Audiophiles' Delight: Vinyl LPs Still Sell [Archive]

AZ Nomad[_2_]

August 29th 08, 02:18 PM

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:20:01 GMT, Chronic Philharmonic > wrote:

>"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:37:49 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>> > wrote:
>>>In rec.audio.tech DarkSide of Nightmix >
>>>wrote:
>>>> "Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
>>>> aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
>>>> the first place..."
>>
>>>> Business Week: http://atu.ca/6aecf
>>
>>>'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.
>>
>>
>> IMNSHO 'warm sound' = muffled high frequencies. It's amazing when
>> audiophiles
>> can find cables so incredibly mediocre that they have difficulty handling
>> frequencies about 5khz and give that lovely warm sound as one would expect
>> from a worn out record being played with a worn out stylus. Such
>> progress,
>> and usually for only $100/ft! But, of course, we all know that equalizers
>> are bad so it's off to the cable shop to find filters.

>A worn out record being played with a worn out stylus never sounded warm to
>me. It sounds noisy, fuzzy and distorted. Reducing frequencies above about
>5kHz might provide some relief from that, but it isn't high fidelity. As far
>as that goes, "warm" isn't a term I would associate with high fidelity
>either. Accuracy, perhaps.

>Since recording a live event (or generating the illusion of a live event in
>the studio) is an art form, high fidelity is a complex concept. IMHO, the
>most neutral medium and reproduction equipment would be the best way to
>reproduce the original sound. Vinyl, and most analog storage technology is
>measurably and objectively nowhere near as neutral as modern digital
>technology. Flame on...

No argument here, but I didn't have a $10K phono investment to rationalize when
CD's first came out. Mine's $10K! It has to sound better than a $300 CD
player! That muffled sound has to be better... Let's give it a name... warm!

nobody

August 29th 08, 04:38 PM

On 2008-08-29, Chronic Philharmonic > wrote:
>
>
> "AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:37:49 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>> > wrote:
>>>In rec.audio.tech DarkSide of Nightmix >
>>>wrote:
>>>> "Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
>>>> aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
>>>> the first place..."
>>
>>>> Business Week: http://atu.ca/6aecf
>>
>>>'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.
>>
>>
>> IMNSHO 'warm sound' = muffled high frequencies. It's amazing when
>> audiophiles
>> can find cables so incredibly mediocre that they have difficulty handling
>> frequencies about 5khz and give that lovely warm sound as one would expect
>> from a worn out record being played with a worn out stylus. Such
>> progress,
>> and usually for only $100/ft! But, of course, we all know that equalizers
>> are bad so it's off to the cable shop to find filters.
>
> A worn out record being played with a worn out stylus never sounded warm to
> me. It sounds noisy, fuzzy and distorted. Reducing frequencies above about
> 5kHz might provide some relief from that, but it isn't high fidelity. As far
> as that goes, "warm" isn't a term I would associate with high fidelity
> either. Accuracy, perhaps.
>
> Since recording a live event (or generating the illusion of a live event in
> the studio) is an art form, high fidelity is a complex concept. IMHO, the
> most neutral medium and reproduction equipment would be the best way to
> reproduce the original sound. Vinyl, and most analog storage technology is
> measurably and objectively nowhere near as neutral as modern digital
> technology. Flame on...
>
>
Wait until recycled vinyl is used for the records as the companies did in the
1970's "oil crisis"; it wasn't just the sound that was a problem..

Jenn[_3_]

August 29th 08, 05:20 PM

In article >,
AZ Nomad > wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:20:01 GMT, Chronic Philharmonic
> > wrote:
>
>
> >"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:37:49 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> >> > wrote:
> >>>In rec.audio.tech DarkSide of Nightmix >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>> "Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
> >>>> aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
> >>>> the first place..."
> >>
> >>>> Business Week: http://atu.ca/6aecf
> >>
> >>>'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.
> >>
> >>
> >> IMNSHO 'warm sound' = muffled high frequencies. It's amazing when
> >> audiophiles
> >> can find cables so incredibly mediocre that they have difficulty handling
> >> frequencies about 5khz and give that lovely warm sound as one would expect
> >> from a worn out record being played with a worn out stylus. Such
> >> progress,
> >> and usually for only $100/ft! But, of course, we all know that equalizers
> >> are bad so it's off to the cable shop to find filters.
>
> >A worn out record being played with a worn out stylus never sounded warm to
> >me. It sounds noisy, fuzzy and distorted. Reducing frequencies above about
> >5kHz might provide some relief from that, but it isn't high fidelity. As far
> >as that goes, "warm" isn't a term I would associate with high fidelity
> >either. Accuracy, perhaps.
>
> >Since recording a live event (or generating the illusion of a live event in
> >the studio) is an art form, high fidelity is a complex concept. IMHO, the
> >most neutral medium and reproduction equipment would be the best way to
> >reproduce the original sound. Vinyl, and most analog storage technology is
> >measurably and objectively nowhere near as neutral as modern digital
> >technology. Flame on...
>
> No argument here, but I didn't have a $10K phono investment to rationalize
> when
> CD's first came out. Mine's $10K! It has to sound better than a $300 CD
> player! That muffled sound has to be better... Let's give it a name...
> warm!

Or another name: "It sounds more like typical acoustic music to ______
(insert name)."

Jenn[_3_]

August 29th 08, 05:20 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > Andrew Barss > wrote:
> >
> >> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> >>> equalizer.
> >>
> >>> How to increase "warmth":
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>
> >> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> >> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? Given that
> >> some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of vinyl,
> >> this would seem to have a built-in market.
>
> > Why do you say, "claim to"?
>
> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl might have nothing to
> do with actual sound quality.

True with CDs too, of course.

Arny Krueger

August 29th 08, 07:24 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
>>>>> equalizer.
>>>>
>>>>> How to increase "warmth":
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
>>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? Given
>>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
>>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
>>
>>> Why do you say, "claim to"?

>> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
>> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.

> True with CDs too, of course.

Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make such an off-topic
comment?

There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less audible noise
and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by more than 100:
1.

Arny Krueger

August 29th 08, 07:25 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> Or another name: "It sounds more like typical acoustic
> music to ______ (insert name)."

Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all what the origional
acoustic performance sounded like because they weren't there.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 29th 08, 07:40 PM

In its haste to escape being lashed by Mistress Jenn's awful Whip Of
Righteousness, the Krooborg snots all over itself.

> >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.

> >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?

> >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.

> > True with CDs too, of course.

> Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make such an off-topic
> comment?

I agree with Mr. ****. The real topic here is Turdy's ongoing battle with
his mental diseases.

Only a truly insane individual could possibly fail to perceive the true
meaning of the Krooborg's coded snot. All the Normals -- including
Mistress Jenn -- understand that the Beast is up to its regular trolling
tricks. Its pet slogan "preference for vinyl might have nothing to do with
actual sound quality" is simply one of its tried-and-true ways of steering
the "debate" to aBxism.

Anybody here want to "debate" Mr. ****'s crack-brained religion? No, I
didn't think so. Shove off -- and shove it too, Arnii.

Clyde Slick

August 29th 08, 07:52 PM

On Aug 29, 2:24*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
>
> >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> >>>>> equalizer.
>
> >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
>
> >>>> <snip>
>
> >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? * Given
> >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
>
> >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
> >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
> > True with CDs too, of course.
>
> Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make *such an off-topic
> comment?
>
> There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less audible noise
> and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by more than 100:
> 1.-

cd's are more convenient, that's all

Arny Krueger

August 29th 08, 07:57 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> On Aug 29, 2:24 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> There does seem to be a general preference for sound
>> with less audible noise and distortion, which is one
>> reason why CD's outsell LPs by more than 100:
>> 1.-

> cd's are more convenient, that's all

Agreed that dramatically lowered noise and distortion, and a medium that
does not put artificial limits on dynamic range are genuine conveniences.

Jenn[_3_]

August 29th 08, 09:38 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Or another name: "It sounds more like typical acoustic
> > music to ______ (insert name)."
>
> Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all what the origional
> acoustic performance sounded like because they weren't there.

As I wrote, "typical acoustic music". There are way that acoustic music
NEVER sounds, and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
We've been through this before.

Jenn[_3_]

August 29th 08, 09:41 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> >>>>> equalizer.
> >>>>
> >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? Given
> >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
> >>
> >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
>
> >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
>
> > True with CDs too, of course.
>
> Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make such an off-topic
> comment?

Just being clear.

>
> There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less audible noise
> and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by more than 100:
> 1.

Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like. Some of
those people like the sound of many CDs. I agree with them. Some of
them also have experienced some LPs to be the best sound at home they
have yet experienced. I'm also one of those people.

Arny Krueger

August 29th 08, 09:49 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.

So Jenn, you think that all acoustic music sounds the same, or is there any
variation from performance to performance?

IOW, is the concept of "What acoustic music typically sounds like" really a
valid concept?

I guess my ears are still good enough so that I hear variations among what
acoustic music sounds like. Therefore it can't possibly be a fixed reference
for me.

Arny Krueger

August 29th 08, 09:54 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Or another name: "It sounds more like typical acoustic
>>> music to ______ (insert name)."
>>
>> Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all
>> what the original acoustic performance sounded like
>> because they weren't there.

> As I wrote, "typical acoustic music".

Oh, so Jenn you think that all acoustic music sounds the same?

> There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,

Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops, inner groove
distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc. Yet I have yet to hear an LP
that fails to have one or more of those failings. I've visited the homes of
audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but yet when they play
vinyl, one or more of those failings is audible. I've been to what are
alleged to be some of the best high end audio shows around, and even in
carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has one or more of those
problems.

> and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.

Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I can count on vinyl
to stick its hand right up and say "I've got clearly audible flaws".

> We've been through this before.

Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that there's something going
on with you that keeps you from hearing the well-known audible flaws of
vinyl.

Jenn[_3_]

August 29th 08, 09:54 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.
>
> So Jenn, you think that all acoustic music sounds the same,

Of course not, and you know that I didn't say that.

> or is there any
> variation from performance to performance?

Of course.

>
> IOW, is the concept of "What acoustic music typically sounds like" really a
> valid concept?
>
> I guess my ears are still good enough so that I hear variations among what
> acoustic music sounds like. Therefore it can't possibly be a fixed reference
> for me.

As I already wrote and have written to you several times before, there
are ways that acoustic music in a performance space NEVER sounds.
That's what to be avoided, IMO.

Jenn[_3_]

August 29th 08, 09:57 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> Or another name: "It sounds more like typical acoustic
> >>> music to ______ (insert name)."
> >>
> >> Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all
> >> what the original acoustic performance sounded like
> >> because they weren't there.
>
> > As I wrote, "typical acoustic music".
>
> Oh, so Jenn you think that all acoustic music sounds the same?

What makes you think that?

>
>
> > There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
>
> Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops, inner groove
> distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc. Yet I have yet to hear an LP
> that fails to have one or more of those failings. I've visited the homes of
> audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but yet when they play
> vinyl, one or more of those failings is audible. I've been to what are
> alleged to be some of the best high end audio shows around, and even in
> carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has one or more of those
> problems.
>
> > and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
>
> Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I can count on vinyl
> to stick its hand right up and say "I've got clearly audible flaws".
>
> > We've been through this before.
>
> Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that there's something going
> on with you that keeps you from hearing the well-known audible flaws of
> vinyl.

Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a matter of "picking
your poison". It's ALL artificial. I can listen through a few tics. I
can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
instrument made of plastic.

vlad

August 29th 08, 10:00 PM

On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> > >>> In article >,
> > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
>
> > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > >>>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > >>>>> equalizer.
>
> > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
>
> > >>>> <snip>
>
> > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? Given
> > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
>
> > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
>
> > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
>
> > > True with CDs too, of course.
>
> > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make such an off-topic
> > comment?
>
> Just being clear.
>
>
>
> > There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less audible noise
> > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by more than 100:
> > 1.
>
> Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.

What an elitist statement to make. I guess we ordinary peasants
don't know how music should sound, never mind that many of us love
live performances. We need advise of gurus like JA, Rober Harley, Jenn
Martin, etc. to know the "TRUTH".

BTW, how do you know that it is "fewer and fewer"?

> Some of
> those people like the sound of many CDs. I agree with them. Some of
> them also have experienced some LPs to be the best sound at home they
> have yet experienced. I'm also one of those people.

Some people love necrophilia, I am also not one of those people.

vlad

Jenn[_3_]

August 29th 08, 10:04 PM

In article
>,
vlad > wrote:

> On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > >>> In article >,
> > > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > > >>>>> equalizer.
> >
> > > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
> >
> > > >>>> <snip>
> >
> > > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? Given
> > > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> > > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
> >
> > > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
> >
> > > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
> >
> > > > True with CDs too, of course.
> >
> > > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make such an off-topic
> > > comment?
> >
> > Just being clear.
> >
> >
> >
> > > There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less audible
> > > noise
> > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by more than
> > > 100:
> > > 1.
> >
> > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.
>
> What an elitist statement to make.

Not at all.

> I guess we ordinary peasants
> don't know how music should sound, never mind that many of us love
> live performances. We need advise of gurus like JA, Rober Harley, Jenn
> Martin, etc. to know the "TRUTH".

Another idiotic statement. The evidence is clear: fewer people attend,
play, or sing acoustic music than in the past.

>
> BTW, how do you know that it is "fewer and fewer"?

Concert attendance, instrument purchases, participation in community and
church choirs... all down compared to even 5 years ago.

>
> > Some of
> > those people like the sound of many CDs. I agree with them. Some of
> > them also have experienced some LPs to be the best sound at home they
> > have yet experienced. I'm also one of those people.
>
> Some people love necrophilia, I am also not one of those people.

I'm happy that you feel that way, Vlad. I'm especially happy for dead
people everywhere.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 29th 08, 10:46 PM

The Idiot yapped idiotically:

> > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.
> >
> > > * What an elitist statement to make.
> >
> > Not at all.
>
> Yeah, it was a bit snooty.

I read it as a lament. Too bad you're an idiot and so can't understand
simple statements. Or maybe it's your all-consuming fear of Mistress Jenn
and her Whip Of Righteousness that makes you act like this.

Regardless, you're an idiot. Have fun dancing with your uncounted fears
until your dying days, Witless.

Jenn[_3_]

August 29th 08, 10:46 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *vlad > wrote:
> > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > > > > >>>>> equalizer.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
> >
> > > > > >>>> <snip>
> >
> > > > > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > > > > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? * Given
> > > > > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> > > > > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
> >
> > > > > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
> >
> > > > > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > > > > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
> >
> > > > > > True with CDs too, of course.
> >
> > > > > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make *such an off-topic
> > > > > comment?
> >
> > > > Just being clear.
> >
> > > > > There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less audible
> > > > > noise
> > > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by more than
> > > > > 100:
> > > > > 1.
> >
> > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.
> >
> > > * What an elitist statement to make.
> >
> > Not at all.
>
> Yeah, it was a bit snooty.

No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.

If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did 10
years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know what
grape soda tastes like?

Jenn[_3_]

August 29th 08, 11:04 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 29, 2:46*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *vlad > wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > > > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > > > > > > >>>>> equalizer.
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > > > > > > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? * Given
> > > > > > > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> > > > > > > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
> >
> > > > > > > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
> >
> > > > > > > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > > > > > > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
> >
> > > > > > > > True with CDs too, of course.
> >
> > > > > > > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make *such an
> > > > > > > off-topic
> > > > > > > comment?
> >
> > > > > > Just being clear.
> >
> > > > > > > There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less
> > > > > > > audible
> > > > > > > noise
> > > > > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by more
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > 100:
> > > > > > > 1.
> >
> > > > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.
> >
> > > > > * What an elitist statement to make.
> >
> > > > Not at all.
> >
> > > Yeah, it was a bit snooty.
> >
> > No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.
>
> Critical? I thought you liked to be snooty?

That's because you're wrong. Again.

>
> >
> > If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did 10
> > years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know what
> > grape soda tastes like?
>
> If you obviously think grape soda is some sign of culture and
> culinary appreciation,
> yeah, and it's also wrong.
> I drink far less soda than I once did, but I still know what they
> taste like.
> Your conclusion is not a given from the facts presented.

You changed the question. I asked about teenagers. Fewer teenagers
drink grape soda than they did before. Think it through. The set of
people who are teenagers are less and less exposed to the taste of grape
soda. For my point about acoustic music, x number of people were
exposed to acoustic music in, say, 1970. That number is now less, as
people who did hear it pass away, with fewer people replacing them.

> Ask your community college students for some assistance with
> your critical thinking.

I'm afraid that they're quite better at it than half of the people I've
met who graduated from UofI.

Jenn[_3_]

August 29th 08, 11:06 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 29, 1:57*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > >
> >
> > > >>> Or another name: *"It sounds more like typical acoustic
> > > >>> music to ______ (insert name)."
> >
> > > >> Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all
> > > >> what the original acoustic performance sounded like
> > > >> because they weren't there.
> >
> > > > As I wrote, "typical acoustic music".
> >
> > > Oh, so Jenn you think that all acoustic music sounds the same?
> >
> > What makes you think that?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > *There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
> >
> > > Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops, inner groove
> > > distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc. Yet I have yet to hear an LP
> > > that fails to have one or more of those failings. I've visited the homes
> > > of
> > > audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but yet when they play
> > > vinyl, one or more of those failings is audible. I've been to what are
> > > alleged to be some of the best high end audio shows around, and even in
> > > carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has one or more of
> > > those
> > > problems.
> >
> > > > and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
> >
> > > Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I can count on
> > > vinyl
> > > to stick its hand right up and say "I've got clearly audible flaws".
> >
> > > > We've been through this before.
> >
> > > Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that there's something
> > > going
> > > on with you that keeps you from hearing the well-known audible flaws of
> > > vinyl.
> >
> > Wrong Arny. *As I've said many times before, it's a matter of "picking
> > your poison". *It's ALL artificial. *I can listen through a few tics. *I
> > can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
> > instrument made of plastic.
>
> You think digital does that to a recording of a violin?

I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP, and I have on CD.

> Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
> doesn't do that.

Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm speaking about all the CD
players I've heard.

Clyde Slick

August 29th 08, 11:52 PM

On 29 Aug, 16:57, Jenn > wrote:

*I can listen through a few tics. *I
> can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
> instrument made of plastic

well put!!!
excellent

Clyde Slick

August 29th 08, 11:53 PM

On 29 Aug, 17:56, ScottW > wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2:46*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
>
> > > > *vlad > wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > > > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > > > > > > >>>>> equalizer.
>
> > > > > > > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
>
> > > > > > > >>>> <snip>
>
> > > > > > > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > > > > > > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? * Given
> > > > > > > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> > > > > > > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
>
> > > > > > > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
>
> > > > > > > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > > > > > > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
>
> > > > > > > > True with CDs too, of course.
>
> > > > > > > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make *such an off-topic
> > > > > > > comment?
>
> > > > > > Just being clear.
>
> > > > > > > There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less audible
> > > > > > > noise
> > > > > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by more than
> > > > > > > 100:
> > > > > > > 1.
>
> > > > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.
>
> > > > > * What an elitist statement to make.
>
> > > > Not at all.
>
> > > Yeah, it was a bit snooty.
>
> > No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.
>
> *Critical? *I thought you liked to be snooty?
>
>
>
> > If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did 10
> > years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know what
> > grape soda tastes like?
>
> *If you obviously think grape soda is some sign of culture and
> culinary appreciation,
> yeah, and it's also wrong.
> I drink far less soda than I once did, but I still know what they
> taste like.
> Your conclusion is not a given from the facts presented.
> Ask your community college students for some assistance with
> your critical thinking.
>
> ScottW-

LOL!!!

today's teeneagers were not teenagers 10 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clyde Slick

August 29th 08, 11:55 PM

On 29 Aug, 18:02, ScottW > wrote:
> On Aug 29, 1:57*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > >
>
> > > >>> Or another name: *"It sounds more like typical acoustic
> > > >>> music to ______ (insert name)."
>
> > > >> Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all
> > > >> what the original acoustic performance sounded like
> > > >> because they weren't there.
>
> > > > As I wrote, "typical acoustic music".
>
> > > Oh, so Jenn you think that all acoustic music sounds the same?
>
> > What makes you think that?
>
> > > > *There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
>
> > > Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops, inner groove
> > > distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc. Yet I have yet to hear an LP
> > > that fails to have one or more of those failings. I've visited the homes of
> > > audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but yet when they play
> > > vinyl, one or more of those failings is audible. I've been to what are
> > > alleged to be some of the best high end audio shows around, and even in
> > > carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has one or more of those
> > > problems.
>
> > > > and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
>
> > > Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I can count on vinyl
> > > to stick its hand right up and say "I've got clearly audible flaws".
>
> > > > We've been through this before.
>
> > > Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that there's something going
> > > on with you that keeps you from hearing the well-known audible flaws of
> > > vinyl.
>
> > Wrong Arny. *As I've said many times before, it's a matter of "picking
> > your poison". *It's ALL artificial. *I can listen through a few tics. *I
> > can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
> > instrument made of plastic.
>
> *You think digital does that to a recording of a violin?
> *Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
> doesn't do that.
>
> ScottW-

Huh????

I thought you preferred your Arcam.
at your house you told me you didn't,
the online you said you purposely lied to me
and that you actually liked it.
Now you seem to be saying you don't like it.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 30th 08, 12:10 AM

Jenn said:

> I can listen through a few tics. I can't listen through a recorded
> violin sound that resembles an instrument made of plastic.

Plastic is less likely to contain the defects and unevenness that occur
naturally in wood. Thank's Jenn for, admitting-Jennn that you invariably
preffer defects to perfection Jeenn.

Chronic Philharmonic

August 30th 08, 01:05 AM

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:20:01 GMT, Chronic Philharmonic
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:37:49 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>>> > wrote:
>>>>In rec.audio.tech DarkSide of Nightmix >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> "Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
>>>>> aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
>>>>> the first place..."
>>>
>>>>> Business Week: http://atu.ca/6aecf
>>>
>>>>'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.
>>>
>>>
>>> IMNSHO 'warm sound' = muffled high frequencies. It's amazing when
>>> audiophiles
>>> can find cables so incredibly mediocre that they have difficulty
>>> handling
>>> frequencies about 5khz and give that lovely warm sound as one would
>>> expect
>>> from a worn out record being played with a worn out stylus. Such
>>> progress,
>>> and usually for only $100/ft! But, of course, we all know that
>>> equalizers
>>> are bad so it's off to the cable shop to find filters.
>
>>A worn out record being played with a worn out stylus never sounded warm
>>to
>>me. It sounds noisy, fuzzy and distorted. Reducing frequencies above about
>>5kHz might provide some relief from that, but it isn't high fidelity. As
>>far
>>as that goes, "warm" isn't a term I would associate with high fidelity
>>either. Accuracy, perhaps.
>
>>Since recording a live event (or generating the illusion of a live event
>>in
>>the studio) is an art form, high fidelity is a complex concept. IMHO, the
>>most neutral medium and reproduction equipment would be the best way to
>>reproduce the original sound. Vinyl, and most analog storage technology is
>>measurably and objectively nowhere near as neutral as modern digital
>>technology. Flame on...
>
> No argument here, but I didn't have a $10K phono investment to rationalize
> when
> CD's first came out. Mine's $10K! It has to sound better than a $300 CD
> player! That muffled sound has to be better... Let's give it a name...
> warm!

Yeah, I had a lot invested in vinyl when CDs came out. But I always had a
love-hate relationship with vinyl. I knew how good it could sound, but it
rarely did. It took a lot of maintenance to keep it sounding good, and even
then the sound inevitably deteriorated. CDs were cheap, accurate and
repeatable. Hi-fi for the masses. I think that was the problem. Any old kid
on a skateboard could afford truly high fidelity without even caring or
appreciating the concept.

Chronic Philharmonic

August 30th 08, 01:08 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Or another name: "It sounds more like typical acoustic
>> >>> music to ______ (insert name)."
>> >>
>> >> Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all
>> >> what the original acoustic performance sounded like
>> >> because they weren't there.
>>
>> > As I wrote, "typical acoustic music".
>>
>> Oh, so Jenn you think that all acoustic music sounds the same?
>
> What makes you think that?
>
>>
>>
>> > There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
>>
>> Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops, inner groove
>> distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc. Yet I have yet to hear an LP
>> that fails to have one or more of those failings. I've visited the homes
>> of
>> audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but yet when they play
>> vinyl, one or more of those failings is audible. I've been to what are
>> alleged to be some of the best high end audio shows around, and even in
>> carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has one or more of
>> those
>> problems.
>>
>> > and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
>>
>> Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I can count on
>> vinyl
>> to stick its hand right up and say "I've got clearly audible flaws".
>>
>> > We've been through this before.
>>
>> Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that there's something
>> going
>> on with you that keeps you from hearing the well-known audible flaws of
>> vinyl.
>
> Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a matter of "picking
> your poison". It's ALL artificial. I can listen through a few tics. I
> can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
> instrument made of plastic.

If it sounds that way, it is because of the production quality, not because
of the technology. Digital audio is the closest thing we have to a straight
wire between the performance and your living room.

Chronic Philharmonic

August 30th 08, 01:32 AM

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:20:01 GMT, Chronic Philharmonic
> > wrote:

[...]

>>A worn out record being played with a worn out stylus never sounded warm
>>to
>>me. It sounds noisy, fuzzy and distorted. Reducing frequencies above about
>>5kHz might provide some relief from that, but it isn't high fidelity. As
>>far
>>as that goes, "warm" isn't a term I would associate with high fidelity
>>either. Accuracy, perhaps.
>
>>Since recording a live event (or generating the illusion of a live event
>>in
>>the studio) is an art form, high fidelity is a complex concept. IMHO, the
>>most neutral medium and reproduction equipment would be the best way to
>>reproduce the original sound. Vinyl, and most analog storage technology is
>>measurably and objectively nowhere near as neutral as modern digital
>>technology. Flame on...
>
> No argument here, but I didn't have a $10K phono investment to rationalize
> when
> CD's first came out. Mine's $10K! It has to sound better than a $300 CD
> player! That muffled sound has to be better... Let's give it a name...
> warm!

The other problem: My cat has taken to sleeping on the dust cover of my
expensive turntable. I play CDs now, because I can still get the CD drawer
open with the cat sitting there. So the vinyl format simply is not
cat-friendly.

Clyde Slick

August 30th 08, 05:06 AM

On 29 Aug, 22:07, ScottW > wrote:
> On Aug 29, 3:06*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Aug 29, 1:57*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > >
>
> > > > > >>> Or another name: *"It sounds more like typical acoustic
> > > > > >>> music to ______ (insert name)."
>
> > > > > >> Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all
> > > > > >> what the original acoustic performance sounded like
> > > > > >> because they weren't there.
>
> > > > > > As I wrote, "typical acoustic music".
>
> > > > > Oh, so Jenn you think that all acoustic music sounds the same?
>
> > > > What makes you think that?
>
> > > > > > *There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
>
> > > > > Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops, inner groove
> > > > > distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc. Yet I have yet to hear an LP
> > > > > that fails to have one or more of those failings. I've visited the homes
> > > > > of
> > > > > audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but yet when they play
> > > > > vinyl, one or more of those failings is audible. I've been to what are
> > > > > alleged to be some of the best high end audio shows around, and even in
> > > > > carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has one or more of
> > > > > those
> > > > > problems.
>
> > > > > > and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
>
> > > > > Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I can count on
> > > > > vinyl
> > > > > to stick its hand right up and say "I've got clearly audible flaws".
>
> > > > > > We've been through this before.
>
> > > > > Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that there's something
> > > > > going
> > > > > on with you that keeps you from hearing the well-known audible flaws of
> > > > > vinyl.
>
> > > > Wrong Arny. *As I've said many times before, it's a matter of "picking
> > > > your poison". *It's ALL artificial. *I can listen through a few tics. *I
> > > > can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
> > > > instrument made of plastic.
>
> > > *You think digital does that to a recording of a violin?
>
> > I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP, and I have on CD.
>
> All recordings or just some?
>
>
>
> > > *Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
> > > doesn't do that.
>
> > Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm speaking about all the CD
> > players I've heard.
>
> *All CD players make violins sound like plastic.
> *I've never actually heard a plastic violin.
> Where did you come to know what they sound like?
>
> ScottW-

http://www.elderly.com/new_instruments/items/MPV1.htm

even the seller admits it ain't the greatest sound.

Harry Lavo

August 30th 08, 05:17 AM

"Chronic Philharmonic" > wrote in message
news:5GLtk.1186$Ro1.265@trnddc04...
>
>
> "AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:37:49 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
>> > wrote:
>>>In rec.audio.tech DarkSide of Nightmix >
>>>wrote:
>>>> "Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
>>>> aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
>>>> the first place..."
>>
>>>> Business Week: http://atu.ca/6aecf
>>
>>>'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.
>>
>>
>> IMNSHO 'warm sound' = muffled high frequencies. It's amazing when
>> audiophiles
>> can find cables so incredibly mediocre that they have difficulty handling
>> frequencies about 5khz and give that lovely warm sound as one would
>> expect
>> from a worn out record being played with a worn out stylus. Such
>> progress,
>> and usually for only $100/ft! But, of course, we all know that
>> equalizers
>> are bad so it's off to the cable shop to find filters.
>
> A worn out record being played with a worn out stylus never sounded warm
> to me. It sounds noisy, fuzzy and distorted. Reducing frequencies above
> about 5kHz might provide some relief from that, but it isn't high
> fidelity. As far as that goes, "warm" isn't a term I would associate with
> high fidelity either. Accuracy, perhaps.
>
> Since recording a live event (or generating the illusion of a live event
> in the studio) is an art form, high fidelity is a complex concept. IMHO,
> the most neutral medium and reproduction equipment would be the best way
> to reproduce the original sound. Vinyl, and most analog storage technology
> is measurably and objectively nowhere near as neutral as modern digital
> technology. Flame on...

Yeah it really is. Too bad it doesn't sound as good....... :-)

Harry Lavo

August 30th 08, 05:29 AM

"Chronic Philharmonic" > wrote in message
news:cy0uk.46$393.40@trnddc05...
>
>
> "AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:20:01 GMT, Chronic Philharmonic
>> > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>A worn out record being played with a worn out stylus never sounded warm
>>>to
>>>me. It sounds noisy, fuzzy and distorted. Reducing frequencies above
>>>about
>>>5kHz might provide some relief from that, but it isn't high fidelity. As
>>>far
>>>as that goes, "warm" isn't a term I would associate with high fidelity
>>>either. Accuracy, perhaps.
>>
>>>Since recording a live event (or generating the illusion of a live event
>>>in
>>>the studio) is an art form, high fidelity is a complex concept. IMHO, the
>>>most neutral medium and reproduction equipment would be the best way to
>>>reproduce the original sound. Vinyl, and most analog storage technology
>>>is
>>>measurably and objectively nowhere near as neutral as modern digital
>>>technology. Flame on...
>>
>> No argument here, but I didn't have a $10K phono investment to
>> rationalize when
>> CD's first came out. Mine's $10K! It has to sound better than a $300
>> CD
>> player! That muffled sound has to be better... Let's give it a name...
>> warm!
>
> The other problem: My cat has taken to sleeping on the dust cover of my
> expensive turntable. I play CDs now, because I can still get the CD drawer
> open with the cat sitting there. So the vinyl format simply is not
> cat-friendly.

LOL! How true!

Jenn[_3_]

August 30th 08, 07:50 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 29, 3:06*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Aug 29, 1:57*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > >
> >
> > > > > >>> Or another name: *"It sounds more like typical acoustic
> > > > > >>> music to ______ (insert name)."
> >
> > > > > >> Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all
> > > > > >> what the original acoustic performance sounded like
> > > > > >> because they weren't there.
> >
> > > > > > As I wrote, "typical acoustic music".
> >
> > > > > Oh, so Jenn you think that all acoustic music sounds the same?
> >
> > > > What makes you think that?
> >
> > > > > > *There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
> >
> > > > > Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops, inner groove
> > > > > distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc. Yet I have yet to hear an
> > > > > LP
> > > > > that fails to have one or more of those failings. I've visited the
> > > > > homes
> > > > > of
> > > > > audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but yet when they
> > > > > play
> > > > > vinyl, one or more of those failings is audible. I've been to what
> > > > > are
> > > > > alleged to be some of the best high end audio shows around, and even
> > > > > in
> > > > > carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has one or more of
> > > > > those
> > > > > problems.
> >
> > > > > > and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
> >
> > > > > Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I can count on
> > > > > vinyl
> > > > > to stick its hand right up and say "I've got clearly audible flaws".
> >
> > > > > > We've been through this before.
> >
> > > > > Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that there's something
> > > > > going
> > > > > on with you that keeps you from hearing the well-known audible flaws
> > > > > of
> > > > > vinyl.
> >
> > > > Wrong Arny. *As I've said many times before, it's a matter of "picking
> > > > your poison". *It's ALL artificial. *I can listen through a few tics.
> > > > *I
> > > > can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
> > > > instrument made of plastic.
> >
> > > *You think digital does that to a recording of a violin?
> >
> > I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP, and I have on CD.
>
> All recordings or just some?

All to a greater or lesser degree.

>
> >
> > > *Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
> > > doesn't do that.
> >
> > Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm speaking about all the CD
> > players I've heard.
>
> All CD players make violins sound like plastic.

To a greater or lesser degree in certain ranges of the instrument. I
hear a similar problem with female voice above about G on top of the
treble staff.

> I've never actually heard a plastic violin.
> Where did you come to know what they sound like?

I haven't. But I've heard plastic clarinets vs. wood clarinets, plastic
piccs vs. wood piccs, plastic recorders vs. wood recorders, etc.

Jenn[_3_]

August 30th 08, 07:53 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 29, 3:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Aug 29, 2:46*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *vlad > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>t
> > > > > > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > > > > > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> equalizer.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > > > > > > > > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? * Given
> > > > > > > > > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> > > > > > > > > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
> >
> > > > > > > > > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > > > > > > > > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > True with CDs too, of course.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make *such an
> > > > > > > > > off-topic
> > > > > > > > > comment?
> >
> > > > > > > > Just being clear.
> >
> > > > > > > > > There does seem to be a general preference for sound with
> > > > > > > > > less
> > > > > > > > > audible
> > > > > > > > > noise
> > > > > > > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > 100:
> > > > > > > > > 1.
> >
> > > > > > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.
> >
> > > > > > > * What an elitist statement to make.
> >
> > > > > > Not at all.
> >
> > > > > Yeah, it was a bit snooty.
> >
> > > > No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.
> >
> > > *Critical? *I thought you liked to be snooty?
> >
> > That's because you're wrong. *Again.
>
> You're snootier than you wish you were.
> You just don't like to hear about it.

Oh I see.

>
> >
> > > > If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did 10
> > > > years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know what
> > > > grape soda tastes like?
> >
> > > *If you obviously think grape soda is some sign of culture and
> > > culinary appreciation,
> > > yeah, and it's also wrong.
> > > I drink far less soda than I once did, but I still know what they
> > > taste like.
> > > Your conclusion is not a given from the facts presented.
> >
> > You changed the question. *I asked about teenagers. *Fewer teenagers
> > drink grape soda than they did before. *Think it through.
>
> Doesn't mean they've never had a grape soda and can't remember what
> it tastes like....

Scott, you do understand that people aren't teenagers forever, right?

>unless they're one of your students.

Why does anyone even bother to try with you?

>
> > *The set of
> > people who are teenagers are less and less exposed to the taste of grape
> > soda. *For my point about acoustic music, x number of people were
> > exposed to acoustic music in, say, 1970. *That number is now less, as
> > people who did hear it pass away, with fewer people replacing them.
>
> I think it's absurd to assume that even with a reduction in frequency
> of exposure
> it has ever gotten to the point where someone has never heard any
> acoustic music
> by the time they're age 12.

Did I say anything resembling that?

>
> >
> > > Ask your community college students for some assistance with
> > > your critical thinking.
> >
> > I'm afraid that they're quite better at it than half of the people I've
> > met who graduated from UofI.
>
> Foolish comments like that only prove you lack any
> qualification for judgement.

I've known (in a broad sense, meaning including online) two UofI grads.
You are one of them.

Jenn[_3_]

August 30th 08, 07:55 AM

In article <ec0uk.34$Dj1.14@trnddc02>,
"Chronic Philharmonic" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> Or another name: "It sounds more like typical acoustic
> >> >>> music to ______ (insert name)."
> >> >>
> >> >> Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all
> >> >> what the original acoustic performance sounded like
> >> >> because they weren't there.
> >>
> >> > As I wrote, "typical acoustic music".
> >>
> >> Oh, so Jenn you think that all acoustic music sounds the same?
> >
> > What makes you think that?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
> >>
> >> Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops, inner groove
> >> distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc. Yet I have yet to hear an LP
> >> that fails to have one or more of those failings. I've visited the homes
> >> of
> >> audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but yet when they play
> >> vinyl, one or more of those failings is audible. I've been to what are
> >> alleged to be some of the best high end audio shows around, and even in
> >> carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has one or more of
> >> those
> >> problems.
> >>
> >> > and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
> >>
> >> Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I can count on
> >> vinyl
> >> to stick its hand right up and say "I've got clearly audible flaws".
> >>
> >> > We've been through this before.
> >>
> >> Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that there's something
> >> going
> >> on with you that keeps you from hearing the well-known audible flaws of
> >> vinyl.
> >
> > Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a matter of "picking
> > your poison". It's ALL artificial. I can listen through a few tics. I
> > can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
> > instrument made of plastic.
>
> If it sounds that way, it is because of the production quality, not because
> of the technology. Digital audio is the closest thing we have to a straight
> wire between the performance and your living room.

I've heard the effect on CD. I've not heard the effect on the best LPs.

Jenn[_3_]

August 30th 08, 07:56 AM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 29 Aug, 17:56, ScottW > wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 2:46*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article
> > > >,
> >
> > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > *vlad > wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > > > > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > > > > > > > >>>>> equalizer.
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > > > > > > > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? * Given
> > > > > > > > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> > > > > > > > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
> >
> > > > > > > > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
> >
> > > > > > > > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > > > > > > > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
> >
> > > > > > > > > True with CDs too, of course.
> >
> > > > > > > > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make *such an
> > > > > > > > off-topic
> > > > > > > > comment?
> >
> > > > > > > Just being clear.
> >
> > > > > > > > There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less
> > > > > > > > audible
> > > > > > > > noise
> > > > > > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by
> > > > > > > > more than
> > > > > > > > 100:
> > > > > > > > 1.
> >
> > > > > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.
> >
> > > > > > * What an elitist statement to make.
> >
> > > > > Not at all.
> >
> > > > Yeah, it was a bit snooty.
> >
> > > No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.
> >
> > *Critical? *I thought you liked to be snooty?
> >
> >
> >
> > > If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did 10
> > > years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know what
> > > grape soda tastes like?
> >
> > *If you obviously think grape soda is some sign of culture and
> > culinary appreciation,
> > yeah, and it's also wrong.
> > I drink far less soda than I once did, but I still know what they
> > taste like.
> > Your conclusion is not a given from the facts presented.
> > Ask your community college students for some assistance with
> > your critical thinking.
> >
> > ScottW-
>
> LOL!!!
>
> today's teeneagers were not teenagers 10 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bingo. Please explain it to Scott.

Jenn[_3_]

August 30th 08, 07:56 AM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 29 Aug, 16:57, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
> *I can listen through a few tics. *I
> > can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
> > instrument made of plastic
>
> well put!!!
> excellent

Thanks

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 30th 08, 08:16 AM

On Aug 30, 1:53*am, Jenn > wrote:
> *ScottW > wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 3:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Aug 29, 2:46*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > *vlad > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message

> > > > > > > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.
>
> > > > > > > > * What an elitist statement to make.
>
> > > > > > > Not at all.
>
> > > > > > Yeah, it was a bit snooty.
>
> > > > > No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.
>
> > > > *Critical? *I thought you liked to be snooty?
>
> > > That's because you're wrong. *Again.
>
> > You're snootier than you wish you were.
> > You just don't like to hear about it.
>
> Oh I see.

How dare you argue with 2pid after he's passed judgement from his
Bungalow of Stupidity. Superman had his Fortress of Solitude. 2pid
bought it from him and remodeled it.

> > > > > If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did 10
> > > > > years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know what
> > > > > grape soda tastes like?
>
> > > > *If you obviously think grape soda is some sign of culture and
> > > > culinary appreciation,
> > > > yeah, and it's also wrong.
> > > > I drink far less soda than I once did, but I still know what they
> > > > taste like.
> > > > Your conclusion is not a given from the facts presented.
>
> > > You changed the question. *I asked about teenagers. *Fewer teenagers
> > > drink grape soda than they did before. *Think it through.
>
> > Doesn't mean they've never had a grape soda and can't remember what
> > it tastes like....
>
> Scott, you do understand that people aren't teenagers forever, right?

Try explaining it to him slowly. Use vinyl LPs or tubes as an example.
Many teens don't know what they are, let alone hearing them.

> >unless they're one of your students.
>
> Why does anyone even bother to try with you?

In my case because I enjoy shredding the poor, dumb *******?

> > > *The set of
> > > people who are teenagers are less and less exposed to the taste of grape
> > > soda. *For my point about acoustic music, x number of people were
> > > exposed to acoustic music in, say, 1970. *That number is now less, as
> > > people who did hear it pass away, with fewer people replacing them.
>
> > I think it's absurd to assume that even with a reduction in frequency
> > of exposure
> > it has ever gotten to the point where someone has never heard any
> > acoustic music
> > by the time they're age 12.
>
> Did I say anything resembling that?

That doesn't matter.

Do you enjoy the "Family Circus" cartoons? LoL.

> > > > Ask your community college students for some assistance with
> > > > your critical thinking.
>
> > > I'm afraid that they're quite better at it than half of the people I've
> > > met who graduated from UofI.
>
> > Foolish comments like that only prove you lack any
> > qualification for judgement.
>
> I've known (in a broad sense, meaning including online) two UofI grads. *
> You are one of them.

That is a very small sample to base a claim that half of all
University of Illinois grads are imbeciles, Jenn. That would be like
you saying that 100% of the engineers you know from there are stupid.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 30th 08, 08:18 AM

On Aug 30, 1:56*am, Jenn > wrote:
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > LOL!!!
>
> > today's teeneagers were not teenagers 10 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Bingo. *Please explain it to Scott.

You're trying to get Clyde into trouble, aren't you.

Arny Krueger

August 31st 08, 12:30 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically
>>> sounds like.
>>
>> So Jenn, you think that all acoustic music sounds the
>> same,
>
> Of course not, and you know that I didn't say that.
>
>> or is there any
>> variation from performance to performance?

> Of course.

>> IOW, is the concept of "What acoustic music typically
>> sounds like" really a valid concept?

>> I guess my ears are still good enough so that I hear
>> variations among what acoustic music sounds like.
>> Therefore it can't possibly be a fixed reference for me.
>
> As I already wrote and have written to you several times
> before, there are ways that acoustic music in a
> performance space NEVER sounds.

There are actually an infinite number of alternatives either way.

I've definitely been at live performances where the sound was so bad that I
sat there wishing for even a fairly modest stereo.

> That's what to be avoided, IMO.

What needs to be avoided is all this posturing about vinyl and the sound of
live music - given all the clearly audible flaws in even the best vinyl
playback. Most of the people who rant on this way actually don't hear that
much live sound, anyway. It's just a cliché they picked up from their
favorite hi fi salesman or high end audio ragazine.

Arny Krueger

August 31st 08, 12:36 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>

>>> There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,

>> Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops,
>> inner groove distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc.
>> Yet I have yet to hear an LP that fails to have one or
>> more of those failings. I've visited the homes of
>> audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but
>> yet when they play vinyl, one or more of those failings
>> is audible. I've been to what are alleged to be some of
>> the best high end audio shows around, and even in
>> carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has
>> one or more of those problems.

>>> and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.

>> Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I
>> can count on vinyl to stick its hand right up and say
>> "I've got clearly audible flaws".

>>> We've been through this before.

>> Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that
>> there's something going on with you that keeps you from
>> hearing the well-known audible flaws of vinyl.

> Wrong Arny.

No, right.

> As I've said many times before, it's a
> matter of "picking your poison".

Both arsenic and water can be poisonous, but I'll pick the glass of water
every time.

The sound quality failings of the vinyl format are well-known and
generally-agreed-upon to be by far the stronger poison to our mutual goal of
lifelike sound.

> It's ALL artificial.

Not necessarily. I've played CDs through a live sound system and
temporarily fooled people into thinking there is a live performance going
on.

> I can listen through a few tics.

Leaving the remaining highly audible problems of rumble, pops, inner groove
distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc.

> I can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
> instrument made
> of plastic.

Blame the production people, not the essentially perfect medium that is
readily available to us all.

Arny Krueger

August 31st 08, 12:37 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> On Aug 29, 1:57 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>> In article
>> >, "Arny
>> Krueger" > wrote:

>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>

>>>> There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
>>
>>> Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops,
>>> inner groove distortion, rolled off highs and lows,
>>> etc. Yet I have yet to hear an LP that fails to have
>>> one or more of those failings. I've visited the homes
>>> of audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear,
>>> but yet when they play vinyl, one or more of those
>>> failings is audible. I've been to what are alleged to
>>> be some of the best high end audio shows around, and
>>> even in carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl
>>> always has one or more of those problems.
>>
>>>> and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
>>
>>> Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way",
>>> I can count on vinyl to stick its hand right up and say
>>> "I've got clearly audible flaws".
>>
>>>> We've been through this before.
>>
>>> Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that
>>> there's something going on with you that keeps you from
>>> hearing the well-known audible flaws of vinyl.
>>
>> Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a
>> matter of "picking your poison". It's ALL artificial. I
>> can listen through a few tics. I can't listen through a
>> recorded violin sound that resembles an instrument made
>> of plastic.

> You think digital does that to a recording of a violin?

Given all her rants about the glories of vinyl, one would think...

> Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam doesn't do that.

I blame it all on hysteria.

Arny Krueger

August 31st 08, 12:41 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article
> >,
> ScottW > wrote:

>>> Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a
>>> matter of "picking your poison". It's ALL artificial. I
>>> can listen through a few tics. I can't listen through a
>>> recorded violin sound that resembles an instrument made
>>> of plastic.
>>
>> You think digital does that to a recording of a violin?

> I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP, and
> I have on CD.

Obviously Jenn, you lack my 55 years, more or less, of listening to vinyl.

For the first 36 years of my life, basically vinyl was all that we had, and
it often sucked mightily even though our player technology for the last 10
or so years was essentially what is available today.

During that time I heard plenty of recordings that made music sound like it
was played on plastic instruments.

>> Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
>> doesn't do that.

> Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm speaking
> about all the CD players I've heard.

Obviously a problem with lack of experience, but I think there is a little
bias and hysteria tossed in. Nothing like recently blowing nearly a $grand
on a vinyl player to keep the illusion going.

Arny Krueger

August 31st 08, 12:43 PM

"Chronic Philharmonic" > wrote in
message news:w90uk.33$Dj1.32@trnddc02

> Yeah, I had a lot invested in vinyl when CDs came out.

Ditto.

> But I always had a love-hate relationship with vinyl.

Ditto, just like tubes.

> I knew how good it could sound, but it rarely did. It took
> a lot of maintenance to keep it sounding good, and even
> then the sound inevitably deteriorated. CDs were cheap,
> accurate and repeatable. Hi-fi for the masses. I think
> that was the problem. Any old kid on a skateboard could
> afford truly high fidelity without even caring or
> appreciating the concept.

Agreed. As soon as CD players got to be cheap and plentiful, the CD format
became a target for the high end ragazines. After all, they were minting so
much money from ads by vinyl-centric retailers and manufacturers.

Clyde Slick

August 31st 08, 04:16 PM

On 31 Aug, 10:40, ScottW > wrote:
> On Aug 29, 11:56*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Aug, 17:56, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Aug 29, 2:46*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
>
> > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > *vlad > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> equalizer.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? * Given
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > > > > > > > > > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > True with CDs too, of course.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make *such an
> > > > > > > > > > off-topic
> > > > > > > > > > comment?
>
> > > > > > > > > Just being clear.
>
> > > > > > > > > > There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less
> > > > > > > > > > audible
> > > > > > > > > > noise
> > > > > > > > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by
> > > > > > > > > > more than
> > > > > > > > > > 100:
> > > > > > > > > > 1.
>
> > > > > > > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.
>
> > > > > > > > * What an elitist statement to make.
>
> > > > > > > Not at all.
>
> > > > > > Yeah, it was a bit snooty.
>
> > > > > No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.
>
> > > > *Critical? *I thought you liked to be snooty?
>
> > > > > If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did 10
> > > > > years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know what
> > > > > grape soda tastes like?
>
> > > > *If you obviously think grape soda is some sign of culture and
> > > > culinary appreciation,
> > > > yeah, and it's also wrong.
> > > > I drink far less soda than I once did, but I still know what they
> > > > taste like.
> > > > Your conclusion is not a given from the facts presented.
> > > > Ask your community college students for some assistance with
> > > > your critical thinking.
>
> > > > ScottW-
>
> > > LOL!!!
>
> > > today's teeneagers were not teenagers 10 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Bingo. *Please explain it to Scott.
>
> Doesn't change anything.
>
> Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
> count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
> mean change. * Your premise is the count outside
> the normal distribution is changing while the evidence for
> your claim is based upon the average.
> That is foolish.
>
> ScottW-

remember that this comparison is over time.
'The population numbers have grown considerably
since the first measure.
The mean nas decreased, the teenage population has increased.
Now it is extremely likely that a higher number of the larger
current teenage population has not tasted grape soda
than of number of the leser population of teenagers ten years ago.

Clyde Slick

August 31st 08, 07:44 PM

On 31 Aug, 11:42, ScottW > wrote:
> On Aug 31, 8:16*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 31 Aug, 10:40, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 29, 11:56*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 29 Aug, 17:56, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 29, 2:46*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > > > *vlad > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> equalizer.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? * Given
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > True with CDs too, of course.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make *such an
> > > > > > > > > > > > off-topic
> > > > > > > > > > > > comment?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Just being clear.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less
> > > > > > > > > > > > audible
> > > > > > > > > > > > noise
> > > > > > > > > > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by
> > > > > > > > > > > > more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > 100:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.
>
> > > > > > > > > > * What an elitist statement to make.
>
> > > > > > > > > Not at all.
>
> > > > > > > > Yeah, it was a bit snooty.
>
> > > > > > > No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.
>
> > > > > > *Critical? *I thought you liked to be snooty?
>
> > > > > > > If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did 10
> > > > > > > years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know what
> > > > > > > grape soda tastes like?
>
> > > > > > *If you obviously think grape soda is some sign of culture and
> > > > > > culinary appreciation,
> > > > > > yeah, and it's also wrong.
> > > > > > I drink far less soda than I once did, but I still know what they
> > > > > > taste like.
> > > > > > Your conclusion is not a given from the facts presented.
> > > > > > Ask your community college students for some assistance with
> > > > > > your critical thinking.
>
> > > > > > ScottW-
>
> > > > > LOL!!!
>
> > > > > today's teeneagers were not teenagers 10 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > > Bingo. *Please explain it to Scott.
>
> > > Doesn't change anything.
>
> > > Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
> > > count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
> > > mean change. * Your premise is the count outside
> > > the normal distribution is changing while the evidence for
> > > your claim is based upon the average.
> > > That is foolish.
>
> > > ScottW-
>
> > remember that this comparison is over time.
> > 'The population numbers have grown considerably
> > since the first measure.
> > The mean nas decreased, the teenage population has increased.
> > Now it is extremely likely
>
> *You simply have no basis for that claim.
>
> > that a higher number of the larger
> > current teenage population has not tasted grape soda
>
> *Try to keep this connected with the original claim that
> fewer people know the sound of acoustic music.
> It isn't a population growth claim in which both more people
> know the sound of acoustic and more people don't.
>
> > than of number of the leser population of teenagers ten years ago.
>
> Pure speculation. Reduction of the mean is the only data provided.
> There may be no correlation at these levels between the mean
> and the never tasted it population.

its deduction, not speculation.
I said "more likely", and it certainly is that.
A lower mean, a larger population, means
it is considerably more likely than not that fewer
numbers of teens tasted grape soda

I am commenting upon your conclusions regarding
statisitics, not on acoustic music.

Clyde Slick

September 1st 08, 01:18 AM

On 31 Aug, 17:22, ScottW > wrote:
> On Aug 31, 11:44*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 31 Aug, 11:42, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 31, 8:16*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 31 Aug, 10:40, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 29, 11:56*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> > > > > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 29 Aug, 17:56, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2:46*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > *vlad > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> equalizer.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? * Given
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True with CDs too, of course.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make *such an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > off-topic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Just being clear.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > audible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > * What an elitist statement to make.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Not at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it was a bit snooty.
>
> > > > > > > > > No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.
>
> > > > > > > > *Critical? *I thought you liked to be snooty?
>
> > > > > > > > > If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did 10
> > > > > > > > > years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know what
> > > > > > > > > grape soda tastes like?
>
> > > > > > > > *If you obviously think grape soda is some sign of culture and
> > > > > > > > culinary appreciation,
> > > > > > > > yeah, and it's also wrong.
> > > > > > > > I drink far less soda than I once did, but I still know what they
> > > > > > > > taste like.
> > > > > > > > Your conclusion is not a given from the facts presented.
> > > > > > > > Ask your community college students for some assistance with
> > > > > > > > your critical thinking.
>
> > > > > > > > ScottW-
>
> > > > > > > LOL!!!
>
> > > > > > > today's teeneagers were not teenagers 10 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > > > > Bingo. *Please explain it to Scott.
>
> > > > > Doesn't change anything.
>
> > > > > Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
> > > > > count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
> > > > > mean change. * Your premise is the count outside
> > > > > the normal distribution is changing while the evidence for
> > > > > your claim is based upon the average.
> > > > > That is foolish.
>
> > > > > ScottW-
>
> > > > remember that this comparison is over time.
> > > > 'The population numbers have grown considerably
> > > > since the first measure.
> > > > The mean nas decreased, the teenage population has increased.
> > > > Now it is extremely likely
>
> > > *You simply have no basis for that claim.
>
> > > > that a higher number of the larger
> > > > current teenage population has not tasted grape soda
>
> > > *Try to keep this connected with the original claim that
> > > fewer people know the sound of acoustic music.
> > > It isn't a population growth claim in which both more people
> > > know the sound of acoustic and more people don't.
>
> > > > than of number of the leser population of teenagers ten years ago.
>
> > > Pure speculation. Reduction of the mean is the only data provided.
> > > There may be no correlation at these levels between the mean
> > > and the never tasted it population.
>
> > its deduction, not speculation.
> > I said "more likely", and it certainly is that.
>
> *Which means you really have no idea and are
> making gross assumptions about a distribution
> for which you have virtually no applicable data.
>
> It does make it easier to speculate though.
>

I "know" its more likey, that it is more likely is NOT speculation.

Clyde Slick

September 1st 08, 01:25 AM

On 31 Aug, 17:22, ScottW > wrote:
> On Aug 31, 11:44*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 31 Aug, 11:42, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 31, 8:16*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 31 Aug, 10:40, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 29, 11:56*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> > > > > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 29 Aug, 17:56, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2:46*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > *vlad > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> equalizer.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? * Given
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True with CDs too, of course.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make *such an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > off-topic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Just being clear.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > audible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > * What an elitist statement to make.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Not at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it was a bit snooty.
>
> > > > > > > > > No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.
>
> > > > > > > > *Critical? *I thought you liked to be snooty?
>
> > > > > > > > > If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did 10
> > > > > > > > > years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know what
> > > > > > > > > grape soda tastes like?
>
> > > > > > > > *If you obviously think grape soda is some sign of culture and
> > > > > > > > culinary appreciation,
> > > > > > > > yeah, and it's also wrong.
> > > > > > > > I drink far less soda than I once did, but I still know what they
> > > > > > > > taste like.
> > > > > > > > Your conclusion is not a given from the facts presented.
> > > > > > > > Ask your community college students for some assistance with
> > > > > > > > your critical thinking.
>
> > > > > > > > ScottW-
>
> > > > > > > LOL!!!
>
> > > > > > > today's teeneagers were not teenagers 10 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > > > > Bingo. *Please explain it to Scott.
>
> > > > > Doesn't change anything.
>
> > > > > Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
> > > > > count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
> > > > > mean change. * Your premise is the count outside
> > > > > the normal distribution is changing while the evidence for
> > > > > your claim is based upon the average.
> > > > > That is foolish.
>
> > > > > ScottW-
>
> > > > remember that this comparison is over time.
> > > > 'The population numbers have grown considerably
> > > > since the first measure.
> > > > The mean nas decreased, the teenage population has increased.
> > > > Now it is extremely likely
>
> > > *You simply have no basis for that claim.
>
> > > > that a higher number of the larger
> > > > current teenage population has not tasted grape soda
>
> > > *Try to keep this connected with the original claim that
> > > fewer people know the sound of acoustic music.
> > > It isn't a population growth claim in which both more people
> > > know the sound of acoustic and more people don't.
>
> > > > than of number of the leser population of teenagers ten years ago.
>
> > > Pure speculation. Reduction of the mean is the only data provided.
> > > There may be no correlation at these levels between the mean
> > > and the never tasted it population.
>
> > its deduction, not speculation.
> > I said "more likely", and it certainly is that.
>
> *Which means you really have no idea and are
> making gross assumptions about a distribution
> for which you have virtually no applicable data.
>
> It does make it easier to speculate though.
>
> ScottW-

I thought it over the stats and logic, I made a mistake, but NOT the
one you accuse me of, a different one, in simple logic.
A larger population and a lower mean possible could
mean a higher number of teenagers tried grape soda, solely
because of the larger population. The percentage of teens
would likey be lower, but the trend of the absolute number of teens
drinking grape soda is not predictable. With a lower percentage
aqnd a higher population counterbalancing each other, it
can't be predicted.

Jenn[_3_]

September 1st 08, 04:38 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > ScottW > wrote:
>
> >>> Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a
> >>> matter of "picking your poison". It's ALL artificial. I
> >>> can listen through a few tics. I can't listen through a
> >>> recorded violin sound that resembles an instrument made
> >>> of plastic.
> >>
> >> You think digital does that to a recording of a violin?
>
> > I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP, and
> > I have on CD.
>
> Obviously Jenn, you lack my 55 years, more or less, of listening to vinyl.

That's true. I'm only 51.

>
> For the first 36 years of my life, basically vinyl was all that we had, and
> it often sucked mightily even though our player technology for the last 10
> or so years was essentially what is available today.
>
> During that time I heard plenty of recordings that made music sound like it
> was played on plastic instruments.

I've heard lots of bad reproduction via LP, but bad in different ways
than some digital.

>
> >> Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
> >> doesn't do that.
>
> > Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm speaking
> > about all the CD players I've heard.
>
> Obviously a problem with lack of experience,

lol A statement for which you have no evidence.

> but I think there is a little
> bias and hysteria tossed in.

Of course you do.

> Nothing like recently blowing nearly a $grand
> on a vinyl player to keep the illusion going.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Jenn[_3_]

September 1st 08, 04:39 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> > On Aug 29, 1:57 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >> In article
> >> >, "Arny
> >> Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>
>
> >>>> There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
> >>
> >>> Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops,
> >>> inner groove distortion, rolled off highs and lows,
> >>> etc. Yet I have yet to hear an LP that fails to have
> >>> one or more of those failings. I've visited the homes
> >>> of audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear,
> >>> but yet when they play vinyl, one or more of those
> >>> failings is audible. I've been to what are alleged to
> >>> be some of the best high end audio shows around, and
> >>> even in carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl
> >>> always has one or more of those problems.
> >>
> >>>> and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
> >>
> >>> Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way",
> >>> I can count on vinyl to stick its hand right up and say
> >>> "I've got clearly audible flaws".
> >>
> >>>> We've been through this before.
> >>
> >>> Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that
> >>> there's something going on with you that keeps you from
> >>> hearing the well-known audible flaws of vinyl.
> >>
> >> Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a
> >> matter of "picking your poison". It's ALL artificial. I
> >> can listen through a few tics. I can't listen through a
> >> recorded violin sound that resembles an instrument made
> >> of plastic.
>
> > You think digital does that to a recording of a violin?
>
> Given all her rants about the glories of vinyl, one would think...

What rants? As you know perfectly well, all I've said is that the best
at home sound that I've heard is from the best LPs. I've also said that
most CDs sound better than most LPs. Hardly a "rant".

>
> > Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam doesn't do that.
>
> I blame it all on hysteria.

Sure you do.

Jenn[_3_]

September 1st 08, 04:43 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
>
> >>> There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
>
> >> Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops,
> >> inner groove distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc.
> >> Yet I have yet to hear an LP that fails to have one or
> >> more of those failings. I've visited the homes of
> >> audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but
> >> yet when they play vinyl, one or more of those failings
> >> is audible. I've been to what are alleged to be some of
> >> the best high end audio shows around, and even in
> >> carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has
> >> one or more of those problems.
>
> >>> and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
>
> >> Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I
> >> can count on vinyl to stick its hand right up and say
> >> "I've got clearly audible flaws".
>
> >>> We've been through this before.
>
> >> Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that
> >> there's something going on with you that keeps you from
> >> hearing the well-known audible flaws of vinyl.
>
> > Wrong Arny.
>
> No, right.
>
> > As I've said many times before, it's a
> > matter of "picking your poison".
>
> Both arsenic and water can be poisonous, but I'll pick the glass of water
> every time.

Good for you. I hear it differently. Please keep enjoying your music,
and I'll enjoy mine.

>
> The sound quality failings of the vinyl format are well-known and
> generally-agreed-upon to be by far the stronger poison to our mutual goal of
> lifelike sound.
>
> > It's ALL artificial.
>
> Not necessarily. I've played CDs through a live sound system and
> temporarily fooled people into thinking there is a live performance going
> on.

I can't imagine that happening, but good for you and for those people.
Nothing coming through a speaker ever sounds close to real, IMO.

Jenn[_3_]

September 1st 08, 05:09 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 29, 11:50*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Aug 29, 3:06*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 29, 1:57*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > >>> Or another name: *"It sounds more like typical acoustic
> > > > > > > >>> music to ______ (insert name)."
> >
> > > > > > > >> Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all
> > > > > > > >> what the original acoustic performance sounded like
> > > > > > > >> because they weren't there.
> >
> > > > > > > > As I wrote, "typical acoustic music".
> >
> > > > > > > Oh, so Jenn you think that all acoustic music sounds the same?
> >
> > > > > > What makes you think that?
> >
> > > > > > > > *There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
> >
> > > > > > > Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops, inner
> > > > > > > groove
> > > > > > > distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc. Yet I have yet to
> > > > > > > hear an
> > > > > > > LP
> > > > > > > that fails to have one or more of those failings. I've visited
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > homes
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but yet when
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > play
> > > > > > > vinyl, one or more of those failings is audible. I've been to
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > alleged to be some of the best high end audio shows around, and
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has one or more
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > problems.
> >
> > > > > > > > and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
> >
> > > > > > > Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I can
> > > > > > > count on
> > > > > > > vinyl
> > > > > > > to stick its hand right up and say "I've got clearly audible
> > > > > > > flaws".
> >
> > > > > > > > We've been through this before.
> >
> > > > > > > Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that there's
> > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > going
> > > > > > > on with you that keeps you from hearing the well-known audible
> > > > > > > flaws
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > vinyl.
> >
> > > > > > Wrong Arny. *As I've said many times before, it's a matter of
> > > > > > "picking
> > > > > > your poison". *It's ALL artificial. *I can listen through a few
> > > > > > tics.
> > > > > > *I
> > > > > > can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
> > > > > > instrument made of plastic.
> >
> > > > > *You think digital does that to a recording of a violin?
> >
> > > > I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP, and I have on CD.
> >
> > > All recordings or just some?
> >
> > All to a greater or lesser degree.
>
> That would indicate there is a factor other than
> digital infuencing your perception.

Why?

>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > *Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
> > > > > doesn't do that.
> >
> > > > Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm speaking about all the
> > > > CD
> > > > players I've heard.
> >
> > > *All CD players make violins sound like plastic.
> >
> > To a greater or lesser degree in certain ranges of the instrument. *I
> > hear a similar problem with female voice above about G on top of the
> > treble staff.
>
> I suspect your room curve of your digital system(s) is not
> representative
> of live music to you. Flat FR is not typical of live music.
> Some recordings have some compensation, others have none.
> Your vinyl rig likely provides some hi-freq rolloff that is more to
> your liking.
> For less than $100 and your PC you can set yourself up to measure
> it.

Except that I've heard what I hear on all digital systems in all the
rooms in which I've heard digital.

>
> Lots of articles available on room curves, here's just one.
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/96-house-curve-what-why-you-n
> eed-how-do.html
>
> Probably the flattest HF response speakers I've owned were the
> Legacy's
> and your comments remind me a bit of them.
>
> ScottW

Interesting thoughts, thanks.

Jenn[_3_]

September 1st 08, 05:12 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 29, 11:56*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 29 Aug, 17:56, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Aug 29, 2:46*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ,
> >
> > > > > > > *vlad > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > >>net
> > > > > > > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> equalizer.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? * Given
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > > > > > > > > > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > True with CDs too, of course.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make *such
> > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > off-topic
> > > > > > > > > > comment?
> >
> > > > > > > > > Just being clear.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > There does seem to be a general preference for sound with
> > > > > > > > > > less
> > > > > > > > > > audible
> > > > > > > > > > noise
> > > > > > > > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by
> > > > > > > > > > more than
> > > > > > > > > > 100:
> > > > > > > > > > 1.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds
> > > > > > > > > like.
> >
> > > > > > > > * What an elitist statement to make.
> >
> > > > > > > Not at all.
> >
> > > > > > Yeah, it was a bit snooty.
> >
> > > > > No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.
> >
> > > > *Critical? *I thought you liked to be snooty?
> >
> > > > > If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did 10
> > > > > years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know what
> > > > > grape soda tastes like?
> >
> > > > *If you obviously think grape soda is some sign of culture and
> > > > culinary appreciation,
> > > > yeah, and it's also wrong.
> > > > I drink far less soda than I once did, but I still know what they
> > > > taste like.
> > > > Your conclusion is not a given from the facts presented.
> > > > Ask your community college students for some assistance with
> > > > your critical thinking.
> >
> > > > ScottW-
> >
> > > LOL!!!
> >
> > > today's teeneagers were not teenagers 10 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Bingo. *Please explain it to Scott.
>
> Doesn't change anything.
>
> Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
> count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
> mean change. Your premise is the count outside
> the normal distribution is changing while the evidence for
> your claim is based upon the average.
> That is foolish.
>
> ScottW

Scott, the example was statistics showing that fewer teenagers drink
grape soda, not that the same number of teenagers who drank grape soda
years ago now drink less of it. See the difference?

Jenn[_3_]

September 1st 08, 05:19 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 29, 11:53*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Aug 29, 3:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 29, 2:46*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > *vlad > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >et
> > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>l.ne
> > > > > > > > > > > >>t
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> equalizer.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? * Given
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > > > > > > > > > > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > True with CDs too, of course.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make *such
> > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > off-topic
> > > > > > > > > > > comment?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Just being clear.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > There does seem to be a general preference for sound with
> > > > > > > > > > > less
> > > > > > > > > > > audible
> > > > > > > > > > > noise
> > > > > > > > > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs
> > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > 100:
> > > > > > > > > > > 1.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds
> > > > > > > > > > like.
> >
> > > > > > > > > * What an elitist statement to make.
> >
> > > > > > > > Not at all.
> >
> > > > > > > Yeah, it was a bit snooty.
> >
> > > > > > No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.
> >
> > > > > *Critical? *I thought you liked to be snooty?
> >
> > > > That's because you're wrong. *Again.
> >
> > > You're snootier than you wish you were.
> > > You just don't like to hear about it.
> >
> > Oh I see.
> >
> >
> > > > > > If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did
> > > > > > 10
> > > > > > years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know what
> > > > > > grape soda tastes like?
> >
> > > > > *If you obviously think grape soda is some sign of culture and
> > > > > culinary appreciation,
> > > > > yeah, and it's also wrong.
> > > > > I drink far less soda than I once did, but I still know what they
> > > > > taste like.
> > > > > Your conclusion is not a given from the facts presented.
> >
> > > > You changed the question. *I asked about teenagers. *Fewer teenagers
> > > > drink grape soda than they did before. *Think it through.
> >
> > > Doesn't mean they've never had a grape soda and can't remember what
> > > it tastes like....
> >
> > Scott, you do understand that people aren't teenagers forever, right?
>
> George and sshhh may disagree.
> But the point stands. Just because less grape soda overall is
> consumed by teenagers in no way demonstrates that more teenagers
> have never had a grape soda. The mean may have gone from dozens to a
> dozen.
> The doesn't mean the distribution has a tail approaching zero.
>
> >
> > >unless they're one of your students.
> >
> > Why does anyone even bother to try with you?
>
> Trying to convince me that wrong is right and
> poor logic suffices for "critical thinking?
>
> >
> > > > *The set of
> > > > people who are teenagers are less and less exposed to the taste of
> > > > grape
> > > > soda. *For my point about acoustic music, x number of people were
> > > > exposed to acoustic music in, say, 1970. *That number is now less, as
> > > > people who did hear it pass away, with fewer people replacing them.
> >
> > > I think it's absurd to assume that even with a reduction in frequency
> > > of exposure
> > > it has ever gotten to the point where someone has never heard any
> > > acoustic music
> > > by the time they're age 12.
> >
> > Did I say anything resembling that?
>
> Yes you did by claiming that fewer people know what acoustic
> music sounds like.

I've never said that the number of people who have EVER heard acoustic
music is shrinking. But since the trend over the last 40 or so years
has been the fewer NEW people started attending acoustic concerts, and
the trend over the last 20 or so years is that fewer acoustic
instruments are sold and played, the reasonable assumption is that fewer
people than 40 years ago know how those instruments TYPICALLY sound.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Ask your community college students for some assistance with
> > > > > your critical thinking.
> >
> > > > I'm afraid that they're quite better at it than half of the people I've
> > > > met who graduated from UofI.
> >
> > > Foolish comments like that only prove you lack any
> > > qualification for judgement.
> >
> > I've known (in a broad sense, meaning including online) two UofI grads. *
> > You are one of them.
>
> Online is a pathetic substitute for knowing.
>
> ScottW

Richard Crowley

September 1st 08, 05:22 AM

WHY IS THIS DISCUSSION CROSS-POSTED TO REC.AUDIO.TECH???

IT APPEARS TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH "TECH"

Jenn[_3_]

September 1st 08, 05:27 AM

In article >,
"Richard Crowley" > wrote:

> WHY IS THIS DISCUSSION CROSS-POSTED TO REC.AUDIO.TECH???
>
> IT APPEARS TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH "TECH"

Because the original poster posted it to that group and no one has
changed it.

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 1st 08, 05:47 AM

Jenn said:

> > WHY IS THIS DISCUSSION CROSS-POSTED TO REC.AUDIO.TECH???

> Because the original poster posted it to that group and no one has
> changed it.

You forgot to include Growley's group. I fixed it for you.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 1st 08, 06:37 AM

On Aug 31, 11:12*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> *ScottW > wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 11:56*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > > > today's teeneagers were not teenagers 10 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > Bingo. *Please explain it to Scott.
>
> > Doesn't change anything.
>
> > Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
> > count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
> > mean change. * Your premise is the count outside
> > the normal distribution is changing while the evidence for
> > your claim is based upon the average.
> > That is foolish.

> Scott, the example was statistics showing that fewer teenagers drink
> grape soda, not that the same number of teenagers who drank grape soda
> years ago now drink less of it. *See the difference?

Asking 2pid to see something is foolish. 2pid is blind.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 1st 08, 06:40 AM

On Aug 31, 10:43*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> > >>> In article
> > >>> >, "Arny
> > >>> Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
>
> > >>> *There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
>
> > >> Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops,
> > >> inner groove distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc.
> > >> Yet I have yet to hear an LP that fails to have one or
> > >> more of those failings. I've visited the homes of
> > >> audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but
> > >> yet when they play vinyl, one or more of those failings
> > >> is audible. I've been to what are alleged to be some of
> > >> the best high end audio shows around, and even in
> > >> carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has
> > >> one or more of those problems.
>
> > >>> and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
>
> > >> Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I
> > >> can count on vinyl to stick its hand right up and say
> > >> "I've got clearly audible flaws".
>
> > >>> We've been through this before.
>
> > >> Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that
> > >> there's something going on with you that keeps you from
> > >> hearing the well-known audible flaws of vinyl.
>
> > > Wrong Arny.
>
> > No, right.
>
> > > * As I've said many times before, it's a
> > > matter of "picking your poison".
>
> > Both arsenic and water can be poisonous, but I'll pick the glass of water
> > every time.
>
> Good for you. *I hear it differently. *Please keep enjoying your music,
> and I'll enjoy mine.
>
>
>
> > The sound quality failings of the vinyl format are well-known and
> > generally-agreed-upon to be by far the stronger poison to our mutual goal of
> > lifelike sound.
>
> > > * It's ALL artificial.
>
> > Not necessarily. *I've played CDs through a live sound system and
> > temporarily fooled people into thinking there is a live performance going
> > on.
>
> I can't imagine that happening, but good for you and for those people. *
> Nothing coming through a speaker ever sounds close to real, IMO.

I've been fooled before, but only when there are corners or hallways
between the source and me.

I think GOIA's bias is showing.

Arny Krueger

September 1st 08, 10:47 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> ScottW > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a
>>>>> matter of "picking your poison". It's ALL artificial.
>>>>> I can listen through a few tics. I can't listen
>>>>> through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
>>>>> instrument made of plastic.
>>>>
>>>> You think digital does that to a recording of a
>>>> violin?
>>
>>> I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP, and
>>> I have on CD.
>>
>> Obviously Jenn, you lack my 55 years, more or less, of
>> listening to vinyl.
>
> That's true. I'm only 51.

I guess you were very indiscriminate when you were young, because you
obviously didn't notice the horrors of vinyl in the day.

>> For the first 36 years of my life, basically vinyl was
>> all that we had, and it often sucked mightily even
>> though our player technology for the last 10 or so years
>> was essentially what is available today.

>> During that time I heard plenty of recordings that made
>> music sound like it was played on plastic instruments.

> I've heard lots of bad reproduction via LP, but bad in
> different ways than some digital.

That is a meaningless statement. Well it has meaning, but its a truism.

>>>> Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
>>>> doesn't do that.
>>
>>> Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm speaking
>>> about all the CD players I've heard.
>>
>> Obviously a problem with lack of experience,
>
> lol A statement for which you have no evidence.

Yes I do, I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn.

>> but I think there is a little
>> bias and hysteria tossed in.
>
> Of course you do.

Really? That's a staement for which you have no compelling evidence.

>> Nothing like recently blowing nearly a $grand
>> on a vinyl player to keep the illusion going.

> You're entitled to your opinion.

You're entitled to try to justify your poor judgement, Jenn.;

Arny Krueger

September 1st 08, 10:52 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> Both arsenic and water can be poisonous, but I'll pick
>> the glass of water every time.

> Good for you. I hear it differently.

Obviously. You've got that recent large expenditure on substandard
technology to justify to yourself.

> Please keep enjoying your music, and I'll enjoy mine.

You're changing the subject Jenn, from analysis of relevant facts to
personal preferences.

>> The sound quality failings of the vinyl format are
>> well-known and generally-agreed-upon to be by far the
>> stronger poison to our mutual goal of lifelike sound.

>>> It's ALL artificial.

>> Not necessarily. I've played CDs through a live sound
>> system and temporarily fooled people into thinking there
>> is a live performance going on.

> I can't imagine that happening,

Attributable to a lack of real-world experience.

> but good for you and for those people.

Dismissive attitude noted, Ironic coming from a person with such limited
real world experience with audio.

> Nothing coming through a speaker ever sounds close to real, IMO.

You've obviously never done the experiment I described, or done it right.

As usual Jenn, you've placed yourself on a high pedestal above people who
simply know more about the topic than you do.

Jenn[_3_]

September 1st 08, 05:29 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >,
> >>> ScottW > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a
> >>>>> matter of "picking your poison". It's ALL artificial.
> >>>>> I can listen through a few tics. I can't listen
> >>>>> through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
> >>>>> instrument made of plastic.
> >>>>
> >>>> You think digital does that to a recording of a
> >>>> violin?
> >>
> >>> I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP, and
> >>> I have on CD.
> >>
> >> Obviously Jenn, you lack my 55 years, more or less, of
> >> listening to vinyl.
> >
> > That's true. I'm only 51.
>
> I guess you were very indiscriminate when you were young, because you
> obviously didn't notice the horrors of vinyl in the day.

What makes you say that? Of course I noticed the faults. And I've said
time and time again that most CDs sound better than most LPs.

>
> >> For the first 36 years of my life, basically vinyl was
> >> all that we had, and it often sucked mightily even
> >> though our player technology for the last 10 or so years
> >> was essentially what is available today.
>
> >> During that time I heard plenty of recordings that made
> >> music sound like it was played on plastic instruments.
>
> > I've heard lots of bad reproduction via LP, but bad in
> > different ways than some digital.
>
> That is a meaningless statement. Well it has meaning, but its a truism.

Of course. I'm simply stating that I hear different faults in the two
media. For some reason, you feel the need to question that.

>
> >>>> Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
> >>>> doesn't do that.
> >>
> >>> Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm speaking
> >>> about all the CD players I've heard.
> >>
> >> Obviously a problem with lack of experience,
> >
> > lol A statement for which you have no evidence.
>
> Yes I do, I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn.

You presume that I hear what I hear based on lack of experience. You
have no evidence to support that statement. What you do have is a
desire to argue with me.

>
> >> but I think there is a little
> >> bias and hysteria tossed in.
> >
> > Of course you do.
>
> Really? That's a staement for which you have no compelling evidence.

No, the evidence is that "hysteria" seems to be your default statement
concerning why I like the sound of something.

>
> >> Nothing like recently blowing nearly a $grand
> >> on a vinyl player to keep the illusion going.
>
> > You're entitled to your opinion.
>
> You're entitled to try to justify your poor judgement, Jenn.;

Again, you're entitled to your opinion. I spend $1000 on a
TT/arm/cartridge because I like the way that it sounds. If you think
that this is foolish, I simply advise you not to do the same.

Jenn[_3_]

September 1st 08, 05:39 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
> >> Both arsenic and water can be poisonous, but I'll pick
> >> the glass of water every time.
>
> > Good for you. I hear it differently.
>
> Obviously. You've got that recent large expenditure on substandard
> technology to justify to yourself.

You've got the chronology wrong.

>
> > Please keep enjoying your music, and I'll enjoy mine.
>
> You're changing the subject Jenn, from analysis of relevant facts to
> personal preferences.

I'm not changing the subject at all, Arny. It's not about analysis of
facts. For me, listening to music is about, in this order:
1. The music itself
2. Listening to the best sound possible on a given recording according
my my ears.

Perhaps your priorities are different.

>
> >> The sound quality failings of the vinyl format are
> >> well-known and generally-agreed-upon to be by far the
> >> stronger poison to our mutual goal of lifelike sound.
>
> >>> It's ALL artificial.
>
> >> Not necessarily. I've played CDs through a live sound
> >> system and temporarily fooled people into thinking there
> >> is a live performance going on.
>
> > I can't imagine that happening,
>
> Attributable to a lack of real-world experience.

No, I've listened to a great deal of live music and a great many audio
systems in several locales.

>
> > but good for you and for those people.
>
> Dismissive attitude noted, Ironic coming from a person with such limited
> real world experience with audio.

It's not dismissive at all. If some people can be fooled in this way,
they are ahead of the game.

>
> > Nothing coming through a speaker ever sounds close to real, IMO.
>
> You've obviously never done the experiment I described, or done it right.

What experiment?

>
> As usual Jenn, you've placed yourself on a high pedestal above people who
> simply know more about the topic than you do.

A ridiculous statement. I've in no way said that I'm better or on some
kind of other "pedestal". All I've said is that I hear what I hear, you
hear what you hear, and everyone should enjoy what sounds best to them.
I have no idea why you have such a problem with that concept.

Jenn[_3_]

September 1st 08, 06:25 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 31, 9:12*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Aug 29, 11:56*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On 29 Aug, 17:56, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 29, 2:46*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ,
> >
> > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > com>
> > > > > > > > > ,
> >
> > > > > > > > > *vlad > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>bal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>net
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Andrew Barss > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Pretty easy to simulate, if you are handy with an
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> equalizer.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> How to increase "warmth":
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Has anyone ever manufactured a device to do this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> automatically, i.e. a "vivyl warmth"-ifier? *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Given
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that some people (claim to) really enjoy the sound
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> vinyl, this would seem to have a built-in market.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Why do you say, "claim to"?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Simple, because an individual's preference for vinyl
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> might have nothing to do with actual sound quality.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > True with CDs too, of course.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, but why would one feel compelled to make
> > > > > > > > > > > > *such
> > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > off-topic
> > > > > > > > > > > > comment?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Just being clear.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > There does seem to be a general preference for sound
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > less
> > > > > > > > > > > > audible
> > > > > > > > > > > > noise
> > > > > > > > > > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell
> > > > > > > > > > > > LPs by
> > > > > > > > > > > > more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > 100:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > like.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > * What an elitist statement to make.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Not at all.
> >
> > > > > > > > Yeah, it was a bit snooty.
> >
> > > > > > > No, it's not, but I understand your need to try to be critical.
> >
> > > > > > *Critical? *I thought you liked to be snooty?
> >
> > > > > > > If stats show that fewer teenagers drink grape soda than they did
> > > > > > > 10
> > > > > > > years ago, is it "snooty" to say that fewer teenagers now know
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > grape soda tastes like?
> >
> > > > > > *If you obviously think grape soda is some sign of culture and
> > > > > > culinary appreciation,
> > > > > > yeah, and it's also wrong.
> > > > > > I drink far less soda than I once did, but I still know what they
> > > > > > taste like.
> > > > > > Your conclusion is not a given from the facts presented.
> > > > > > Ask your community college students for some assistance with
> > > > > > your critical thinking.
> >
> > > > > > ScottW-
> >
> > > > > LOL!!!
> >
> > > > > today's teeneagers were not teenagers 10 years
> > > > > ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > > > Bingo. *Please explain it to Scott.
> >
> > > Doesn't change anything.
> >
> > > Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
> > > count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
> > > mean change. * Your premise is the count outside
> > > the normal distribution is changing while the evidence for
> > > your claim is based upon the average.
> > > That is foolish.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Scott, the example was statistics showing that fewer teenagers drink
> > grape soda, not that the same number of teenagers who drank grape soda
> > years ago now drink less of it. *See the difference?
>
> Neither has a direct proven correlation with the "never drank" count
> which is what you're trying to claim.
>
> ScottW

Scott this is going nowhere. One more statement, then let's end it, OK?
If fewer teens drink grape soda, doesn't it make sense that as the
teenaged population "ages out" and the larger population of teens who
used to drink it are no longer teens, the number of teens who know the
taste of grape soda is shrinking?

At any rate, back to the point, IF stats show that fewer people know the
taste of grape soda, it's not a "snooty" statement to point that out.

Jenn[_3_]

September 1st 08, 06:27 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 31, 9:09*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Aug 29, 11:50*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 29, 3:06*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Aug 29, 1:57*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>t
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> Or another name: *"It sounds more like typical acoustic
> > > > > > > > > >>> music to ______ (insert name)."
> >
> > > > > > > > > >> Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all
> > > > > > > > > >> what the original acoustic performance sounded like
> > > > > > > > > >> because they weren't there.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > As I wrote, "typical acoustic music".
> >
> > > > > > > > > Oh, so Jenn you think that all acoustic music sounds the
> > > > > > > > > same?
> >
> > > > > > > > What makes you think that?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > *There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
> >
> > > > > > > > > Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops, inner
> > > > > > > > > groove
> > > > > > > > > distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc. Yet I have yet to
> > > > > > > > > hear an
> > > > > > > > > LP
> > > > > > > > > that fails to have one or more of those failings. I've
> > > > > > > > > visited
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > homes
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but yet
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > play
> > > > > > > > > vinyl, one or more of those failings is audible. I've been to
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > alleged to be some of the best high end audio shows around,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has one or
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > problems.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I can
> > > > > > > > > count on
> > > > > > > > > vinyl
> > > > > > > > > to stick its hand right up and say "I've got clearly audible
> > > > > > > > > flaws".
> >
> > > > > > > > > > We've been through this before.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that there's
> > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > going
> > > > > > > > > on with you that keeps you from hearing the well-known
> > > > > > > > > audible
> > > > > > > > > flaws
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > vinyl.
> >
> > > > > > > > Wrong Arny. *As I've said many times before, it's a matter of
> > > > > > > > "picking
> > > > > > > > your poison". *It's ALL artificial. *I can listen through a few
> > > > > > > > tics.
> > > > > > > > *I
> > > > > > > > can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
> > > > > > > > instrument made of plastic.
> >
> > > > > > > *You think digital does that to a recording of a violin?
> >
> > > > > > I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP, and I have on
> > > > > > CD.
> >
> > > > > All recordings or just some?
> >
> > > > All to a greater or lesser degree.
> >
> > > That would indicate there is a factor other than
> > > digital infuencing your perception.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because the process of digitizing an analogue audio
> signal is straightforward, thoroughly evaluated and highly
> repeatable. That process won't have greater or
> lesser degree impacts to a violin.
>
> Your playback system FR is likely different from CD
> to vinyl. Identical recordings may not sound the same
> between your CD player or vinyl.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > > > *Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
> > > > > > > doesn't do that.
> >
> > > > > > Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm speaking about all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > CD
> > > > > > players I've heard.
> >
> > > > > *All CD players make violins sound like plastic.
> >
> > > > To a greater or lesser degree in certain ranges of the instrument. *I
> > > > hear a similar problem with female voice above about G on top of the
> > > > treble staff.
> >
> > > *I suspect your room curve of your digital system(s) is not
> > > representative
> > > of live music to you. *Flat FR is not typical of live music.
> > > Some recordings have some compensation, others have none.
> > > Your vinyl rig likely provides some hi-freq rolloff that is more to
> > > your liking.
> > > For less than $100 and your PC you can set yourself up to measure
> > > it.
> >
> > Except that I've heard what I hear on all digital systems in all the
> > rooms in which I've heard digital.
>
> Lots of speaker/amp systems target flat FR. IME, flat beyond 10K is
> fatiguing.
> Vinyl may sound fine on such a system while CD providing a
> flatter HF output doesn't.
> The lower distortion of the speaker, the more this becomes
> apparent.
> From what I've read your vandersteens have some crossover
> adjustments that may help your CDs.
>
> ScottW

All interesting, and I'll take it under advisement. I do have hope.
Yesterday I purchased a Pentatone CD of Julia Fischer playing Mozart
conerti. It's an EXCELLENT sounding recording. I hear only a bit of
the negative violin timbre that I complain about on first, casual
hearing. I hope that things are getting better, because as I've said
before, I would like nothing better than to love everything about CDs.

Jenn[_3_]

September 1st 08, 07:24 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 1, 10:25*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > > > > Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
> > > > > count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
> > > > > mean change. * Your premise is the count outside
> > > > > the normal distribution is changing while the evidence for
> > > > > your claim is based upon the average.
> > > > > That is foolish.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > Scott, the example was statistics showing that fewer teenagers drink
> > > > grape soda, not that the same number of teenagers who drank grape soda
> > > > years ago now drink less of it. *See the difference?
> >
> > > Neither has a direct proven correlation with the "never drank" count
> > > which is what you're trying to claim.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Scott this is going nowhere. *One more statement, then let's end it, OK? *
> > If fewer teens drink grape soda, doesn't it make sense that as the
> > teenaged population "ages out" and the larger population of teens who
> > used to drink it are no longer teens, the number of teens who know the
> > taste of grape soda is shrinking?
>
> You want to "end it" with a statement question

I meant one more statement by each of us.

> that is just
> repetition of the same false assertion?
> Good luck with that
> .
> >
> > At any rate, back to the point, IF stats show that fewer people know the
> > taste of grape soda, it's not a "snooty" statement to point that out.
>
> Going back to your pedestal of claiming to be one of the few who still
> know
> what acoustic music and instruments sound like, yeah it's snooty
> to imply a unique perspective on something to gain some
> weird self-proclaimed authority viewpoint.
> Especially when your stereo is admittedly so flawed as to make
> violins sound like plastic toys, your authority is
> truly suspect.
>
> ScottW

Scott, you can claim that I am claiming "to be one of the few who still
know what acoustic music and instruments sound like" all you want, but
it just makes you look foolish, as I am claiming nothing of the sort.
But carry on your fantasy if you wish. I tried to have a nice
conversation with you, and obviously that doesn't work.

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 1st 08, 07:51 PM

It always ends this way. Some posters persist in repeating the exercise
for reasons unknown. Always the same result.

> Scott, you can claim that I am claiming "to be one of the few who still
> know what acoustic music and instruments sound like" all you want, but
> it just makes you look foolish,

That's like saying Bozo's big red clown wig and floppy clown shoes make
him look like a clown.

> But carry on your fantasy if you wish.

Did it ever occur to you that Yapper might be dissuaded from indulging in
his fantasies if nobody enabled him? Just asking.

> I tried to have a nice
> conversation with you, and obviously that doesn't work.

It didn't work today. It didn't work last week. It didn't work last month,
or last year, or last decade. It will never work. Remember when Scottie
bleated about the dearth of 'discussions'? It would be a mistake to
conflate Scottie-style 'discussions' with the Normal activity of the same
name.

Jenn[_3_]

September 1st 08, 08:12 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 1, 11:24*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 1, 10:25*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > > Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
> > > > > > > count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
> > > > > > > mean change. * Your premise is the count outside
> > > > > > > the normal distribution is changing while the evidence for
> > > > > > > your claim is based upon the average.
> > > > > > > That is foolish.
> >
> > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > Scott, the example was statistics showing that fewer teenagers
> > > > > > drink
> > > > > > grape soda, not that the same number of teenagers who drank grape
> > > > > > soda
> > > > > > years ago now drink less of it. *See the difference?
> >
> > > > > Neither has a direct proven correlation with the "never drank" count
> > > > > which is what you're trying to claim.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > Scott this is going nowhere. *One more statement, then let's end it,
> > > > OK? *
> > > > If fewer teens drink grape soda, doesn't it make sense that as the
> > > > teenaged population "ages out" and the larger population of teens who
> > > > used to drink it are no longer teens, the number of teens who know the
> > > > taste of grape soda is shrinking?
> >
> > > You want to "end it" with a statement question
> >
> > I meant one more statement by each of us.
>
> So much for doing what you mean.
>
> >
> >
> > > that is just
> > > repetition of the same false assertion?
> > > Good luck with that
> > > .
> >
> > > > At any rate, back to the point, IF stats show that fewer people know
> > > > the
> > > > taste of grape soda, it's not a "snooty" statement to point that out.
> >
> > > Going back to your pedestal of claiming to be one of the few who still
> > > know
> > > what acoustic music and instruments sound like, yeah it's snooty
> > > to imply a unique perspective on something to gain some
> > > weird self-proclaimed authority viewpoint.
> > > Especially when your stereo is admittedly so flawed as to make
> > > violins sound like plastic toys, your authority is
> > > truly suspect.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Scott, you can claim that I am claiming "to be one of the few who still
> > know what acoustic music and instruments sound like" all you want, but
> > it just makes you look foolish, as I am claiming nothing of the sort.
>
> Really? Perhaps you've already forgotten the origin of this subthread
> which began with this comment from Arny and your reply.
>
> "> There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less
> audible noise
> > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by more than 100:
> > 1.
>
> Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like. Some
> of
> those people like the sound of many CDs. I agree with them. Some of
> them also have experienced some LPs to be the best sound at home they
> have yet experienced. I'm also one of those people. "
>
> You do clearly claim to be one "those" "fewer and fewer".

Yes. Where did I say that there are "few" people?

>
> *
> > But carry on your fantasy if you wish.
>
> Your words are now my fantasy. LoL.
>
> > *I tried to have a nice
> > conversation with you, and obviously that doesn't work.
>
> It won't if you require me to ignore what you write to be nice.
>
> ScottW

God, Scott, you win yet again. The fact that there are fewer acoustic
instruments sold and played, and the fact that fewer people go to
acoustic music concerts has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how many
people know the sound of live acoustic music. Perfectly logical on your
part. Congrats.

Chronic Philharmonic

September 1st 08, 10:25 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 29, 9:29 pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>> "Chronic Philharmonic" > wrote in message
>>
>> news:cy0uk.46$393.40@trnddc05...
>>
>> > "AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:20:01 GMT, Chronic Philharmonic
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> >>>A worn out record being played with a worn out stylus never sounded
>> >>>warm
>> >>>to
>> >>>me. It sounds noisy, fuzzy and distorted. Reducing frequencies above
>> >>>about
>> >>>5kHz might provide some relief from that, but it isn't high fidelity.
>> >>>As
>> >>>far
>> >>>as that goes, "warm" isn't a term I would associate with high fidelity
>> >>>either. Accuracy, perhaps.
>>
>> >>>Since recording a live event (or generating the illusion of a live
>> >>>event
>> >>>in
>> >>>the studio) is an art form, high fidelity is a complex concept. IMHO,
>> >>>the
>> >>>most neutral medium and reproduction equipment would be the best way
>> >>>to
>> >>>reproduce the original sound. Vinyl, and most analog storage
>> >>>technology
>> >>>is
>> >>>measurably and objectively nowhere near as neutral as modern digital
>> >>>technology. Flame on...
>>
>> >> No argument here, but I didn't have a $10K phono investment to
>> >> rationalize when
>> >> CD's first came out. Mine's $10K! It has to sound better than a $300
>> >> CD
>> >> player! That muffled sound has to be better... Let's give it a name...
>> >> warm!
>>
>> > The other problem: My cat has taken to sleeping on the dust cover of my
>> > expensive turntable. I play CDs now, because I can still get the CD
>> > drawer
>> > open with the cat sitting there. So the vinyl format simply is not
>> > cat-friendly.
>>
>> LOL! How true!
>
> My cat is banned from my listening rooms.
> Cat fur and claws with electrostats and vinyl
> simply don't mix.

You must not have a wife and kids. When it's more than just me in the house,
cat's go where they will. ;-)

Chronic Philharmonic

September 1st 08, 10:32 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article <ec0uk.34$Dj1.14@trnddc02>,
> "Chronic Philharmonic" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Or another name: "It sounds more like typical acoustic
>> >> >>> music to ______ (insert name)."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Mostly said by people who actually have no idea at all
>> >> >> what the original acoustic performance sounded like
>> >> >> because they weren't there.
>> >>
>> >> > As I wrote, "typical acoustic music".
>> >>
>> >> Oh, so Jenn you think that all acoustic music sounds the same?
>> >
>> > What makes you think that?
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > There are ways that acoustic music NEVER sounds,
>> >>
>> >> Exactly, acoustic music never has rumble, tics, pops, inner groove
>> >> distortion, rolled off highs and lows, etc. Yet I have yet to hear an
>> >> LP
>> >> that fails to have one or more of those failings. I've visited the
>> >> homes
>> >> of
>> >> audiophiles with tens of thousands in audio gear, but yet when they
>> >> play
>> >> vinyl, one or more of those failings is audible. I've been to what are
>> >> alleged to be some of the best high end audio shows around, and even
>> >> in
>> >> carefully-setup listening rooms, the vinyl always has one or more of
>> >> those
>> >> problems.
>> >>
>> >> > and there are plenty of recordings that sound that way.
>> >>
>> >> Right, and among the "recordings that sound that way", I can count on
>> >> vinyl
>> >> to stick its hand right up and say "I've got clearly audible flaws".
>> >>
>> >> > We've been through this before.
>> >>
>> >> Right Jenn, and the only logical conclusion is that there's something
>> >> going
>> >> on with you that keeps you from hearing the well-known audible flaws
>> >> of
>> >> vinyl.
>> >
>> > Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a matter of "picking
>> > your poison". It's ALL artificial. I can listen through a few tics.
>> > I
>> > can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
>> > instrument made of plastic.
>>
>> If it sounds that way, it is because of the production quality, not
>> because
>> of the technology. Digital audio is the closest thing we have to a
>> straight
>> wire between the performance and your living room.
>
> I've heard the effect on CD. I've not heard the effect on the best LPs.

Here's an experiment you could run, if you really want to get at the truth:
Copy the LPs that exhibit the sound you prefer to a CD, using a high quality
sound card, taking care that any ticks and pops do not exceed digital full
scale, while simultaneously making sure the rumble and surface noise stays
above the properly dithered digital noise level (fortunately, this is not
difficult). Then play back the LP and the newly-recorded CD in a properly
implemented A-B-X listening test, and see if you can distinguish any
difference between the two with any statistically significant repeatability.

Geoff

September 1st 08, 11:00 PM

Jenn wrote:
>
> Interesting thoughts, thanks.

Any chance of trimming several screenloads of quoted text before you your
3-word reply ?

geoff

Richard Crowley

September 1st 08, 11:06 PM

"geoff" wrote ...
> Jenn wrote:
>> Interesting thoughts, thanks.
>
> Any chance of trimming several screenloads of quoted text before you your
> 3-word reply ?

It is r.a.o (or r.a.m).
It is an alternative universe devoid of common sense.

Please drop r.a.t!

MiNe 109

September 1st 08, 11:20 PM

In article <AbZuk.279$393.193@trnddc05>,
"Chronic Philharmonic" > wrote:

> > I've heard the effect on CD. I've not heard the effect on the best LPs.
>
> Here's an experiment you could run, if you really want to get at the truth:
> Copy the LPs that exhibit the sound you prefer to a CD, using a high quality
> sound card, taking care that any ticks and pops do not exceed digital full
> scale, while simultaneously making sure the rumble and surface noise stays
> above the properly dithered digital noise level (fortunately, this is not
> difficult). Then play back the LP and the newly-recorded CD in a properly
> implemented A-B-X listening test, and see if you can distinguish any
> difference between the two with any statistically significant repeatability.

That wouldn't help the poorly recorded cds on which the effect manifests.

Stephen

Chronic Philharmonic

September 1st 08, 11:28 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <AbZuk.279$393.193@trnddc05>,
> "Chronic Philharmonic" > wrote:
>
>> > I've heard the effect on CD. I've not heard the effect on the best
>> > LPs.
>>
>> Here's an experiment you could run, if you really want to get at the
>> truth:
>> Copy the LPs that exhibit the sound you prefer to a CD, using a high
>> quality
>> sound card, taking care that any ticks and pops do not exceed digital
>> full
>> scale, while simultaneously making sure the rumble and surface noise
>> stays
>> above the properly dithered digital noise level (fortunately, this is not
>> difficult). Then play back the LP and the newly-recorded CD in a properly
>> implemented A-B-X listening test, and see if you can distinguish any
>> difference between the two with any statistically significant
>> repeatability.
>
> That wouldn't help the poorly recorded cds on which the effect manifests.

No, this would only prove or disprove the ability of the medium to
accurately reproduce whatever is fed into it. That's what a medium is
supposed to do. Gold in, gold out. Garbage in, garbage out. A poorly
recorded CD, like a poorly recorded LP, is garbage.

Geoff

September 2nd 08, 12:39 AM

Chronic Philharmonic wrote:
>
> No, this would only prove or disprove the ability of the medium to
> accurately reproduce whatever is fed into it. That's what a medium is
> supposed to do. Gold in, gold out. Garbage in, garbage out. A poorly
> recorded CD, like a poorly recorded LP, is garbage.

To be pedantic, it's not a "poorly recorded CD", but poorly recorded or
mastered music that happens to be carried on a CD.

geoff

Jenn[_3_]

September 2nd 08, 01:35 AM

In article >,
"geoff" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> >
> > Interesting thoughts, thanks.
>
> Any chance of trimming several screenloads of quoted text before you your
> 3-word reply ?
>
> geoff

Sure.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 2nd 08, 02:14 AM

On Sep 1, 2:41*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 1, 12:12*pm, Jenn > wrote:

> > God, Scott, you win yet again. *The fact that there are fewer acoustic
> > instruments sold and played,
>
> Only mention of acoustic guitar sales I can find mentions a resurgence
> of
> interest in the 90's. *Given advanced manufacturing techniques (CNC
> milling)
> employed by the likes of Taylor in '89, production capacity is
> increased
> and the entry cost of a decent guitar has fallen quite low.
> Are you sure sales are off?

"Acoustic instruments" has been transmogrified into "acoustic guitar"
in 2pid's 'mind.

Here comes the circus, family-style...again.

Jenn[_3_]

September 2nd 08, 03:23 AM

In article <AbZuk.279$393.193@trnddc05>,
"Chronic Philharmonic" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...

> > I've heard the effect on CD. I've not heard the effect on the best LPs.
>
> Here's an experiment you could run, if you really want to get at the truth:
> Copy the LPs that exhibit the sound you prefer to a CD, using a high quality
> sound card, taking care that any ticks and pops do not exceed digital full
> scale, while simultaneously making sure the rumble and surface noise stays
> above the properly dithered digital noise level (fortunately, this is not
> difficult). Then play back the LP and the newly-recorded CD in a properly
> implemented A-B-X listening test, and see if you can distinguish any
> difference between the two with any statistically significant repeatability.

I'd be happy to do that. Perhaps I can find someone to help me
implement it. If I can't tell the difference, I'll be happy to report
that.

Jenn[_3_]

September 2nd 08, 03:29 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 1, 12:12*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 1, 11:24*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 1, 10:25*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > > > > Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
> > > > > > > > > count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
> > > > > > > > > mean change. * Your premise is the count outside
> > > > > > > > > the normal distribution is changing while the evidence for
> > > > > > > > > your claim is based upon the average.
> > > > > > > > > That is foolish.
> >
> > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > Scott, the example was statistics showing that fewer teenagers
> > > > > > > > drink
> > > > > > > > grape soda, not that the same number of teenagers who drank
> > > > > > > > grape
> > > > > > > > soda
> > > > > > > > years ago now drink less of it. *See the difference?
> >
> > > > > > > Neither has a direct proven correlation with the "never drank"
> > > > > > > count
> > > > > > > which is what you're trying to claim.
> >
> > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > Scott this is going nowhere. *One more statement, then let's end
> > > > > > it,
> > > > > > OK? *
> > > > > > If fewer teens drink grape soda, doesn't it make sense that as the
> > > > > > teenaged population "ages out" and the larger population of teens
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > used to drink it are no longer teens, the number of teens who know
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > taste of grape soda is shrinking?
> >
> > > > > You want to "end it" with a statement question
> >
> > > > I meant one more statement by each of us.
> >
> > > *So much for doing what you mean.
> >
> > > > > that is just
> > > > > repetition of the same false assertion?
> > > > > Good luck with that
> > > > > .
> >
> > > > > > At any rate, back to the point, IF stats show that fewer people
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > taste of grape soda, it's not a "snooty" statement to point that
> > > > > > out.
> >
> > > > > Going back to your pedestal of claiming to be one of the few who
> > > > > still
> > > > > know
> > > > > what acoustic music and instruments sound like, yeah it's snooty
> > > > > to imply a unique perspective on something to gain some
> > > > > weird self-proclaimed authority viewpoint.
> > > > > Especially when your stereo is admittedly so flawed as to make
> > > > > violins sound like plastic toys, your authority is
> > > > > truly suspect.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > Scott, you can claim that I am claiming "to be one of the few who still
> > > > know what acoustic music and instruments sound like" all you want, but
> > > > it just makes you look foolish, as I am claiming nothing of the sort.
> >
> > > Really? *Perhaps you've already forgotten the origin of this subthread
> > > which began with this comment from Arny and your reply.
> >
> > > "> There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less
> > > audible noise
> > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by more than
> > > > 100:
> > > > 1.
> >
> > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like. *Some
> > > of
> > > those people like the sound of many CDs. *I agree with them. *Some of
> > > them also have experienced some LPs to be the best sound at home they
> > > have yet experienced. *I'm also one of those people. "
> >
> > > You do clearly claim to be one "those" "fewer and fewer".
> >
> > Yes. *Where did I say that there are "few" people?
>
> What is the ultimate result of fewer and fewer?
> Yet without this, the whole comment is left meaningless.
> It is apparent you no longer care for the snooty point,
> so what is your alternative point you imply exists?

I'm not speaking of the "ultimate result" but about right now, compared
to the past.

>
> > *
> > > > But carry on your fantasy if you wish.
> >
> > > *Your words are now my fantasy. *LoL.
> >
> > > > *I tried to have a nice
> > > > conversation with you, and obviously that doesn't work.
> >
> > > It won't if you require me to ignore what you write to be nice.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > God, Scott, you win yet again. *The fact that there are fewer acoustic
> > instruments sold and played,
>
> Only mention of acoustic guitar sales I can find mentions a resurgence
> of
> interest in the 90's. Given advanced manufacturing techniques (CNC
> milling)
> employed by the likes of Taylor in '89, production capacity is
> increased
> and the entry cost of a decent guitar has fallen quite low.
> Are you sure sales are off?

Yep. Sales figures reported by NAMM.

>
>
> > and the fact that fewer people go to
> > acoustic music concerts
>
> Please define "acoustic music concerts"?
> I just wonder if this is some kind of purist claim.

Music made by unamplified instruments and/or voices.

>
> > has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how many
> > people know the sound of live acoustic music.
>
> Back to the grape soda analogy I see.
> Actually, it doesn't. You only assume it does.
>
> Let's take a sample. Who thinks they don't kwow what
> acoustic music sounds like?
> I think more people know what acoustic music sounds like
> than know what SOTA audio reproduction sounds like.

With that, I agree.

> Let me give you a hint though, it doesn't make violins sound
> like plastic toys.
>
> ScottW

Jenn[_3_]

September 2nd 08, 06:28 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 1, 7:29*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 1, 12:12*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 1, 11:24*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 1, 10:25*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Means can shift dramatically while the zero exposure
> > > > > > > > > > > count remains outside the distribution and unaffected by
> > > > > > > > > > > mean change. * Your premise is the count outside
> > > > > > > > > > > the normal distribution is changing while the evidence
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > your claim is based upon the average.
> > > > > > > > > > > That is foolish.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Scott, the example was statistics showing that fewer
> > > > > > > > > > teenagers
> > > > > > > > > > drink
> > > > > > > > > > grape soda, not that the same number of teenagers who drank
> > > > > > > > > > grape
> > > > > > > > > > soda
> > > > > > > > > > years ago now drink less of it. *See the difference?
> >
> > > > > > > > > Neither has a direct proven correlation with the "never
> > > > > > > > > drank"
> > > > > > > > > count
> > > > > > > > > which is what you're trying to claim.
> >
> > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > Scott this is going nowhere. *One more statement, then let's
> > > > > > > > end
> > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > OK? *
> > > > > > > > If fewer teens drink grape soda, doesn't it make sense that as
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > teenaged population "ages out" and the larger population of
> > > > > > > > teens
> > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > used to drink it are no longer teens, the number of teens who
> > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > taste of grape soda is shrinking?
> >
> > > > > > > You want to "end it" with a statement question
> >
> > > > > > I meant one more statement by each of us.
> >
> > > > > *So much for doing what you mean.
> >
> > > > > > > that is just
> > > > > > > repetition of the same false assertion?
> > > > > > > Good luck with that
> > > > > > > .
> >
> > > > > > > > At any rate, back to the point, IF stats show that fewer people
> > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > taste of grape soda, it's not a "snooty" statement to point
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > out.
> >
> > > > > > > Going back to your pedestal of claiming to be one of the few who
> > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > what acoustic music and instruments sound like, yeah it's snooty
> > > > > > > to imply a unique perspective on something to gain some
> > > > > > > weird self-proclaimed authority viewpoint.
> > > > > > > Especially when your stereo is admittedly so flawed as to make
> > > > > > > violins sound like plastic toys, your authority is
> > > > > > > truly suspect.
> >
> > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > Scott, you can claim that I am claiming "to be one of the few who
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > know what acoustic music and instruments sound like" all you want,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > it just makes you look foolish, as I am claiming nothing of the
> > > > > > sort.
> >
> > > > > Really? *Perhaps you've already forgotten the origin of this
> > > > > subthread
> > > > > which began with this comment from Arny and your reply.
> >
> > > > > "> There does seem to be a general preference for sound with less
> > > > > audible noise
> > > > > > and distortion, which is one reason why CD's outsell LPs by more
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > 100:
> > > > > > 1.
> >
> > > > > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds like. *Some
> > > > > of
> > > > > those people like the sound of many CDs. *I agree with them. *Some of
> > > > > them also have experienced some LPs to be the best sound at home they
> > > > > have yet experienced. *I'm also one of those people. "
> >
> > > > > You do clearly claim to be one "those" "fewer and fewer".
> >
> > > > Yes. *Where did I say that there are "few" people?
> >
> > > What is the ultimate result of fewer and fewer?
> > > Yet without this, the whole comment is left meaningless.
> > > It is apparent you no longer care for the snooty point,
> > > so what is your alternative point you imply exists?
> >
> > I'm not speaking of the "ultimate result" but about right now, compared
> > to the past.
>
> I can think of many specific scenarios that make your statement
> true and many more that make it false.
> Still, forget the lack of specifics, what was the non-snooty point?

A point to Arny for another reason that CDs outsell LPs.

> >
> >
> > > > *
> > > > > > But carry on your fantasy if you wish.
> >
> > > > > *Your words are now my fantasy. *LoL.
> >
> > > > > > *I tried to have a nice
> > > > > > conversation with you, and obviously that doesn't work.
> >
> > > > > It won't if you require me to ignore what you write to be nice.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > God, Scott, you win yet again. *The fact that there are fewer acoustic
> > > > instruments sold and played,
> >
> > > Only mention of acoustic guitar sales I can find mentions a resurgence
> > > of
> > > interest in the 90's. *Given advanced manufacturing techniques (CNC
> > > milling)
> > > employed by the likes of Taylor in '89, production capacity is
> > > increased
> > > and the entry cost of a decent guitar has fallen quite low.
> > > Are you sure sales are off?
> >
> > Yep. *Sales figures reported by NAMM.
>
> Got a link?

It's from their "Industry Insider" newsletter. It's not on the web,
AFAIK. I'll send an email to see if it's OK to share specifics. If so,
I'll post them here and mail you a copy if you wish.

Steven Sullivan

September 2nd 08, 07:08 PM

In rec.audio.tech George M. Middius > wrote:

> Stupey Sillybot's back is up. What's scaring Stupey? Why, some hideously
> uninhibited Normal mentioned [gasp!] vinyl recordings!

> > > "Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
> > > aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
> > > the first place..."

> > 'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.

> The horror! They're talking about LPs in public! And -- get this --
> THEY'RE NOT WAVING PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES!!

> Who can blame Stupey for reacting like this? He was minding his own
> business, peacefully building up his Fortress Of Audio Safety (known to
> Normals as a crypt). And along comes a Normal who DARES to mention the
> Forbidden Truth. Of course Sillybot is terrified. What 'borg wouldn't be?

The only possible 'horror' here, for me, would come from putting myself in your place, and
realizing that *all* I'd ever had to show for myself was puerile 'funny' names, ten-ton
sarcasm, and nerdy in-jokes in the service of endless, pointless, psychotic vendettas...all of
which would still be there in the public record to condemn me as a sad, pathetic loser long
after I'm dead.

<shudder>

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 2nd 08, 08:08 PM

Stupey's fragile ego is bruised.

> > Stupey Sillybot's back is up. What's scaring Stupey? Why, some hideously
> > uninhibited Normal mentioned [gasp!] vinyl recordings!
>
> > > > "Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
> > > > aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
> > > > the first place..."
>
> > > 'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.
>
> > The horror! They're talking about LPs in public! And -- get this --
> > THEY'RE NOT WAVING PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES!!
>
> > Who can blame Stupey for reacting like this? He was minding his own
> > business, peacefully building up his Fortress Of Audio Safety (known to
> > Normals as a crypt). And along comes a Normal who DARES to mention the
> > Forbidden Truth. Of course Sillybot is terrified. What 'borg wouldn't be?

> The only possible 'horror' here, for me, would come from putting myself in your place, and
> realizing that *all* I'd ever had to show for myself was puerile 'funny' names, ten-ton
> sarcasm, and nerdy in-jokes in the service of endless, pointless, psychotic vendettas...all of
> which would still be there in the public record to condemn me as a sad, pathetic loser long
> after I'm dead.

I get this kind of reaction from time to time. Nine times out of ten, it
arises out of envy. I see you engaged your thesaurus to show your
vocabulary chops. Did you weigh the risk of getting shunned in the nerds'
colony because of your wanton use of three-syllable words?

BTW, I have it on good authority that you giggled uncontrollably the first
time you read my pet name for you. Don't worry, I don't have it on tape.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 2nd 08, 11:07 PM

On Sep 2, 3:03*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 2, 10:28*am, Jenn > wrote:

> > It's from their "Industry Insider" newsletter. *It's not on the web,
> > AFAIK. *I'll send an email to see if it's OK to share specifics. *If so,
> > I'll post them here and mail you a copy if you wish.
>
> No, don't trouble yourself.
> Since school started you should not be distracted from molding
> young minds.

Not that it would make a difference once your 'mind' is made up. LoL.

Clyde Slick

September 2nd 08, 11:39 PM

On 2 Sep, 14:08, Steven Sullivan > wrote:

....all of
> which would still be there in the public record to condemn me as a sad, pathetic loser long
> after I'm dead.
>
> <shudder>
>

I have high hopes for you

Steven Sullivan

September 3rd 08, 01:22 AM

In rec.audio.tech George M. Middius > wrote:

> Stupey's fragile ego is bruised.

> > > Stupey Sillybot's back is up. What's scaring Stupey? Why, some hideously
> > > uninhibited Normal mentioned [gasp!] vinyl recordings!
> >
> > > > > "Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
> > > > > aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
> > > > > the first place..."
> >
> > > > 'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.
> >
> > > The horror! They're talking about LPs in public! And -- get this --
> > > THEY'RE NOT WAVING PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES!!
> >
> > > Who can blame Stupey for reacting like this? He was minding his own
> > > business, peacefully building up his Fortress Of Audio Safety (known to
> > > Normals as a crypt). And along comes a Normal who DARES to mention the
> > > Forbidden Truth. Of course Sillybot is terrified. What 'borg wouldn't be?
>
> > The only possible 'horror' here, for me, would come from putting myself in your place, and
> > realizing that *all* I'd ever had to show for myself was puerile 'funny' names, ten-ton
> > sarcasm, and nerdy in-jokes in the service of endless, pointless, psychotic vendettas...all of
> > which would still be there in the public record to condemn me as a sad, pathetic loser long
> > after I'm dead.

> I get this kind of reaction from time to time. Nine times out of ten, it
> arises out of envy.

This is the tenth time, ****bag.

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 3rd 08, 01:47 AM

Stupey Sillybot reveals a nice, shiny button with a big red bull's eye on
it. I've hit it twice squarely, and now Stupey begs for more shocks.

> > Stupey's fragile ego is bruised.
>
> > > > Stupey Sillybot's back is up. What's scaring Stupey? Why, some hideously
> > > > uninhibited Normal mentioned [gasp!] vinyl recordings!
> > >
> > > > > > "Those old-fashioned analog platters (with the warm sound)
> > > > > > aren't back from the dead; they were never quite buried in
> > > > > > the first place..."
> > >
> > > > > 'warm sound' = euphonic distortion not present on the source tape.
> > >
> > > > The horror! They're talking about LPs in public! And -- get this --
> > > > THEY'RE NOT WAVING PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES!!
> > >
> > > > Who can blame Stupey for reacting like this? He was minding his own
> > > > business, peacefully building up his Fortress Of Audio Safety (known to
> > > > Normals as a crypt). And along comes a Normal who DARES to mention the
> > > > Forbidden Truth. Of course Sillybot is terrified. What 'borg wouldn't be?
> >
> > > The only possible 'horror' here, for me, would come from putting myself in your place, and
> > > realizing that *all* I'd ever had to show for myself was puerile 'funny' names, ten-ton
> > > sarcasm, and nerdy in-jokes in the service of endless, pointless, psychotic vendettas...all of
> > > which would still be there in the public record to condemn me as a sad, pathetic loser long
> > > after I'm dead.

> > I get this kind of reaction from time to time. Nine times out of ten, it
> > arises out of envy.

> This is the tenth time, ****bag.

Nobody believes that, Stupey. You're an audio know-nothing, just like your
pal Arnii Kroofeces. You get your ass handed to you on a regular basis by
Real Audio Guys. That wouldn't matter if you weren't so wrapped up in
phoney, unjustified egotism. You desperately want to believe you know all
there is to know, but time and again you ram your dull little head into
the brick wall of reality. Your ego is so distended that you even
confessed your total ignorance of the high end. Remember that embarrassing
episode, Stupes? You blathered at length about how much you "know", and
then it turned out your prize possession is a $1200 surround receiver you
bought through the mail without a single audition. That's the opposite of
an audiophile's sensibility, Stupey. It reveals the mindset of a lazy,
bourgeois monkey.

Let us know the next time you feel compelled to yammer about the virtues
of audio DBTs for consumers so we can remind you that you have never, ever
participated in any audio DBTs. That's not any, not ever. Zero. Never a
single one. But does that stop you from singing their praises? No it does
not. You flap your lips about the holy blinding rituals anyway. And when
you get called on your ignorance, how do you support your "opinions"? With
ad-hominem attacks, that's how. You're a pathetic little weasel and
everybody knows it. (Except maybe Arnii Krooborg, but you actually believe
the Beast's lies about being an "engineer". What a laugh!)

> > > I see you engaged your thesaurus to show your
> > > vocabulary chops. Did you weigh the risk of getting shunned in the nerds'
> > > colony because of your wanton use of three-syllable words?

> > > BTW, I have it on good authority that you giggled uncontrollably the first
> > > time you read my pet name for you. Don't worry, I don't have it on tape.

Why were you silent here, Silly? Did I hit too close to a major nerve
plexus?

Arny Krueger

September 3rd 08, 01:14 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds
> like.

Probably true.

But what is its relevance to the LP versus CD debate?

There is a massive amount of violence that is usually done to recorded
music, and it is an accomplished fact by the time a signal comes out of a
microphone(s). In comparison to that, discussion of relatively good media
like digital is pretty moot.

There are hysterical people who have had some kind of transcendent
experience where they perceived something unique and desirable coincident
with listening to a certain recording. They lack the logic and reason that
it takes to separate the medium from the message they heard at that magic
moment. For them, no other medium will be able to duplicate that kind of
moment.

> Some of those people like the sound of many CDs.

Actually, nobody much cares what medium they are listening to. Loving music
is about the message, not the medium.

> I agree with them.

About what?

> Some of them also have experienced some LPs to be the best sound at home
> they have yet
> experienced.

Some of them may be serial killers, an/or understudies for Mother Theresa..
When a statement is as vague as many of the ones above, they are really
quite meaningless.

> I'm also one of those people.

Equally meaningless.

Arny Krueger

September 3rd 08, 01:19 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >,
>>>>> ScottW > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a
>>>>>>> matter of "picking your poison". It's ALL
>>>>>>> artificial. I can listen through a few tics. I
>>>>>>> can't listen through a recorded violin sound that
>>>>>>> resembles an instrument made of plastic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You think digital does that to a recording of a
>>>>>> violin?
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP,
>>>>> and I have on CD.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously Jenn, you lack my 55 years, more or less, of
>>>> listening to vinyl.
>>>
>>> That's true. I'm only 51.
>>
>> I guess you were very indiscriminate when you were
>> young, because you obviously didn't notice the horrors
>> of vinyl in the day.
>
> What makes you say that? Of course I noticed the faults.
> And I've said time and time again that most CDs sound
> better than most LPs.
>
>>
>>>> For the first 36 years of my life, basically vinyl was
>>>> all that we had, and it often sucked mightily even
>>>> though our player technology for the last 10 or so
>>>> years was essentially what is available today.
>>
>>>> During that time I heard plenty of recordings that made
>>>> music sound like it was played on plastic instruments.
>>
>>> I've heard lots of bad reproduction via LP, but bad in
>>> different ways than some digital.
>>
>> That is a meaningless statement. Well it has meaning,
>> but its a truism.
>
> Of course. I'm simply stating that I hear different
> faults in the two media. For some reason, you feel the
> need to question that.

The questioning comes because in fact one medium is subjectively perfect,
and the other is rather egregiously imperfect. You seem to be confused as to
which is which.

>>>>>> Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
>>>>>> doesn't do that.
>>>>
>>>>> Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm
>>>>> speaking about all the CD players I've heard.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously a problem with lack of experience,
>>>
>>> lol A statement for which you have no evidence.
>>
>> Yes I do, I have months and months of your statements as
>> evidence, Jenn.

> You presume that I hear what I hear based on lack of
> experience.

Well Jenn, you are rather callow, poorly educated, and intentionally
ignorant of much about audio.

> You have no evidence to support that statement.

Yes I do, I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn

> What you do have is a desire to argue with me.

No, I have a desire to overcome what residual effects your importune
statements might have.

>>>> but I think there is a little
>>>> bias and hysteria tossed in.
>>>
>>> Of course you do.
>
>> Really? That's a statement for which you have no
>> compelling evidence.

> No, the evidence is that "hysteria" seems to be your
> default statement concerning why I like the sound of
> something.

I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn

>>>> Nothing like recently blowing nearly a $grand
>>>> on a vinyl player to keep the illusion going.
>>
>>> You're entitled to your opinion.
>>
>> You're entitled to try to justify your poor judgment,
>> Jenn.;

> Again, you're entitled to your opinion. I spend $1000 on
> a TT/arm/cartridge because I like the way that it sounds.

For a price that obviously caused some sacrifice on your part, you bought a
new rendition of the same old audible artifacts.

> If you think that this is foolish, I simply advise you
> not to do the same.

I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.

Arny Krueger

September 3rd 08, 01:20 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article <AbZuk.279$393.193@trnddc05>,
> "Chronic Philharmonic" > wrote:
>
>>> I've heard the effect on CD. I've not heard the effect
>>> on the best LPs.
>>
>> Here's an experiment you could run, if you really want
>> to get at the truth: Copy the LPs that exhibit the sound
>> you prefer to a CD, using a high quality sound card,
>> taking care that any ticks and pops do not exceed
>> digital full scale, while simultaneously making sure the
>> rumble and surface noise stays above the properly
>> dithered digital noise level (fortunately, this is not
>> difficult). Then play back the LP and the newly-recorded
>> CD in a properly implemented A-B-X listening test, and
>> see if you can distinguish any difference between the
>> two with any statistically significant repeatability.
>
> That wouldn't help the poorly recorded cds on which the
> effect manifests.

Yet another technical tyro who have the medium and message hopelessly
confused. No coincidence - a LP lover.

Arny Krueger

September 3rd 08, 01:21 PM

"geoff" > wrote in message

> Chronic Philharmonic wrote:
>>
>> No, this would only prove or disprove the ability of the
>> medium to accurately reproduce whatever is fed into it.
>> That's what a medium is supposed to do. Gold in, gold
>> out. Garbage in, garbage out. A poorly recorded CD, like
>> a poorly recorded LP, is garbage.
>
> To be pedantic, it's not a "poorly recorded CD", but
> poorly recorded or mastered music that happens to be
> carried on a CD.

Good point, and a point that is hoplessly obscured by the confused thinking
of LP bigots.

Arny Krueger

September 3rd 08, 01:26 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Both arsenic and water can be poisonous, but I'll pick
>>>> the glass of water every time.
>>
>>> Good for you. I hear it differently.
>>
>> Obviously. You've got that recent large expenditure on
>> substandard technology to justify to yourself.
>
> You've got the chronology wrong.

Prove it.

>>> Please keep enjoying your music, and I'll enjoy mine.
>>
>> You're changing the subject Jenn, from analysis of
>> relevant facts to personal preferences.

> I'm not changing the subject at all, Arny. It's not
> about analysis of facts. For me, listening to music is
> about, in this order:

> 1. The music itself

Then any medium that has even modest fidelity, like the LP format, might
even suffice.

> 2. Listening to the best sound possible on a given
> recording according my my ears.

In fact for most people, listening is not just about the ears. It's about
the ears and the brain. This one fact alone might explain your great
obsession with the ancient and widely-discredited LP format.

> Perhaps your priorities are different.

Well, I do a lot of production of recorded media and sound reinforcement.

>>>> The sound quality failings of the vinyl format are
>>>> well-known and generally-agreed-upon to be by far the
>>>> stronger poison to our mutual goal of lifelike sound.
>>
>>>>> It's ALL artificial.
>>
>>>> Not necessarily. I've played CDs through a live sound
>>>> system and temporarily fooled people into thinking
>>>> there is a live performance going on.
>>
>>> I can't imagine that happening,
>>
>> Attributable to a lack of real-world experience.

> No, I've listened to a great deal of live music and a
> great many audio systems in several locales.

Several locales?

LOL!

If you've only visited several locales, please come back when you have
experiences that compare with mine.

>>> but good for you and for those people.
>>
>> Dismissive attitude noted, Ironic coming from a person
>> with such limited real world experience with audio.
>
> It's not dismissive at all. If some people can be fooled
> in this way, they are ahead of the game.

?????????????

>>> Nothing coming through a speaker ever sounds close to
>>> real, IMO.
>>
>> You've obviously never done the experiment I described,
>> or done it right.
>
> What experiment?

The one I just described - playing a specific recording in a medium-sized
venue where music is played much of the time.

>> As usual Jenn, you've placed yourself on a high pedestal
>> above people who simply know more about the topic than
>> you do.

> A ridiculous statement.

I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn

> I've in no way said that I'm
> better or on some kind of other "pedestal".

Quite visible in months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn.

> All I've
> said is that I hear what I hear, you hear what you hear,
> and everyone should enjoy what sounds best to them. I
> have no idea why you have such a problem with that
> concept.

For one thing, I favor using the brain while listening. That appears to be
an irreconcilable difference between us, Jenn.

Jenn[_3_]

September 3rd 08, 04:03 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> No, don't trouble yourself.
> Since school started you should not be distracted from molding
> young minds.

You're right, that's far more important.

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 3rd 08, 04:12 PM

Jenn said:

> > Since school started you should not be distracted from molding
> > young minds.
>
> You're right, that's far more important.

Yes, it's well known that Scottie's 'mind' succumbed to moldering ages
ago.

Steven Sullivan

September 3rd 08, 04:14 PM

In rec.audio.tech George M. Middius > wrote:

> > > I get this kind of reaction from time to time. Nine times out of ten, it
> > > arises out of envy.

> > This is the tenth time, ****bag.

> Nobody believes that, Stupey.

Nobody but you gives a damn, you pathetic, saliva-spraying mental case. Now **** off
to the only place you can call home:

*plonk*

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

Jenn[_3_]

September 3rd 08, 04:24 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Both arsenic and water can be poisonous, but I'll pick
> >>>> the glass of water every time.
> >>
> >>> Good for you. I hear it differently.
> >>
> >> Obviously. You've got that recent large expenditure on
> >> substandard technology to justify to yourself.
> >
> > You've got the chronology wrong.
>
> Prove it.

lol

>
> >>> Please keep enjoying your music, and I'll enjoy mine.
> >>
> >> You're changing the subject Jenn, from analysis of
> >> relevant facts to personal preferences.
>
> > I'm not changing the subject at all, Arny. It's not
> > about analysis of facts. For me, listening to music is
> > about, in this order:
>
> > 1. The music itself
>
> Then any medium that has even modest fidelity, like the LP format, might
> even suffice.

Yes, at the end of the day, any medium that doesn't get in the way of
the music will do. But sometimes one also likes to enjoy excellent
sound to go along with the music. Excellent sound that one can
experience with good CDs and LPs.

>
> > 2. Listening to the best sound possible on a given
> > recording according my my ears.
>
> In fact for most people, listening is not just about the ears. It's about
> the ears and the brain.

Of course listening involves both the ears and the brain. The ears by
themselves hear nothing. That's a truism.

> This one fact alone might explain your great
> obsession with the ancient and widely-discredited LP format.

I don't have an obsession. You have an obsession with claiming that I
have an obsession.

>
> > Perhaps your priorities are different.
>
> Well, I do a lot of production of recorded media and sound reinforcement.

So?

>
> >>>> The sound quality failings of the vinyl format are
> >>>> well-known and generally-agreed-upon to be by far the
> >>>> stronger poison to our mutual goal of lifelike sound.
> >>
> >>>>> It's ALL artificial.
> >>
> >>>> Not necessarily. I've played CDs through a live sound
> >>>> system and temporarily fooled people into thinking
> >>>> there is a live performance going on.
> >>
> >>> I can't imagine that happening,
> >>
> >> Attributable to a lack of real-world experience.
>
> > No, I've listened to a great deal of live music and a
> > great many audio systems in several locales.
>
> Several locales?
>
> LOL!
>
> If you've only visited several locales, please come back when you have
> experiences that compare with mine.

"Several" is an inexact word. Is "many" more to your liking? OK. I've
listened to a great deal of live music and a great many audio systems in
many locales.

>
> >>> but good for you and for those people.
> >>
> >> Dismissive attitude noted, Ironic coming from a person
> >> with such limited real world experience with audio.
> >
> > It's not dismissive at all. If some people can be fooled
> > in this way, they are ahead of the game.
>
> ?????????????

If the game is to as closely possible replicate the sound of actual live
music, then those who can fooled into thinking that a stereo is live
music is indeed ahead of the game.

>
> >>> Nothing coming through a speaker ever sounds close to
> >>> real, IMO.
> >>
> >> You've obviously never done the experiment I described,
> >> or done it right.
> >
> > What experiment?
>
> The one I just described - playing a specific recording in a medium-sized
> venue where music is played much of the time.

I didn't know that that was an experiment. Tell us how that experiment
was carried out.

>
> >> As usual Jenn, you've placed yourself on a high pedestal
> >> above people who simply know more about the topic than
> >> you do.
>
> > A ridiculous statement.
>
> I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn

Impossible, as I've never "placed myself on a high pedestal". Care to
provide an example?

>
> > I've in no way said that I'm
> > better or on some kind of other "pedestal".
>
> Quite visible in months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn.

See above.

>
> > All I've
> > said is that I hear what I hear, you hear what you hear,
> > and everyone should enjoy what sounds best to them. I
> > have no idea why you have such a problem with that
> > concept.
>
> For one thing, I favor using the brain while listening. That appears to be
> an irreconcilable difference between us, Jenn.

False premise, as I use my brain a great deal while listening.

Jenn[_3_]

September 3rd 08, 04:24 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "geoff" > wrote in message
>
> > Chronic Philharmonic wrote:
> >>
> >> No, this would only prove or disprove the ability of the
> >> medium to accurately reproduce whatever is fed into it.
> >> That's what a medium is supposed to do. Gold in, gold
> >> out. Garbage in, garbage out. A poorly recorded CD, like
> >> a poorly recorded LP, is garbage.
> >
> > To be pedantic, it's not a "poorly recorded CD", but
> > poorly recorded or mastered music that happens to be
> > carried on a CD.
>
> Good point, and a point that is hoplessly obscured by the confused thinking
> of LP bigots.

Ah! The "LP bigots" canard! That took longer than it usually does.

Jenn[_3_]

September 3rd 08, 04:38 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >,
> >>>>> ScottW > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Wrong Arny. As I've said many times before, it's a
> >>>>>>> matter of "picking your poison". It's ALL
> >>>>>>> artificial. I can listen through a few tics. I
> >>>>>>> can't listen through a recorded violin sound that
> >>>>>>> resembles an instrument made of plastic.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You think digital does that to a recording of a
> >>>>>> violin?
> >>>>
> >>>>> I don't know, but I've never experienced that on LP,
> >>>>> and I have on CD.
> >>>>
> >>>> Obviously Jenn, you lack my 55 years, more or less, of
> >>>> listening to vinyl.
> >>>
> >>> That's true. I'm only 51.
> >>
> >> I guess you were very indiscriminate when you were
> >> young, because you obviously didn't notice the horrors
> >> of vinyl in the day.
> >
> > What makes you say that? Of course I noticed the faults.
> > And I've said time and time again that most CDs sound
> > better than most LPs.
> >
> >>
> >>>> For the first 36 years of my life, basically vinyl was
> >>>> all that we had, and it often sucked mightily even
> >>>> though our player technology for the last 10 or so
> >>>> years was essentially what is available today.
> >>
> >>>> During that time I heard plenty of recordings that made
> >>>> music sound like it was played on plastic instruments.
> >>
> >>> I've heard lots of bad reproduction via LP, but bad in
> >>> different ways than some digital.
> >>
> >> That is a meaningless statement. Well it has meaning,
> >> but its a truism.
> >
> > Of course. I'm simply stating that I hear different
> > faults in the two media. For some reason, you feel the
> > need to question that.
>
> The questioning comes because in fact one medium is subjectively perfect,
> and the other is rather egregiously imperfect. You seem to be confused as to
> which is which.

Not at all. You seem to be confused about the obvious fact that people
have different listening priorities. The few faults of well produced
happen to lay in in an area that is important to how I perceive music.
If it's different for you, I certainly have no problem with that.

>
> >>>>>> Perhaps your CD player is broken. Even my Arcam
> >>>>>> doesn't do that.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Nope, checked out fine 6 mo. ago. Besides, I'm
> >>>>> speaking about all the CD players I've heard.
> >>>>
> >>>> Obviously a problem with lack of experience,
> >>>
> >>> lol A statement for which you have no evidence.
> >>
> >> Yes I do, I have months and months of your statements as
> >> evidence, Jenn.
>
> > You presume that I hear what I hear based on lack of
> > experience.
>
> Well Jenn, you are rather callow, poorly educated, and intentionally
> ignorant of much about audio.

I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. I've
admitted that all along. But by definition, I'm highly educated about
what sounds like music to my ears. Obviously, that is far more
important.

>
> > You have no evidence to support that statement.
>
> Yes I do, I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn

Already addressed.

>
> > What you do have is a desire to argue with me.
>
> No, I have a desire to overcome what residual effects your importune
> statements might have.

Yes, I'm "importune" about what I hear. You would rather I lie about
what I hear? How odd.

>
> >>>> but I think there is a little
> >>>> bias and hysteria tossed in.
> >>>
> >>> Of course you do.
> >
> >> Really? That's a statement for which you have no
> >> compelling evidence.
>
> > No, the evidence is that "hysteria" seems to be your
> > default statement concerning why I like the sound of
> > something.
>
> I have months and months of your statements as evidence, Jenn

How have I displayed "hysteria", Arny?

>
> >>>> Nothing like recently blowing nearly a $grand
> >>>> on a vinyl player to keep the illusion going.
> >>
> >>> You're entitled to your opinion.
> >>
> >> You're entitled to try to justify your poor judgment,
> >> Jenn.;
>
> > Again, you're entitled to your opinion. I spent $1000 on
> > a TT/arm/cartridge because I like the way that it sounds.
>
> For a price that obviously caused some sacrifice on your part, you bought a
> new rendition of the same old audible artifacts.
>
> > If you think that this is foolish, I simply advise you
> > not to do the same.
>
> I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.

The reality is that I hear what I hear. Why you have problems with me
expressing my thoughts on that is anyone's guess.

Jenn[_3_]

September 3rd 08, 04:43 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Fewer and fewer know what acoustic music typically sounds
> > like.
>
> Probably true.
>
> But what is its relevance to the LP versus CD debate?
>
> There is a massive amount of violence that is usually done to recorded
> music, and it is an accomplished fact by the time a signal comes out of a
> microphone(s). In comparison to that, discussion of relatively good media
> like digital is pretty moot.
>
> There are hysterical people who have had some kind of transcendent
> experience where they perceived something unique and desirable coincident
> with listening to a certain recording. They lack the logic and reason that
> it takes to separate the medium from the message they heard at that magic
> moment. For them, no other medium will be able to duplicate that kind of
> moment.
>
> > Some of those people like the sound of many CDs.
>
> Actually, nobody much cares what medium they are listening to. Loving music
> is about the message, not the medium.

Of course.

>
> > I agree with them.
>
> About what?

That some people like the sound of many CDs.

>
> > Some of them also have experienced some LPs to be the best sound at home
> > they have yet
> > experienced.
>
> Some of them may be serial killers, an/or understudies for Mother Theresa..
> When a statement is as vague as many of the ones above, they are really
> quite meaningless.

Really? The statement that some people like many CDs and some people
like some LPs is a meaningless statement when discussing preferences of
media? OK...

>
> > I'm also one of those people.
>
> Equally meaningless.

Not when debunking the your myth that I'm "hysterical" about what I
listen to.

John Atkinson[_2_]

September 3rd 08, 05:19 PM

On Sep 3, 11:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.
>
> The reality is that I hear what I hear. *Why you have problems
> with me expressing my thoughts on that is anyone's guess.

In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
express a preference different from his own is equivalent to
a personal attack and that he will respond accordingly.

The context for that remark was a dsicussion of a preference
test I had performed in the Fall of 1982, where, under blind
conditions, listeners expressed a preference for LP rather
than the then-new CD.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Jenn[_3_]

September 3rd 08, 05:25 PM

In article
>,
John Atkinson > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 11:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.
> >
> > The reality is that I hear what I hear. *Why you have problems
> > with me expressing my thoughts on that is anyone's guess.
>
> In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
> express a preference different from his own is equivalent to
> a personal attack and that he will respond accordingly.
>
> The context for that remark was a dsicussion of a preference
> test I had performed in the Fall of 1982, where, under blind
> conditions, listeners expressed a preference for LP rather
> than the then-new CD.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

How odd.

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 3rd 08, 05:35 PM

John Atkinson said:

> In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
> express a preference different from his own is equivalent to
> a personal attack and that he will respond accordingly.
>
> The context for that remark was a dsicussion of a preference
> test I had performed in the Fall of 1982, where, under blind
> conditions, listeners expressed a preference for LP rather
> than the then-new CD.

That was a prejudicial and discriminatory event, as you well know, John.
How many 'borgs did you invite? None, I daresay.

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 3rd 08, 05:38 PM

Time for some idiotic yapping.

> > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. *I've
> > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated about
> > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > important.
>
> Wow! I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> declarations. Even [George the Great] can't claim to top this whopper.

Scottie's on the rag again. Did one of his delinquent pups get busted for
dealing drugs again? Did Mrs. Witlessmongrel shut him out of the boudoir?
Or was it something totally mundane, like a bad batch of Alpo?

Go for walkies and do your business, Scooter. It's not Mistress Jenn's
fault you're a rabid, snarling asshole.

Jenn[_3_]

September 3rd 08, 05:45 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. *I've
> > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated about
> > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > important.
>
> Wow! I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> declarations. Even Middiot can't claim to top this whopper.

This will be interesting...

>
> I can't even decide where to start.
> The "highly educated by definition" statement is a hoot.
> I always enjoy the declaration of credential for what is essentially
> one of the senses.

Scott, please tell me: Who is more educated about what sounds like
music to my ear than...me? Who is more educated about what sounds like
music to your ears than you?

>
> Still, I have to go with this whopper,
> the elitist implication that music to your ears, something that only
> affects you, is far more important
> than the scientific aspects of audio which clearly have an impact
> on us all.

Scott, please tell me: When listening to music, what can possibly more
important than how it sounds to...me? Do you listen for other people,
or do you listen for...you? When you listen, what is more important to
you: how it sounds to YOU or how it sounds to someone else?

>
> Honestly, when talking about music reproduction, without audio
> science,
> you have nothing to listen to. Your ears and your credential
> plugged into them, are useless.
>
> ScottW

You really ought to quit while you're behind, Scott.

Jenn[_3_]

September 3rd 08, 06:16 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 9:45*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. *I've
> > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated about
> > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > important.
> >
> > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > declarations. * Even Middiot can't claim to top this whopper.
> >
> > This will be interesting...
> >
> >
> >
> > > I can't even decide where to start.
> > > The *"highly educated by definition" statement is a hoot.
> > > I always enjoy the declaration of credential for what is essentially
> > > one of the senses.
> >
> > Scott, please tell me: *Who is more educated about what sounds like
> > music to my ear than...me?
> >*Who is more educated about what sounds like
> > music to your ears than you?
>
> Exactly. So your argument becomes one of preference
> and this highly educated crack is nonsense since you're
> no better educated about your ears than anyone else is
> about theirs. In fact, you ears are in open revolt as they
> abuse you with the sound of plastic violins from every CD
> played, which basically means no radio or TV or even
> newly recorded music as almost none is not digitized
> somewhere along the way before your ears.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Still, I have to go with this whopper,
> > > the elitist implication that music to your ears, something that only
> > > affects you, *is far more important
> > > than the scientific aspects of audio which clearly have an impact
> > > on us all.
> >
> > Scott, please tell me: *When listening to music, what can possibly more
> > important than how it sounds to...me?
>
> In the context of audio reproduction, if you take alway audio
> science,
> your ears are left with silence. I hope you enjoy it.
>
> > *Do you listen for other people,
> > or do you listen for...you? *When you listen, what is more important to
> > you: how it sounds to YOU or how it sounds to someone else?
>
> Of course how it sounds to me is more important than how it sounds
> to someone else. But most important is that it sounds at all.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Honestly, when talking about music reproduction, without audio
> > > science,
> > > you have nothing to listen to. *Your ears and your credential
> > > plugged into them, *are useless.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > You really ought to quit while you're behind, Scott.
>
> You obviously cannot refute reality so you just want
> to climb your crumbling pedestal and assert your own
> importance. Great, you are important to you.
> How sweet and informative.
>
> I'll bet a good bit of audio science is in your latest
> guitar as well. Enjoy playing air guitar.
>
> ScottW

Scott, this has to go down as your oddest post, I believe. The ONLY
thing that I've claimed is that things sound to MY ears they way they
sound to my ears. This pompous claim of yours that I'm doing something
else is quite funny. If you want to try to listen on behalf of others,
feel free. I have the "strange" belief that when I listen to my stereo,
it's for MY enjoyment; not yours, not Arny's, not anyone else's. What
sounds more real to ME is based on MY listening experience, not yours.
The same obviously applies to YOU. So if you wish to make up more false
statements about my beliefs or attitudes, you can go ahead, but be aware
that you're making yourself look silly. As to audio science, I'll give
you the benefit of the doubt (which you never grant me), and suggest
that we're speaking of two different things. I'm quite familiar about
how sound is made, how the brain perceives it, etc. I'm not too
conversant about electronics, and I've never claimed anything else. If
you want to talk about why my guitars sound the way they do, what
affects the sound on a given day, etc. I'm quite up for it. If you want
to talk about transistors, I'm out of my league. So what? How does
that that lack of knowledge affect what things sound like to me? I've
NEVER claimed that the science of audio reproduction is unimportant.
I've only said that I have little interest in it, which is the truth.
Why do you have a problem with that?

Now if you want to continue to assert that how things sound to others
should be more important to me than how they sound to me, go for it.
It's a strange argument, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Richard Crowley

September 3rd 08, 07:15 PM

"John Atkinson" wrote ...
> Jenn wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" \ wrote:
> > > I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.
> >
> > The reality is that I hear what I hear. Why you have problems
> > with me expressing my thoughts on that is anyone's guess.

> In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
> express a preference different from his own is equivalent to
> a personal attack and that he will respond accordingly.
>
> The context for that remark was a dsicussion of a preference
> test I had performed in the Fall of 1982, where, under blind
> conditions, listeners expressed a preference for LP rather
> than the then-new CD.

So now we're back to comparing 21-st century LP technology
to 1st generation CD technology? Has the discussion now
come full-circle? Now I remember why I was ignoring
this thread and I'll leave you to it.

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 3rd 08, 07:27 PM

It's ba-a-a-a-ack!

> > Time for some idiotic yapping.
> >
> > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. *I've
> > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated about
> > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > important.
> >
> > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > declarations. * Even [George the Great] can't claim to top this whopper.
>
> LoL[sic], YAPYAPYAP! shattered BARK-BARK-BARK-YAP-YAP!

Scottie, why are you chasing your tail? Wouldn't you rather be gnawing on
a nice bone?

> > Scottie's on the rag again. Did one of his delinquent pups get busted for
> > dealing drugs again? Did Mrs. Witlessmongrel shut him out of the boudoir?
> > Or was it something totally mundane, like a bad batch of Alpo?
> >
> > Go for walkies and do your business, Scooter. It's not Mistress Jenn's
> > fault you're a rabid, snarling asshole.
>
> Sorry George, Jenn WOOF WOOF! GROWF! YAPYAPYAP! I know WOOF-BARK-BARKETY-YAPYAPYAP!

Hmmmm.... What could Poochie want? He went for walkies an hour ago. He
puked up yesterday's Alpo and lay around moaning most of the morning. Does
Yapper need a doggie laxative?

> with another YAPYAPYAP! <growl> <snarl> GRRRR!

Maybe another "vacation" of sitting around the farmhouse venting your
anger at the world is what's called for.

MiNe 109

September 3rd 08, 07:45 PM

Clyde Slick

September 3rd 08, 07:50 PM

On 3 Sep, 12:45, Jenn > wrote:

\
>
> Scott, please tell me: *When listening to music, what can possibly more
> important than how it sounds to...me? *Do you listen for other people,
> or do you listen for...you? *When you listen, what is more important to
> you: how it sounds to YOU or how it sounds to someone else?
>

One should know the specs first, so one can form one's own bias,
before listening.

Jenn[_2_]

September 3rd 08, 07:53 PM

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. *I've
> > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated about
> > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > important.
> >
> > Wow! I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > declarations. <snip>
>
> It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to hear
> music. This makes her exactly equal to any of us.
>
> Stephen

EXACTLY!

MiNe 109

September 3rd 08, 08:03 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> 2) You keep slipping in obscure references to being
> higly educated but about what remains unclear.

That's because you don't know what musicians, especially conductors,
study.

Does it bother you that lifetime study might give someone an advantage
in a given field over a dabbler?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7074695.stm

A US study of 20 non-musicians and 20 musical conductors found both
groups diverted brain activity away from visual areas during listening
tasks.

Scans showed activity fell in these areas as it rose in auditory ones.

But during harder tasks the changes were less marked for conductors than
for non-musicians, researchers told a Society for Neuroscience
conference...

However, after a certain point, the conductors did not suppress their
brains, suggesting that their years of training had provided a distinct
advantage in the way their brains were organised.

--

Stephen

MiNe 109

September 3rd 08, 08:06 PM

In article >,
"Richard Crowley" > wrote:

> "John Atkinson" wrote ...
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > "Arny Krueger" \ wrote:
> > > > I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.
> > >
> > > The reality is that I hear what I hear. Why you have problems
> > > with me expressing my thoughts on that is anyone's guess.
>
> > In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
> > express a preference different from his own is equivalent to
> > a personal attack and that he will respond accordingly.
> >
> > The context for that remark was a dsicussion of a preference
> > test I had performed in the Fall of 1982, where, under blind
> > conditions, listeners expressed a preference for LP rather
> > than the then-new CD.
>
> So now we're back to comparing 21-st century LP technology
> to 1st generation CD technology?

No, the test was in the 20th century Fall of 1982.

Stephen

> Has the discussion now
> come full-circle? Now I remember why I was ignoring
> this thread and I'll leave you to it.

Jenn[_2_]

September 3rd 08, 08:18 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 10:16*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 9:45*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > > > > *I've
> > > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > > > important.
> >
> > > > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > > > declarations. * Even Middiot can't claim to top this whopper.
> >
> > > > This will be interesting...
> >
> > > > > I can't even decide where to start.
> > > > > The *"highly educated by definition" statement is a hoot.
> > > > > I always enjoy the declaration of credential for what is essentially
> > > > > one of the senses.
> >
> > > > Scott, please tell me: *Who is more educated about what sounds like
> > > > music to my ear than...me?
> > > >*Who is more educated about what sounds like
> > > > music to your ears than you?
> >
> > > *Exactly. *So your argument becomes one of preference
> > > and this highly educated crack is nonsense since you're
> > > no better educated about your ears than anyone else is
> > > about theirs. *In fact, you ears are in open revolt as they
> > > abuse you with the sound of plastic violins from every CD
> > > played, which basically means no radio or TV or even
> > > newly recorded music as almost none is not digitized
> > > somewhere along the way before your ears.
> >
> > > > > Still, I have to go with this whopper,
> > > > > the elitist implication that music to your ears, something that only
> > > > > affects you, *is far more important
> > > > > than the scientific aspects of audio which clearly have an impact
> > > > > on us all.
> >
> > > > Scott, please tell me: *When listening to music, what can possibly more
> > > > important than how it sounds to...me?
> >
> > > *In the context of audio reproduction, if you take alway audio
> > > science,
> > > your ears are left with silence. *I hope you enjoy it.
> >
> > > > *Do you listen for other people,
> > > > or do you listen for...you? *When you listen, what is more important to
> > > > you: how it sounds to YOU or how it sounds to someone else?
> >
> > > Of course how it sounds to me is more important than how it sounds
> > > to someone else. *But most important is that it sounds at all.
> >
> > > > > Honestly, when talking about music reproduction, without audio
> > > > > science,
> > > > > you have nothing to listen to. *Your ears and your credential
> > > > > plugged into them, *are useless.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > You really ought to quit while you're behind, Scott.
> >
> > > *You obviously cannot refute reality so you just want
> > > to climb your crumbling pedestal and assert your own
> > > importance. *Great, you are important to you.
> > > How sweet and informative.
> >
> > > *I'll bet a good bit of audio science is in your latest
> > > guitar as well. *Enjoy playing air guitar.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Scott, this has to go down as your oddest post, I believe. *The ONLY
> > thing that I've claimed is that things sound to MY ears they way they
> > sound to my ears.
>
> Yes, you're "highly educated" on that subject.

OF COURSE I AM. And you are highly educated in how things sound to YOU,
and ditto for everyone else. What's your beef?

> Is anyone, besides a deaf person not "highly educated" on that
> subject?

Yes, EVERYONE is. Get it? By the way, so is a deaf person.

>
> >*This pompous claim of yours that I'm doing something
> > else is quite funny. *If you want to try to listen on behalf of others,
> > feel free. *I have the "strange" belief that when I listen to my stereo,
> > it's for MY enjoyment; not yours, not Arny's, not anyone else's.
>
> I don't diss your preference when it is simply stated as such.

And that's all that I've done.

> But you've implied extraordinary qualifications beyond your own
> ears to hold such a preference, implying that others don't share
> your preference due to a lack of experience.

No, I haven't.

>
> > *What
> > sounds more real to ME is based on MY listening experience, not yours. *
>
> Thank god for that. I don't have to suffer plastic violins.

Well, good on you.

>
> > The same obviously applies to YOU. *So if you wish to make up more false
> > statements about my beliefs or attitudes, you can go ahead, but be aware
> > that you're making yourself look silly.
>
> I see. I challenge your priorities,

Yes, the bizarre priority that I listen to what sounds best to me.

> science vs personal experience
> and you see fit to respond with personal attacks.

My God, Scott. After all that you have written about me in this thread
alone, you criticize me for "attacking" you with the word "silly"? lol

>
> > *As to audio science, I'll give
> > you the benefit of the doubt (which you never grant me), and suggest
> > that we're speaking of two different things.
>
> I'm trying to bring clarity to your statements.

I think that I've been perfectly clear: I hear what I hear, and so does
everyone else.

>
> >*I'm quite familiar about
> > how sound is made, how the brain perceives it, etc. *I'm not too
> > conversant about electronics, and I've never claimed anything else. *If
> > you want to talk about why my guitars sound the way they do, what
> > affects the sound on a given day, etc. I'm quite up for it. *If you want
> > to talk about transistors, I'm out of my league. *So what? *How does
> > that that lack of knowledge affect what things sound like to me?
>
> Your lack does not affect it, neither does your lack of knowledge
> diminish its impact on what you hear from music reproduction.

What's your point? I've never offered a contrary opinion on that.

>
> > *I've
> > NEVER claimed that the science of audio reproduction is unimportant. *
>
> I challenge your selective self centered importance.

BS. The ONLY "selective self centered importance" I've displayed is
saying that what I hear is what is the most important to me. Is what
someone else hears more important to you in your stereo listening time?

>
> > I've only said that I have little interest in it, which is the truth. *
> > Why do you have a problem with that?
>
> The problem I have is not that you prefer vinyl for the sound of
> violins.

In general, yes.

> I prefer some vinyl recordings over CD myself. It's the baggage
> you attach to your preference.
>
> 1) Your preference is more valid than other music listeners because
> of your extensive experience listening to acoustic music.
> I say BS. I'm sure if that were true the plastic violin
> phenomenon would be widely reported.

I've read and heard several people complain about certain high frequency
aspects of CD. You haven't? And yes, experience does count for
something. I don't know how you can disagree with that.

>
> 2) You keep slipping in obscure references to being
> higly educated but about what remains unclear.

For example?

>
> 3) Because you lack knowledge you diminish the importance
> of audio science relative to your preference for vinyl while
> ignoring that without audio science you would have no
> preference.

BS. I have never diminished the importance of audio science. Please
provide a quote.

>
> >
> > Now if you want to continue to assert that how things sound to others
> > should be more important to me than how they sound to me, go for it. *
>
> I have made no such assertion and I challenge you to provide
> a quote where I did.

Your criticism of me saying that how things sound to me is the most
important thing to me. By extension, you must think that what OTHERS
hear should be more important.

> What I assert is that your preference
> which affects only you cannot be more important than audio science
> which impacts everyone, including you.

Scott, what is the goal of audio in the home? It seems obvious that the
answer is "to enjoy music and the reproduction it". Should I change
what I listen to because the scientists tell me that it's inferior?

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 3rd 08, 08:22 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. *I've
> > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated about
> > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > important.
> >
> > Wow! I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > declarations. <snip>
>
> It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to hear
> music. This makes her exactly equal to any of us.

Yeah, right. That's all it takes.

MiNe 109

September 3rd 08, 08:27 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. *I've
> > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated about
> > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > important.
> > >
> > > Wow! I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > declarations. <snip>
> >
> > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to hear
> > music. This makes her exactly equal to any of us.
>
> Yeah, right. That's all it takes.

Some are more equal than others.

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 3rd 08, 08:31 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. *I've
> > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated about
> > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > > important.
> > > >
> > > > Wow! I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > > declarations. <snip>
> > >
> > > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to hear
> > > music. This makes her exactly equal to any of us.
> >
> > Yeah, right. That's all it takes.
>
> Some are more equal than others.

Scottie is Napoleon's bitch.

MiNe 109

September 3rd 08, 08:34 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > > > > *I've
> > > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > > > important.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wow! I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > > > declarations. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to hear
> > > > music. This makes her exactly equal to any of us.
> > >
> > > Yeah, right. That's all it takes.
> >
> > Some are more equal than others.
>
> Scottie is Napoleon's bitch.

Don't tell Nousaine.

Stephen

Harry Lavo

September 3rd 08, 10:30 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> ScottW > wrote:
>
>> 2) You keep slipping in obscure references to being
>> higly educated but about what remains unclear.
>
> That's because you don't know what musicians, especially conductors,
> study.
>
> Does it bother you that lifetime study might give someone an advantage
> in a given field over a dabbler?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7074695.stm
>
> A US study of 20 non-musicians and 20 musical conductors found both
> groups diverted brain activity away from visual areas during listening
> tasks.
>
> Scans showed activity fell in these areas as it rose in auditory ones.
>
> But during harder tasks the changes were less marked for conductors than
> for non-musicians, researchers told a Society for Neuroscience
> conference...
>
> However, after a certain point, the conductors did not suppress their
> brains, suggesting that their years of training had provided a distinct
> advantage in the way their brains were organised.
..
And of course to Arny and his gang, none of this suggests that straining to
hear differences between snippets in an ABX test creates any difference in
how one perceives music and thus musically-important manifestations that
become apparent over time in more relaxed listening envirnoments.

Harry Lavo

September 3rd 08, 10:36 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> ScottW > wrote:
>
>> On Sep 3, 10:16 am, Jenn > wrote:
>> > In article
>> > >,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ScottW > wrote:
>> > > On Sep 3, 9:45 am, Jenn > wrote:
>> > > > In article
>> > > > >,
>> >
>> > > > ScottW > wrote:
>> > > > > On Sep 3, 8:38 am, Jenn > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of
>> > > > > > audio.
>> > > > > > I've
>> > > > > > admitted that all along. But by definition, I'm highly educated
>> > > > > > about
>> > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. Obviously, that is far more
>> > > > > > important.
>> >
>> > > > > Wow! I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
>> > > > > declarations. Even Middiot can't claim to top this whopper.
>> >
>> > > > This will be interesting...
>> >
>> > > > > I can't even decide where to start.
>> > > > > The "highly educated by definition" statement is a hoot.
>> > > > > I always enjoy the declaration of credential for what is
>> > > > > essentially
>> > > > > one of the senses.
>> >
>> > > > Scott, please tell me: Who is more educated about what sounds like
>> > > > music to my ear than...me?
>> > > > Who is more educated about what sounds like
>> > > > music to your ears than you?
>> >
>> > > Exactly. So your argument becomes one of preference
>> > > and this highly educated crack is nonsense since you're
>> > > no better educated about your ears than anyone else is
>> > > about theirs. In fact, you ears are in open revolt as they
>> > > abuse you with the sound of plastic violins from every CD
>> > > played, which basically means no radio or TV or even
>> > > newly recorded music as almost none is not digitized
>> > > somewhere along the way before your ears.
>> >
>> > > > > Still, I have to go with this whopper,
>> > > > > the elitist implication that music to your ears, something that
>> > > > > only
>> > > > > affects you, is far more important
>> > > > > than the scientific aspects of audio which clearly have an impact
>> > > > > on us all.
>> >
>> > > > Scott, please tell me: When listening to music, what can possibly
>> > > > more
>> > > > important than how it sounds to...me?
>> >
>> > > In the context of audio reproduction, if you take alway audio
>> > > science,
>> > > your ears are left with silence. I hope you enjoy it.
>> >
>> > > > Do you listen for other people,
>> > > > or do you listen for...you? When you listen, what is more important
>> > > > to
>> > > > you: how it sounds to YOU or how it sounds to someone else?
>> >
>> > > Of course how it sounds to me is more important than how it sounds
>> > > to someone else. But most important is that it sounds at all.
>> >
>> > > > > Honestly, when talking about music reproduction, without audio
>> > > > > science,
>> > > > > you have nothing to listen to. Your ears and your credential
>> > > > > plugged into them, are useless.
>> >
>> > > > > ScottW
>> >
>> > > > You really ought to quit while you're behind, Scott.
>> >
>> > > You obviously cannot refute reality so you just want
>> > > to climb your crumbling pedestal and assert your own
>> > > importance. Great, you are important to you.
>> > > How sweet and informative.
>> >
>> > > I'll bet a good bit of audio science is in your latest
>> > > guitar as well. Enjoy playing air guitar.
>> >
>> > > ScottW
>> >
>> > Scott, this has to go down as your oddest post, I believe. The ONLY
>> > thing that I've claimed is that things sound to MY ears they way they
>> > sound to my ears.
>>
>> Yes, you're "highly educated" on that subject.
>
> OF COURSE I AM. And you are highly educated in how things sound to YOU,
> and ditto for everyone else. What's your beef?
>
>> Is anyone, besides a deaf person not "highly educated" on that
>> subject?
>
> Yes, EVERYONE is. Get it? By the way, so is a deaf person.
>
>>
>> > This pompous claim of yours that I'm doing something
>> > else is quite funny. If you want to try to listen on behalf of others,
>> > feel free. I have the "strange" belief that when I listen to my stereo,
>> > it's for MY enjoyment; not yours, not Arny's, not anyone else's.
>>
>> I don't diss your preference when it is simply stated as such.
>
> And that's all that I've done.
>
>> But you've implied extraordinary qualifications beyond your own
>> ears to hold such a preference, implying that others don't share
>> your preference due to a lack of experience.
>
> No, I haven't.
>
>>
>> > What
>> > sounds more real to ME is based on MY listening experience, not yours.
>>
>> Thank god for that. I don't have to suffer plastic violins.
>
> Well, good on you.
>
>>
>> > The same obviously applies to YOU. So if you wish to make up more false
>> > statements about my beliefs or attitudes, you can go ahead, but be
>> > aware
>> > that you're making yourself look silly.
>>
>> I see. I challenge your priorities,
>
> Yes, the bizarre priority that I listen to what sounds best to me.
>
>> science vs personal experience
>> and you see fit to respond with personal attacks.
>
> My God, Scott. After all that you have written about me in this thread
> alone, you criticize me for "attacking" you with the word "silly"? lol
>
>>
>> > As to audio science, I'll give
>> > you the benefit of the doubt (which you never grant me), and suggest
>> > that we're speaking of two different things.
>>
>> I'm trying to bring clarity to your statements.
>
> I think that I've been perfectly clear: I hear what I hear, and so does
> everyone else.
>
>>
>> > I'm quite familiar about
>> > how sound is made, how the brain perceives it, etc. I'm not too
>> > conversant about electronics, and I've never claimed anything else. If
>> > you want to talk about why my guitars sound the way they do, what
>> > affects the sound on a given day, etc. I'm quite up for it. If you want
>> > to talk about transistors, I'm out of my league. So what? How does
>> > that that lack of knowledge affect what things sound like to me?
>>
>> Your lack does not affect it, neither does your lack of knowledge
>> diminish its impact on what you hear from music reproduction.
>
> What's your point? I've never offered a contrary opinion on that.
>
>>
>> > I've
>> > NEVER claimed that the science of audio reproduction is unimportant.
>>
>> I challenge your selective self centered importance.
>
> BS. The ONLY "selective self centered importance" I've displayed is
> saying that what I hear is what is the most important to me. Is what
> someone else hears more important to you in your stereo listening time?
>
>>
>> > I've only said that I have little interest in it, which is the truth.
>> > Why do you have a problem with that?
>>
>> The problem I have is not that you prefer vinyl for the sound of
>> violins.
>
> In general, yes.
>
>> I prefer some vinyl recordings over CD myself. It's the baggage
>> you attach to your preference.
>>
>> 1) Your preference is more valid than other music listeners because
>> of your extensive experience listening to acoustic music.
>> I say BS. I'm sure if that were true the plastic violin
>> phenomenon would be widely reported.
>
> I've read and heard several people complain about certain high frequency
> aspects of CD. You haven't? And yes, experience does count for
> something. I don't know how you can disagree with that.
>
>>
>> 2) You keep slipping in obscure references to being
>> higly educated but about what remains unclear.
>
> For example?
>
>>
>> 3) Because you lack knowledge you diminish the importance
>> of audio science relative to your preference for vinyl while
>> ignoring that without audio science you would have no
>> preference.
>
> BS. I have never diminished the importance of audio science. Please
> provide a quote.
>
>>
>> >
>> > Now if you want to continue to assert that how things sound to others
>> > should be more important to me than how they sound to me, go for it.
>>
>> I have made no such assertion and I challenge you to provide
>> a quote where I did.
>
> Your criticism of me saying that how things sound to me is the most
> important thing to me. By extension, you must think that what OTHERS
> hear should be more important.

You miss the point Jenn. What he is saying (with Arny clapping in the
background) is that you should hear it the way he hears it because he hears
it as science intended it to sound. So you can't possibly be right. The
Science God has given them the word, and you obviously are a Science Heathen
because you don't kowtow.

>> What I assert is that your preference
>> which affects only you cannot be more important than audio science
>> which impacts everyone, including you.
>

And (unsaid) what you may or may not assert sounds "real" to you.

> Scott, what is the goal of audio in the home? It seems obvious that the
> answer is "to enjoy music and the reproduction it". Should I change
> what I listen to because the scientists tell me that it's inferior?

According to the gang, "Yes"! Most emphatically. And your failure to
comply marks you for internet extinction!

Jenn[_2_]

September 3rd 08, 11:12 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 12:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> (snip of all the "Jenn forgets")
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Now if you want to continue to assert that how things sound to others
> > > > should be more important to me than how they sound to me, go for it. *
> >
> > > I have made no such assertion and I challenge you to provide
> > > a quote where I did.
> >
> > Your criticism of me saying that how things sound to me is the most
> > important thing to me. *By extension, you must think that what OTHERS
> > hear should be more important.
>
> I am not responsible for your irrational extensions especially when
> I've
> explicitly stated in multiple comments that your claim (just so you
> don't
> forget again) is:
>
> "I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> I've admitted that all along. But by definition, I'm highly educated
> about
> what sounds like music to my ears. Obviously, that is far more
> important. "
>
> So Jenn, just so we're on the same page.
> In the above paragraph you state that ___________ is
> far more important than ________________.
> Please fill in the blanks.

In the above paragraph I state that how the music sounds to me is
far more important than me knowing about the scientific aspects of audio.

>
> >
> > > *What I assert is that your preference
> > > which affects only you cannot be more important than audio science
> > > which impacts everyone, including you.
> >
> > Scott, what is the goal of audio in the home?
>
> Same as yours.
>
> >*It seems obvious that the
> > answer is "to enjoy music and the reproduction it".
>
> Not how I think an academic should state it but OK.

I left out the word "of" obviously. Shoot me.

>
> >*Should I change
> > what I listen to because the scientists tell me that it's inferior?
>
> Who said that? Arny? Scientist? Now I know you're confused.
>
> Anyway, my point has never been about your preference. It's the
> baggage
> you attach to it and the lack of importance on audio science that
> allows you to
> have a preference at all. I happen to think that if you were more
> knowledgable,
> you'd be able to figure out why your system plays back CDs so poorly
> and that knowledge just might influence your preference.

For something like the third time, I'll state yet again: I have NEVER
stated that audio science is unimportant. I have said that how things
sound to me is far more important to me than the science behind it.
That's all. And for the upteenth time, there is no "baggage". I know
how acoustic music typically sounds, and I like recordings that sound to
me to be closest to that. It seems so simple...

MiNe 109

September 3rd 08, 11:16 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 11:45*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. *I've
> > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated about
> > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > important.
> >
> > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > declarations. * <snip>
> >
> > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to hear
> > music.
>
> Which wasn't ever in question.

So all those attacks aren't related to what she said.

> >This makes her exactly equal to any of us.
>
> I prefer my preference.

Duh.

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 3rd 08, 11:21 PM

The Idiot yapped idiotically:

> > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. *I've
> > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated about
> > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > important.
> >
> > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > declarations. * <snip>
> >
> > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to hear
> > music.
>
> Which wasn't ever in question.

Except by you, moron. You've surpassed your own milestones in reading
uncomprehension. Now you don't even understand what you yourself have
said.

MiNe 109

September 3rd 08, 11:59 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 3:16*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 11:45*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > > > > *I've
> > > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > > > important.
> >
> > > > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > > > declarations. * <snip>
> >
> > > > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to hear
> > > > music.
> >
> > > * Which wasn't ever in question.
> >
> > So all those attacks aren't related to what she said.
>
> LoL. I love it when you have to deny what she said
> to make an argument. Makes you appear so rational.

If you understood what she said, what are all the attacks about?

She: I know what I like and I've studied music but not the science of
audio.

You: What a strange snooty declaration!

Stephen

Jenn[_2_]

September 4th 08, 01:04 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 3:59*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 3:16*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 3, 11:45*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > > > > > > *I've
> > > > > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated
> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > > > > > important.
> >
> > > > > > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > > > > > declarations. * <snip>
> >
> > > > > > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to hear
> > > > > > music.
> >
> > > > > * Which wasn't ever in question.
> >
> > > > So all those attacks aren't related to what she said.
> >
> > > *LoL. *I love it when you have to deny what she said
> > > to make an argument. *Makes you appear so rational.
> >
> > If you understood what she said, what are all the attacks about?
>
> "I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> I've admitted that all along. But by definition, I'm highly
> educated
> about what sounds like music to my ears. Obviously, that is far more
> important. "
>
> I'll let you fill in the blanks too. ______________is far more
> important than _________________.
>
> Take your time.
>
> >
> > She: I know what I like and I've studied music but not the science of
> > audio.
>
> Is that a quote? I don't think so.
>
> >
> > You: What a strange snooty declaration!
>
> I know what I like and all the people I know who studied music
> have crappy stereos like Jenns.

Ah! Que hombre! lol
By the way, what gear do I have, Scott?

MiNe 109

September 4th 08, 03:16 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 3:59*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 3:16*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 3, 11:45*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > > > > > > *I've
> > > > > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated
> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > > > > > important.
> >
> > > > > > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > > > > > declarations. * <snip>
> >
> > > > > > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to hear
> > > > > > music.
> >
> > > > > * Which wasn't ever in question.
> >
> > > > So all those attacks aren't related to what she said.
> >
> > > *LoL. *I love it when you have to deny what she said
> > > to make an argument. *Makes you appear so rational.
> >
> > If you understood what she said, what are all the attacks about?
>
> "I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> I've admitted that all along. But by definition, I'm highly
> educated
> about what sounds like music to my ears. Obviously, that is far more
> important. "
>
> I'll let you fill in the blanks too. ______________is far more
> important than _________________.
>
> Take your time.

I paraphrased it accurately below and Jenn has clarified it as well.

> > She: I know what I like and I've studied music but not the science of
> > audio.
>
> Is that a quote? I don't think so.

Fill in the blanks. Unfamiliar with paraphrases, I see.

> > You: What a strange snooty declaration!
>
> I know what I like and all the people I know who studied music
> have crappy stereos like Jenns.

She has Vandersteens! And, dude, I studied music and I have Quads.

Still, pulling an insult from thin air is better than repeating
yourself, except that you repeated yourself already.

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 4th 08, 03:38 AM

MiNe 109 said:

> Still, pulling an insult from thin air is better than repeating
> yourself, except that you repeated yourself already.

I think even Scottie figured out you weren't going to repeat him. What's
left other than doing it himself?

MiNe 109

September 4th 08, 05:43 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> > > * I know what I like and all the people I know who studied music
> > > have crappy stereos like Jenns.
> >
> > She has Vandersteens! And, dude, I studied music and I have Quads.
>
> Do I know you? I hope not.

No, but I know you and I can recreate your old system: AMC/Quads.

Stephen

Clyde Slick

September 4th 08, 06:23 AM

On 3 Sep, 17:46, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 11:50*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 3 Sep, 12:45, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > \
>
> > > Scott, please tell me: *When listening to music, what can possibly more
> > > important than how it sounds to...me?
>
> *In your case, how to make it sound better could be very important.
>
> > > *Do you listen for other people,
> > > or do you listen for...you? *When you listen, what is more important to
> > > you: how it sounds to YOU or how it sounds to someone else?
>
> *How it sounds to me and if I'm not satisfied, how to make it sound
> even better.
>
>
>
> > One should know the specs first, so one can form one's own bias,
> > before listening.
>
> First one has to undergo hypnosis so buzzing preamps don't interfere
> with
> enjoyment of the music.
>
> ScottW

it didn't buzz when it left my house. sounded great.
maybe something was damaged in shipment.
I have three others, one of them has been hooked up for over a year.
no problems with any of them.

Clyde Slick

September 4th 08, 06:27 AM

On 3 Sep, 19:17, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 3:59*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 3:16*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
>
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 3, 11:45*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > > > > > > *I've
> > > > > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated
> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > > > > > important.
>
> > > > > > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > > > > > declarations. * <snip>
>
> > > > > > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to hear
> > > > > > music.
>
> > > > > * Which wasn't ever in question.
>
> > > > So all those attacks aren't related to what she said.
>
> > > *LoL. *I love it when you have to deny what she said
> > > to make an argument. *Makes you appear so rational.
>
> > If you understood what she said, what are all the attacks about?
>
> "I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> *I've admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> educated
> about what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> important. "
>
> *I'll let you fill in the blanks too. * ______________is far more
> important than _________________.
>
> Take your time.
>
>
>
> > She: I know what I like and I've studied music but not the science of
> > audio.
>
> *Is that a quote? *I don't think so.
>
>
>
> > You: What a strange snooty declaration!
>
> * I know what I like and all the people I know who studied music
> have crappy stereos like Jenns.
>

I think she has a NAD receiver or amp, and Vandersteen 2ce speakers.
I wouldn't have the NAD, but its not crap. Certainly her speakers are
not crap.
I guess you are trying to tell us that you "COULD" hear differences
between her NAD and your Krell amplification, in a "properly
administered,
level balanced" ABX test!!!!!!!
We'll keep your little secret away from Arny.

Jenn[_3_]

September 4th 08, 07:01 AM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 3 Sep, 19:17, ScottW > wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 3:59*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article
> > > >,
> >
> > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 3, 3:16*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 3, 11:45*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ,
> >
> > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of
> > > > > > > > > audio.
> > > > > > > > > *I've
> > > > > > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> > > > > > > > > educated
> > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > important.
> >
> > > > > > > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > > > > > > declarations. * <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to
> > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > music.
> >
> > > > > > * Which wasn't ever in question.
> >
> > > > > So all those attacks aren't related to what she said.
> >
> > > > *LoL. *I love it when you have to deny what she said
> > > > to make an argument. *Makes you appear so rational.
> >
> > > If you understood what she said, what are all the attacks about?
> >
> > "I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > *I've admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> > educated
> > about what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > important. "
> >
> > *I'll let you fill in the blanks too. * ______________is far more
> > important than _________________.
> >
> > Take your time.
> >
> >
> >
> > > She: I know what I like and I've studied music but not the science of
> > > audio.
> >
> > *Is that a quote? *I don't think so.
> >
> >
> >
> > > You: What a strange snooty declaration!
> >
> > * I know what I like and all the people I know who studied music
> > have crappy stereos like Jenns.
> >
>
> I think she has a NAD receiver or amp,

Nope. Years ago I had the original NAD integrated amp, the 3020.

> and Vandersteen 2ce speakers.

Yep.

> I wouldn't have the NAD, but its not crap. Certainly her speakers are
> not crap.
> I guess you are trying to tell us that you "COULD" hear differences
> between her NAD and your Krell amplification, in a "properly
> administered,
> level balanced" ABX test!!!!!!!
> We'll keep your little secret away from Arny.

Jenn[_3_]

September 4th 08, 07:39 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 5:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 3:59*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 3, 3:16*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 3, 11:45*am, MiNe 109 * >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of
> > > > > > > > > > audio.
> > > > > > > > > > *I've
> > > > > > > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> > > > > > > > > > educated
> > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > important.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest
> > > > > > > > > snooty
> > > > > > > > > declarations. * <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to
> > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > music.
> >
> > > > > > > * Which wasn't ever in question.
> >
> > > > > > So all those attacks aren't related to what she said.
> >
> > > > > *LoL. *I love it when you have to deny what she said
> > > > > to make an argument. *Makes you appear so rational.
> >
> > > > If you understood what she said, what are all the attacks about?
> >
> > > "I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > *I've admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> > > educated
> > > about what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > important. "
> >
> > > *I'll let you fill in the blanks too. * ______________is far more
> > > important than _________________.
> >
> > > Take your time.
> >
> > > > She: I know what I like and I've studied music but not the science of
> > > > audio.
> >
> > > *Is that a quote? *I don't think so.
> >
> > > > You: What a strange snooty declaration!
> >
> > > * I know what I like and all the people I know who studied music
> > > have crappy stereos like Jenns.
> >
> > Ah! *Que hombre! *lol
> > By the way, what gear do I have, Scott?
>
> What does that matter if the violins sound like plastic toys?

In other words, you don't know.

You have Krell amps, huh? I'm sure that you'll avoid Arny claiming that
you're a "gear slut" because you're arguing with me.

MiNe 109

September 4th 08, 12:00 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 9:43*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > * I know what I like and all the people I know who studied music
> > > > > have crappy stereos like Jenns.
> >
> > > > She has Vandersteens! And, dude, I studied music and I have Quads.
> >
> > > * Do I know you? *I hope not.
> >
> > No, but I know you and I can recreate your old system: AMC/Quads.
>
> Sorry, the AMC bit the dust and it can't drive Quads.

Mine didn't. Did you try connecting it to a receiver?

Stephen

Jenn[_3_]

September 4th 08, 05:39 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 11:39*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 5:04*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 3, 3:59*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 3, 3:16*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 3, 11:45*am, MiNe 109 * >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > s.co
> > > > > > > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > audio.
> > > > > > > > > > > > *I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> > > > > > > > > > > > educated
> > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is
> > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest
> > > > > > > > > > > snooty
> > > > > > > > > > > declarations. * <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > > > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > > > music.
> >
> > > > > > > > > * Which wasn't ever in question.
> >
> > > > > > > > So all those attacks aren't related to what she said.
> >
> > > > > > > *LoL. *I love it when you have to deny what she said
> > > > > > > to make an argument. *Makes you appear so rational.
> >
> > > > > > If you understood what she said, what are all the attacks about?
> >
> > > > > "I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > > > *I've admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> > > > > educated
> > > > > about what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > > important. "
> >
> > > > > *I'll let you fill in the blanks too. * ______________is far more
> > > > > important than _________________.
> >
> > > > > Take your time.
> >
> > > > > > She: I know what I like and I've studied music but not the science
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > audio.
> >
> > > > > *Is that a quote? *I don't think so.
> >
> > > > > > You: What a strange snooty declaration!
> >
> > > > > * I know what I like and all the people I know who studied music
> > > > > have crappy stereos like Jenns.
> >
> > > > Ah! *Que hombre! *lol
> > > > By the way, what gear do I have, Scott?
> >
> > > What does that matter if the violins sound like plastic toys?
> >
> > In other words, you don't know.
>
> I have it on good authority that how it sounds is far
> more important than the lettering on the nameplate.

So true. It sounds good.

>
> >
> > You have Krell amps, huh? *I'm sure that you'll avoid Arny claiming that
> > you're a "gear slut" because you're arguing with me.
>
> I have one Krell amp. KSA-150. I bought it used as I was told by
> more than
> one knowledgable engineer
> that its as good as SS gets and will drive any speaker load.
> I don't think it sounds any different on my Legacy's than my Yamaha
> M-50 that cost
> me 1/10th the price, also used. I'd kind of like to be a gear slut.
> Would that be a step up
> from the pack rat my wife calls me?

I'm with you there!
>
> ScottW

Bill[_16_]

September 4th 08, 05:41 PM

Clyde write:

> > and Vandersteen 2ce speakers.

Jenn:
>
> Yep.

I think I know what you've got in your audio system, partly because I'm
getting pretty close to owning the same thing (other than speakers &
turntable). I think you've got an excellent system!

On that topic I finally bought the Rotel RCD-1072 which is a great CD
player - thanks for recommending that! It's a big improvement over my
old Denon.

I've also added a Rotel RB-1070 which might be the biggest improvement
thus far. I'm using a Rotel receiver (RX-1052) as a pre which is fine,
but it seems its amp section didn't really do justice to my speakers
prior to adding the external amp.

Next up, I'm going to replace the receiver with the Rotel RC-1082 pre-
amp. I know you've got the RC-1070 which I'm considering as well, but
the 1082 has such a good phono section that I'm leaning in that
direction. Of course, for the price difference I could get a 1070 and a
standalone phono pre-amp, but I'm running out of shelf space!

--
Bill

Jenn[_3_]

September 4th 08, 05:43 PM

In article >,
Bill > wrote:

> Clyde write:
>
> > > and Vandersteen 2ce speakers.
>
> Jenn:
> >
> > Yep.
>
> I think I know what you've got in your audio system, partly because I'm
> getting pretty close to owning the same thing (other than speakers &
> turntable). I think you've got an excellent system!
>
> On that topic I finally bought the Rotel RCD-1072 which is a great CD
> player - thanks for recommending that! It's a big improvement over my
> old Denon.
>
> I've also added a Rotel RB-1070 which might be the biggest improvement
> thus far. I'm using a Rotel receiver (RX-1052) as a pre which is fine,
> but it seems its amp section didn't really do justice to my speakers
> prior to adding the external amp.
>
> Next up, I'm going to replace the receiver with the Rotel RC-1082 pre-
> amp. I know you've got the RC-1070 which I'm considering as well, but
> the 1082 has such a good phono section that I'm leaning in that
> direction. Of course, for the price difference I could get a 1070 and a
> standalone phono pre-amp, but I'm running out of shelf space!
>
> --
> Bill

Great! Happy listening.

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 4th 08, 05:44 PM

Yappity-yappity-WOOF!

> I have one Krell amp.

But Scottie, why did you buy something that expensive without the security
of a battery of DBTs to reassure you? You've been complaining for years
that the Lord High Editor doesn't do your DBTs for you. So why did you
sink ***ALL*** ___THAT___ +++MONEY+++ into an "untested" ampflifier? Your
bleating about the pressing need for DBTs in a magazine you hate wasn't
empty rhetorical bloviating, was it?

Hahahaha, just kidding. I know the real reason you love your Krell. It's
because the Krell excels at the high frequencies you and your kind need.

Jenn[_3_]

September 4th 08, 06:22 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 10:27*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > On 3 Sep, 19:17, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 3, 3:59*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 3, 3:16*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 3, 11:45*am, MiNe 109 * >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of
> > > > > > > > > > audio.
> > > > > > > > > > *I've
> > > > > > > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> > > > > > > > > > educated
> > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > important.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest
> > > > > > > > > snooty
> > > > > > > > > declarations. * <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to
> > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > music.
> >
> > > > > > > * Which wasn't ever in question.
> >
> > > > > > So all those attacks aren't related to what she said.
> >
> > > > > *LoL. *I love it when you have to deny what she said
> > > > > to make an argument. *Makes you appear so rational.
> >
> > > > If you understood what she said, what are all the attacks about?
> >
> > > "I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > *I've admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> > > educated
> > > about what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > important. "
> >
> > > *I'll let you fill in the blanks too. * ______________is far more
> > > important than _________________.
> >
> > > Take your time.
> >
> > > > She: I know what I like and I've studied music but not the science of
> > > > audio.
> >
> > > *Is that a quote? *I don't think so.
> >
> > > > You: What a strange snooty declaration!
> >
> > > * I know what I like and all the people I know who studied music
> > > have crappy stereos like Jenns.
> >
> > I think she has a NAD receiver or amp, and Vandersteen 2ce speakers.
> > I wouldn't have the NAD, but its not crap. Certainly her speakers are
> > not crap.
> > I guess you are trying to tell us that you "COULD" hear differences
> > between her NAD and your Krell amplification, in a "properly
> > administered,
> > level balanced" ABX test!!!!!!!
>
> No idea but if I had to guess, I'd say no.
> I think her problem with plastic violins

To clarify my thoughts on that:
My problem with CD sound with violin is pretty frequency specific,
centering around high G. And I wasn't specific enough about the
"plastic" sound that I hear, because I didn't want to be too "nerdy" for
the room. It's more like the sound of a plastic bow that pervades the
sound.

> is more that her
> system FR works with her vinyl source to her ears
> but that it's too flat at high freq. with CD.

But that wouldn't explain why I hear it on every system that I've
listened to.

> There are some adjustments on the speakers according
> to S'phile review. I'm guessing the best sounding setting
> is different for CD and vinyl if the settings can make CD
> work at all. I'm torn at times setting my crossover
> for CD or vinyl. But I've decided I want the best
> sound I can get on my best recordings, and right now
> that's on CD. It's not even close IMO while with the
> Quads, I liked to listen to vinyl.
> The Orions can reveal the dynamic range of a CD
> adding that dimension of realism while the Quads
> really didn't.

You should unload those awful Quads. I'll sacrifice and take them off
your hands.

MiNe 109

September 4th 08, 07:14 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 4, 4:00*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 9:43*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > * I know what I like and all the people I know who studied music
> > > > > > > have crappy stereos like Jenns.
> >
> > > > > > She has Vandersteens! And, dude, I studied music and I have Quads.
> >
> > > > > * Do I know you? *I hope not.
> >
> > > > No, but I know you and I can recreate your old system: AMC/Quads.
> >
> > > *Sorry, the AMC bit the dust and it can't drive Quads.
> >
> > Mine didn't. Did you try connecting it to a receiver?
>
> I'm sure digital out works. One channel is down
> a couple db from the other on analog outputs.
> It doesn't play CD-Rs and I decided my panasonic DVD
> player with remaster is preferable in my main system.
> I don't have roome for everything in my cabinet and I'd kind
> of like to go back to my passive attenuator for digital
> with the Orions just as a trial,
> but I don't have room in my cabinet and I need it for the Krell/Quads
> in the other room. Oh the hardships of being a cheap gear slut.

I bought mine for the XLR outputs, but now I don't need that capacity.

The library shelves in the spare bedroom are topped by a collection of
70s micro-watt receivers and cassette decks.

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 4th 08, 07:15 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> 70s micro-watt receivers

I recall the 70s being the era of hectowatts. Where on earth did you get
low-powered ones?

MiNe 109

September 4th 08, 07:16 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 10:27*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > On 3 Sep, 19:17, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 3, 3:59*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 3, 3:16*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 3, 11:45*am, MiNe 109 * >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of
> > > > > > > > > > audio.
> > > > > > > > > > *I've
> > > > > > > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> > > > > > > > > > educated
> > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > important.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest
> > > > > > > > > snooty
> > > > > > > > > declarations. * <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers to
> > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > music.
> >
> > > > > > > * Which wasn't ever in question.
> >
> > > > > > So all those attacks aren't related to what she said.
> >
> > > > > *LoL. *I love it when you have to deny what she said
> > > > > to make an argument. *Makes you appear so rational.
> >
> > > > If you understood what she said, what are all the attacks about?
> >
> > > "I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > *I've admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> > > educated
> > > about what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > important. "
> >
> > > *I'll let you fill in the blanks too. * ______________is far more
> > > important than _________________.
> >
> > > Take your time.
> >
> > > > She: I know what I like and I've studied music but not the science of
> > > > audio.
> >
> > > *Is that a quote? *I don't think so.
> >
> > > > You: What a strange snooty declaration!
> >
> > > * I know what I like and all the people I know who studied music
> > > have crappy stereos like Jenns.
> >
> > I think she has a NAD receiver or amp, and Vandersteen 2ce speakers.
> > I wouldn't have the NAD, but its not crap. Certainly her speakers are
> > not crap.
> > I guess you are trying to tell us that you "COULD" hear differences
> > between her NAD and your Krell amplification, in a "properly
> > administered,
> > level balanced" ABX test!!!!!!!
>
> No idea but if I had to guess, I'd say no.
> I think her problem with plastic violins is more that her
> system FR works with her vinyl source to her ears
> but that it's too flat at high freq. with CD.
> There are some adjustments on the speakers according
> to S'phile review. I'm guessing the best sounding setting
> is different for CD and vinyl if the settings can make CD
> work at all. I'm torn at times setting my crossover
> for CD or vinyl. But I've decided I want the best
> sound I can get on my best recordings, and right now
> that's on CD. It's not even close IMO while with the
> Quads, I liked to listen to vinyl.
> The Orions can reveal the dynamic range of a CD
> adding that dimension of realism while the Quads
> really didn't.

Vandersteen swears by the non-fatiguing treble of his speakers. The Twos
are another flavor of "no-cabinet".

Stephen

MiNe 109

September 4th 08, 07:25 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > 70s micro-watt receivers
>
> I recall the 70s being the era of hectowatts. Where on earth did you get
> low-powered ones?

One hand-me-down (16-watt Sansui 551) and one Goodwill (15-watt Marantz
2215B).

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 4th 08, 07:38 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > > 70s micro-watt receivers
> >
> > I recall the 70s being the era of hectowatts. Where on earth did you get
> > low-powered ones?
>
> One hand-me-down (16-watt Sansui 551) and one Goodwill (15-watt Marantz
> 2215B).

Well aren't you thrifty. Of course, you're not obligated to undertake DBTs
on those venerable boxes. Unless, that is, you dare to claim they produce
a distinctive sound. Do you dare? If you do, get ready for a science
whuppin'!

MiNe 109

September 4th 08, 07:43 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > 70s micro-watt receivers
> > >
> > > I recall the 70s being the era of hectowatts. Where on earth did you get
> > > low-powered ones?
> >
> > One hand-me-down (16-watt Sansui 551) and one Goodwill (15-watt Marantz
> > 2215B).
>
> Well aren't you thrifty. Of course, you're not obligated to undertake DBTs
> on those venerable boxes. Unless, that is, you dare to claim they produce
> a distinctive sound. Do you dare? If you do, get ready for a science
> whuppin'!

Since they're not SOTA, I might be able to slide by with the opinion
that when they were in use they were a tad colored.

Stephen

MiNe 109

September 4th 08, 07:43 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 4, 11:25*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > MiNe 109 said:
> >
> > > > 70s micro-watt receivers
> >
> > > I recall the 70s being the era of hectowatts. Where on earth did you get
> > > low-powered ones?
> >
> > One hand-me-down (16-watt Sansui 551) and one Goodwill (15-watt Marantz
> > 2215B).
>
> I still use my ~33 year old Sansui Au-6500 (35 watts) with my
> original large advents in my office.
> Sounds great.

Hmm. The dining nook tv needs a system...

Stephen

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 4th 08, 08:09 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> > Well aren't you thrifty. Of course, you're not obligated to undertake DBTs
> > on those venerable boxes. Unless, that is, you dare to claim they produce
> > a distinctive sound. Do you dare? If you do, get ready for a science
> > whuppin'!
>
> Since they're not SOTA, I might be able to slide by with the opinion
> that when they were in use they were a tad colored.

We'll have to wait and see whether that calim™ energizes the 'borgs.

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 4th 08, 08:10 PM

MiNe 109 said:

> Hmm. The dining nook tv needs a system...

Traditional family values? Not! ;-)

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 4th 08, 08:27 PM

On Sep 3, 11:43*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 9:25*am, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 3, 11:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > > I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.
>
> > > > The reality is that I hear what I hear. *Why you have problems
> > > > with me expressing my thoughts on that is anyone's guess.
>
> > > In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
> > > express a preference different from his own is equivalent to
> > > a personal attack and that he will respond accordingly.
>
> > > The context for that remark was a dsicussion of a preference
> > > test I had performed in the Fall of 1982, where, under blind
> > > conditions, listeners expressed a preference for LP rather
> > > than the then-new CD.
>
> > > John Atkinson
> > > Editor, Stereophile
>
> > How odd.
>
> *What is also odd is how so many people seem to think they must find
> some
> technical justification for their preference that doesn't violate the
> audiophile credo for accuracy.

You've barked about how "accurate" your new speakers are, 2pid. I'm
glad that you like them

> This need coupled with ignorance is the pandoras box of audio.

I see no people saying anything technical about LP vs. CD. I see
people expressing a preference. That seems to drive you (and GOIA)
nuts.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 4th 08, 08:31 PM

On Sep 3, 11:34*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:

> > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. *I've
> > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated about
> > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > important.
>
> Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> declarations. * Even Middiot can't claim to top this whopper.

Jealous of Jenn's vast experience with music, 2pid? I know that my
vast experience in the military has also turned you rabid. Why is
other people having more experience than you so difficult for you?
LoL.

> I can't even decide where to start.
> The *"highly educated by definition" statement is a hoot.
> I always enjoy the declaration of credential for what is essentially
> one of the senses.
>
> Still, I have to go with this whopper,
> the elitist implication that music to your ears, something that only
> affects you, *is far more important
> than the scientific aspects of audio which clearly have an impact
> on us all.

When it concerns preference, dum-dum, it is more important. Duh.

> Honestly, when talking about music reproduction, without audio
> science,
> you have nothing to listen to. *Your ears and your credential
> plugged into them, *are useless.

Unless you're discussing (or in your case, 'discussing') preference.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 4th 08, 08:32 PM

On Sep 3, 11:45*am, Jenn > wrote:

> You really ought to quit while you're behind, Scott.

That is genetically impossible for 2pid to do.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 4th 08, 08:33 PM

On Sep 3, 11:56*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 9:45*am, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio. *I've
> > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated about
> > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > important.
>
> > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest snooty
> > > declarations. * Even Middiot can't claim to top this whopper.
>
> > This will be interesting...
>
> > > I can't even decide where to start.
> > > The *"highly educated by definition" statement is a hoot.
> > > I always enjoy the declaration of credential for what is essentially
> > > one of the senses.
>
> > Scott, please tell me: *Who is more educated about what sounds like
> > music to my ear than...me?
> >*Who is more educated about what sounds like
> > music to your ears than you?
>
> *Exactly. *

Why did you write 40 pages of stuff after you clearly agreed with what
Jenn said?

What a moron.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 4th 08, 08:35 PM

On Sep 3, 2:03*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:

> However, after a certain point, the conductors did not suppress their
> brains, suggesting that their years of training had provided a distinct
> advantage in the way their brains were organised.

Did it talk about engineers having a distinct disadvantage? LoL.

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 4th 08, 08:36 PM

Shhhh! said:

> I see no people saying anything technical about LP vs. CD. I see
> people expressing a preference. That seems to drive you (and GOIA)
> nuts.

It sure does. Turdborg loves to natter on about CDs' supposed "technical
superiority". If the Idiots' Brigade didn't have specs to cling to,
they're the ones who would be spending megabucks on their systems.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 4th 08, 08:36 PM

On Sep 3, 5:48*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 3:21*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:

> > Except by you, moron.
>
> * I think you were diagnosed in utero and some kind hearted Christian
> women
> took pity on your soul. *It really ****es you off to exist.

2pid always projects and 'sees' what's wrong with others. When will he
see what's wrong with him?

Clyde Slick

September 4th 08, 09:18 PM

On 4 Sep, 13:05, ScottW > wrote:

> The Orions can reveal the dynamic range of a CD
> adding that dimension of realism while the Quads
> really didn't.
>
>
as far as dimensions of realism, I think
no matter which you pick, you win some, you lose some.
You seem to go with what is more important on
day to day listening, that is, what sounds best on
most of the music you are likely to listen to.
Yeah, I like Quads, but I couldn't have them
as I only have one system going.
When the **** hits the fan, it doesn' send it flying
right at one's face, it just spreads it around the room real nice.

Jenn[_3_]

September 5th 08, 12:05 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 4, 10:22*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 10:27*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > On 3 Sep, 19:17, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Sep 3, 3:59*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 3, 3:16*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 3, 11:45*am, MiNe 109 * >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > s.co
> > > > > > > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > audio.
> > > > > > > > > > > > *I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> > > > > > > > > > > > educated
> > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is
> > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the strangest
> > > > > > > > > > > snooty
> > > > > > > > > > > declarations. * <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > > > It's far more important to the question of how she prefers
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > > > music.
> >
> > > > > > > > > * Which wasn't ever in question.
> >
> > > > > > > > So all those attacks aren't related to what she said.
> >
> > > > > > > *LoL. *I love it when you have to deny what she said
> > > > > > > to make an argument. *Makes you appear so rational.
> >
> > > > > > If you understood what she said, what are all the attacks about?
> >
> > > > > "I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > > > *I've admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> > > > > educated
> > > > > about what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > > important. "
> >
> > > > > *I'll let you fill in the blanks too. * ______________is far more
> > > > > important than _________________.
> >
> > > > > Take your time.
> >
> > > > > > She: I know what I like and I've studied music but not the science
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > audio.
> >
> > > > > *Is that a quote? *I don't think so.
> >
> > > > > > You: What a strange snooty declaration!
> >
> > > > > * I know what I like and all the people I know who studied music
> > > > > have crappy stereos like Jenns.
> >
> > > > I think she has a NAD receiver or amp, and Vandersteen 2ce speakers.
> > > > I wouldn't have the NAD, but its not crap. Certainly her speakers are
> > > > not crap.
> > > > I guess you are trying to tell us that you "COULD" hear differences
> > > > between her NAD and your Krell amplification, in a "properly
> > > > administered,
> > > > level balanced" ABX test!!!!!!!
> >
> > > No idea but if I had to guess, I'd say no.
> > > I think her problem with plastic violins
> >
> > To clarify my thoughts on that:
> > My problem with CD sound with violin is pretty frequency specific,
> > centering around high G. *And I wasn't specific enough about the
> > "plastic" sound that I hear, because I didn't want to be too "nerdy" for
> > the room. *It's more like the sound of a plastic bow that pervades the
> > sound.
> >
> > > is more that her
> > > system FR works with her vinyl source to her ears
> > > but that it's too flat at high freq. with CD.
> >
> > But that wouldn't explain why I hear it on every system that I've
> > listened to.
> >
>
> Well, since few others complain of plastic fiddles and bows
> I'm beginning to wonder if we have the source of the problem
> properly identified.

You should learn the sound of plastic bows, then perhaps you'd recognize
it too.

>
> >
> > > There are some adjustments on the speakers according
> > > to S'phile review. I'm guessing the best sounding setting
> > > is different for CD and vinyl if the settings can make CD
> > > work at all. I'm torn at times setting my crossover
> > > for CD or vinyl. But I've decided I want the best
> > > sound I can get on my best recordings, and right now
> > > that's on CD. It's not even close IMO while with the
> > > Quads, I liked to listen to vinyl.
> > > The Orions can reveal the dynamic range of a CD
> > > adding that dimension of realism while the Quads
> > > really didn't.
> >
> > You should unload those awful Quads. I'll sacrifice and take them off
> > your hands.
>
> Hmmm. I'd rather give them to someone who properly appreciates
> them ;).
>
> ScottW

I suddenly like them more.

Jenn[_3_]

September 5th 08, 12:10 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 3:12*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 12:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > (snip of all the *"Jenn forgets")
> >
> > > > > > Now if you want to continue to assert that how things sound to
> > > > > > others
> > > > > > should be more important to me than how they sound to me, go for
> > > > > > it. *
> >
> > > > > I have made no such assertion and I challenge you to provide
> > > > > a quote where I did.
> >
> > > > Your criticism of me saying that how things sound to me is the most
> > > > important thing to me. *By extension, you must think that what OTHERS
> > > > hear should be more important.
> >
> > > *I am not responsible for your irrational extensions especially when
> > > I've
> > > explicitly stated in multiple comments that your claim *(just so you
> > > don't
> > > forget again) is:
> >
> > > "I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > I've admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated
> > > about
> > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > *important. "
> >
> > > So Jenn, just so we're on the same page.
> > > In the above paragraph you state that ___________ is
> > > far more important than ________________.
> > > Please fill in the blanks.
> >
> > In the above paragraph I state that how the music sounds to me is
> > far more important than me knowing about the scientific aspects of audio.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > *What I assert is that your preference
> > > > > which affects only you cannot be more important than audio science
> > > > > which impacts everyone, including you.
> >
> > > > Scott, what is the goal of audio in the home?
> >
> > > Same as yours.
> >
> > > >*It seems obvious that the
> > > > answer is "to enjoy music and the reproduction it".
> >
> > > *Not how I think an academic should state it but OK.
> >
> > I left out the word "of" obviously. *Shoot me.
>
> That doesn't quite work. Look and try again.

That would make it: It seems obvious that the answer is "to enjoy music
and the reproduction of it". What's your problem?

> >
> >
> >
> > > >*Should I change
> > > > what I listen to because the scientists tell me that it's inferior?
> >
> > > Who said that? Arny? *Scientist? Now I know you're confused.
> >
> > > Anyway, my point has never been about your preference. It's the
> > > baggage
> > > you attach to it and the lack of importance on audio science *that
> > > allows you to
> > > have a preference at all. *I happen to think that if you were more
> > > knowledgable,
> > > you'd be able to figure out why your system plays back CDs so poorly
> > > and that knowledge just might influence your preference.
> >
> > For something like the third time, I'll state yet again: *I have NEVER
> > stated that audio science is unimportant. *I have said that how things
> > sound to me is far more important to me than the science behind it.
>
> Which does leave you somewhat helpless and caged by
> plastic bows.

With CDs and with some frequencies, yes.

>
> *
> > That's all. *And for the upteenth time, there is no "baggage". *I know
> > how acoustic music typically sounds,
>
> baggage alert

In what way?

>
> > and I like recordings that sound to
> > me to be closest to that. *It seems so simple...
>
> Now that you know how it sounds, and you don't like it,
> what do you plan to do about it?

Not sure. One thing for sure, I'll keep listening to those recordings
that don't bother me in that way.

Jenn[_3_]

September 5th 08, 12:25 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 4, 4:10*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 3:12*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 3, 12:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > (snip of all the *"Jenn forgets")
> >
> > > > > > > > Now if you want to continue to assert that how things sound to
> > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > should be more important to me than how they sound to me, go
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > it. *
> >
> > > > > > > I have made no such assertion and I challenge you to provide
> > > > > > > a quote where I did.
> >
> > > > > > Your criticism of me saying that how things sound to me is the most
> > > > > > important thing to me. *By extension, you must think that what
> > > > > > OTHERS
> > > > > > hear should be more important.
> >
> > > > > *I am not responsible for your irrational extensions especially when
> > > > > I've
> > > > > explicitly stated in multiple comments that your claim *(just so you
> > > > > don't
> > > > > forget again) is:
> >
> > > > > "I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > > > I've admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly educated
> > > > > about
> > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > > > > *important. "
> >
> > > > > So Jenn, just so we're on the same page.
> > > > > In the above paragraph you state that ___________ is
> > > > > far more important than ________________.
> > > > > Please fill in the blanks.
> >
> > > > In the above paragraph I state that how the music sounds to me is
> > > > far more important than me knowing about the scientific aspects of
> > > > audio.
> >
> > > > > > > *What I assert is that your preference
> > > > > > > which affects only you cannot be more important than audio
> > > > > > > science
> > > > > > > which impacts everyone, including you.
> >
> > > > > > Scott, what is the goal of audio in the home?
> >
> > > > > Same as yours.
> >
> > > > > >*It seems obvious that the
> > > > > > answer is "to enjoy music and the reproduction it".
> >
> > > > > *Not how I think an academic should state it but OK.
> >
> > > > I left out the word "of" obviously. *Shoot me.
> >
> > > *That doesn't quite work. *Look and try again.
> >
> > That would make it: It seems obvious that the answer is "to enjoy music
> > and the reproduction of it". *What's your problem?
>
> I don't want to shoot you.

Translation into English?

>
>
> >
> >
> > > > > >*Should I change
> > > > > > what I listen to because the scientists tell me that it's inferior?
> >
> > > > > Who said that? Arny? *Scientist? Now I know you're confused.
> >
> > > > > Anyway, my point has never been about your preference. It's the
> > > > > baggage
> > > > > you attach to it and the lack of importance on audio science *that
> > > > > allows you to
> > > > > have a preference at all. *I happen to think that if you were more
> > > > > knowledgable,
> > > > > you'd be able to figure out why your system plays back CDs so poorly
> > > > > and that knowledge just might influence your preference.
> >
> > > > For something like the third time, I'll state yet again: *I have NEVER
> > > > stated that audio science is unimportant. *I have said that how things
> > > > sound to me is far more important to me than the science behind it.
> >
> > > *Which does leave you somewhat helpless and caged by
> > > plastic bows.
> >
> > With CDs and with some frequencies, yes.
>
> Maybe you can ban high G from all violin solos?

We'll have to speak to Mozart, Beethoven, Corigliano, et al.

> >
> >
> >
> > > **
> > > > That's all. *And for the upteenth time, there is no "baggage". *I know
> > > > how acoustic music typically sounds,
> >
> > > *baggage alert
> >
> > In what way?
>
> Exceptional claims make for heavy baggage.

Translation into English?

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 5th 08, 12:51 AM

Jenn said:

> > Maybe you can ban high G from all violin solos?
>
> We'll have to speak to Mozart, Beethoven, Corigliano, et al.

Is it true there's a vast difference between frequencies played today and
those played in Mozart's time? I've heard that nowadays, nearly everything
is played an entire octave higher.

Jenn[_3_]

September 5th 08, 12:54 AM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > > Maybe you can ban high G from all violin solos?
> >
> > We'll have to speak to Mozart, Beethoven, Corigliano, et al.
>
> Is it true there's a vast difference between frequencies played today and
> those played in Mozart's time? I've heard that nowadays, nearly everything
> is played an entire octave higher.

Nope. Depending on what research you read, our tuning standard today is
about a quarter of a half step higher than during Mozart's time.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 5th 08, 05:47 PM

On Sep 4, 6:25*pm, Jenn > wrote:

> Translation into English?

You might as well ask 2pid to win an Olympic gold in gymnastics.

Jenn[_3_]

September 6th 08, 05:46 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 4, 4:05*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 4, 10:22*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 3, 10:27*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > On 3 Sep, 19:17, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Sep 3, 3:59*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 3, 3:16*pm, MiNe 109 * >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ps.c
> > > > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 3, 11:45*am, MiNe 109 *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > roup
> > > > > > > > > > > > s.co
> > > > > > > > > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 3, 8:38*am, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > aspects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > audio.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > highly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > educated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wow! *I have to say, you do spout some of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > strangest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > snooty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > declarations. * <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's far more important to the question of how she
> > > > > > > > > > > > prefers
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > > > > > music.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > * Which wasn't ever in question.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > So all those attacks aren't related to what she said.
> >
> > > > > > > > > *LoL. *I love it when you have to deny what she said
> > > > > > > > > to make an argument. *Makes you appear so rational.
> >
> > > > > > > > If you understood what she said, what are all the attacks
> > > > > > > > about?
> >
> > > > > > > "I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of audio.
> > > > > > > *I've admitted that all along. *But by definition, I'm highly
> > > > > > > educated
> > > > > > > about what sounds like music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > important. "
> >
> > > > > > > *I'll let you fill in the blanks too. * ______________is far more
> > > > > > > important than _________________.
> >
> > > > > > > Take your time.
> >
> > > > > > > > She: I know what I like and I've studied music but not the
> > > > > > > > science
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > audio.
> >
> > > > > > > *Is that a quote? *I don't think so.
> >
> > > > > > > > You: What a strange snooty declaration!
> >
> > > > > > > * I know what I like and all the people I know who studied music
> > > > > > > have crappy stereos like Jenns.
> >
> > > > > > I think she has a NAD receiver or amp, and Vandersteen 2ce
> > > > > > speakers.
> > > > > > I wouldn't have the NAD, but its not crap. Certainly her speakers
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > not crap.
> > > > > > I guess you are trying to tell us that you "COULD" hear differences
> > > > > > between her NAD and your Krell amplification, in a "properly
> > > > > > administered,
> > > > > > level balanced" ABX test!!!!!!!
> >
> > > > > No idea but if I had to guess, I'd say no.
> > > > > I think her problem with plastic violins
> >
> > > > To clarify my thoughts on that:
> > > > My problem with CD sound with violin is pretty frequency specific,
> > > > centering around high G. *And I wasn't specific enough about the
> > > > "plastic" sound that I hear, because I didn't want to be too "nerdy"
> > > > for
> > > > the room. *It's more like the sound of a plastic bow that pervades the
> > > > sound.
> >
> > > > > is more that her
> > > > > system FR works with her vinyl source to her ears
> > > > > but that it's too flat at high freq. with CD.
> >
> > > > But that wouldn't explain why I hear it on every system that I've
> > > > listened to.
> >
> > > Well, since few others complain of plastic fiddles and bows
> > > I'm beginning to wonder if we have the source of the problem
> > > properly identified.
> >
> > You should learn the sound of plastic bows, then perhaps you'd recognize
> > it too.
>
> So I can be annoyed by violins on CD?
> In this case I'd rather not. Though I was considering a
> cheap student cello for fun but it comes with a plastic
> bow. Will it ruin my fondness for the sound of a cello
> forever?
>
> ScottW

No, it just won't sound as good as a wood bow.

Mr.T

September 6th 08, 08:19 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
On 29 Aug, 16:57, Jenn > wrote:
>>I can listen through a few tics.

Even better when I don't have to any more.

>> I can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
>> instrument made of plastic

Me either, regardless of whether it ends up on vinyl, CD, tape, or carving
on a cerial box.

>well put!!! excellent.

It simply reaffirms your bias then I take it?
Good for you.

MrT.

Mr.T

September 6th 08, 08:25 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>Nothing like recently blowing nearly a $grand
> on a vinyl player to keep the illusion going.

Nearly a grand? You can't get anything halfway decent for under a grand!
That you can pay over $100,000 on a turntable proves there are people with
far more money than sense. Where you could possibly get records in this
universe that would justify even 1/10th of that money remains a mystery.

MrT.

Clyde Slick

September 6th 08, 09:42 PM

On 6 Sep, 03:19, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On 29 Aug, 16:57, Jenn > wrote:
>
> >>I can listen through a few tics.
>
> Even better when I don't have to any more.
>
> >> I can't listen through a recorded violin sound that resembles an
> >> instrument made of plastic
>
> Me either, regardless of whether it ends up on vinyl, CD, tape, or carving
> on a cerial box.
>
> >well put!!! excellent.
>
> It simply reaffirms your bias then I take it?
> Good for you.
>
> MrT.

it wasn't me that you were responding to

Arny Krueger

September 7th 08, 12:15 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> Not when debunking the your myth that I'm "hysterical"
> about what I listen to.

When are you going to start trying to do that?

So far I haven't seen a perceptible effort, let alone a successful one!

Arny Krueger

September 7th 08, 12:24 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> On Sep 3, 11:38 am, Jenn > wrote:
>> In article
>> >, "Arny
>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>> I would like to open your mind to actual reality, Jenn.
>>
>> The reality is that I hear what I hear. Why you have
>> problems with me expressing my thoughts on that is
>> anyone's guess.
>
> In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
> express a preference different from his own is equivalent
> to a personal attack and that he will respond accordingly.

No reference provided so this would be an unsupported claim - something that
Mr. Atkinson has quite a bit of experience making.

John has long held that I am insane. Interesting that he lowered himself to
debate an insane person at HE2005... What a crazy thing to do! ;-)

John Atkinson[_2_]

September 7th 08, 04:24 PM

On Sep 7, 7:24 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> > In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
> > express a preference different from his own is equivalent
> > to a personal attack and that he will respond accordingly.
>
> No reference provided so this would be an unsupported claim...

As you have pointed out n the past when asked to support
something you have said, the support can be found at
groups.google.com, Mr. Krueger. And I did give the context
for my paraphrase, to make it easier for the posting to be
found, though you managed to delete that from your
response, of course.

> John has long held that I am insane.

No, that is incorrect. I did conjecture in one posting some years
ago that such was the disconnect between reality and what you
were saying that it could only be explained by insanity, but my
having conjectured _once_ about that is not equivalent to my
having "long held" that you are insane, Mr. Krueger. Are you
dishonest? Yes. Mendacious? Yes. Deceitful? Yes. Envious?
Yes. But insane? Probably not.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 7th 08, 04:49 PM

John Atkinson said:

> > John has long held that I am insane.
>
> No, that is incorrect. I did conjecture in one posting some years
> ago that such was the disconnect between reality and what you
> were saying that it could only be explained by insanity, but my
> having conjectured _once_ about that is not equivalent to my
> having "long held" that you are insane, Mr. Krueger. Are you
> dishonest? Yes. Mendacious? Yes. Deceitful? Yes. Envious?
> Yes. But insane? Probably not.

Probably not all the time. If you had said "intermittently insane", nobody
would argue with that.

Jenn[_3_]

September 7th 08, 06:10 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Not when debunking the your myth that I'm "hysterical"
> > about what I listen to.
>
> When are you going to start trying to do that?
>
> So far I haven't seen a perceptible effort, let alone a successful one!

Easy. You think that I'm "hysterical" about what I listen to, when
there is no evidence of that. Your myth is thus debunked.

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 7th 08, 06:21 PM

Jenn said:

> > > Not when debunking the your myth that I'm "hysterical"
> > > about what I listen to.
> >
> > When are you going to start trying to do that?
> > So far I haven't seen a perceptible effort, let alone a successful one!
>
> Easy. You think that I'm "hysterical" about what I listen to, when
> there is no evidence of that. Your myth is thus debunked.

Jenn have, you forogotent Jnen that in, the Debating trade Jeen the
Krooborg is allowed to factuate freely Jenen? You're denails are deafened
by Arnii's rebuttal's Jennn.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 7th 08, 08:25 PM

On Sep 7, 6:15*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Not when debunking the your myth that I'm "hysterical"
> > about what I listen to.
>
> When are you going to start trying to do that?
>
> So far I haven't seen a perceptible effort, let alone a successful one!

Here's how to do it, GOIA:

1. Go to a hypnotist. Have them hypnotize you into not being insane
for a few minutes.

2. Look at what you are, what you've written, and how you behave.

3. Accept the embarrassment you will feel once the fog of insanity has
been temporarily lifted.

4. Accept that you have been bested by Jenn, and realize that no
matter how many times you click your red ruby slippers together, you
will still have been bested by her.

5. Listen to the rest of of laughing at you.

Richard Crowley

September 7th 08, 08:40 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote from Goooooooogle Groups...
> 1. Go to a hypnotist. Have them hypnotize you into not being insane
> for a few minutes.

First-hand advice from rec.audio.opinion

(in case anyone had any doubts)

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 7th 08, 08:56 PM

On Sep 7, 2:40*pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" *wrote from Goooooooogle Groups...
>
> > 1. Go to a hypnotist. Have them hypnotize you into not being insane
> > for a few minutes.
>
> First-hand advice from rec.audio.opinion
>
> (in case anyone had any doubts)

Nobody doubts GOIA's insanity, but thanks for asking.

Arny Krueger

September 7th 08, 11:51 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> On Sep 7, 7:24 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In the past, Arny Krueger has argued that for someone to
>>> express a preference different from his own is
>>> equivalent to a personal attack and that he will
>>> respond accordingly.
>>
>> No reference provided so this would be an unsupported
>> claim...
>
> As you have pointed out n the past when asked to support
> something you have said, the support can be found at
> groups.google.com, Mr. Krueger. And I did give the context
> for my paraphrase, to make it easier for the posting to be
> found, though you managed to delete that from your
> response, of course.
>
>> John has long held that I am insane.
>
> No, that is incorrect.

So nice to catch you in such an obvious lie.

> From: (John Atkinson)
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> Date: 23 Jul 2002 20:59:24 -0700
> Message-ID:

> "Except that I didn't deny accusing Mr. Krueger of plagiarism. Instead
> I voiced my suspicion that Mr. Krueger is insane.

> "Insane. Or at least delusional.

> "Insane. Or at least someone who believes he can read minds.

> "Insane.

> " Insane, Or at least paranoid.

> "Perhaps dangerously paranoid.

Arny Krueger

September 7th 08, 11:52 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Not when debunking the your myth that I'm "hysterical"
>>> about what I listen to.
>>
>> When are you going to start trying to do that?
>>
>> So far I haven't seen a perceptible effort, let alone a
>> successful one!
>
> Easy. You think that I'm "hysterical" about what I
> listen to, when there is no evidence of that.

No evidence?

LOL!

There are now months and months of your postings in the public record
showing exactly that.

> Your myth is thus debunked.

Hysterical denial is not the same as debunking, no matter what the voices in
your head tell you, Jenn.

Jenn[_3_]

September 7th 08, 11:56 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> Not when debunking the your myth that I'm "hysterical"
> >>> about what I listen to.
> >>
> >> When are you going to start trying to do that?
> >>
> >> So far I haven't seen a perceptible effort, let alone a
> >> successful one!
> >
> > Easy. You think that I'm "hysterical" about what I
> > listen to, when there is no evidence of that.
>
> No evidence?

Correct, no evidence.

>
> LOL!
>
> There are now months and months of your postings in the public record
> showing exactly that.

Please quote some. Oh yeah; you won't ever do that.

>
> > Your myth is thus debunked.
>
> Hysterical denial is not the same as debunking, no matter what the voices in
> your head tell you, Jenn.

Oh, so not only am I "hysterical" about what I listen to, but now I'm
also "hysterical" about denying what you say I'm "hysterical" about?

lol

John Atkinson[_2_]

September 8th 08, 12:46 AM

On Sep 7, 6:51 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message

> > On Sep 7, 7:24 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> John has long held that I am insane.
> >
> > No, that is incorrect.
>
> So nice to catch you in such an obvious lie.

It is not a "lie," Mr. Krueger. As I said, all I did was to
once conjecture that you were insane, and ah, I see you
had the relevant post at your fingertips:

> > From: (John Atkinson)
> > Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> > Date: 23 Jul 2002 20:59:24 -0700
> > Message-ID:
> > "Except that I didn't deny accusing Mr. Krueger of plagiarism.
> > Instead I voiced my suspicion that Mr. Krueger is insane.
> > "Insane. Or at least delusional.
> > "Insane. Or at least someone who believes he can read minds.
> > "Insane.
> > " Insane, Or at least paranoid.
> > "Perhaps dangerously paranoid.

Of course, in your usual deceitful manner, you snipped
all context from my 2002 posting, Mr. Krueger. But as I
said in the portion of my recent message that you also
snipped: "I did conjecture in one posting some years ago
that such was the disconnect between reality and what
you were saying that it could only be explained by insanity,
but my having conjectured _once_ about that is not
equivalent to my having "long held" that you are insane,
Mr. Krueger."

So while yes, I did once express the suspicion that
you were insane, I have _not_ "long held" that you are
insane, Mr. Krueger. That is your pathetic desire to be
seen as a victim at work. And as I did also write today:
Are you dishonest? Yes. Mendacious? Yes. Deceitful?
Yes. Envious? Yes. But insane? Probably not.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 8th 08, 02:19 AM

What's that I hear? It sounds like self-righteous yapping, but it could be
the looniest cuckoo in the history of clockmaking.

> > So while yes, I did once express the suspicion that
> > you were insane, I have _not_ "long held" that you are
> > insane, Mr. Krueger. That is your pathetic desire to be
> > seen as a *victim at work. And as I did also write today:
> > Are you dishonest? Yes. Mendacious? Yes. Deceitful?
> > Yes. Envious? Yes. But insane? Probably not.
>
> What a pile of pontificating crap.
> Making someone read this should be
> a misdemeanor at best.

<snarl> GRRRRRRRR! YAPYAPYAP! <growl>

I'll take "Dismally Lacking In Self-Awareness" for $800, Alex.

Jenn[_3_]

September 8th 08, 02:35 AM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 7, 4:46*pm, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > On Sep 7, 6:51 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > On Sep 7, 7:24 am, "Arny Krueger" > *wrote:
> > > >> John has long held that I am insane.
> >
> > > > No, that is incorrect.
> >
> > > So nice to catch you in such an obvious lie.
> >
> > It is not *a "lie," Mr. Krueger. As I said, all I did was to
> > once conjecture that you were insane, and ah, I see you
> > had the relevant post at your fingertips:
> >
> > > > From: (John Atkinson)
> > > > Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> > > > Date: 23 Jul 2002 20:59:24 -0700
> > > > Message-ID:
> > > > "Except that I didn't deny accusing Mr. Krueger of plagiarism.
> > > > Instead I voiced my suspicion that Mr. Krueger is insane.
> > > > "Insane. Or at least delusional.
> > > > "Insane. Or at least someone who believes he can read minds.
> > > > "Insane.
> > > > " Insane, Or at least paranoid.
> > > > "Perhaps dangerously paranoid.
> >
> > Of course, in your usual deceitful manner, you snipped
> > all context from my 2002 posting, Mr. Krueger. But as I
> > said in the portion of my recent message that you also
> > snipped: "I did conjecture in one posting some years ago
> > that such was the disconnect between reality and what
> > you were saying that it could only be explained by insanity,
> > but my having conjectured _once_ about that is not
> > equivalent to my having "long held" that you are insane,
> > Mr. Krueger."
> >
> > So while yes, I did once express the suspicion that
> > you were insane, I have _not_ "long held" that you are
> > insane, Mr. Krueger. That is your pathetic desire to be
> > seen as a *victim at work. And as I did also write today:
> > Are you dishonest? Yes. Mendacious? Yes. Deceitful?
> > Yes. Envious? Yes. But insane? Probably not.
>
> What a pile of pontificating crap.
> Making someone read this should be
> a misdemeanor at best.
>
> ScottW

What's your beef this time?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 8th 08, 03:30 AM

On Sep 7, 6:46*pm, John Atkinson > wrote:

> Are you dishonest? Yes. Mendacious? Yes. Deceitful?
> Yes. Envious? Yes. But insane? Probably not.

I disagree.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 8th 08, 03:31 AM

On Sep 7, 8:11*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> What a pile of pontificating crap.
> Making someone read this should be
> a misdemeanor at best.

Your crapola "should be" a felony, punishable by serving a few years
at Gitmo.

MiNe 109

September 8th 08, 12:37 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> What a pile of pontificating crap.
> Making someone read this should be
> a misdemeanor at best.

Why did you quote it?

Stephen

Arny Krueger

September 8th 08, 01:02 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> On Sep 7, 6:51 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> On Sep 7, 7:24 am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> John has long held that I am insane.
>>>
>>> No, that is incorrect.
>>
>> So nice to catch you in such an obvious lie.
>
> It is not a "lie," Mr. Krueger. As I said, all I did was
> to once conjecture that you were insane, and ah, I see you
> had the relevant post at your fingertips:
>
>>> From: (John Atkinson)
>>> Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
>>> Date: 23 Jul 2002 20:59:24 -0700
>>> Message-ID:
>>> "Except
>>> that I didn't deny accusing Mr. Krueger of plagiarism.
>>> Instead I voiced my suspicion that Mr. Krueger is
>>> insane. "Insane. Or at least delusional. "Insane. Or at
>>> least someone who believes he can read minds. "Insane.
>>> " Insane, Or at least paranoid.
>>> "Perhaps dangerously paranoid.

> Of course, in your usual deceitful manner, you snipped
> all context from my 2002 posting, Mr. Krueger.

Yet another lie, but keep up the good work, John! ;-)

I don't have to post an entire book in order to make its contents available
to interested parties. I need only provide a proper footnote, which I did.

> But as I
> said in the portion of my recent message that you also
> snipped: "I did conjecture in one posting some years ago
> that such was the disconnect between reality and what
> you were saying that it could only be explained by
> insanity, but my having conjectured _once_ about that is
> not equivalent to my having "long held" that you are
> insane, Mr. Krueger."

So John, you're a craven revisionist who wishes he could take back some of
the stupid things he's said in the past, in intemperate moments. Not my
problem.

> So while yes, I did once express the suspicion that
> you were insane, I have _not_ "long held" that you are
> insane, Mr. Krueger. That is your pathetic desire to be
> seen as a victim at work.

Not at all John, this is just another example of your manifold character
flaws, which some of your past co-workers have been known to noise about in
various places.

> And as I did also write today:

> Are you dishonest? Yes. Mendacious? Yes. Deceitful?
> Yes. Envious? Yes. But insane? Probably not.

Lacking the courage of your past viciousness, and hiding behind phrases
hedged into meaninglessness, are what you do these days instead of candor,
eh John?

It must really suck being you!

Arny Krueger

September 8th 08, 01:03 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article
> >,
> ScottW > wrote:
>
>> What a pile of pontificating crap.
>> Making someone read this should be
>> a misdemeanor at best.
>
> Why did you quote it?

Civil disobedience, but not quite at the Ghandi level. ;-)

Arny Krueger

September 8th 08, 01:04 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message

> On Sep 7, 6:46 pm, John Atkinson
> > wrote:
>
>> Are you dishonest? Yes. Mendacious? Yes. Deceitful?
>> Yes. Envious? Yes. But insane? Probably not.
>
> I disagree.

You can't. That would take greater powers of independent thought that
you've ever mustered.

Clyde Slick

September 8th 08, 04:01 PM

On 7 Sep, 19:46, John Atkinson > wrote:
> On Sep 7, 6:51 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> > > On Sep 7, 7:24 am, "Arny Krueger" > *wrote:
> > >> John has long held that I am insane.
>
> > > No, that is incorrect.
>
> > So nice to catch you in such an obvious lie.
>
> It is not *a "lie," Mr. Krueger. As I said, all I did was to
> once conjecture that you were insane, and ah, I see you
> had the relevant post at your fingertips:
>
> > > From: (John Atkinson)
> > > Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> > > Date: 23 Jul 2002 20:59:24 -0700
> > > Message-ID:
> > > "Except that I didn't deny accusing Mr. Krueger of plagiarism.
> > > Instead I voiced my suspicion that Mr. Krueger is insane.
> > > "Insane. Or at least delusional.
> > > "Insane. Or at least someone who believes he can read minds.
> > > "Insane.
> > > " Insane, Or at least paranoid.
> > > "Perhaps dangerously paranoid.
>
> Of course, in your usual deceitful manner, you snipped
> all context from my 2002 posting, Mr. Krueger. But as I
> said in the portion of my recent message that you also
> snipped: "I did conjecture in one posting some years ago
> that such was the disconnect between reality and what
> you were saying that it could only be explained by insanity,
> but my having conjectured _once_ about that is not
> equivalent to my having "long held" that you are insane,
> Mr. Krueger."
>
> So while yes, I did once express the suspicion that
> you were insane, I have _not_ "long held" that you are
> insane, Mr. Krueger. That is your pathetic desire to be
> seen as a *victim at work. And as I did also write today:
> Are you dishonest? Yes. Mendacious? Yes. Deceitful?
> Yes. Envious? Yes. But insane? Probably not.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

I love it!1
Arny is arguing that he is insane!

Arny Krueger

September 8th 08, 05:13 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of
> audio. I've admitted that all along. But by definition,
> I'm highly educated about what sounds like music to my
> ears. Obviously, that is far more important.

I believe the word for the day is solipsism.

Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that
"My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an
epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside
the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known
and might not exist.

IOW Jenn lives in a little universe that is known only to her. In her little
universe, she is always right.

In order to persist in this mental state, she has to admit that she can know
nothing that exists outside her mind. IOW, she is incapable of speaking
sensibly to anybody but herself. Many of us have known this all along.
Thanks for finally admitting this critical fact to us, Jenn.

Arny Krueger

September 8th 08, 05:19 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7074695.stm

>> A US study of 20 non-musicians and 20 musical conductors
>> found both groups diverted brain activity away from
>> visual areas during listening tasks.

>> Scans showed activity fell in these areas as it rose in
>> auditory ones.

>> But during harder tasks the changes were less marked for
>> conductors than for non-musicians, researchers told a
>> Society for Neuroscience conference...

>> However, after a certain point, the conductors did not
>> suppress their brains, suggesting that their years of
>> training had provided a distinct advantage in the way
>> their brains were organised.

Arny Krueger

September 8th 08, 05:25 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> Scott, what is the goal of audio in the home?

<Obviously, Jenn thinks that everybody has the identical same goal when they
listen to music at home.>

> It seems obvious that the answer is "to enjoy music and the
> reproduction it".

It seems obvious to me that any such narrow answer has to be totally wrong
at least most of the time, and/or for most people. There must be thousands
of reasons why people listen to music, and some of them may have nothing to
do with enjoyment or the fact that the music is reproduced. For most people,
the reproduction of music is a convenience and an enabler - it elimininated
the need to house and feed the 100 or so musicians in a symphony orchestra,
if one desires to listen to symphonic music at their convenience.

> Should I change what I listen to
> because the scientists tell me that it's inferior?

If your hearing was all that good Jenn, you would have reached the same
conclusion as about 98% of all music lovers - that LPs have inferior sound
quality to CDs, all other things being equal. BTW, that finding seems to be
consistent, no matter why people listen to music at home.

Harry Lavo

September 8th 08, 06:00 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of
>> audio. I've admitted that all along. But by definition,
>> I'm highly educated about what sounds like music to my
>> ears. Obviously, that is far more important.
>
> I believe the word for the day is solipsism.
>
> Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea
> that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an
> epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything
> outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot
> be known and might not exist.
>
>
> IOW Jenn lives in a little universe that is known only to her. In her
> little universe, she is always right.
>
> In order to persist in this mental state, she has to admit that she can
> know nothing that exists outside her mind. IOW, she is incapable of
> speaking sensibly to anybody but herself. Many of us have known this all
> along. Thanks for finally admitting this critical fact to us, Jenn.

Every time you write something like this attacking Jenn, Arny, you just make
yourself look more and more foolish and insecure. Are you that stupid that
you cannot stop?

Harry Lavo

September 8th 08, 06:01 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7074695.stm
>
>>> A US study of 20 non-musicians and 20 musical conductors
>>> found both groups diverted brain activity away from
>>> visual areas during listening tasks.
>
>>> Scans showed activity fell in these areas as it rose in
>>> auditory ones.
>
>>> But during harder tasks the changes were less marked for
>>> conductors than for non-musicians, researchers told a
>>> Society for Neuroscience conference...
>
>>> However, after a certain point, the conductors did not
>>> suppress their brains, suggesting that their years of
>>> training had provided a distinct advantage in the way
>>> their brains were organised.
> .
>> And of course to Arny and his gang, none of this suggests
>> that straining to hear differences between snippets in an
>> ABX test creates any difference in how one perceives
>> music and thus musically-important manifestations that
>> become apparent over time in more relaxed listening
>> environments.
>
> I'm willing to allow that if an audiophile does as much ABX testing as a
> conductor does conducting, there may be some changes in how their brains
> work.
>
> ;-)

Smile if you will, Arny, but you are also deliberately avoiding the
implications.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 8th 08, 09:00 PM

On Sep 8, 11:58*am, ScottW > wrote:

> *I've long held the belief they're both insane.
> *Atkinson's post proves I'm at least half right.

I've long held that you're totally stupid.

Nearly every post you make proves that I'm right. LoL.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 8th 08, 09:04 PM

On Sep 8, 12:57*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 8, 10:48*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 12:03*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
>
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > 2) You keep slipping in obscure references to being
> > > > > higly educated but about what remains unclear.
>
> > > > That's because you don't know what musicians, especially conductors,
> > > > study.
>
> > > > Does it bother you that lifetime study might give someone an advantage
> > > > in a given field over a dabbler?
>
> > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7074695.stm
>
> > > > A US study of 20 non-musicians and 20 musical conductors found both
> > > > groups diverted brain activity away from visual areas during listening
> > > > tasks.
>
> > > > Scans showed activity fell in these areas as it rose in auditory ones.
>
> > > > But during harder tasks the changes were less marked for conductors than
> > > > for non-musicians, researchers told a Society for Neuroscience
> > > > conference...
>
> > > > However, after a certain point, the conductors did not suppress their
> > > > brains, suggesting that their years of training had provided a distinct
> > > > advantage in the way their brains were organised.
>
> > > *It's called practice. *Practice is not education.
>
> > Lol! It is when a musician does it!
>
> *That explains why so many musicians are uneducated.

Where do you come up with this gem, 2pid? Does that explain why so
many musicians are more highly educated than you are?

LoL. What an imbecile.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 8th 08, 09:07 PM

On Sep 8, 11:13*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of
> > audio. *I've admitted that all along. *But by definition,
> > I'm highly educated about what sounds like music to my
> > ears. *Obviously, that is far more important.
>
> I believe the word for the day is solipsism.
>
> Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that
> "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an
> epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside
> the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known
> and might not exist.
>
> IOW Jenn lives in a little universe that is known only to her. In her little
> universe, she is always right.
>
> In order to persist in this mental state, she has to admit that she can know
> nothing that exists outside her mind. IOW, she is incapable of speaking
> sensibly to anybody but herself. Many of us have known this all along.
> Thanks for finally admitting this critical fact to us, Jenn.

Insanity. That's the only explanation.

Um, GOIA, do you know what food tastes good to you? Do you assume that
what food tastes good to you tastes good to everybody else?

Or are you a follower of Solipsism? Thank you for revealing that to
us. We are all so horribly interested in your insane musings. LOL!

Jenn[_2_]

September 8th 08, 09:13 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > Scott, what is the goal of audio in the home?
>
> <Obviously, Jenn thinks that everybody has the identical same goal when they
> listen to music at home.>
>
> > It seems obvious that the answer is "to enjoy music and the
> > reproduction it".
>
> It seems obvious to me that any such narrow answer has to be totally wrong
> at least most of the time, and/or for most people. There must be thousands
> of reasons why people listen to music,

Why don't you list, say, 20 of them?

> and some of them may have nothing to
> do with enjoyment or the fact that the music is reproduced. For most people,
> the reproduction of music is a convenience and an enabler - it elimininated
> the need to house and feed the 100 or so musicians in a symphony orchestra,
> if one desires to listen to symphonic music at their convenience.

And why would they want to listen to that music in the first place?
Could it be, oh say, because they "enjoy music"?

>
> > Should I change what I listen to
> > because the scientists tell me that it's inferior?
>
> If your hearing was all that good Jenn, you would have reached the same
> conclusion as about 98% of all music lovers - that LPs have inferior sound
> quality to CDs, all other things being equal. BTW, that finding seems to be
> consistent, no matter why people listen to music at home.

I agree that most CDs sound better than most LPs. I have always stated
that belief.

Jenn[_2_]

September 8th 08, 09:17 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of
> > audio. I've admitted that all along. But by definition,
> > I'm highly educated about what sounds like music to my
> > ears. Obviously, that is far more important.
>
> I believe the word for the day is solipsism.
>
> Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that
> "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an
> epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside
> the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known
> and might not exist.
>
>
> IOW Jenn lives in a little universe that is known only to her. In her little
> universe, she is always right.
>
> In order to persist in this mental state, she has to admit that she can know
> nothing that exists outside her mind. IOW, she is incapable of speaking
> sensibly to anybody but herself. Many of us have known this all along.
> Thanks for finally admitting this critical fact to us, Jenn.

Lordy, Arny. What did they do to you yesterday?

My paragraph at the top of this page is clear and reasonable to the
normal reader. Two questions:
1. Does anyone else know more about how music sounds to you than you?
2. When you listen to music, which is more important, A. how it sounds
to you, or, B. how it sounds to someone else?

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 8th 08, 09:17 PM

Shhhh! said:

> I've long held that you're totally stupid.
> Nearly every post you make proves that I'm right. LoL.

If Scottie's so stupid, who buys his Kenl Ration? Huh? Ha!

Arny Krueger

September 8th 08, 09:45 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> On Sep 8, 8:02 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> as I said in the portion of my recent message that you
>>> also snipped: "I did conjecture in one posting some
>>> years ago that such was the disconnect between reality
>>> and what you were saying that it could only be
>>> explained by insanity, but my having conjectured _once_
>>> about that is not equivalent to my having "long held"
>>> that you are insane, Mr. Krueger."
>>
>> So John, you're a craven revisionist who wishes he could
>> take back some of the stupid things he's said in the
>> past, in intemperate moments.
>
> I don't think you understnad what the words you choose to
> use actually mean, Mr. Krueger.

I'm quite sure that I don't understnad them at all.

> You said that I have "long
> held" that you are "insane," Mr. Krueger.

Which means among other things, that you have conjectured that I'm insane to
the extent that some weak-minded individuals such as ****R might actually
believe it.

> This is not correct.

Are you saying that ****R doesn't believe that I'm insane?

> As you pointed out, more than 6 years ago I
> did conjecture that your being insane would explain the
> apparent disconnect between reality and what you were
> saying.

What disconnect?

>I am not denying I said that, merely pointing out
> that it does not in itself support your statement that I
> have "long held" that you are insane.

Oh, I imagine in some far away planet that might be true.

> I have made no statement about your purported insanity
> since 2002, Mr. Krueger.

Well, other than on July 23 of this year, and an indirect reference on July
4, and...

> On the other hand, at least
> one poster to r.a.o. does so on an almost daily basis.

Obviously, he has some problems with reality.

> However, that person is not me and his behavior says
> nothing about my own feelings. As I have now
> repeatedly stated, I certianly don't think you are insane.

I'm sure you certianly don't.

>> this is just another example of your manifold character
>> flaws, which some of your past co-workers have been
>> known to noise about in various places.

> Really? I suspect you are now just making things up,
> Mr. Krueger, along the lines of the next statement of
> mine that you quoted:

>>> And as I did also write today: Are you dishonest? Yes.
>>> Mendacious? Yes. Deceitful? Yes. Envious? Yes. But
>>> insane? Probably not.

Oh, I made that up?

>> Lacking the courage of your past viciousness, and hiding
>> behind phrases hedged into meaninglessness, are what you
>> do these days instead of candor, eh John?

> What "past viciouness," Mr. Krueger?

I never said anything about "past viciouness".

>> It must really suck being you!

> And there's that envy thing again. :-)

Now that's a pretty crazy thing to say!

Arny Krueger

September 8th 08, 09:47 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects
>>> of audio. I've admitted that all along. But by
>>> definition, I'm highly educated about what sounds like
>>> music to my ears. Obviously, that is far more
>>> important.
>>
>> I believe the word for the day is solipsism.
>>
>> Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the
>> philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that
>> I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or
>> metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside
>> the mind is unjustified. The external world and other
>> minds cannot be known and might not exist.
>>
>>
>> IOW Jenn lives in a little universe that is known only
>> to her. In her little universe, she is always right.
>>
>> In order to persist in this mental state, she has to
>> admit that she can know nothing that exists outside her
>> mind. IOW, she is incapable of speaking sensibly to
>> anybody but herself. Many of us have known this all
>> along. Thanks for finally admitting this critical fact
>> to us, Jenn.

> Lordy, Arny. What did they do to you yesterday?

???????????????/

> My paragraph at the top of this page is clear and
> reasonable to the normal reader. Two questions:

> 1. Does anyone else know more about how music sounds to
> you than you?

Possibly.

> 2. When you listen to music, which is more important, A.
> how it sounds to you, or, B. how it sounds to someone
> else?

Given that I do so much live sound and recording work, how things sound to
other people is very important to me.

Jenn[_2_]

September 8th 08, 09:50 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects
> >>> of audio. I've admitted that all along. But by
> >>> definition, I'm highly educated about what sounds like
> >>> music to my ears. Obviously, that is far more
> >>> important.
> >>
> >> I believe the word for the day is solipsism.
> >>
> >> Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the
> >> philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that
> >> I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or
> >> metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside
> >> the mind is unjustified. The external world and other
> >> minds cannot be known and might not exist.
> >>
> >>
> >> IOW Jenn lives in a little universe that is known only
> >> to her. In her little universe, she is always right.
> >>
> >> In order to persist in this mental state, she has to
> >> admit that she can know nothing that exists outside her
> >> mind. IOW, she is incapable of speaking sensibly to
> >> anybody but herself. Many of us have known this all
> >> along. Thanks for finally admitting this critical fact
> >> to us, Jenn.
>
> > Lordy, Arny. What did they do to you yesterday?
>
> ???????????????/
>
> > My paragraph at the top of this page is clear and
> > reasonable to the normal reader. Two questions:
>
> > 1. Does anyone else know more about how music sounds to
> > you than you?
>
> Possibly.

Please describe how that is possible.

>
>
> > 2. When you listen to music, which is more important, A.
> > how it sounds to you, or, B. how it sounds to someone
> > else?
>
> Given that I do so much live sound and recording work, how things sound to
> other people is very important to me.

Obviously we're not speaking of the alleged work that you. We're
speaking of home audio.

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 8th 08, 09:51 PM

Arnii's internal voices are battling for control.

> > I don't think you understnad what the words you choose to
> > use actually mean, Mr. Krueger.
>
> I'm quite sure that I don't understnad them at all.

Who had Sept. 8 in the pool? I hope nobody did. I had Sept. 25, and that's
pretty close.

Next pool is for when the Krooborg will have himself committed. I'll pick
March 15, 2009.

John Atkinson[_2_]

September 8th 08, 10:26 PM

On Sep 8, 4:45*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> > You said that I have "long held" that you are "insane," Mr.
> > Krueger...This is not correct.
>
> Are you saying that ****R doesn't believe that I'm insane?

He has stated many times that he does. But that has nothing
to do with me. As I said, he is not me, neither does he speak
for me.

> > I have made no statement about your purported insanity
> > since 2002, Mr. Krueger.
>
> Well, other than on July 23 of this year, and an indirect reference
> on July 4, and...

The reference I made on July 23 was to the same 2002 posting
to which I have already referred in this thread.

The July 4 reference to your supposed insanity was actually
by "Sssh," not me. As I said, we are two different people
with different opinions on this matter. I actually defended you
in that July 4 posting, Mr. Krueger, by conjecturing that a
possible reason for your inability to find a Web page for which
you had been given the URL was not insanity. Instead, it
could just have been your lack of familiarity with browser
programs.

> > However, that person is not me and his behavior says
> > nothing about my own feelings. As I have now
> > repeatedly stated, I [certainly] don't think you are insane.
>
> I'm sure you [certainly] don't.

In which case, why are you continuing to argue the
opposite, Mr. Krueger?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 8th 08, 10:34 PM

On Sep 8, 7:04*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
> > On Sep 7, 6:46 pm, John Atkinson
> > > wrote:
>
> >> Are you dishonest? Yes. Mendacious? Yes. Deceitful?
> >> Yes. Envious? Yes. But insane? Probably not.
>
> > I disagree.
>
> You can't. *

I just did. Obviously your insanity hides the totally obvious from
you. And now you can see why I disagreed with JA. You're nuts.

> That would take greater powers of independent thought that
> you've ever mustered.

Yes, that's the knock on me, GOIA: I just follow the herd. LOL!

MiNe 109

September 8th 08, 10:43 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 8, 10:48*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 12:03*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > 2) You keep slipping in obscure references to being
> > > > > higly educated but about what remains unclear.
> >
> > > > That's because you don't know what musicians, especially conductors,
> > > > study.
> >
> > > > Does it bother you that lifetime study might give someone an advantage
> > > > in a given field over a dabbler?
> >
> > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7074695.stm
> >
> > > > A US study of 20 non-musicians and 20 musical conductors found both
> > > > groups diverted brain activity away from visual areas during listening
> > > > tasks.
> >
> > > > Scans showed activity fell in these areas as it rose in auditory ones.
> >
> > > > But during harder tasks the changes were less marked for conductors than
> > > > for non-musicians, researchers told a Society for Neuroscience
> > > > conference...
> >
> > > > However, after a certain point, the conductors did not suppress their
> > > > brains, suggesting that their years of training had provided a distinct
> > > > advantage in the way their brains were organised.
> >
> > > *It's called practice. *Practice is not education.
> >
> > Lol! It is when a musician does it!
>
> That explains why so many musicians are uneducated.

Isn't your ideal, that musicians can't be original when weighed down by
all that education?

Still, your objection is just splitting hairs among the definitions of
practice, study, training and education.

Stephen

Clyde Slick

September 8th 08, 11:17 PM

On 8 Sep, 12:13, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of
> > audio. *I've admitted that all along. *But by definition,
> > I'm highly educated about what sounds like music to my
> > ears. *Obviously, that is far more important.
>
> I believe the word for the day is solipsism.
>
> Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that
> "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an
> epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside
> the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known
> and might not exist.
>
> IOW Jenn lives in a little universe that is known only to her. In her little
> universe, she is always right.
>
> In order to persist in this mental state, she has to admit that she can know
> nothing that exists outside her mind. IOW, she is incapable of speaking
> sensibly to anybody but herself. Many of us have known this all along.
> Thanks for finally admitting this critical fact to us, Jenn.

Your problem is your Analism, your ass is the only thing
that you know actually exists.

MiNe 109

September 8th 08, 11:19 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 8, 2:43*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 8, 10:48*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 3, 12:03*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > 2) You keep slipping in obscure references to being
> > > > > > > higly educated but about what remains unclear.
> >
> > > > > > That's because you don't know what musicians, especially
> > > > > > conductors,
> > > > > > study.
> >
> > > > > > Does it bother you that lifetime study might give someone an
> > > > > > advantage
> > > > > > in a given field over a dabbler?
> >
> > > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7074695.stm
> >
> > > > > > A US study of 20 non-musicians and 20 musical conductors found both
> > > > > > groups diverted brain activity away from visual areas during
> > > > > > listening
> > > > > > tasks.
> >
> > > > > > Scans showed activity fell in these areas as it rose in auditory
> > > > > > ones.
> >
> > > > > > But during harder tasks the changes were less marked for conductors
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > for non-musicians, researchers told a Society for Neuroscience
> > > > > > conference...
> >
> > > > > > However, after a certain point, the conductors did not suppress
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > brains, suggesting that their years of training had provided a
> > > > > > distinct
> > > > > > advantage in the way their brains were organised.
> >
> > > > > *It's called practice. *Practice is not education.
> >
> > > > Lol! It is when a musician does it!
> >
> > > *That explains why so many musicians are uneducated.
> >
> > Isn't your ideal, that musicians can't be original when weighed down by
> > all that education?
>
> No.

Maybe you only meant Hendrix.

> > Still, your objection is just splitting hairs among the definitions of
> > practice, study, training and education.
>
> Athletes are now educated. Who knew?

More hair-splitting.

Stephen

Clyde Slick

September 8th 08, 11:21 PM

On 8 Sep, 16:50, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> *"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
>
> > >>> I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects
> > >>> of audio. *I've admitted that all along. *But by
> > >>> definition, I'm highly educated about what sounds like
> > >>> music to my ears. *Obviously, that is far more
> > >>> important.
>
> > >> I believe the word for the day is solipsism.
>
> > >> Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the
> > >> philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that
> > >> I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or
> > >> metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside
> > >> the mind is unjustified. The external world and other
> > >> minds cannot be known and might not exist.
>
> > >> IOW Jenn lives in a little universe that is known only
> > >> to her. In her little universe, she is always right.
>
> > >> In order to persist in this mental state, she has to
> > >> admit that she can know nothing that exists outside her
> > >> mind. IOW, she is incapable of speaking sensibly to
> > >> anybody but herself. Many of us have known this all
> > >> along. Thanks for finally admitting this critical fact
> > >> to us, Jenn.
>
> > > Lordy, Arny. *What did they do to you yesterday?
>
> > ???????????????/
>
> > > My paragraph at the top of this page is clear and
> > > reasonable to the normal reader. *Two questions:
>
> > > 1. *Does anyone else know more about how music sounds to
> > > you than you?
>
> > Possibly.
>
> Please describe how that is possible.
>
>
>
> > > 2. *When you listen to music, which is more important, A.
> > > how it sounds to you, or, B. how it sounds to someone
> > > else?
>
> > Given that I do so much live sound and recording work, how things sound to
> > other people is very important to me.
>
> Obviously we're not speaking of the alleged work that you. *We're
> speaking of home audio.-

If it sounds so good, Arny would be
providing examples and bragging about them.

Clyde Slick

September 8th 08, 11:25 PM

On 8 Sep, 16:51, George M. Middius > wrote:

>
> Next pool is for when the Krooborg will have himself committed. I'll pick
> March 15, 2009.

Well, that's a nice scam you got running. Nobody is going
to win, and your going to keep the pool money
I'm not going to send you any of my money.

A better pool would be for what day that his wife
will finally involuntarily commit him.

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 8th 08, 11:29 PM

Clyde Slick said:

> > > Given that I do so much live sound and recording work, how things sound to
> > > other people is very important to me.
> >
> > Obviously we're not speaking of the alleged work that you. *We're
> > speaking of home audio.-
>
> If it sounds so good, Arny would be
> providing examples and bragging about them.

I don't know. Wouldn't providing examples diminish the number of
rhetorical hidey-holes?

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 8th 08, 11:58 PM

Clyde Slick said:

> > Next pool is for when the Krooborg will have himself committed. I'll pick
> > March 15, 2009.
>
> Well, that's a nice scam you got running. Nobody is going
> to win, and your going to keep the pool money
> I'm not going to send you any of my money.

Busted. Rats!

> A better pool would be for what day that his wife
> will finally involuntarily commit him.

Nobody will bet on that. It's too farfetched.

Clyde Slick

September 9th 08, 01:30 AM

On 8 Sep, 18:08, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2:43*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 8, 10:48*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
>
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 3, 12:03*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > 2) You keep slipping in obscure references to being
> > > > > > > higly educated but about what remains unclear.
>
> > > > > > That's because you don't know what musicians, especially conductors,
> > > > > > study.
>
> > > > > > Does it bother you that lifetime study might give someone an advantage
> > > > > > in a given field over a dabbler?
>
> > > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7074695.stm
>
> > > > > > A US study of 20 non-musicians and 20 musical conductors found both
> > > > > > groups diverted brain activity away from visual areas during listening
> > > > > > tasks.
>
> > > > > > Scans showed activity fell in these areas as it rose in auditory ones.
>
> > > > > > But during harder tasks the changes were less marked for conductors than
> > > > > > for non-musicians, researchers told a Society for Neuroscience
> > > > > > conference...
>
> > > > > > However, after a certain point, the conductors did not suppress their
> > > > > > brains, suggesting that their years of training had provided a distinct
> > > > > > advantage in the way their brains were organised.
>
> > > > > *It's called practice. *Practice is not education.
>
> > > > Lol! It is when a musician does it!
>
> > > *That explains why so many musicians are uneducated.
>
> > Isn't your ideal, that musicians can't be original when weighed down by
> > all that education?
>
> *No.
>
>
>
> > Still, your objection is just splitting hairs among the definitions of
> > practice, study, training and education.
>
> * Athletes are now educated. *Who knew?
>

They are!!!

BTW, I would like you to explain'the Chargers playbook to me, in
detail.
Tell me about all their sets, formations, motiions and shifts.
Also explain all the block patterns and pass rushing schemes, and
blitzes.
Then you can move on to offensive and defensive audibles.

George M. Middius[_4_]

September 9th 08, 01:56 AM

Clyde Slick said:

> > * Athletes are now educated. *Who knew?

> They are!!!
> BTW, I would like you to explain'the Chargers playbook to me, in detail.
> Tell me about all their sets, formations, motiions and shifts.
> Also explain all the block patterns and pass rushing schemes, and blitzes.
> Then you can move on to offensive and defensive audibles.

Shirley you're not suggesting that Scottie is too dumb even for football.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 9th 08, 02:22 AM

On Sep 8, 6:06*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> *He didn't say your wife committing you.

You must take lessons. It's a good thing that isn't "education". LOL!

Clyde Slick

September 9th 08, 03:10 AM

On 8 Sep, 20:56, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > * Athletes are now educated. *Who knew?
> > They are!!!
> > BTW, I would like you to explain'the Chargers playbook to me, in detail..
> > Tell me about all their sets, formations, motiions and shifts.
> > Also explain all the block patterns and pass rushing schemes, and blitzes.
> > Then you can move on to offensive and defensive audibles.
>
> Shirley you're not suggesting that Scottie is too dumb even for football.

BTW, I had some of my Indian coworkers try to
explain cricket to me, it was hopeless.

Harry Lavo

September 9th 08, 04:00 AM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects of
>> > audio. I've admitted that all along. But by definition,
>> > I'm highly educated about what sounds like music to my
>> > ears. Obviously, that is far more important.
>>
>> I believe the word for the day is solipsism.
>>
>> Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea
>> that
>> "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an
>> epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything
>> outside
>> the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be
>> known
>> and might not exist.
>>
>>
>> IOW Jenn lives in a little universe that is known only to her. In her
>> little
>> universe, she is always right.
>>
>> In order to persist in this mental state, she has to admit that she can
>> know
>> nothing that exists outside her mind. IOW, she is incapable of speaking
>> sensibly to anybody but herself. Many of us have known this all along.
>> Thanks for finally admitting this critical fact to us, Jenn.
>
> Lordy, Arny. What did they do to you yesterday?
>
> My paragraph at the top of this page is clear and reasonable to the
> normal reader. Two questions:
> 1. Does anyone else know more about how music sounds to you than you?
> 2. When you listen to music, which is more important, A. how it sounds
> to you, or, B. how it sounds to someone else?

**********************************************

This seems to add substance to the observation that Arny is on his worst
behavior right after church.

Arny Krueger

September 9th 08, 12:35 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in
message

> On Sep 8, 4:45 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> You said that I have "long held" that you are "insane,"
>>> Mr. Krueger...This is not correct.
>>
>> Are you saying that ****R doesn't believe that I'm
>> insane?
>
> He has stated many times that he does. But that has
> nothing to do with me.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Certainly, your many suggests that I may be insane were part of his mindset
before he started his current campaign of libel and character assassination.

> As I said, he is not me, neither does he speak for me.

No John, but when it comes to repeated libels and character assignation, he
speaks like you.

>>> I have made no statement about your purported insanity
>>> since 2002, Mr. Krueger.
>
>> Well, other than on July 23 of this year, and an
>> indirect reference on July 4, and...

> The reference I made on July 23 was to the same 2002
> posting to which I have already referred in this thread.

Doesn't matter, John. Whether you repeat yourself or not, every time you
make a posting like that, you are libeling me.

> The July 4 reference to your supposed insanity was
> actually by "Sssh," not me.

You both posted in that thread, and your posts were related.

>As I said, we are two different people
> with different opinions on this matter. I actually
> defended you in that July 4 posting, Mr. Krueger, by
> conjecturing that a possible reason for your inability to
> find a Web page for which you had been given the URL was
> not insanity. Instead, it
> could just have been your lack of familiarity with browser
> programs.

Obviously the true explanation was beyond your ability to correctly surmise,
John. You could have put an end to the whole affair by posting a URL, but
you were stubbornly and childishly refusing to do so. You fell into my trap
and discredited yourself over and over again. Nice Job!

>>> However, that person is not me and his behavior says
>>> nothing about my own feelings. As I have now
>>> repeatedly stated, I [certainly] don't think you are
>>> insane.

>> I'm sure you [certainly] don't.

> In which case, why are you continuing to argue the
> opposite, Mr. Krueger?

John every time I troll you, you jump out of the water and bite at my hook.

Arny Krueger

September 9th 08, 12:39 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm admittedly uneducated about the scientific aspects
>>>>> of audio. I've admitted that all along. But by
>>>>> definition, I'm highly educated about what sounds like
>>>>> music to my ears. Obviously, that is far more
>>>>> important.
>>>>
>>>> I believe the word for the day is solipsism.
>>>>
>>>> Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the
>>>> philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that
>>>> I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or
>>>> metaphysical position that knowledge of anything
>>>> outside the mind is unjustified. The external world
>>>> and other minds cannot be known and might not exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IOW Jenn lives in a little universe that is known only
>>>> to her. In her little universe, she is always right.
>>>>
>>>> In order to persist in this mental state, she has to
>>>> admit that she can know nothing that exists outside her
>>>> mind. IOW, she is incapable of speaking sensibly to
>>>> anybody but herself. Many of us have known this all
>>>> along. Thanks for finally admitting this critical fact
>>>> to us, Jenn.
>>
>>> Lordy, Arny. What did they do to you yesterday?
>>
>> ???????????????/
>>
>>> My paragraph at the top of this page is clear and
>>> reasonable to the normal reader. Two questions:
>>
>>> 1. Does anyone else know more about how music sounds to
>>> you than you?
>>
>> Possibly.
>
> Please describe how that is possible.

Take a person who is overwhelmed with hysteria, and mouths pre-programmed
sayings from various high end ragazines and authors. Obviously, this person
is out of touch with their real perceptions. A person with insight to the
situation may better understand that person's unhinged perceptions better
than that person themselves.

>>> 2. When you listen to music, which is more important,
>>> A. how it sounds to you, or, B. how it sounds to someone
>>> else?
>>
>> Given that I do so much live sound and recording work,
>> how things sound to other people is very important to me.

> Obviously we're not speaking of the alleged work that
> you.

Not obvious and not alleged. But thanks for responding that way Jenn, it
makes your hysterical state of mind even clearer to any neutral observers.

> We're speaking of home audio.

So Jenn you are saying that your comments in this thread are totally
irrelevant to your work as a music teacher?

Wow, you really are hysterical! :-(

Arny Krueger

September 9th 08, 12:41 PM

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> This seems to add substance to the observation that Arny
> is on his worst behavior right after church.

Cite an independent source for that observation.

Besides Harry, you don't seem to know when I actually worship, so you can't
know when "right after church" is.

IOW Harry, you're talking out of the back of your neck, again.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 9th 08, 12:56 PM

On Sep 9, 6:35*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 4:45 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in
> >> message
>
> >>> You said that I have "long held" that you are "insane,"
> >>> Mr. Krueger...This is not correct.
>
> >> Are you saying that my intellectual superior doesn't believe that I'm
> >> insane?
>
> > He has stated many times that he does. But that has
> > nothing *to do with me.
>
> Maybe yes, *maybe no.

Or how about a certain "no". My conclusions about your mental health
are my own. I note that many, many others have come to the same
conclusion.

> Certainly, your many suggests that I may be insane were part of his mindset
> before he started his current campaign of libel and character assassination.
>
> > *As I said, he is not me, neither does he speak for me.
>
> No John, but when it comes to repeated libels and character assignation, he
> speaks like you.

"In independent tests, GOIA's insanity was proven to a 99.9%
confidence level. This was repeated in dozens of other peer-reviewed
clinical trials."

Character assignation: the act of apportioning GOIA's 'character'.
Currently GOIA's 'character' is apportioned 65% ****ty, 15% hypocrite,
10% paranoid and 10% deluded.

Clyde Slick

September 9th 08, 01:08 PM

On 9 Sep, 07:35, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > The July 4 reference to your supposed insanity was
> > actually *by "Sssh," not me.
>
> You both posted in that thread, and your posts were related.
>

Arnie, you are an asshole and a mother ****er.
Now, we both posted in the same thread, and
our posts are related. You now bear responsibility
for what I said; in essence,
you callled yourself an asshole and a mother ****er.
the miracles of Kroologic!!!!

Arny Krueger

September 9th 08, 09:11 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article ,

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> Take a person who is overwhelmed with hysteria, and
>> mouths pre-programmed sayings from various high end
>> ragazines and authors. Obviously, this person is out of
>> touch with their real perceptions. A person with insight
>> to the situation may better understand that person's
>> unhinged perceptions better than that person themselves.

> Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of
> perception. A person can't be "out of touch with their
> real perceptions".

Here Jenn denies the existence of illusions.

> Their perception is their perception.

Here Jenn asserts that a given set of stimuli can cause only one response.

Then, it seems that a light dawns, and she admits that other, better founded
perceptions might be possible.

> Their perception may be misguided, against the norm,
> influenced by confounding factors, etc. but it is STILL
> their perception.

I never said it wasn't. What I was trying to communicate is that were the
poor guidance and confounding factors removed, that different perceptions
would result. I called those unconfounded, properly guided perceptions "true
perceptions".

But Jenn, in her typical hysterical rush to judgment, starts mouthing off
with cheap accusations like:

"Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of perception."

Kind of you Jenn to so quickly contradict yourself.

Your post nets out to a logical zero, so there's no need to address its
content, other than to observe that it cancelled itself out.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

September 9th 08, 09:23 PM

On Sep 9, 3:11*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > In article ,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> Take a person who is overwhelmed with hysteria, and
> >> mouths pre-programmed sayings from various high end
> >> ragazines and authors. *Obviously, this person is out of
> >> touch with their real perceptions. A person with insight
> >> to the situation may better understand that person's
> >> unhinged perceptions better than that person themselves.
> > Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of
> > perception. *A person can't be "out of touch with their
> > real perceptions".
>
> Here Jenn denies the existence of illusions.

No, GOIA, here Jenn states that a person who sees an oasis in the
desert sees an oasis in the desert.

Are you really this dense, or is your insanity at work again?

> > Their perception is their perception.
>
> Here Jenn asserts that a given set of stimuli can cause only one response..

The Debating Trade. Don't try this at home, kids! GOIA is a trained
perfeshunnel!

> Then, it seems that a light dawns, and she admits that other, better founded
> perceptions might be possible.

GOIA is getting a woody.

> > Their perception may be misguided, against the norm,
> > influenced by confounding factors, etc. but it is STILL
> > their perception.
>
> I never said it wasn't. What I was trying to communicate is that were the
> poor guidance and confounding factors removed, that different perceptions
> would result. I called those unconfounded, properly guided perceptions "true
> perceptions".

They are no more true than any other perception, GOIA. Jenn's point
that a perception is a perception is valid. It's axiomatic, in fact.

> But Jenn, in her typical hysterical rush to judgment, *starts mouthing off
> with cheap accusations like:
>
> "Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of perception."
>
> Kind of you Jenn to so quickly contradict yourself.
>
> Your post nets out to a logical zero, so there's no need to address its
> content, other than to observe that it cancelled itself out.

Your wiring requires rerouting, GOIA.

Jenn[_2_]

September 9th 08, 11:01 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article ,
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> Take a person who is overwhelmed with hysteria, and
> >> mouths pre-programmed sayings from various high end
> >> ragazines and authors. Obviously, this person is out of
> >> touch with their real perceptions. A person with insight
> >> to the situation may better understand that person's
> >> unhinged perceptions better than that person themselves.
>
> > Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of
> > perception. A person can't be "out of touch with their
> > real perceptions".
>
> Here Jenn denies the existence of illusions.

Incorrect, Arny. Whether or not one's perception is an illusion, it is
still their perception.

>
> > Their perception is their perception.
>
> Here Jenn asserts that a given set of stimuli can cause only one response.

Incorrect, Arny. A person's response to a given stimulus at any given
moment IS that person's perception.

>
> Then, it seems that a light dawns, and she admits that other, better founded
> perceptions might be possible.

Incorrect, Arny.

> > Their perception may be misguided, against the norm,
> > influenced by confounding factors, etc. but it is STILL
> > their perception.
>
> I never said it wasn't. What I was trying to communicate is that were the
> poor guidance and confounding factors removed, that different perceptions
> would result. I called those unconfounded, properly guided perceptions "true
> perceptions".

Incorrect, Arny. It has NOTHING to do with correct or incorrect. If
you look across your living room and see a pink elephant, that IS your
perception, whether the elephant is there or not.

>
> But Jenn, in her typical hysterical rush to judgment, starts mouthing off
> with cheap accusations like:
>
> "Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of perception."

That's because you do, clearly.

>
> Kind of you Jenn to so quickly contradict yourself.
>
> Your post nets out to a logical zero, so there's no need to address its
> content, other than to observe that it cancelled itself out.

Finally, you are correct: there is no need for you to address the
content because you are incorrect on each count. One can't be "out of
touch with their real perceptions".