In message
Arny Krueger ) claimed:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Is gooogle lying to you again?

gooogle never lies to me.

Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine, Arny Krueger made the following statement on this subject
in message :
"dave weil" wrote in message

I'm not posturing. You claimed that my first mention of you was in
2001, according to your google skills. This turned out to be off by,
what was it? Oh, I remember. TWO YEARS!

Explained in another post. Google lied to me and I didn't catch the
lie.

Seems clear enough to me. Arny Krueger did, in fact, state that Google
"lied" to him.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:
In message
Arny Krueger ) claimed:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Is gooogle lying to you again?

gooogle never lies to me.

Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,

Horsefeathers. Typical of Atkinson's inability to discern the true facts. I
know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I mean "google" I write
"google".

John I'm sorry to hear that don't have anything better to do with your time
than to get involved defending S888wheel's functional illiteracy.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,

Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I
mean "google" I write "google".

I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,

Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I
mean "google" I write "google".

I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?

Asked and answered. You deleted my answer, and I'm not going to tell you
twice.

The real shame Atkinson is that you obsessing over this trivia, and missing
a big chunk of audio content related to the perception of infrasonic musical
sounds elsewhere, in the same thread you picked this up from. It's
distracted behavior like this that convinces me that you really don't care
about audio.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:35:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,

Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I
mean "google" I write "google".

I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?

Asked and answered. You deleted my answer, and I'm not going to tell you
twice.

The real shame Atkinson is that you obsessing over this trivia, and missing
a big chunk of audio content related to the perception of infrasonic musical
sounds elsewhere, in the same thread you picked this up from. It's
distracted behavior like this that convinces me that you really don't care
about audio.

Apparently he learned something from Mr. Wheeler about trying to
discuss such critical audio matter such as 6 hz tones.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,

Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I
mean "google" I write "google".

I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?

Asked and answered. You deleted my answer, and I'm not going to tell you
twice.

Unbelievable.
Krueger is a pathological liar.
I knew he was off balance, but I was unaware of the extent.

On 18 Apr 2004 17:11:36 -0700, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,

Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I
mean "google" I write "google".

Of course, we know that this is a "flase claim". Of course, maybe he
wasn't referring to Google when he wrote this:

From: Arny Krueger )
Subject: Retraction
View: Complete Thread (161 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2004-02-23 16:58:55 PST
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Haven't you noticed that
your own reduced presence here speaks volumes?

Reduced presence?

Goggle suggests that I've made about 688 posts here since 1/1/2004
Goggle suggests that I made about 572 posts here between 1/1/2004 and
2/23/2003
Goggle suggests that you've made about 93 posts here since 1/1/2004

I see that you're as truthful and factual as ever, Marc Phillips.

NOT!
-----------------

Or this:

From: Arny Krueger )
Subject: Atlantic Technology advice sought
View: Complete Thread (111 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2003-11-25 11:14:21 PST
snip
Or he

"Goggle says that its an estimate. The specific wording is uses is
"about". It's too bad that sockpuppet wheel doesn't know what "about"
means in this context, but in general he's a very ignorant dude. You
don't seem to know either Weil, and part of that is ignorance and part
is hatred".
-----------------

I wonder WHAT he was writing about...

I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Mr. Atkinson, he was just parroting Scott Wheeler's misspelling of
"google".

This is all nonsense.
For once, I am compelled to come to the rescue of beleaguered Arny Krueger.

What he actually intended to type is "gaggle". From Hyperdictionary:

Definition: 1.. [n] a flock of geese
2.. [v] cackle like a goose"Cackling geese"


See Also: cackle, flock, goose


But why Mr. Krueger would find it necessary or desirable to consort
with geese is beyond my comprehension.

Further analysis is solicited from the group.



"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On 18 Apr 2004 17:11:36 -0700, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,

Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I
mean "google" I write "google".

Of course, we know that this is a "flase claim". Of course, maybe he
wasn't referring to Google when he wrote this:

From: Arny Krueger )
Subject: Retraction
View: Complete Thread (161 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2004-02-23 16:58:55 PST
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Haven't you noticed that
your own reduced presence here speaks volumes?

Reduced presence?

Goggle suggests that I've made about 688 posts here since 1/1/2004
Goggle suggests that I made about 572 posts here between 1/1/2004 and
2/23/2003
Goggle suggests that you've made about 93 posts here since 1/1/2004

I see that you're as truthful and factual as ever, Marc Phillips.

NOT!
-----------------

Or this:

From: Arny Krueger )
Subject: Atlantic Technology advice sought
View: Complete Thread (111 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2003-11-25 11:14:21 PST
snip
Or he

"Goggle says that its an estimate. The specific wording is uses is
"about". It's too bad that sockpuppet wheel doesn't know what "about"
means in this context, but in general he's a very ignorant dude. You
don't seem to know either Weil, and part of that is ignorance and part
is hatred".
-----------------

I wonder WHAT he was writing about...

I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Mr. Atkinson, he was just parroting Scott Wheeler's misspelling of
"google".

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On 18 Apr 2004 17:11:36 -0700, (John
Atkinson) wrote:
So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?

Mr. Atkinson, he was just parroting Scott Wheeler's misspelling of
"google".

That's what I had assumed. But as I pointed out in the message that
started this thread, Arny Krueger cannot admit that because that would
prove that his following statement was, for want of a better word, a
lie:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
In message
Arny Krueger ) claimed:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Is gooogle lying to you again?

gooogle never lies to me.

Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine, Arny Krueger made the following statement on this subject
in message :
"dave weil" wrote in message

I'm not posturing. You claimed that my first mention of you was in
2001, according to your google skills. This turned out to be off by,
what was it? Oh, I remember. TWO YEARS!

Explained in another post. Google lied to me and I didn't catch the
lie.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Mr. Krueger's complaint that I did not offer any comment on
his comment that 6Hz tones are audible, I first would like him to
clarify what spound pressure levels are required for 6Hz to become
audible.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:
dave weil wrote in message
. ..
On 18 Apr 2004 17:11:36 -0700,
(John Atkinson) wrote:
So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?

Mr. Atkinson, he was just parroting Scott Wheeler's misspelling of
"google".

That's what I had assumed.

So what's your problem, Atkinson?

Why aren't you showing a little concern for the rather significant audio
issue raise in that thread?

Doesn't sound quality mean anything to you?

Atkinson, is it your position that the corruption of musical timbres by
infrasonic cut-offs is OK? Should it should be tolerated, and even glorified
if vinyl-playback and tubed equipment evidences this audible coloration to a
greater degree?

John Atkinson wrote:

Regarding Mr. Krueger's complaint that I did not offer any comment on
his comment that 6Hz tones are audible, I first would like him to
clarify what spound pressure levels are required for 6Hz to become
audible.

No spound levels were involved.

On the chance that this was just another one of Atkinson's many careless
mistakes...

The sound levels involved were not extreme in any way. I did most of the
listening with Sony 7506 headphones and FSI IEMs. The signal source clips at
about 1.5 volts RMS, which sets a reasonably low natural limit.

It's also true that SPLs of many natural infrasonic sounds look pretty crazy
on paper.

For example, most people are pretty amazed the first time they measure SPLs
in a car traveling down an interstate at legal speeds, if they turn the
normal weighting curve off.

When people talk about 70 dB SPL noise levels in a car, that usually means
70 dB A-weighted. A-weighting is something like 50 dB down at 20 Hz, and
falling off at the rate of about 40 dB/decade or 12 dB/octave. So, at 2 Hz,
its more like 90 dB down, 78 dB down at 4Hz, 66 dB down at 8 Hz and so on.

70 dB A-weighted SPL could translate into something like 136 dB at 8 Hz.
That's extreme, but it shows the trend. More than 100 dB are not unusual
IME.

This in turn begs the question of how an audio system can possibly reproduce
low frequency sound, that loud or louder. There's a tendency for a closed
room to transition to a bass-boost mode of operation below some low
frequency, depending on the size and construction of the room.

This is one reason why car audio tends to be so bassy - the extreme levels
of bass common in car audio are not all that impractical to generate,
because the *room* is so small. A living room act like a bigger closed
space with similar bass boost. There will be a lower transition frequency.

The bass boost due to the room's size and the fact that it is a closed space
tends to naturally be about 12 dB/octave. If you have a subwoofer that is
flat down to your room's transition frequency, and falls off below that at
12 dB/octave, then the merger of the room response and the speaker response
can approximate flat response, at least down to the next lower cut-off
frequency.

My findings about the audibility of subsonic cut-offs can relate to this
next lower cut-off frequency, when the room and the subwoofer are
well-matched. Or, it can relate to the rapidly-expanding population of
people who are listening using certain common kinds of personal listening
devices. I've seen it have audible effects with both IEMs and normal
headphones.

This makes the point that a subwoofer with an extremely low cut-off point
can easily sound boomy in a too-small room. The room's transition frequency
can overlap the roll-off of the subwoofer leading to a range with boosted
response. There can be substantial boominess due to this overlap.

Ah ****, I thought you were finally going to admit you were the one who
backed out of the debate.


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
In message
Arny Krueger ) claimed:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Is gooogle lying to you again?

gooogle never lies to me.

Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine, Arny Krueger made the following statement on this subject
in message :
"dave weil" wrote in message

I'm not posturing. You claimed that my first mention of you was in
2001, according to your google skills. This turned out to be off by,
what was it? Oh, I remember. TWO YEARS!

Explained in another post. Google lied to me and I didn't catch the
lie.

Seems clear enough to me. Arny Krueger did, in fact, state that Google
"lied" to him.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile