I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'. These people
can hear in a similar frequency range as a bat and detect imperfections
in a CD such that 64 bits is really needed with gold-plated connectors,
special cables and an amplifiers with distortion so low that even
instrumentaion cannot detect any and a with a frequency response to at
least 30kHz just to be on the safe side. If so, if you drop me an email
I do a good line in 'special' superconducting cables. These are better
than the ones on the market at present but only people with golden ears
can detect the difference. A snip at $1000 US per cable.

http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html

Tom

"Tom" wrote ...
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'.

I would imagine that the "golden ear" crowd are more
likely to be found in news:rec.audio.high-end

This newsgroup tends more towards REAL technology.

"Tom" wrote ...
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'.

I would imagine that the "golden ear" crowd are more
likely to be found in news:rec.audio.high-end

This newsgroup tends more towards REAL technology.

"Tom" wrote ...
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'.

I would imagine that the "golden ear" crowd are more
likely to be found in news:rec.audio.high-end

This newsgroup tends more towards REAL technology.

Ants don't have golden ears nor can they use a computer. There may be bugs
in mine though.

Ants don't have golden ears nor can they use a computer. There may be bugs
in mine though.

Ants don't have golden ears nor can they use a computer. There may be bugs
in mine though.

Tom wrote:

I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'.

Yes, they sometimes stray over here when the newsgroup
rec.audio.opinonated boils over.

These people
can hear in a similar frequency range as a bat and detect imperfections
in a CD such that 64 bits is really needed with gold-plated connectors,

No no no no, 64 kHz sampling frequency and 16 bits is what is needed.

special cables and an amplifiers with distortion so low that even
instrumentaion cannot detect any and a with a frequency response to at
least 30kHz just to be on the safe side.

Indeed, that is the classic minimum design goal for amplifier circuits.
The current audiophilistric trend is however to aim for 30 MHz.

If so, if you drop me an email
I do a good line in 'special' superconducting cables. These are better
than the ones on the market at present but only people with golden ears
can detect the difference. A snip at $1000 US per cable.

You underestimate the quality of your product, those who can not hear
the improvement must surely be hearing impaired or deaf even.

http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html

Strongly recommended, what an excellent treaty about all that those fine
cables of your cures. You are quite right, they really are a must -
record The Nightingale with them and it will sound better and clearer
than the dull bird sitting in a tree. Danny Kaye wouldn't have used
anything else.

Tom


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Tom wrote:

I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'.

Yes, they sometimes stray over here when the newsgroup
rec.audio.opinonated boils over.

These people
can hear in a similar frequency range as a bat and detect imperfections
in a CD such that 64 bits is really needed with gold-plated connectors,

No no no no, 64 kHz sampling frequency and 16 bits is what is needed.

special cables and an amplifiers with distortion so low that even
instrumentaion cannot detect any and a with a frequency response to at
least 30kHz just to be on the safe side.

Indeed, that is the classic minimum design goal for amplifier circuits.
The current audiophilistric trend is however to aim for 30 MHz.

If so, if you drop me an email
I do a good line in 'special' superconducting cables. These are better
than the ones on the market at present but only people with golden ears
can detect the difference. A snip at $1000 US per cable.

You underestimate the quality of your product, those who can not hear
the improvement must surely be hearing impaired or deaf even.

http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html

Strongly recommended, what an excellent treaty about all that those fine
cables of your cures. You are quite right, they really are a must -
record The Nightingale with them and it will sound better and clearer
than the dull bird sitting in a tree. Danny Kaye wouldn't have used
anything else.

Tom


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Tom wrote:

I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'.

Yes, they sometimes stray over here when the newsgroup
rec.audio.opinonated boils over.

These people
can hear in a similar frequency range as a bat and detect imperfections
in a CD such that 64 bits is really needed with gold-plated connectors,

No no no no, 64 kHz sampling frequency and 16 bits is what is needed.

special cables and an amplifiers with distortion so low that even
instrumentaion cannot detect any and a with a frequency response to at
least 30kHz just to be on the safe side.

Indeed, that is the classic minimum design goal for amplifier circuits.
The current audiophilistric trend is however to aim for 30 MHz.

If so, if you drop me an email
I do a good line in 'special' superconducting cables. These are better
than the ones on the market at present but only people with golden ears
can detect the difference. A snip at $1000 US per cable.

You underestimate the quality of your product, those who can not hear
the improvement must surely be hearing impaired or deaf even.

http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html

Strongly recommended, what an excellent treaty about all that those fine
cables of your cures. You are quite right, they really are a must -
record The Nightingale with them and it will sound better and clearer
than the dull bird sitting in a tree. Danny Kaye wouldn't have used
anything else.

Tom


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Tom wrote in message ...
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'. These people
can hear in a similar frequency range as a bat and detect imperfections
in a CD such that 64 bits is really needed with gold-plated connectors,
special cables and an amplifiers with distortion so low that even
instrumentaion cannot detect any and a with a frequency response to at
least 30kHz just to be on the safe side. If so, if you drop me an email
I do a good line in 'special' superconducting cables. These are better
than the ones on the market at present but only people with golden ears
can detect the difference. A snip at $1000 US per cable.

http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html

Tom

A friend and colleague of many years used to say,
"Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you have too much money."

Ear candy may replace nose candy, but fools remain fools.

Tom wrote in message ...
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'. These people
can hear in a similar frequency range as a bat and detect imperfections
in a CD such that 64 bits is really needed with gold-plated connectors,
special cables and an amplifiers with distortion so low that even
instrumentaion cannot detect any and a with a frequency response to at
least 30kHz just to be on the safe side. If so, if you drop me an email
I do a good line in 'special' superconducting cables. These are better
than the ones on the market at present but only people with golden ears
can detect the difference. A snip at $1000 US per cable.

http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html

Tom

A friend and colleague of many years used to say,
"Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you have too much money."

Ear candy may replace nose candy, but fools remain fools.

Tom wrote in message ...
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'. These people
can hear in a similar frequency range as a bat and detect imperfections
in a CD such that 64 bits is really needed with gold-plated connectors,
special cables and an amplifiers with distortion so low that even
instrumentaion cannot detect any and a with a frequency response to at
least 30kHz just to be on the safe side. If so, if you drop me an email
I do a good line in 'special' superconducting cables. These are better
than the ones on the market at present but only people with golden ears
can detect the difference. A snip at $1000 US per cable.

http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html

Tom

A friend and colleague of many years used to say,
"Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you have too much money."

Ear candy may replace nose candy, but fools remain fools.

(Ken Asbury) writes:
A friend and colleague of many years used to say,
"Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you have too much money."

FWIW, I've heard Robin Williams say that before. Dunno if he wrote it
though.

--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."

(Ken Asbury) writes:
A friend and colleague of many years used to say,
"Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you have too much money."

FWIW, I've heard Robin Williams say that before. Dunno if he wrote it
though.

--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."

(Ken Asbury) writes:
A friend and colleague of many years used to say,
"Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you have too much money."

FWIW, I've heard Robin Williams say that before. Dunno if he wrote it
though.

--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."

I once had the "pleasure" of conversing with a golden ear type in a
discussion forum who explained how he had this "constant Q" boost
circuit in their system that boosted 20 kHz "exclusively". By
engaging and disengaging the boost and noting the change in audio,
that was his basis for verifying that he had exceptional ultrasonic
hearing acuity, such that SACD playback was now absolutely essential
for maximum musical enjoyment.

Oh what an irresistable provocation for "enlightenment" that was. I
didn't pass up that opportunity, let's just say.

I once had the "pleasure" of conversing with a golden ear type in a
discussion forum who explained how he had this "constant Q" boost
circuit in their system that boosted 20 kHz "exclusively". By
engaging and disengaging the boost and noting the change in audio,
that was his basis for verifying that he had exceptional ultrasonic
hearing acuity, such that SACD playback was now absolutely essential
for maximum musical enjoyment.

Oh what an irresistable provocation for "enlightenment" that was. I
didn't pass up that opportunity, let's just say.

I once had the "pleasure" of conversing with a golden ear type in a
discussion forum who explained how he had this "constant Q" boost
circuit in their system that boosted 20 kHz "exclusively". By
engaging and disengaging the boost and noting the change in audio,
that was his basis for verifying that he had exceptional ultrasonic
hearing acuity, such that SACD playback was now absolutely essential
for maximum musical enjoyment.

Oh what an irresistable provocation for "enlightenment" that was. I
didn't pass up that opportunity, let's just say.

In article ,
Tom writes:
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'. These people
[...]
I do a good line in 'special' superconducting cables. These are better
than the ones on the market at present but only people with golden ears
can detect the difference. A snip at $1000 US per cable.

Whoh-oh... PT Barnum would love that! :-)

Time to ring for the men in white coats with the oversized butterfy
nets... A vision of golden eared audiophiles, some sitting around in a
room weaving baskets from audio cables with gold plated connectors,
and some in straightjackets, all singing along to Napoleon XIV's song,
"They're Coming to Take Me Away", comes to mind. :-) :-) :-)

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

In article ,
Tom writes:
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'. These people
[...]
I do a good line in 'special' superconducting cables. These are better
than the ones on the market at present but only people with golden ears
can detect the difference. A snip at $1000 US per cable.

Whoh-oh... PT Barnum would love that! :-)

Time to ring for the men in white coats with the oversized butterfy
nets... A vision of golden eared audiophiles, some sitting around in a
room weaving baskets from audio cables with gold plated connectors,
and some in straightjackets, all singing along to Napoleon XIV's song,
"They're Coming to Take Me Away", comes to mind. :-) :-) :-)

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

In article ,
Tom writes:
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'. These people
[...]
I do a good line in 'special' superconducting cables. These are better
than the ones on the market at present but only people with golden ears
can detect the difference. A snip at $1000 US per cable.

Whoh-oh... PT Barnum would love that! :-)

Time to ring for the men in white coats with the oversized butterfy
nets... A vision of golden eared audiophiles, some sitting around in a
room weaving baskets from audio cables with gold plated connectors,
and some in straightjackets, all singing along to Napoleon XIV's song,
"They're Coming to Take Me Away", comes to mind. :-) :-) :-)

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

-- albeit fragmented into more groups now. I have scarcely looked at
it in 10 or 12 years, wasn't even sure if these groups still existed;
but have archives from the 1980s and early 1990s. (I only posted
about the purely technical side of things.) A good bit of the traffic
in those days consisted of tirades from either folks who knew little
of the technology and dismissed its value (though rarely actually
seeking to sell something), or other folks who also knew little about
the technology but didn't realize this (they were often 19-year-old
engineering students, just old enough to know everything) and strove
to apply proudly learned first-year engineering knowledge to the
extremely complex and counterintuitive world of audio where it didn't
fit. The two groups thus felt justified by each other (as communists
and fascists have done at times) and could scarcely imagine that
anyone would be in neither camp.

I hope that such contacts as still occur have become more civil!

(Once I was invited to speak, on engineering, at Cal. Inst. of Tech.
in Pasadena, at the instigation of a musician of some importance
there, on the strength of a passing remark in a tuturial paper that
perceptual criteria are the ultimate merit measures in audio or any
other human-interface encoding; this seems to strike some audiophiles
as an atypical engineering position; on the contrary it is
demonstrably mainstream -- I was citing Jayant and Noll's graduate
communications text from 1986 -- but not perceived that way by either
anti-technology audiophiles or anyone else who perceived that
simplistic spec measures were what engineering is all about. A little
learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian
spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking
largely sobers us again.)


Happy new year! -- Max Hauser



(R. D. Davis) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Tom writes:
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'. These people
[...]
I do a good line in 'special' superconducting cables. These are better
than the ones on the market at present but only people with golden ears
can detect the difference. A snip at $1000 US per cable.

Whoh-oh... PT Barnum would love that! :-)

Time to ring for the men in white coats with the oversized butterfy
nets... A vision of golden eared audiophiles, some sitting around in a
room weaving baskets from audio cables with gold plated connectors,
and some in straightjackets, all singing along to Napoleon XIV's song,
"They're Coming to Take Me Away", comes to mind. :-) :-) :-)

-- albeit fragmented into more groups now. I have scarcely looked at
it in 10 or 12 years, wasn't even sure if these groups still existed;
but have archives from the 1980s and early 1990s. (I only posted
about the purely technical side of things.) A good bit of the traffic
in those days consisted of tirades from either folks who knew little
of the technology and dismissed its value (though rarely actually
seeking to sell something), or other folks who also knew little about
the technology but didn't realize this (they were often 19-year-old
engineering students, just old enough to know everything) and strove
to apply proudly learned first-year engineering knowledge to the
extremely complex and counterintuitive world of audio where it didn't
fit. The two groups thus felt justified by each other (as communists
and fascists have done at times) and could scarcely imagine that
anyone would be in neither camp.

I hope that such contacts as still occur have become more civil!

(Once I was invited to speak, on engineering, at Cal. Inst. of Tech.
in Pasadena, at the instigation of a musician of some importance
there, on the strength of a passing remark in a tuturial paper that
perceptual criteria are the ultimate merit measures in audio or any
other human-interface encoding; this seems to strike some audiophiles
as an atypical engineering position; on the contrary it is
demonstrably mainstream -- I was citing Jayant and Noll's graduate
communications text from 1986 -- but not perceived that way by either
anti-technology audiophiles or anyone else who perceived that
simplistic spec measures were what engineering is all about. A little
learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian
spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking
largely sobers us again.)


Happy new year! -- Max Hauser



(R. D. Davis) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Tom writes:
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'. These people
[...]
I do a good line in 'special' superconducting cables. These are better
than the ones on the market at present but only people with golden ears
can detect the difference. A snip at $1000 US per cable.

Whoh-oh... PT Barnum would love that! :-)

Time to ring for the men in white coats with the oversized butterfy
nets... A vision of golden eared audiophiles, some sitting around in a
room weaving baskets from audio cables with gold plated connectors,
and some in straightjackets, all singing along to Napoleon XIV's song,
"They're Coming to Take Me Away", comes to mind. :-) :-) :-)

-- albeit fragmented into more groups now. I have scarcely looked at
it in 10 or 12 years, wasn't even sure if these groups still existed;
but have archives from the 1980s and early 1990s. (I only posted
about the purely technical side of things.) A good bit of the traffic
in those days consisted of tirades from either folks who knew little
of the technology and dismissed its value (though rarely actually
seeking to sell something), or other folks who also knew little about
the technology but didn't realize this (they were often 19-year-old
engineering students, just old enough to know everything) and strove
to apply proudly learned first-year engineering knowledge to the
extremely complex and counterintuitive world of audio where it didn't
fit. The two groups thus felt justified by each other (as communists
and fascists have done at times) and could scarcely imagine that
anyone would be in neither camp.

I hope that such contacts as still occur have become more civil!

(Once I was invited to speak, on engineering, at Cal. Inst. of Tech.
in Pasadena, at the instigation of a musician of some importance
there, on the strength of a passing remark in a tuturial paper that
perceptual criteria are the ultimate merit measures in audio or any
other human-interface encoding; this seems to strike some audiophiles
as an atypical engineering position; on the contrary it is
demonstrably mainstream -- I was citing Jayant and Noll's graduate
communications text from 1986 -- but not perceived that way by either
anti-technology audiophiles or anyone else who perceived that
simplistic spec measures were what engineering is all about. A little
learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian
spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking
largely sobers us again.)


Happy new year! -- Max Hauser



(R. D. Davis) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Tom writes:
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'. These people
[...]
I do a good line in 'special' superconducting cables. These are better
than the ones on the market at present but only people with golden ears
can detect the difference. A snip at $1000 US per cable.

Whoh-oh... PT Barnum would love that! :-)

Time to ring for the men in white coats with the oversized butterfy
nets... A vision of golden eared audiophiles, some sitting around in a
room weaving baskets from audio cables with gold plated connectors,
and some in straightjackets, all singing along to Napoleon XIV's song,
"They're Coming to Take Me Away", comes to mind. :-) :-) :-)

In article , (Max Hauser) wrote:
-- albeit fragmented into more groups now. I have scarcely looked at
it in 10 or 12 years, wasn't even sure if these groups still existed;
but have archives from the 1980s and early 1990s. (I only posted
about the purely technical side of things.) A good bit of the traffic
in those days consisted of tirades from either folks who knew little
of the technology and dismissed its value (though rarely actually
seeking to sell something), or other folks who also knew little about
the technology but didn't realize this (they were often 19-year-old
engineering students, just old enough to know everything) and strove
to apply proudly learned first-year engineering knowledge to the
extremely complex and counterintuitive world of audio where it didn't
fit. The two groups thus felt justified by each other (as communists
and fascists have done at times) and could scarcely imagine that
anyone would be in neither camp.

I hope that such contacts as still occur have become more civil!

(Once I was invited to speak, on engineering, at Cal. Inst. of Tech.
in Pasadena, at the instigation of a musician of some importance
there, on the strength of a passing remark in a tuturial paper that
perceptual criteria are the ultimate merit measures in audio or any
other human-interface encoding; this seems to strike some audiophiles

Right, but ones perception varies over time and from day to day. Listening
is a learning thing. You could listen to something for avery long time but
still not hear certain things. Casual listeners may not hear things an
experianced listener has. Unfortnately if you listen long enough, those old
ears may not be that great anymore. For the most part, certain Usenet groups
have deminished over time in technical issues. There are other areas
or forums which many have switched to, to participate through web sites.

greg

In article , (Max Hauser) wrote:
-- albeit fragmented into more groups now. I have scarcely looked at
it in 10 or 12 years, wasn't even sure if these groups still existed;
but have archives from the 1980s and early 1990s. (I only posted
about the purely technical side of things.) A good bit of the traffic
in those days consisted of tirades from either folks who knew little
of the technology and dismissed its value (though rarely actually
seeking to sell something), or other folks who also knew little about
the technology but didn't realize this (they were often 19-year-old
engineering students, just old enough to know everything) and strove
to apply proudly learned first-year engineering knowledge to the
extremely complex and counterintuitive world of audio where it didn't
fit. The two groups thus felt justified by each other (as communists
and fascists have done at times) and could scarcely imagine that
anyone would be in neither camp.

I hope that such contacts as still occur have become more civil!

(Once I was invited to speak, on engineering, at Cal. Inst. of Tech.
in Pasadena, at the instigation of a musician of some importance
there, on the strength of a passing remark in a tuturial paper that
perceptual criteria are the ultimate merit measures in audio or any
other human-interface encoding; this seems to strike some audiophiles

Right, but ones perception varies over time and from day to day. Listening
is a learning thing. You could listen to something for avery long time but
still not hear certain things. Casual listeners may not hear things an
experianced listener has. Unfortnately if you listen long enough, those old
ears may not be that great anymore. For the most part, certain Usenet groups
have deminished over time in technical issues. There are other areas
or forums which many have switched to, to participate through web sites.

greg

In article , (Max Hauser) wrote:
-- albeit fragmented into more groups now. I have scarcely looked at
it in 10 or 12 years, wasn't even sure if these groups still existed;
but have archives from the 1980s and early 1990s. (I only posted
about the purely technical side of things.) A good bit of the traffic
in those days consisted of tirades from either folks who knew little
of the technology and dismissed its value (though rarely actually
seeking to sell something), or other folks who also knew little about
the technology but didn't realize this (they were often 19-year-old
engineering students, just old enough to know everything) and strove
to apply proudly learned first-year engineering knowledge to the
extremely complex and counterintuitive world of audio where it didn't
fit. The two groups thus felt justified by each other (as communists
and fascists have done at times) and could scarcely imagine that
anyone would be in neither camp.

I hope that such contacts as still occur have become more civil!

(Once I was invited to speak, on engineering, at Cal. Inst. of Tech.
in Pasadena, at the instigation of a musician of some importance
there, on the strength of a passing remark in a tuturial paper that
perceptual criteria are the ultimate merit measures in audio or any
other human-interface encoding; this seems to strike some audiophiles

Right, but ones perception varies over time and from day to day. Listening
is a learning thing. You could listen to something for avery long time but
still not hear certain things. Casual listeners may not hear things an
experianced listener has. Unfortnately if you listen long enough, those old
ears may not be that great anymore. For the most part, certain Usenet groups
have deminished over time in technical issues. There are other areas
or forums which many have switched to, to participate through web sites.

greg

10 or 15 years ago, Internet users thought we had entered Utopia. While the
WWW is a great improvement, Usenet is still [sometimes] the wonderful
community we imagined the Internet would be.

I read and post in a few groups. Civility, usefulness and participation
still surprises me.

Maybe it's because newsgroups are a bit tougher to use than the WWW. Natural
selection. A better breed figures out the entrance.

Regardless, thanks folks.

10 or 15 years ago, Internet users thought we had entered Utopia. While the
WWW is a great improvement, Usenet is still [sometimes] the wonderful
community we imagined the Internet would be.

I read and post in a few groups. Civility, usefulness and participation
still surprises me.

Maybe it's because newsgroups are a bit tougher to use than the WWW. Natural
selection. A better breed figures out the entrance.

Regardless, thanks folks.

10 or 15 years ago, Internet users thought we had entered Utopia. While the
WWW is a great improvement, Usenet is still [sometimes] the wonderful
community we imagined the Internet would be.

I read and post in a few groups. Civility, usefulness and participation
still surprises me.

Maybe it's because newsgroups are a bit tougher to use than the WWW. Natural
selection. A better breed figures out the entrance.

Regardless, thanks folks.

"Jeff" wrote :
10 or 15 years ago, Internet users thought we had entered Utopia. While the
WWW is a great improvement, Usenet is still [sometimes] the wonderful
community we imagined the Internet would be.


Not all found it Utopian -- indeed one of the sharper people I knew
from my hometown (Berkeley) mentioned in 1983 that a wholesale exodus
was occurring from constructive newsgroups, in favor of moderated
mailing lists, because of the increasing spurious traffic as the
Internet became more accessible, simultaneous with the average age of
contributors dropping to something like 20 at that time. (The Net was
pretty widely publicly accessible, one way or another, by the middle
1980s, though not of course in the current pointy-clicky WWW format.)

However, the sort of audio posting I remember so fondly was when in
1987 someone asked about "skin effect" in cabling at high audio
frequencies and the chorus of conflicting technical replies resolved
(eventually) into two hostile camps, one asserting that the critical
depth of conduction was the signal's electromagnetic wavelength and
the other countering that it's the acoustic wavelength (it is
demonstrably neither, but what it actually is was less interesting,
taking the long view, than what the subject unleashed on rec.audio --
a single newsgroup at the time, earlier called net.audio of course).
This was followed a few years later by my favorite example of this
type, not on rec.audio but on the "technical" newsgroups
sci.electronics and comp.dsp, in which a presumptively innocent
questioner requested the procedure for phase-shifting a sampled signal
180 degrees, and the chorus of conflicting technical replies,
evidently serious, included everything from cascaded Hilbert
transformers to mis-spelled tutorials asserting that phase-shifting a
signal cannot invert it, "it always stays the same way up." I then
edited down a dozen or so of these replies and re-posted the summary
under the new title "180-degree phase shift: A study in Usenet
technical advice," which did actually evoke some joy, and was
therefore worthwhile (someone told me later that Pease caught it and
cited it, though I don't know). But I am generally pretty busy and
don't always have time for fun stuff like that.

Best wishes -- Max Hauser

--------
Il faudrait penser pour ecrir
Il vaut encore mieux effacer
Les auteurs quelquefois ont écrit sans penser
Comme on parle souvent sans avoir rien à dire.

(It is necessary to think in order to write
It's even better to erase
Authors sometimes have written without thinking
As one often speaks without having anything to say.) -- Voltaire
(via CH)

"Jeff" wrote :
10 or 15 years ago, Internet users thought we had entered Utopia. While the
WWW is a great improvement, Usenet is still [sometimes] the wonderful
community we imagined the Internet would be.


Not all found it Utopian -- indeed one of the sharper people I knew
from my hometown (Berkeley) mentioned in 1983 that a wholesale exodus
was occurring from constructive newsgroups, in favor of moderated
mailing lists, because of the increasing spurious traffic as the
Internet became more accessible, simultaneous with the average age of
contributors dropping to something like 20 at that time. (The Net was
pretty widely publicly accessible, one way or another, by the middle
1980s, though not of course in the current pointy-clicky WWW format.)

However, the sort of audio posting I remember so fondly was when in
1987 someone asked about "skin effect" in cabling at high audio
frequencies and the chorus of conflicting technical replies resolved
(eventually) into two hostile camps, one asserting that the critical
depth of conduction was the signal's electromagnetic wavelength and
the other countering that it's the acoustic wavelength (it is
demonstrably neither, but what it actually is was less interesting,
taking the long view, than what the subject unleashed on rec.audio --
a single newsgroup at the time, earlier called net.audio of course).
This was followed a few years later by my favorite example of this
type, not on rec.audio but on the "technical" newsgroups
sci.electronics and comp.dsp, in which a presumptively innocent
questioner requested the procedure for phase-shifting a sampled signal
180 degrees, and the chorus of conflicting technical replies,
evidently serious, included everything from cascaded Hilbert
transformers to mis-spelled tutorials asserting that phase-shifting a
signal cannot invert it, "it always stays the same way up." I then
edited down a dozen or so of these replies and re-posted the summary
under the new title "180-degree phase shift: A study in Usenet
technical advice," which did actually evoke some joy, and was
therefore worthwhile (someone told me later that Pease caught it and
cited it, though I don't know). But I am generally pretty busy and
don't always have time for fun stuff like that.

Best wishes -- Max Hauser

--------
Il faudrait penser pour ecrir
Il vaut encore mieux effacer
Les auteurs quelquefois ont écrit sans penser
Comme on parle souvent sans avoir rien à dire.

(It is necessary to think in order to write
It's even better to erase
Authors sometimes have written without thinking
As one often speaks without having anything to say.) -- Voltaire
(via CH)

"Jeff" wrote :
10 or 15 years ago, Internet users thought we had entered Utopia. While the
WWW is a great improvement, Usenet is still [sometimes] the wonderful
community we imagined the Internet would be.


Not all found it Utopian -- indeed one of the sharper people I knew
from my hometown (Berkeley) mentioned in 1983 that a wholesale exodus
was occurring from constructive newsgroups, in favor of moderated
mailing lists, because of the increasing spurious traffic as the
Internet became more accessible, simultaneous with the average age of
contributors dropping to something like 20 at that time. (The Net was
pretty widely publicly accessible, one way or another, by the middle
1980s, though not of course in the current pointy-clicky WWW format.)

However, the sort of audio posting I remember so fondly was when in
1987 someone asked about "skin effect" in cabling at high audio
frequencies and the chorus of conflicting technical replies resolved
(eventually) into two hostile camps, one asserting that the critical
depth of conduction was the signal's electromagnetic wavelength and
the other countering that it's the acoustic wavelength (it is
demonstrably neither, but what it actually is was less interesting,
taking the long view, than what the subject unleashed on rec.audio --
a single newsgroup at the time, earlier called net.audio of course).
This was followed a few years later by my favorite example of this
type, not on rec.audio but on the "technical" newsgroups
sci.electronics and comp.dsp, in which a presumptively innocent
questioner requested the procedure for phase-shifting a sampled signal
180 degrees, and the chorus of conflicting technical replies,
evidently serious, included everything from cascaded Hilbert
transformers to mis-spelled tutorials asserting that phase-shifting a
signal cannot invert it, "it always stays the same way up." I then
edited down a dozen or so of these replies and re-posted the summary
under the new title "180-degree phase shift: A study in Usenet
technical advice," which did actually evoke some joy, and was
therefore worthwhile (someone told me later that Pease caught it and
cited it, though I don't know). But I am generally pretty busy and
don't always have time for fun stuff like that.

Best wishes -- Max Hauser

--------
Il faudrait penser pour ecrir
Il vaut encore mieux effacer
Les auteurs quelquefois ont écrit sans penser
Comme on parle souvent sans avoir rien à dire.

(It is necessary to think in order to write
It's even better to erase
Authors sometimes have written without thinking
As one often speaks without having anything to say.) -- Voltaire
(via CH)

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Tom" wrote ...
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'.

I would imagine that the "golden ear" crowd are more
likely to be found in news:rec.audio.high-end

This newsgroup tends more towards REAL technology.

Funny stuff. After hundreds of ABX tests at a previous employer's facility,
I'd about decided that we're all tin ear'd. Turned out one of my tech's
was, in fact, as close to golden ear'd as I could have hoped for. The
engineering department didn't like him because he pointed out clear (to him)
defects in our power amp products. He's "fixed," now. Having spent a
couple of decades as a live sound engineer, he can't tell the difference
between a high quality source and a boombox. Lots cheaper than $1,000
cables.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Tom" wrote ...
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'.

I would imagine that the "golden ear" crowd are more
likely to be found in news:rec.audio.high-end

This newsgroup tends more towards REAL technology.

Funny stuff. After hundreds of ABX tests at a previous employer's facility,
I'd about decided that we're all tin ear'd. Turned out one of my tech's
was, in fact, as close to golden ear'd as I could have hoped for. The
engineering department didn't like him because he pointed out clear (to him)
defects in our power amp products. He's "fixed," now. Having spent a
couple of decades as a live sound engineer, he can't tell the difference
between a high quality source and a boombox. Lots cheaper than $1,000
cables.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Tom" wrote ...
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'.

I would imagine that the "golden ear" crowd are more
likely to be found in news:rec.audio.high-end

This newsgroup tends more towards REAL technology.

Funny stuff. After hundreds of ABX tests at a previous employer's facility,
I'd about decided that we're all tin ear'd. Turned out one of my tech's
was, in fact, as close to golden ear'd as I could have hoped for. The
engineering department didn't like him because he pointed out clear (to him)
defects in our power amp products. He's "fixed," now. Having spent a
couple of decades as a live sound engineer, he can't tell the difference
between a high quality source and a boombox. Lots cheaper than $1,000
cables.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Tom" wrote ...
I was just wondering if this newsgroup had any representatives of a
unique group of people sometimes known as 'Golden eared'.

I would imagine that the "golden ear" crowd are more
likely to be found in news:rec.audio.high-end

This newsgroup tends more towards REAL technology.

Funny stuff. After hundreds of ABX tests at a previous employer's facility,
I'd about decided that we're all tin ear'd. Turned out one of my tech's
was, in fact, as close to golden ear'd as I could have hoped for. The
engineering department didn't like him because he pointed out clear (to him)
defects in our power amp products. He's "fixed," now. Having spent a
couple of decades as a live sound engineer, he can't tell the difference
between a high quality source and a boombox. Lots cheaper than $1,000
cables.