Tubeophiles more subjective than solid staters?

[Robert Morein]

Are tube lovers more likey to regard themselves as subjective than users of
solid state equipment?

In spite of the fact that no hifi system can reproduce the actual venue, my
"game" is the belief that I'm seeking objectively accurate audio
reproduction. So I use equipment with low distortion numbers, Sonex foam
room treatment, low diffraction speakers, and surround sound synthesized
according to Leo Beranek's "Concert Halls and How They Sound".

I invite tube lovers to submit their description of that which they claim to
seek. Do they concur with my belief that tubes cannot be objectively as
accurate as solid state, and justify the tube based on psychoacoustics, or
improved hedony? Or are there other words that should be used to explain the
continuing growth of tube electronics in the High End?

[MINe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Robert Morein said:
>
> > Or are there other words that should be used to explain the
> > continuing growth of tube electronics in the High End?
>
> Bobo, you're sounding more and more like a ****** every day. (Translated
> to colloquial American English, so to speak, ****** means beatoff.)

That's not how Principal Skinner defined it...

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > Or are there other words that should be used to explain the
> > continuing growth of tube electronics in the High End?
>
> Bobo, you're sounding more and more like a ****** every day. (Translated
> to colloquial American English, so to speak, ****** means beatoff.)
>
George, please don't ask me to come out of the closet.
I'm not ready.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > > > Or are there other words that should be used to explain the
> > > > continuing growth of tube electronics in the High End?
> > >
> > > Bobo, you're sounding more and more like a ****** every day.
(Translated
> > > to colloquial American English, so to speak, ****** means beatoff.)
> > >
> > George, please don't ask me to come out of the closet.
> > I'm not ready.
>
> OK, I won't ask. But I do give you credit for assiduous fertilization of
> your mushroom crop.
>
That's entirely different.
As far as I know, our sanitary line has no leaks. It empties directly into
r.a.o.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bobo, you're sounding more and more like a ****** every day. (Translated
> to colloquial American English, so to speak, ****** means beatoff.)
>

Which leads to the second question:
Do yankers tend to be more more objectivist or subjectivist?

In spite of the fact that no wanking can reproduce the ejaculatory
expereience
of actual sex, their"game" is the belief that they are seeking objectively
accurate
ejaculations.

[JBorg]

> Robert Morein wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> Are tube lovers more likey to regard themselves as subjective than users
> of solid state equipment?
>
> In spite of the fact that no hifi system can reproduce the actual venue,
> my "game" is the belief that I'm seeking objectively accurate audio
> reproduction. So I use equipment with low distortion numbers, Sonex foam
> room treatment, low diffraction speakers, and surround sound synthesized
> according to Leo Beranek's "Concert Halls and How They Sound".
>
> I invite tube lovers to submit their description of that which they claim
> to seek. Do they concur with my belief that tubes cannot be objectively as
> accurate as solid state, and justify the tube based on psychoacoustics, or
> improved hedony? Or are there other words that should be used to explain
> the continuing growth of tube electronics in the High End?


This is a complete headache from top to bottom.

[JBorg]

> Clyde Slick wrote in message
>> George M. Middius wrote in message
>>
>>
>> Bobo, you're sounding more and more like a ****** every day. (Translated
>> to colloquial American English, so to speak, ****** means beatoff.)
>>
>
> Which leads to the second question:
> Do yankers tend to be more more objectivist or subjectivist?
>
> In spite of the fact that no wanking can reproduce the ejaculatory
> expereience
> of actual sex, their"game" is the belief that they are seeking objectively
> accurate
> ejaculations.



To objectively assess an ejaculation, it might help to adjust the
line length, right Howard?

[Prostate Cancer Man]

In article >,
"JBorg" > wrote:

> > Robert Morein wrote in message
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Are tube lovers more likey to regard themselves as subjective than users
> > of solid state equipment?
> >
> > In spite of the fact that no hifi system can reproduce the actual venue,
> > my "game" is the belief that I'm seeking objectively accurate audio
> > reproduction. So I use equipment with low distortion numbers, Sonex foam
> > room treatment, low diffraction speakers, and surround sound synthesized
> > according to Leo Beranek's "Concert Halls and How They Sound".
> >
> > I invite tube lovers to submit their description of that which they claim
> > to seek. Do they concur with my belief that tubes cannot be objectively as
> > accurate as solid state, and justify the tube based on psychoacoustics, or
> > improved hedony? Or are there other words that should be used to explain
> > the continuing growth of tube electronics in the High End?
>
>
> This is a complete headache from top to bottom.
>
>

Isn't that what boobies mom said when first gazing upon him?

[Clyde Slick]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
. ..
> > Clyde Slick wrote in message
> >> George M. Middius wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> Bobo, you're sounding more and more like a ****** every day.
(Translated
> >> to colloquial American English, so to speak, ****** means beatoff.)
> >>
> >
> > Which leads to the second question:
> > Do yankers tend to be more more objectivist or subjectivist?
> >
> > In spite of the fact that no wanking can reproduce the ejaculatory
> > expereience
> > of actual sex, their"game" is the belief that they are seeking
objectively
> > accurate
> > ejaculations.
>
>
>
> To objectively assess an ejaculation, it might help to adjust the
> line length, right Howard?
>
>
>

I'm a subjectivist, it looked good on my screen

[paul packer]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:55:14 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:
>> > George, please don't ask me to come out of the closet.
>> > I'm not ready.
>>
>> OK, I won't ask. But I do give you credit for assiduous fertilization of
>> your mushroom crop.
>>
>That's entirely different.
>As far as I know, our sanitary line has no leaks. It empties directly into
>r.a.o.

That explains an awful lot.

[Doktor Kernith]

The Devil wrote:

but with a good valve amp instruments and
> voices seem to have a singular presence that just isn't there with SS
> amplification.
>


Also, a good tube amp can withstand the RF generated by a large Tesla
coil. I don't know about you, but this is huge in my dungeon-listening
room!!

Doktor Kernith

[JBorg]

> Prostate Cancer Man" wrote in message



> Isn't that what boobies mom said when first gazing upon him?



I speculate that it was the other way around.

[JBorg]

"Clyde Slick wrote in message


>>
>
> I'm a subjectivist, it looked good on my screen


That explain the love for improve hedony and the disdain
for anything wickedly solid in state.

[JBorg]

> "Robert Morein wrote in message
>
>
> Are tube lovers more likey to regard themselves as subjective than users
> of solid state equipment?
>
> In spite of the fact that no hifi system can reproduce the actual venue,
> my "game" is the belief that I'm seeking objectively accurate audio
> reproduction. So I use equipment with low distortion numbers, Sonex foam
> room treatment, low diffraction speakers, and surround sound synthesized
> according to Leo Beranek's "Concert Halls and How They Sound".
>
> I invite tube lovers to submit their description of that which they claim
> to seek. Do they concur with my belief that tubes cannot be objectively as
> accurate as solid state, and justify the tube based on psychoacoustics, or
> improved hedony? Or are there other words that should be used to explain
> the continuing growth of tube electronics in the High End?


I've reread the above matter again, and I've concluded that it is still
painful
for the head. I cannot get over the first few lines without having to eat
the
cake too.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Robert Morein"
>Date: 9/27/2004 4:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Are tube lovers more likey to regard themselves as subjective than users of
>solid state equipment?

"As subjective" meaning what? Less likely to rely on measurements and more
likely to rely on the listening experience? I'd say yes some times.


>
>In spite of the fact that no hifi system can reproduce the actual venue, my
>"game" is the belief that I'm seeking objectively accurate audio
>reproduction. So I use equipment with low distortion numbers, Sonex foam
>room treatment, low diffraction speakers, and surround sound synthesized
>according to Leo Beranek's "Concert Halls and How They Sound".
>
>I invite tube lovers to submit their description of that which they claim to
>seek.

The best recreation of the inherent beauty of the sound of live music when
using live recordings.


Do they concur with my belief that tubes cannot be objectively as
>accurate as solid state, and justify the tube based on psychoacoustics, or
>improved hedony? Or are there other words that should be used to explain the
>continuing growth of tube electronics in the High End?

They are popular IMO because in many systems they do a better job of recreating
that inherent beauty that can be found in live acoustic music.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message


> The best recreation of the inherent beauty of the sound of live music
> when using live recordings.

Not a sentence, not a complete thought.

Therefore, an ideal expression of radical subjectivism.

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger wrote in message
>> "S888Wheel" wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>> The best recreation of the inherent beauty of the sound of live music
>> when using live recordings.
>
>
> Not a sentence, not a complete thought.
>
> Therefore, an ideal expression of radical subjectivism.


He clearly meant "... when listening to live recordings."

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger wrote in message
>>> "S888Wheel" wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The best recreation of the inherent beauty of the sound of live
>>> music when using live recordings.
>>
>>
>> Not a sentence, not a complete thought.
>>
>> Therefore, an ideal expression of radical subjectivism.
>
>
> He clearly meant "... when listening to live recordings."

Delusions of omniscience noted.

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger" wrote in message
>> "JBorg" wrote in message
>>> Arny Krueger wrote in message
>>>> "S888Wheel" wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The best recreation of the inherent beauty of the sound of live
>>>> music when using live recordings.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not a sentence, not a complete thought.
>>>
>>> Therefore, an ideal expression of radical subjectivism.
>>
>>
>> He clearly meant "... when listening to live recordings."
>
>
> Delusions of omniscience noted.


How ?

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 9/28/2004 9:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>
>> The best recreation of the inherent beauty of the sound of live music
>> when using live recordings.
>
>Not a sentence,

A snetence was not required to answer the question asked.

not a complete thought.

As an answer to the question asked, it was a complete thought.


>
>Therefore, an ideal expression of radical subjectivism.

Nonsequitor noted. Is this another attempt to discredit yourself via poor use
of logic?

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 9/28/2004 10:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"JBorg" > wrote in message

>>> Arny Krueger wrote in message
>>>> "S888Wheel" wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The best recreation of the inherent beauty of the sound of live
>>>> music when using live recordings.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not a sentence, not a complete thought.
>>>
>>> Therefore, an ideal expression of radical subjectivism.
>>
>>
>> He clearly meant "... when listening to live recordings."
>
>Delusions of omniscience noted.
>
The application of simple deductive reasoning is not a delusion of omniscience.
JBorg was right. Unlike JBorg, maybe you just weren't up to the task of filling
in the blanks in a reasobable manor.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 9/28/2004 10:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> "JBorg" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote in message
>>>>> "S888Wheel" wrote in message

>>>>> The best recreation of the inherent beauty of the sound of live
>>>>> music when using live recordings.

>>>> Not a sentence, not a complete thought.

>>>> Therefore, an ideal expression of radical subjectivism.

>>> He clearly meant "... when listening to live recordings."

>> Delusions of omniscience noted.

> The application of simple deductive reasoning is not a delusion of
> omniscience.

Irrelevant, since this is not a good example of deductive reasoning. In fact
Scott, this is such a poor example of proper deductive reasoning that it is
clear that you don't know what deductive reasoning actually is.

> JBorg was right.

JBorg is your radical subjectivist buddy Scott, so no doubt you'd lie to
protect him.

> Unlike JBorg, maybe you just weren't up
> to the task of filling in the blanks in a reasobable manor.

I'm never very reasobable.

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message


> Is this another attempt to discredit yourself via poor use of logic?

Given your proven ignorance of what deductive reasoning is, Scott....

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>> Is this another attempt to discredit yourself via poor use of logic?
>
>
>
>
> Given your proven ignorance of what deductive reasoning is,


> Scott....


I think that you shouldn't have to use or refer to proper noun so that
others will be welcome to reply.

[JBorg]

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>> The application of simple deductive reasoning is not a delusion of
>> omniscience.
>
> Irrelevant, since this is not a good example of deductive reasoning.


How does one decides when a reasonable deductive reasoning can
be applied ? The only way to doubt this is when you're confuse what it
is.

[Sander deWaal]

"JBorg" > said:

>How does one decides when a reasonable deductive reasoning can
>be applied ? The only way to doubt this is when you're confuse what it
>is.

Ah, I see your "Lionel Emulator" program is online. Congrats!

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 9/28/2004 11:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 9/28/2004 10:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> "JBorg" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote in message
>>>>>> "S888Wheel" wrote in message
>
>>>>>> The best recreation of the inherent beauty of the sound of live
>>>>>> music when using live recordings.
>
>>>>> Not a sentence, not a complete thought.
>
>>>>> Therefore, an ideal expression of radical subjectivism.
>
>>>> He clearly meant "... when listening to live recordings."
>
>>> Delusions of omniscience noted.
>
>> The application of simple deductive reasoning is not a delusion of
>> omniscience.
>
>Irrelevant, since this is not a good example of deductive reasoning.

Wrong. It was a good example. Your inability to recognize that is not our
burden. It is yours.

In fact
>Scott, this is such a poor example of proper deductive reasoning that it is
>clear that you don't know what deductive reasoning actually is.

Prove it.


>
>> JBorg was right.
>
>JBorg is your radical subjectivist buddy Scott, so no doubt you'd lie to
>protect him.

Delusions of a consipacy noted. The fact is he used simple deductive logic to
make a correct conclusion. You failed to do the same and made an ass of
yourself. Now you are making wild idiotic claims based on what? Mind reading?


>
>> Unlike JBorg, maybe you just weren't up
>> to the task of filling in the blanks in a reasobable manor.
>
>I'm never very reasobable.

Funny how a typo trips you up. How can you ever understand your own writing?

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 9/28/2004 11:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>
>> Is this another attempt to discredit yourself via poor use of logic?
>
>Given your proven ignorance of what deductive reasoning is, Scott....


Projecting again.

[Lionel]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> "JBorg" > said:
>
>>How does one decides when a reasonable deductive reasoning can
>>be applied ? The only way to doubt this is when you're confuse what it
>>is.
>
> Ah, I see your "Lionel Emulator" program is online. Congrats!

What's wrong Sander ? I thought that you use to accomodate and appreciate
tubes' distortion.

[JBorg]

> Sander deWaal" wrote in message
>> "JBorg" said:
>
>
>
>> How does one decides when a reasonable deductive reasoning can
>> be applied ? The only way to doubt this is when you're confuse what it
>> is.
>
> Ah, I see your "Lionel Emulator" program is online. Congrats!



I tried a codex once to decode Krooglish but it didn't work out. So
I use this emulator now and then to see if I could decrypt the decease
mind of you know who. ; )

[JBorg]

> George M. Middius wrote in message
>> Robert Morein said:
>
>
>
>
>>>> Or are there other words that should be used to explain the
>>>> continuing growth of tube electronics in the High End?
>>>
>>> Bobo, you're sounding more and more like a ****** every day.
>>> (Translated to colloquial American English, so to speak, ******
>>> means beatoff.)
>>>
>> George, please don't ask me to come out of the closet.
>> I'm not ready.
>
> OK, I won't ask. But I do give you credit for assiduous fertilization of
> your mushroom crop.




The reference to mushroom crop, and along with Arnii's penchant
for KT88s should not be taken seriously when attempting to explain the
continuing growth of tube electronics in the High End.

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>What's wrong Sander ? I thought that you use to accomodate and appreciate
>tubes' distortion.

What??? My tubes don't distort! They mellow out digital ;-)

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

[Robert Morein]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> >
> The application of simple deductive reasoning is not a delusion of
omniscience.
> JBorg was right. Unlike JBorg, maybe you just weren't up to the task of
filling
> in the blanks in a reasobable manor.

S888Wheel,
You have the great distinction of inventing a neologism that may just
have legs.

"Reasobable" -- a word for our times.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg" > wrote in message
m
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> The application of simple deductive reasoning is not a delusion of
>>> omniscience.
>>
>> Irrelevant, since this is not a good example of deductive reasoning.
>
>
> How does one decides when a reasonable deductive reasoning can
> be applied

If you knew what deductive reasoning was, the answer to this would be
obvious.

[JBorg]

> Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> "JBorg" > wrote in message
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The application of simple deductive reasoning is not a delusion of
>>>> omniscience.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, since this is not a good example of deductive reasoning.
>>
>>
>> How does one decides when a reasonable deductive reasoning can
>> be applied
>
>
>
> If you knew what deductive reasoning was, the answer to this would be
> obvious.



The answer to your question was in my post to which you replied. But you
deliberately snipped it.


Have you eaten anything since this morning?

[paul packer]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:06:19 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>S888Wheel,
> You have the great distinction of inventing a neologism that may just
>have legs.
>
> "Reasobable" -- a word for our times.

Indeed. It may prove to be the only lasting contribution of RAO to
posterity. Let's see...I vote that it should mean that you kind of
make sense but not quite. That certainly fits most contibutions to
RAO.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not a sentence, not a complete thought.
>

Not a sentnec. Not a complete thought.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Robert Morein"
>Date: 9/28/2004 4:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>[snip]
>> >
>> The application of simple deductive reasoning is not a delusion of
>omniscience.
>> JBorg was right. Unlike JBorg, maybe you just weren't up to the task of
>filling
>> in the blanks in a reasobable manor.
>
>S888Wheel,
> You have the great distinction of inventing a neologism that may just
>have legs.
>
> "Reasobable" -- a word for our times.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Serendipitous typo. I think it should be spelled reasobabble though. But what
do you have to say about my answer to your question?

[JBorg]

> Robert Morein wrote in message
>> "S888Wheel wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>> The application of simple deductive reasoning is not a delusion of
>> omniscience. JBorg was right. Unlike JBorg, maybe you just weren't up to
>> the task of filling in the blanks in a reasobable manor.
>
>
>
> S888Wheel,
>
> You have the great distinction of inventing a neologism that may just
> have legs.
>
> "Reasobable" -- a word for our times.



As it was partly attributed to myself, what do you think, in your view,
does this distinctive neologism infer aside from it being a cleanhanded
typographical error ?