's Harry who has a wounded ego, eh? That's why we want to hear about your system. Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other things were equal? Your 580s may, but can your ears? You took a dislike to SACD and DVD-A from the start; can we now trust you to be bias free? Too bad you're not well-informed enough to do some proper listening tests of your own, Paul. Why do I have to be "well-informed" to do proper listening tests? If you like to send me examples of CDs and SACD or DVD-A equivalents I'll be happy to do comparisons--in stereo only, of course. I now have HD650s, so should be able to pick any differences that exist. |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SACD Player Recommendation
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:35:28 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:26:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: While on the other hand, you relish suffering indignity. What indignity - having some dogs bark at me? LOL! Posting on RAO keeps me in practice for suffering fools. Keeps your debating trade skills sharp too. That's important, Arny. In your dreams, Paul. I don't dream about you at all, Arnie. What keeps me sharp is interacting with real people in the real world. No, I think the real world is not your preferred milieu. I think you're much happier on Usenet lecturing us on our failings from your virtual lectern. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
SACD Player Recommendation
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:59:58 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 22:49:08 -0500, "Soundhaspriority" wrote: "George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message news Robert said: Far be in for me to correct someone's grammar (Hi, George!), but shouldn't that be .."lack of interest from the young?" No, but if your interpretation of Robert's bizarre locution is accurate, it should be "among the young" or "by the young". I find myself slipping. But if no one reads my posts, why should I? Are you saying mr. packer is "no one"? Paul is just a dr... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Hmmm...what am I to make of that? Ehhh? What? What's happening? Did somebody say something? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Have you been swilling beer and ogling the neighbours again, Robert? :-) |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:34:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they did, and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof of it. But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however powerful Harry's proof. That's why we want to hear about your system. Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other things were equal? Your 580s may, but can your ears? Thanks for contradicting yourself Paul. First you say that my system is all-important. I tell you what my system is and it makes no difference, you just turn around and attack me. Furthermore Paul, you're just playing stupid. You have known for a long time that I have a pair of 580s and use them for critical listening. So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over their with your good buddy the Middiot. |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "paul packer" wrote in message On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:34:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they did, and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof of it. But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however powerful Harry's proof. That's why we want to hear about your system. Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other things were equal? Your 580s may, but can your ears? Thanks for contradicting yourself Paul. First you say that my system is all-important. I tell you what my system is and it makes no difference, you just turn around and attack me. Furthermore Paul, you're just playing stupid. You have known for a long time that I have a pair of 580s and use them for critical listening. So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over their with your good buddy the Middiot. Ouch....Paulie got a timeout. ScottW |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
On Mar 10, 9:55 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over their with your good buddy the Middiot. While you, Arns, need to go stand with your "good buddy" ... .... .... I'm sure you have one somewhere. Maybe your wife will stand with you if you stop beating her. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:55:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:34:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they did, and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof of it. But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however powerful Harry's proof. That's why we want to hear about your system. Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other things were equal? Your 580s may, but can your ears? Thanks for contradicting yourself Paul. First you say that my system is all-important. I tell you what my system is and it makes no difference, you just turn around and attack me. Firstly, when did I say your system was "all important"? I said we'd like to know what your system is--but whatever it is, it doesn't rule out the possibility of personal bias. Secondly, I did not attack you. This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where there are none. What I did do was point out that you've had a bias against SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so are unlikely to judge them fairly. This is not an attack. An attack is: "ARNOLD, YOU GREAT CRETIN!!! F**KING wake up to yourself, S**THEAD!!" That's an attack. See the difference? Furthermore Paul, you're just playing stupid. You have known for a long time that I have a pair of 580s and use them for critical listening. Pardon my memory. I was not consciously aware of it, no. So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over their with your good buddy the Middiot. Why should I stand with someone I disagree with most of the time. Why would you wish me to? BTW, I'd better point out before George does that "their" should be "there". |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
On Mar 10, 6:48 pm, (paul packer) wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:55:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over their with your good buddy the Middiot. Why should I stand with someone I disagree with most of the time. Why would you wish me to? The gig's up, Paul. Good old Arns has figured out that if you disagree with him on any point, you are part of the Konspiracy. There's no use denying it. And good old Arns has also figured out who controls everybody. |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
In article .com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Mar 10, 6:48 pm, (paul packer) wrote: On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:55:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over their with your good buddy the Middiot. Why should I stand with someone I disagree with most of the time. Why would you wish me to? The gig's up, Paul. Good old Arns has figured out that if you disagree with him on any point, you are part of the Konspiracy. He evidently had that figured out from at least the time of my arrival here. |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
paul packer said: So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over their with your good buddy the Middiot. Why should I stand with someone I disagree with most of the time. Why would you wish me to? Poor widdle Kwooborg is konfused again. Actually, Mr. **** has admitted several times that he's too insane to distinguish the writing styles of all the Normals. BTW, I'd better point out before George does that "their" should be "there". Did you like my pic of Krooger kleaning his ears? ;-) -- Krooscience: the antidote to education, experience, and excellence |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
Jenn said: Good old Arns has figured out that if you disagree with him on any point, you are part of the Konspiracy. He evidently had that figured out from at least the time of my arrival here. Krooger likes to enemize Normals preemptively. Better sorry than safe. -- Krooscience: the antidote to education, experience, and excellence |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:55:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:34:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they did, and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof of it. But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however powerful Harry's proof. That's why we want to hear about your system. Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other things were equal? Your 580s may, but can your ears? Thanks for contradicting yourself Paul. First you say that my system is all-important. I tell you what my system is and it makes no difference, you just turn around and attack me. Firstly, when did I say your system was "all important"? I said we'd like to know what your system is--but whatever it is, it doesn't rule out the possibility of personal bias. Secondly, I did not attack you. What was the ear crack all about? I think that's where he perceived an attack. This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where there are none. What I did do was point out that you've had a bias against SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so are unlikely to judge them fairly. This is not an attack. An attack is: "ARNOLD, YOU GREAT CRETIN!!! F**KING wake up to yourself, S**THEAD!!" Those are just unsubstantiated insults with as much attack value as intellectual content, i.e., none. Those are as more flags of surrender than attacks. Sssshhhhie waves them constantly. You might have noticed a half hearted wave in your direction from time to time. That's an attack. See the difference? Furthermore Paul, you're just playing stupid. You have known for a long time that I have a pair of 580s and use them for critical listening. Pardon my memory. I was not consciously aware of it, no. So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over their with your good buddy the Middiot. Why should I stand with someone I disagree with most of the time. Why would you wish me to? It's ok...Middiot will accept you no matter what as long as he thinks you despise Arny.....unless you're Trotsky. Not sure what pushed the old Middiot over the edge on that one, but he sure imploded over something. ScottW |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
On Mar 10, 7:54 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where there are none. What I did do was point out that you've had a bias against SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so are unlikely to judge them fairly. This is not an attack. An attack is: "ARNOLD, YOU GREAT CRETIN!!! F**KING wake up to yourself, S**THEAD!!" Those are just unsubstantiated insults with as much attack value as intellectual content, i.e., none. Those are as more flags of surrender than attacks. Sssshhhhie waves them constantly. Blind as well as dumb. You're so dumb you don't even realize when you get your ass handed to you. LOL! Are you going for the trifecta, toopid? Shall we get on-topic and discuss why it appears that you're probably deaf, too? LOL! You might have noticed a half hearted wave in your direction from time to time. But you haven't noticed, as you don't read my posts. Remember? Imbecile. |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... On Mar 10, 7:54 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where there are none. What I did do was point out that you've had a bias against SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so are unlikely to judge them fairly. This is not an attack. An attack is: "ARNOLD, YOU GREAT CRETIN!!! F**KING wake up to yourself, S**THEAD!!" Those are just unsubstantiated insults with as much attack value as intellectual content, i.e., none. Those are as more flags of surrender than attacks. Sssshhhhie waves them constantly. Blind as well as dumb. You're so dumb you don't even realize when you get your ass handed to you. LOL! Where's the beef? Are you going for the trifecta, toopid? Shall we get on-topic and discuss why it appears that you're probably deaf, too? LOL! I'm sure that would be on-topic. An ass in the twilight zone is no less an ass in the audio zone. You might have noticed a half hearted wave in your direction from time to time. But you haven't noticed, as you don't read my posts. On occasion I do, but I always regret the wasted time. ScottW |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
On Mar 10, 9:00 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com... On Mar 10, 7:54 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where there are none. What I did do was point out that you've had a bias against SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so are unlikely to judge them fairly. This is not an attack. An attack is: "ARNOLD, YOU GREAT CRETIN!!! F**KING wake up to yourself, S**THEAD!!" Those are just unsubstantiated insults with as much attack value as intellectual content, i.e., none. Those are as more flags of surrender than attacks. Sssshhhhie waves them constantly. Blind as well as dumb. You're so dumb you don't even realize when you get your ass handed to you. LOL! Where's the beef? As I said... LOL! Are you going for the trifecta, toopid? Shall we get on-topic and discuss why it appears that you're probably deaf, too? LOL! I'm sure that would be on-topic. An ass in the twilight zone is no less an ass in the audio zone. Referring to the "audio zone" is a funny thing for someone who visits there as infrequently as you do, toopid. However, an imbecile on RAO is quite likely an imbecile outside of it, too. Are you seriously suggesting that you don't realize how stupid you are? toopid, I cannot help that your 'brain' doesn't appear to function very well. I cannot help that you try to appear smart, when you apparently have physical or other deficiencies that make that impossible. And I certainly cannot help that you are far too stupid to see what an ass everybody makes of you. While that's a curious thing, it is very funny to watch. Don't you ever stop and wonder why everybody laughs at you? You might have noticed a half hearted wave in your direction from time to time. But you haven't noticed, as you don't read my posts. On occasion I do, but I always regret the wasted time. Then why not just stop, toopid? BTW, what is it again that you bring to this party? Avoid, avoid, avoid... Imbecile. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Terrierdork's love affair with the Krooborg
Shhhh! said: However, an imbecile on RAO is quite likely an imbecile outside of it, too. Are you seriously suggesting that you don't realize how stupid you are? I believe Scottie is still in need of an explanation about that. All those times he's complained about us not explaining what's stupid about what he said? He meant it. Every time. -- Krooscience: the antidote to education, experience, and excellence |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:54:59 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote: Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other things were equal? Your 580s may, but can your ears? Thanks for contradicting yourself Paul. First you say that my system is all-important. I tell you what my system is and it makes no difference, you just turn around and attack me. Firstly, when did I say your system was "all important"? I said we'd like to know what your system is--but whatever it is, it doesn't rule out the possibility of personal bias. Secondly, I did not attack you. What was the ear crack all about? I think that's where he perceived an attack. I was simply remarking that we have no way of assessing the acuity of Arnold's hearing. He's not young, you know. In fact he's an old codger. This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where there are none. What I did do was point out that you've had a bias against SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so are unlikely to judge them fairly. This is not an attack. An attack is: "ARNOLD, YOU GREAT CRETIN!!! F**KING wake up to yourself, S**THEAD!!" Those are just unsubstantiated insults with as much attack value as intellectual content, i.e., none. They would be, if serious, a statement of opinion. With of course a helpful direction for self-improvement. They have as much intellectual content as your debates with Shhhh! Those are as more flags of surrender than attacks. Sssshhhhie waves them constantly. You might have noticed a half hearted wave in your direction from time to time. I've just finished watching "Planet Earth", and it appears that a number of creatures wave half heartedly in the direction of other creatures for no apparent reason. The wise creatures ignore it. |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:31:41 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote: paul packer said: So much for the possibiity of any good faith on your part. Go stand over their with your good buddy the Middiot. Why should I stand with someone I disagree with most of the time. Why would you wish me to? Poor widdle Kwooborg is konfused again. Actually, Mr. **** has admitted several times that he's too insane to distinguish the writing styles of all the Normals. BTW, I'd better point out before George does that "their" should be "there". Did you like my pic of Krooger kleaning his ears? ;-) Er...think that got by me. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:55:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 07:34:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:04:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: I'm only saying that higher sample rates and larger samples aren't the silver bullet that only a few highly mislead people like Harry think they are. If they made the big difference that Harry claims they did, and if the difference was really all that clear, it would be easy enough for Harry to provide reliable proof of it. But it might not be so easy for you to detect it however powerful Harry's proof. That's why we want to hear about your system. Do you think that my HD 580s are incapable of resolving the difference between SACDs and CDs, if all other things were equal? Your 580s may, but can your ears? Thanks for contradicting yourself Paul. First you say that my system is all-important. I tell you what my system is and it makes no difference, you just turn around and attack me. Firstly, when did I say your system was "all important"? OK, so my system is unimportant, so unimportant that you can't remember what is it, even though we've discussed it many times. I said we'd like to know what your system is--but whatever it is, it doesn't rule out the possibility of personal bias. So here's the strategy for your attempt to humiliate me Paul: (1) Make a big play out of what my system is, even though you know what it is. (2) Once you get your weak mind refreshed as to what my system is, then move on to a criticism of my hearing abilities. This is just as stupid as item (1) because many of the things I say about audibilty weren't established with just my ears. They have been established with the ears of dozens if not hundreds of people. (3) Once you've made your attack on my hearing, then accuse me of being hopelessly biased. Secondly, I did not attack you. Sure you did, Paul. You said that my system was so poor that it had to be exposed. You slandered me by questioning my judgment. In fact its your judgment that is hopelessly bollixed up, Paul. This is the crux of your problem, Arnold; you see attacks where there are none. No, the real problem Paul is that you're eggriously stupid. You've got a memory of vanishing duration. Your logic is hopelessly poor. You are an easy mark for snake oil artists. What I did do was point out that you've had a bias against SACD and DVD-A from the beginning, so are unlikely to judge them fairly. More slander. The fact of the matter is that the principles of hearing, psychoacoustics, and recording technology that explain why these technologies can't work were well-known long before SACD and DVD-A were ever mentioned. Sue me for being well-informed enough to know them. And, the fact that so-called audio eggspurts like Atkinson didn't know these sorts of things up front and didn't debunk this crap before people wasted millions of dollars on it is a testimonial to how ignorant they are. Either that, or they did know, but were afraid to tell the truth, or had too much money to lose by telling the truth up front. Pick the explanation of your choice. It's not bias to believe that energy is conserved, that water flows down hill, and that electrons have a negative charge. It's just a matter of having appropriate scientific knowledge. It is no coincidence Paul that you don't know why the DVD-A and SACD formats can't possibly deliver improved SQ. You are a study in well-practiced ignorance. Every time you heard something in school about science, you must have turned your mind off. It's one thing to simply not be interested and stay ignorant. It's another thing to accuse people who know far better than you of being biased. You're a hopeless study in arrogance, Paul. That's what makes you like the Middiot. |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Harry caught in yet another desperate lie
"Jenn" wrote in
message He evidently had that figured out from at least the time of my arrival here. People who are sufficiently arrogant and ignorant exude it in the form of a sort of a smell that exudes from their posts. Any time I need to refresh my sense for it, I just read a post by the Middiot or ****R. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
SACD player recommendation | Audio Opinions | |||
SACD player recommendation | High End Audio | |||
SACD Player Recommendation | High End Audio | |||
Recommendation for SACD player | Audio Opinions | |||
Recommendation for SACD player | Tech |